[modo_mario]

Why do you think they did?

Usually what is the case is that they use these people as workers (Making it so that they can't set their own rates or contract freely like someone who isn't an employee could) but then call them something else to avoid workers protections and liabilities.

[CryptoPunk]

Extra-contractual worker protections and liabilities are simply prohibitions on voluntary interactions between consenting adults (those contracts that exclude said protections/liabilities). Mandating minimum employment benefits is not economically sound, or consistent with a free society.

With respect to the first point, forcing companies to overpay for labor (whether directly, through above market wages, or indirectly, through reduced management flexibility, or more costly benefits) results in higher unemployment, as previously profitable hiring opportunities become unprofitable, and a less optimal allocation of company funds, that leads to less economic development, which is the source of all wage growth.

Also mandatory benefits are a cookie-cutter solution that reduce the flexibility that employers and workers have to reach terms that maximize the benefit the worker enjoys with a given expenditure of resources by the employer. For example, the mandate may require 4 weeks of paid leave a year, while a particular worker may prefer less paid leave, and instead higher hourly wages, but the mandate prevents this. Given companies have a limited amount of funds available to spend on labor expenses, there is an opportunity cost attached to every mandatory benefit.