[komali2]

> His dad can work at anytime, anywhere and doesn't have a boss to mandate when he clocks in.

That's not exactly true if we consider the environment that allows companies to operate like this, insomuch as his dad will eventually starve or be homeless if he doesn't eventually clock in. Hence the indentured servitude. The "worker's choice" of "just do gigs for a different gig company" doesn't really work if all gig companies stand together at the other side of the homelessness cannon.

[ahtihn]

> his dad will eventually starve or be homeless if he doesn't eventually clock in.

How are traditional full time jobs not even worse then? They require you to clock in at times chosen by the employer or you lose the job and income.

[IIsi50MHz]

This represents a poor understanding of "indentured servitude", or a deliberate broadening of its meaning to encompass other things.

The term refers to situations such as "An employer pays for transit of one or more people on condition that work of the employer's choosing is performed until the cost of transit, and any accompanying expenses, are repaid to the employer." Generally, these include specified wages, but employers commonly arranged that expenses and wages combined guarantee that the workers will be unable to pay off the contract within any specified timeframe. This often resulted in lifelong service, and could at times extend to workers' heirs (whether debyst inheritance be legal or not, as such workers were often at severe disadvantage to risk challenging the employer on any matter). Effectively, indentured servitude was usually indistingushable from slavery.

To address your "will eventually starve if he doesn't _eventually_ clock in", this seems to be the default case for all forms of employment (even if you employ yourself, in the wilderness, entirely on your own). The exception being that some places have sufficient social or legal safeguards to prevent a "clocked out" person from meeting this fate.

[PixyMisa]

If you don't work, you don't eat.