Does Owen Jones actually read his own columns?

Enquiring minds would like to know:

If any good is to come from this national disaster, it is to re-evaluate every aspect of our society, including allowing greater flexibility for workers: a happier, less-stressed worker is more productive, if an economic case is needed to strengthen the human argument.

The age of coronavirus has exposed multiple injustices in British life, not least the total lack of protection afforded many workers. From the precarious lives of the gig economy workforce to the greater death toll among poorer workers, the consequences of stripping workers of rights and security could hardly be starker.

The gig economy might not be perfect but it is most certainly an increase in the flexibility of the lives of the workers. Presumably this makes gig economy workers happier, less-stressed and more productive. Why then the opposition to this desirable state of affairs in the very next paragraph?

To be ever so slightly more serious, yes, increased flexibility does mean less security. So, which is it that is desired, should be aimed for? Our own prejudice would be that the economy contains a multiplicity of options so that both employers and employees can self-sort into whichever blend they themselves desire. You know, a market economy, where there is a market in the structure of employment.

Of course, that not just implies but ensures liberty which presumably is why the opposition to it.