Because if you don't work for someone you die and/or live a terrible life. Without the freedom to choose work, the labor market is not a free market, and the narrative you are trying to push does not apply.
That doesn't make non-rich people victims and rich people abusers when they choose to hire them and pay them their actual market wage. Life is hard for some people. It's not someone else's fault, and someone else shouldn't have their freedom of association and private property rights violated for it
Two points:
1. There is nothing in this discussion to suggest that employees do not have freedom to choose work; in fact, contracting by its very nature leaves individuals with more freedom to choose work elsewhere, even concurrently.
2. Without the freedom to choose employees as an employer, corporations cannot exist, or at least are substiantally less efficient, and in such case all of society is worse off. This is where aggressive unions can be bad for employees.
Again, the problem here is workers voluntarily entering into illegally mislabeled positions. Where do you get the idea that a cafeteria worker or a bus driver can't leave to work for another school? Also, these are extremely low skill positions, there's nothing stopping these people from getting other jobs, why you feel like these workers have "one choice" is beyond me.
I still don't understand what you're getting at. These people are free to work wherever they wish, and you've yet to demonstrate that there's something wrong with contracting in principle, when done legally.
People shouldn't be unionizing, they should be talking to lawyers.
Outsourcing companies are treating Workers like Employees and misclassifying them as "Contractors".
The Workers are told where to work, what time shifts to work, how to do their job, provided tools and equipment, and their pay is limited to minimum wage (or just marginally higher).
That's just straight up abusive and illegal. They are treated like Employees and therefore deserve the benefits of Employees; including healthcare and paid vacation.
So then I presume you will agree that there is nothing inherently abusive with contracting, and the problem stems from misclassification, and the behavior is already illegal, right?
If contractors willingly sign on for the micromanagement that you mention, and are free to quit at any time, why exactly is this a problem that needs solving? No one is forcing foreign nationals to work for American companies. Clearly this "abusive" relationship is favorable to both parties, otherwise the outsourced employees would leave.
When someone has freedom of association, and is made aware of working conditions prior to making major life changes to start a new job, or the job is explicitly billed as temporary contract work, who are you to decide on someone's behalf what is and is not abusive, so long as payment is made as agreed?
Outsourcing companies and independent contractors are different problems. A tech company's cafeteria workers, janitors, etc. are employees of the outsourcing company that the tech company contracts with.
Are you trying to suggest that there is something inherently abusive about contracting? What if I don't want a full time gig?