> I think that was their point; with healthcare tied to the employer, going to a pop-up employer is way riskier since it means you'll not only be gambling on your economic stability once the project is done, but the ability for you to get healthcare.
Which is exactly, as a pointed out, an argument against the fact that health care is tied to the employer, but not against the pop-up employer per se.
Yes, but it's a technicality. For all intents and purposes it is an argument against pop-up employers if that form of employment means having worse health care coverage, or none at all (I'm not based in the US, so not entirely sure how it works). Ensuring the same health care coverage invalidates the argument, but that's not today's reality as I understood it.
Which is exactly, as a pointed out, an argument against the fact that health care is tied to the employer, but not against the pop-up employer per se.