The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has proposed a new rule that could reshape how independent workers are classified in the United States. After nearly two decades of legal battles, policy swings, and political fights, the agency is once again attempting to clarify one of the most contested questions in modern labor law: Who gets to work independently, and under what rules? For me, this debate isn’t theoretical. I have been living inside it for nearly 20 years. Today, as the chief legal officer for a platform dedicated to connecting independent healthcare workers with open shifts, I have seen our legal system struggle to truly take care of the exact workers it says it is trying to protect. The reality is that how Americans work has changed, but our legal structure has failed to keep up. The traditional work structure was built for a different workforce in a different era—and it was never designed for everyone. Independent work opened the door for millions who had been left outside, and the technology that began to emerge 20 years ago only accelerated it. A SYSTEM WITH PROMISE Early in my career, I was exposed to proposed legislation from then Senator Obama on independent contractor classification while working with LiveOps, one of the first platforms connecting people to flexible work. At a time when the impact of these policies wasn’t truly understood, I saw firsthand how access to independent work created opportunity for those underserved by traditional employment models. Groups like mothers reentering the workforce, caregivers, students, and others needing flexibility. That experience reshaped my perspective, shifting my focus from civil rights law to a broader belief that access to work itself is a fundamental civil rights issue. This ultimately changed my career path. Overnight, the proliferation of ride-sharing apps and delivery platforms turned this issue into one that was tactile and easy to understand. Yet it also led some companies to treat workers as interchangeable inputs in a logistics machine, and we saw the humanity that drove early platforms begin to fade. The debate hardened into two opposing camps: One side argued that technology companies were exploiting workers and the other insisted that flexibility required preserving independent work. Unfortunately, both sides missed the deeper problem, which was that the law itself was broken. Workers either fit into a traditional model with full employment protections, or were categorized as an independent business owner with no employment protections. Ultimately, the system punished innovation that tried to support workers, and nobody won. POLICY SHOULD SUPPORT INDEPENDENT WORK The DOL’s proposed rule is a needed correction to this antiquated system that doesn’t fit the way 36% of people work now. The rule seeks to clarify how independent status should be evaluated, focusing on the degree of control exercised by a company and whether a worker has a genuine opportunity for profit or loss based on initiative and investment. Independent work now spans industries from healthcare and construction to transportation, creative services, and personal care. Millions rely on it as a primary income source or as a flexible supplement to other responsibilities, especially as the affordability crisis deepens. The question is no longer whether independent work should exist. It already does. The real question is whether policy will evolve to support the people who rely on it. THE FUTURE OF WORK If the future of work is really about inclusion, so that more people can participate in the economy, we need to reimagine the system itself. Clarity around how to classify workers is a critically important step, but we need to push further if we are going to make a meaningful impact. We need to decouple the benefits and protections of the law from employment status. Some states have begun experimenting with new approaches: portable benefits that follow workers across multiple platforms, health and retirement contributions not tied to a single company, and policy frameworks that protect flexibility while expanding security. These are forward-thinking ideas that point toward a more realistic future of work. The DOL’s proposal will not end the debate. It will face legal challenges and political pushback if implemented. But it signals something important, which is a growing recognition that the future of work cannot be governed by 20th-century assumptions. The real task ahead is building a system that protects workers while preserving the flexibility that allows millions of people to participate in the workforce in the first place. Because the greatest risk is not that independent work survives, it’s that the people who depend on it lose their path into the economy altogether. The workforce is changing, and now is the time for the law finally to catch up. Regan Parker is chief legal and public affairs officer at ShiftKey.