Describing mandatory benefits, as "rights", is an entirely ideological position, that good journalism would not pass off as fact.
Journalists using their platform to advance an ideological framework that advances their own narrow interests is a major cultural threat and deserves more attention.
Here is one example of the perverse incentives in effect:
Vox writers, who eventually unionized, spent years publishing articles arguing for laws limiting the gig economy, like this one:
"The gig economy has grown big, fast — and that’s a problem for workers" [1]
Three years after the above article was published, its agenda succeeded, and a new anti-gig-economy law, that was heavily supported by major unions, was passed in California. That law in turn forced Vox to let go of hundreds of gig economy freelancers, thus reducing competition to the full-time journalists who had, in articles like the above, used their media platform to lobby for the law:
"Vox Media to cut hundreds of freelance jobs ahead of changes in California gig economy laws" [2]
Circling back to my original point: the media being fully unionized means that it is extremely biased in its coverage of these kinds of stories.
[1] https://www.vox.com/2016/10/26/13349498/gig-economy-profits-...
[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/16/vox-media-to-cut-hundreds-of...