That's already the way almost all jobs are. Being "hired" isn't a protection for your job. It just means you're getting automatic tax withholding.

I was a formal full-time employee at NCC Group until just a month ago, when they fired me with no warning, no explanation, and no severance.

In US perhaps, elsewhere a job signifies significantly greater income stability.

You can't fire people for no reason in the UK and probably the rest of Europe as well or you'll end up being taken to court for unfair dismissal. Roles can be made redundant, but it's a lengthy process.

I think, it depends on your agreement / contract.

At my company employment is also at will so they can terminate, but they try very hard not to. In practice contractors are let go much more frequently than employees, and when employees are let go they tend to get a soft landing. But maybe my job is the exception.

I was, of course, using the story to illustrate the absurdity of the overall situation.

I don't want to leave a secure job for an insecure situation because they're difficult to find. They won't consider a direct hire for a "perfect candidate" -- proving my fears.

My point which perhaps I should have been made more clearly is that they're asking me to leave a direct hire situation for a temp job. They're asking me for a commitment they're unwilling to make themselves.

Power asymmetries suck.

I see, thank you for explaining. It just seemed odd that you yourself sought a secure situation but in you also said "Culturally, we should hire and fire more freely" which to me sounded like we shouldn't have these secure situations at all.

Nah, you're right. It was unclear.