There's an easy way for them to win - pay the drivers some amount, perhaps their 50th percentile earnings of late, despite them not driving. My own employer ha

There's an easy way for them to win - pay the drivers some amount, perhaps their 50th percentile earnings of late, despite them not driving. My own employer has a coronavirus policy, now: if you have traveled to China for personal or work reasons, you're expected to work from home for two weeks upon returning. We're not actually a company that has a work-from-home program, and there are people who have left the company because organizationally we won't allow remote work on an ongoing basis. We have a culture that favors in-person meetings over making things available digitally for remote employees. But there's a VPN, and for this purpose, the company says, do what you can do from home and we'll still pay you your full salary. (That sort of policy, by the way, is better for society than Uber's - a suspended Uber driver would spend their days doing things other than waiting quietly at home. Probably they would try to make money, and especially in the gig economy, they wouldn't have to tell anyone why they've got some free time suddenly. Maybe they'd drive for Lyft. But if Uber said, stay home and we'll pay you to stay home, they probably would.) Then again, my employer actually has an employer-employee relationship, not a reseller-vendor relationship. (Another way to solve this, by the way, is enough of a social safety net that the government can feel comfortable stepping in and saying "Stay home, and we'll send you a government paycheck to stay home." Then Uber can keep treating drivers as Galt-endorsed microbusinesses and not as expensive legacy employees, but you still get the same benefits to society. Also, probably you'd have better health insurance for the drivers.)