3 ms·

Labor market regulation is tricky. All of Uber's drivers join as contractors under their own free will. No one is legally obligated to work for Uber. No one is

Labor market regulation is tricky. All of Uber's drivers join as contractors under their own free will. No one is legally obligated to work for Uber. No one is threatening to do harm to anyone if they don't drive for Uber. If they don't like the terms of their employment, they can just stop driving for Uber. Now of course, that libertarian approach has some practical consequences. Humans are a little bit mushier than the "economic man". We get sick, and old, come of age under different environmental conditions, have certain family obligations, happen upon unexpected circumstances, etc. We can all appreciate that some people don't really have the option to just quit the job that's just barely keeping them afloat. But if a society decides that it values things like economic and human rights, then the burden of guaranteeing those rights for everyone should be spread across society as a whole, not just on the few whose business model depends on employing those at the bottom.

dusted 7y ago
"No one is legally obligated to work for Uber. No one is threatening to do harm to anyone if they don't drive for Uber. If they don't like the terms of their employment, they can just stop driving for Uber." This is an interesting position. On the surface it even seems reasonable. Just like "no one is FORCING you to eat that particular food, if you don't like it, just don't eat it". Well, hunger might force one to eat a particular food, even if one does not like it, even if one does not tolerate it well. It might well be, that that particular food is that one available to you, and you might not be in a position to select another food. Can you opt not to eat it, it it's what seems available to you? I think we tend to forget that not everyone has the kind of choice we have.
- alexmingoia 7y ago
  People who disagree with having the fruits of their labor stolen and given to others (welfare), or prevented from laboring (employment restrictions like the ones for Uber), are well aware that people have different possessions, capabilities, and opportunities. They just don’t think two wrongs make a right or that the ends justify the means. They think the purpose of government should be to secure rights instead of violating them to benefit someone else.
alkonaut 7y ago
A company might find that its much more efficient when employees work 45h weeks or don't have holidays too. But peoplel decided that 40h work weeks and holidays every year are Nice To Have™ so laws were made to ensure those things. The responsibility to follow that democratic decision is placed on all companies, not just on those few companies that need 45h employees in order to be profitable - although it's only a significant burden for those companies of course. Companies that aren't sustainable under existing regulations need to disappear and make place for companies that are.

dusted 7y ago

"No one is legally obligated to work for Uber. No one is threatening to do harm to anyone if they don't drive for Uber. If they don't like the terms of their employment, they can just stop driving for Uber." This is an interesting position. On the surface it even seems reasonable. Just like "no one is FORCING you to eat that particular food, if you don't like it, just don't eat it". Well, hunger might force one to eat a particular food, even if one does not like it, even if one does not tolerate it well. It might well be, that that particular food is that one available to you, and you might not be in a position to select another food. Can you opt not to eat it, it it's what seems available to you? I think we tend to forget that not everyone has the kind of choice we have.

alexmingoia 7y ago
People who disagree with having the fruits of their labor stolen and given to others (welfare), or prevented from laboring (employment restrictions like the ones for Uber), are well aware that people have different possessions, capabilities, and opportunities. They just don’t think two wrongs make a right or that the ends justify the means. They think the purpose of government should be to secure rights instead of violating them to benefit someone else.

alkonaut 7y ago

A company might find that its much more efficient when employees work 45h weeks or don't have holidays too. But peoplel decided that 40h work weeks and holidays every year are Nice To Have™ so laws were made to ensure those things. The responsibility to follow that democratic decision is placed on all companies, not just on those few companies that need 45h employees in order to be profitable - although it's only a significant burden for those companies of course. Companies that aren't sustainable under existing regulations need to disappear and make place for companies that are.