The fundamental problem is that those laws exist to protect vulnerable workers, but they also inadvertently affect non-vulnerable workers. Someone should not h

The fundamental problem is that those laws exist to protect vulnerable workers, but they also inadvertently affect non-vulnerable workers. Someone should not have to work for less than minimum wage because they have less bargaining power than a corporation. On the other hand, if someone has a full time job with benefits and wants to drive for Uber in their spare time for nothing more than the price of wear and tear on their car, morally, they should be allowed to in my opinion. Hypothetically, if Bill Gates wanted to drive for Uber for free, he should (morally) be allowed to, right? If so, then we would agree that there exists some group of people that should be allowed to waive those rights. It's just a question of how large that group is and on what criteria people are a part of it. What I can't figure out is how to allow non-vulnerable workers to waive those protections without affecting the vulnerable workers. The non-vulnerable workers come with a lot of cost advantages, which makes them more appealing than the vulnerable workers and creates pressure to make the non-vulnerable conditions the new "normal". Or worse yet, the jobs would only be available to people who already have primary employment (further reinforcing class discrepancies).