That's a bit of a malicious characterization. Prop 22 was about trade-offs: more drivers each taking a smaller piece of the pie vs less drivers each taking more

That's a bit of a malicious characterization. Prop 22 was about trade-offs: more drivers each taking a smaller piece of the pie vs less drivers each taking more. The caveat is that this trade-off has different levels of impact on consumers (less drivers means less availability, slower pick up times and higher prices). A bunch of Uber drivers I've spoken to do it as a side thing, to supplement income from other sources. The conundrum is that there are a lot of casual drivers and fewer full time ones, and those two groups generally sit on opposite ends of the debate (casuals don't want to be forced to choose between driving and their other income sources, and full time ones want employee benefits) Ultimately, it doesn't boil down to something as sinister as a secret desire for indentured servitude, it's simply a matter of everyone being selfish. Unions are also a form of people being selfish (though collectively). IMHO, the answer isn't in bickering on whose selfishness is more warranted, it'd be more apt to question why isn't a social net provided by the government itself in the first place (in the form of public healthcare, unemployment insurance, etc) if they deem it important enough to legislate?