3 ms·
It doesn't follow from your second point that Uber is non-exploitative. US law recognizes limits to the right to contract (e.g., one cannot agree to sell one's
by giaour 4y ago
It doesn't follow from your second point that Uber is non-exploitative. US law recognizes limits to the right to contract (e.g., one cannot agree to sell one's labor for less than minimum wage[0]), so the fact that some have chosen to work for Uber doesn't in and of itself demonstrate that Uber's employment terms are legal.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Coast_Hotel_Co._v._Parrish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Coast_Hotel_Co._v._Parris...
- lolinder 4y agoOP isn't saying that #2 implies non-exploitation, OP is saying that they can't see how #2 implies exploitation. Non-exploitation is the null hypothesis, we assume it to be the case until proven otherwise.
- giaour 4y agoNo one is arguing that #2 implies exploitation. That would mean that everyone who has a job or has signed a contract is being exploited.
- abigail95 4y agoI'm not going to hear any more nonsense about how what Uber is doing is illegal until I see some a serious legal analysis. 1099 is legal. It is explicitly legal to work as a self employed contractor and not make minimum wage. That is legally true. Whether you link a case that was decided for political reasons does not affect this.
- giaour 4y agoI never said anything Uber was doing was illegal. OP said that the fact that people choose to work for Uber means that Uber’s employment practices are therefore legal, because it was the employee’s free choice. I don’t think that’s a sound argument. I suspect based on the original article that you may have the opportunity to read the legal analysis you ask for soon if the FTC determines any specific company violated labor law wrt gig work.