3 ms·
Regarding worker protection: Lets take the case of a simple roadside flea market. The property owner sets up a situation where workers can sell goods at a tabl
by derekp7 11y ago
Regarding worker protection: Lets take the case of a simple roadside flea market. The property owner sets up a situation where workers can sell goods at a table, and connect with customers. But the people running the individual tables may sit there all day and only make a few bucks. So is it the venue owner's responsibility to make sure that everyone that he rents a table to is getting minimum wage? I think that is what Uber et al. are arguing, is that their duties end at connecting individual sellers with individual buyers.
That's one of the side effects of strong worker protection laws -- if applied too far, then they have the effect of causing some work to just not exist, even if there are people that really want to do that work. Of course, the flip side of this is that it can prevent a tragedy of the commons situation, in which workers desperate for income will get into a competitive race to the bottom.
- zajd 11y agoI'm aware what they are arguing, the fact of the matter is they are wrong. Decisions like this: http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-and-lyft-employee-lawsuits-could-change-business-models-2015-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-and-lyft-employee-lawsui... But as for your analogy, what's the big difference? Uber controls too much of the process to really classify them as "connecting individual sellers and buyers". They are the seller.