I really do not understand. If you want to be classified as an employee, it's simple, don't drive for Uber. They're offering a particular type of job for particular people, it's clear up front. You have a choice.
Regulations on employment are there for a reason -- you cannot say that an employer is free to ignore them because people 'don't have to work there'.
But given that Uber is a strong choice for many, to most, drivers, I'd argue that its detrimental to have such strong regulations favoring employees.
The reference to "ignoring them" in the post you were responding to had "regulations" not "drivers" as the antecedent of "them".
> Regulations on employment are there for a reason
I assume that reason being so employees are not ignored there basic rights, as the law sees it.
I've heard this from Uber and some anecdotes (part of Uber marketing, I suspect); is there data? Maybe the drivers feel they need to work for whoever controls the most customers, for example.
O_o Well this a first. No I simply like Uber as a service and model.
> is there data?
No. So you're right. I probably can't claim "most drivers". But it being the biggest ride sharing service by far, it's difficult to argue that it isn't a strong choice.
Ride-sharing seems more like what you'd see in developing countries, the private (unlicensed) taxis where someone with a car picks up a passenger from the side of the road for a few cents' (negotiated on the spot) fare.
Uber is just a taxi service with a really fancy app and really dodgy employment (i.e. "you employees, you're all contractors!") practices.
> Well this a first. No I simply like Uber as a service and model.
Sorry! I did not intend to imply you are doing marketing. I'm referring to, for example, op-eds in newspapers by happy Uber drivers.
The reason this is in court is that some people think that the particular job they are offering and the working conditions actually experienced in that job meet the legal requirements for employee (vs. contractor) status in US labor law, triggering the legal protection according to that status.
Let's warp back in time to Industrial Revolution England. "If those children kids don't want to be exploited, working fourteen hour shift in the factory, they can find something else to do."
People sometimes have choices only in theory: like when we consider one particular choice, versus some unspecified others.
Yes you really do not understand that workers have rights and corporations are not some kind of nobility that can make up their own laws.
In this case, it's Uber drivers wanting their cake and wanting to eat it too. It's an universal behavior of trade, whether from the labor side or the business side. At some point everyone angles for more, using whatever leverage they have.
Because, you know, a country is governed by citizens, not corporations. And citizens' rights are paramount.