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.