No, just companies that tries to gain an unfair competitive advantage by avoiding laws that are there to protect workers.

For any company actually following the rules it is good news that companies like Uber aren't allowed to flout them.

You can argue about whether or not these regulations should be there, but as long a they are they need to apply equally across the board.

If Uber can't make enough money to have and pay employees like all the other taxi companies have been able to for decades, they have failed as a company and need to move aside. Simple economics.

Besides I doubt Uber is struggling financially, it's one of the largest companies in the world and did so by paying their drivers only a fraction of what they'd earn as regular taxi drivers. Mind you the cost for customers was similarly lower, but apparently, too low.

Uber is one of those companies that lives off of investment money, using that to be able to dive under the price of their competition and putting them out of business. I'll shed no tears for them.

If they’re only profitable because they are exploiting their workforce essentially evading labour laws, then good, they should be upended.

Indeed! A workforce they are straight up using & will be kicked to the curb once they get their fleets of self driving cars on the road.

No one is being exploited. People choose to work through these platforms because it's the best option available to them. You don't raise employment standards by making low standards illegal. Low paying jobs work for some people because their circumstances don't give them the opportunity to get anything better.

>>It's the best option available to them because Uber's driven out the competition. Like, people choose to work at Walmart because it's the only employer in a fifty mile radius - for example. They can't work for a local store or start their own anymore because everyone's going to Walmart.

We're not talking about a small town here. These are large cities with diverse economies that contain thousands of employers. Uber drivers can do other jobs besides driving.

There is absolutely no evidence at all that Uber has a employer monopoly in the areas it operates, and that this is why people choose to drive for it.

Anecdotally I've heard that a lot of Uber drivers are very happy about being able to drive for Uber. And by anecdotally I don't mean a survey funded by Uber. I mean from internet comments where somebody claims to know someone who drives for Uber and really likes it. Take that for what it's worth.

>>Yes, in fact, we do. A whole lot of practices have ended predominantly due to legal changes

The vast majority of practices ended because the market value of labour increased as a result of growth in per capita productivity.

Any mandatory standard that gets ahead of the prevailing market value of low-skilled labour just creates unemployment, meaning it doesn't raise the standard of employment for the less skilled.

There's no free lunch in economics.

>>Allowing these jobs to undercut competitors that pay properly propagates low paid situations where society end up having to subsidize the behavior of the companies in question because they don't pay livable wages.

It's exactly the opposite. A mandatory minimum wage, like any price floor, leads to unutilized supply, which in the case of labour means greater unemployment. So you're increasing welfare costs by instituting a minimum wage.

The market value of labour doesn't increase because low-paying jobs were made illegal. That's not how supply and demand work.

> You don't raise employment standards by making low standards illegal.

Yes, in fact, we do. A whole lot of practices have ended predominantly due to legal changes.

A major historical example from the US being the infamous Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire [1] where 146 workers died in part because the owners locked the factory doors to prevent unauthorized breaks.

The outcome was both an increase in unionization and legal changes.

Employment standards are the way they are today not in general because companies have decided to act nice, but because they've been forced, through law and union action, over a very long time, to adhere to minimum levels.

> Low paying jobs work for some people because their circumstances don't give them the opportunity to get anything better.

Allowing these jobs to undercut competitors that pay properly propagates low paid situations where society end up having to subsidize the behavior of the companies in question because they don't pay livable wages. I for one would much rather have a proper welfare system than a system that rewards companies like that.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fi...

> You don't raise employment standards by making low standards illegal.

Actually you do, in almost every case from the length of the working week to health and safety to the right to paid time off.

It's the best option available to them because Uber's driven out the competition. Like, people choose to work at Walmart because it's the only employer in a fifty mile radius - for example. They can't work for a local store or start their own anymore because everyone's going to Walmart.

Yeah, I've heard that argument from an employer who didn't offer any paid time off(even though the law requires 25 paid days off a year) and defended the decision by saying that no one is forced to work at his company and if people sign the contract they know what they agree to.

FWIW, it's exactly what I've heard when talking to Uber drivers in London. One guy used to work as a minicab driver; he prefers Uber because he can choose his hours, doesn't get cut out of lucrative jobs to the benefit of the company owner's nephew, and feels safer at night due to the rating system.

None of which is prevented by making Uber comply with the law.

The issue is that they're not treating them as contractors when it benefits Uber, but are treating them as contractors when it benefits Uber.

They need to pick on or the other. If one of those options does not work with the features Uber wants to provide, then they have to make a choice.

There will clearly be fewer driving opportunities if a minimum wage is instituted. There's an economic cost to be paid for price floors. They invariably increase the amount of supply left unutilized. If they didn't you could increase aggregate-demand/GDP simply by raising the minimum wage.

There is a substantial cost to society in subsidizing low paying companies by making it possible for people to survive well enough on these low salaries that they are willing to take these jobs too, in harming companies that innovate in other ways in favor of companies that exploit the opportunity to offer low pay.

We're incentivising companies to squeeze salaries instead of innovating. To me that is the exact opposite of what we should do. If anything, minimum wage should be pushed higher and higher at above inflation, as an incentive to invest in labor saving measures.

There's no reason why we should encourage wasting human capacity by making it easy to exploit people for low wages.

(Yes, this would mean dealing with unemployment by e.g. reducing working time and/or basic income variations or similar)

This is too important a topic to treat with such glibness. If I'm wrong please prove me wrong, with some economic theory or data.

You make assessments with no basis and you want others to answer to you with economic theory and data?

EDIT: Parent comments have been heavily edited.

I at least provide reasoning for my position. It's basic economic theory that wages are set by supply and demand. Demand only increases in the aggregate from increase in productivity. Creating a mandatory price floor simply leads to less than all of the supply being consumed (which means higher unemployment). That's what price floors do. What they don't do is raise aggregate demand (meaning they don't increase total wages paid out).

>>This has nothing to do with price floors.

The quintessential labour standard is a minimum wage, which is a price floor. This has everything to do with price floors. In fact all labour standards can be assigned a monetary value and the combined value can be considered a price-including-benefits floor.

>>you're assuming that workers have a choice regarding where to work. That is simply wrong.

I don't understand. Why do you believe they don't have a choice?

>>So wrong that I understood your comment was a joke.

I'm certain you were trying to mock me.

This has nothing to do with price floors. In your first message, you're assuming that workers have a choice regarding where to work. That is simply wrong. So wrong that I understood your comment was a joke.

Cool prax. Now Google for monopsony power.

You do realize there's no actual _sharing_ in the "sharing" economy? It's just profit-seeking by professional, if part-time, drivers, "gig" economy describes it much better.

you are sharing your labor with VCs ... that is about it

And without paying roughly £40m in VAT that they avoid by selling through 'non employees'.

No, a lot of gig economy companies employ their people either directly or through third party. It's not problem. It's just that Uber has this fix idea of never hiring anyone. It's stupid.

Ending the "gig and sharing economy" is a good thing for society.

The sharing economy always was about exploiting workers (and externalizing costs), and this has created an additional cost for society.

For example, DHL’s drivers are "self-employed", as result, in most countries their healthcare is funded by themselves, or by society (instead of the employer), and this means you (and your company) pay more taxes, just so that Uber, DHL, Amazon and co can save money.

Exactly, I am so happy that there still a good amount of "reason" within the EU block to oppose this sort of pseudo capitalism. Which in essence is just exploitation in that it feeds a tiny amount of shareholders while letting the Gov/populace pay the bill in terms of infrastructure.

Same reason tax evasion by corporations should be ended since it not only devalues society but actively feeds on it while undermining the positive potential that a managed free market actually allows ALL players, not just the few that have gotten too big to fail.

> The sharing economy always was about exploiting workers

Define "exploit". Depending on the definition, you could argue that all economy is about exploiting workers.

The society has agreed upon a certain set of rights that all employers should grant to all their workers, and a certain minimal set of "benefits" that every working person should get - in this particular case, "holiday pay, paid rest breaks and the minimum wage". Going below that level is considered exploitative.

I'm in the opinion of if the government really care of it's citizen, they should do it directly, by providing low cost/free basic necessity or basic income, etc. This way their citizen is not "forced" to work with these company you deemed "exploitative"

> This way their citizen is not "forced" to work with these company you deemed "exploitative"

Yes. When the basic income comes, it will redefine all the parameters by which we judge the qualities of jobs. But that doesn't mean that such jobs are not exploitative now, according to current standards. Your snarky quotes are unwarranted.

Still, the government can help their citizens Now, by providing cheap/free basic necessity.

> you could argue that all economy is about exploiting workers

Ah, so you're familiar with Marx?

Marx was far from the first.

Um, what exactly is the difference between self-employed person paying their healthcare insurance, and someone being employed and the company paying their insurance?

As long as the self-employed person doesn't pay tax on their insurance (which AFAIK they don't), it is exactly the same thing.

Health insurance is irrelevant to the discussion in the UK so long as the NHS exists.

What is relevant is NI ("national insurance"), which pays for a bunch of unemployment and similar benefits: https://www.turn2us.org.uk/Benefit-guides/National-insurance...

What is also relevant is driver liability insurance - normally if you take paying passengers it invalidates your insurance, so commercial drivers either need to be insured by their company or pay more for correct insurance.

OK, but the idea is the same. You could have the big corporation pay the employed person X and the car insurance company Y. Or you could have the big company pay the self-employed person X+Y, and self-employed person pays the car insurance company Y.

If the big company is not willing to pay X+Y to the self-employed guy, they won't be willing to spend X+Y on an employee.

The only difference is if the big company can get better rates on the relevant goods than a self-employed guy.

If the self-employed person can’t afford their own insurance, but their employer doesn’t fund it for them, they often end up without insurance – and if they need to get something done anyway, society has to pick up the bill.

Self-employed people pay their NHS contributions the same way that companies pay for them. It's not a question of can/can't afford, it's a % of your earnings.

https://www.gov.uk/self-employed-national-insurance-rates

Apart from their not NHS contributions as National Insurance isn't a hypothecated tax

It's the closest there is to 'medical insurance paid by employer'. OR what do you think grandparent means when they say 'if the self-employed person can’t afford their own insurance, but their employer doesn’t fund it for them'?

The gig economy isn’t just an issue in the UK – the example I had used was Germany (which I had literally mentioned in my original comment), where exactly that is happening.

The share economy allows people to use their invested capital (vehicle, home, etc) to generate income - the platforms like Airbnb and Uber provide high quality alternatives and came about due to a void in the market.

I have 3 personal anecdotes, you can ignore them if you'd like, but I'm a proponent of the sharing economy.

1. I'm from Austin, Texas where prior to Uber it was impossible to get a ride unless you were directly downtown. I've called cab companies and they no-showed, leaving me stranded in the middle of no where. There isn't enough density for public transit and when Uber and Lyft entered the market, it changed our lives. Prior to the existence of these companies, there was rampant drinking and driving. I went to school here, and every party was essentially binge drinking followed by a harrowing 30 minute drive where everyone on the roads at 2am is a drunk driver.

2. My sister is a teacher, single mother, and low income. She uses Uber on the weekends to make extra income and help support her child. For her, the flexibility of being able to drive whenever for a quick buck is key to closing the gap that Texas politics hasn't quite solved. I'm going to preempt the argument and say I agree that UBI may be the solution more generally to workers needing to rely on their employers.

3. My mother is retired and generates ~1000/month in income from social security payments. She did not plan for retirement, has no savings, and has moved in with my sister to help out. Her day job is managing Airbnb rentals in Austin and she rents out a room in their house for extra income (~700/mo). Her quality of life is much higher than it would be without Airbnb, and her ability to schedule, find and vet potential tenants without Airbnb would be pretty much nil.

I recognize these are not the same 'workers' whom are being pathologically disadvantaged by the rules of these platforms - I think they're the ideal users that product people pin on the whiteboard. I come from a low income background and only see positives, had Uber been around when I was in school I wouldn't have worked for $5.15 washing dishes in a rat infested kitchen, done tech support for wireless hotspots in trailer parks or been a valet on 6th street dealing with intoxicated people. I've had about ~20 low skilled, hourly jobs that essentially dominated my life at the time and I had very little mobility or earning power, having the opportunity to leverage my vehicle and time flexibly would've been enormous.

While I am in no way defending DHL's practices which I think are wrong for other reasons:

How does an employee having to buy their own healthcare mean I pay more tax?

How does DHL buying healthcare for employees mean I pay less tax?

How do either of those affect my socialised healthcare charges which would remain fixed even if DHL cease trading?

>>The sharing economy always was about exploiting workers (and externalizing costs), and this has created an additional cost for society.

That assumes better jobs would exist if these didn't. This is the Nirvana fallacy.

>Uber is struggling to achieve proper profitability

oh no, what a travesty.