"Uber is the sole party that structures the relationship with its drivers and determines the rate it would pay them. Why is it not their problem or fault? And, if it’s not their problem, whose is it?"

The driver is the sole party who decides each day whether or not the offer from Uber is worth it.

If drivers don't think it is worth it, they won't do it. If they do think it is worth it, why should I get in the way of their choice?

If Uber raises the rates they pay drivers, rates to customers will also rise. Economics suggests more people will be drivers at the higher rate, but fewer people will buy rides.

More supply and less demand probably won't make drivers happy, either.

And competitors can come in and undercut, as long as drivers are willing to accept the pay provided.

Economics also suggests that worker rights are crucial to a functioning economy.

There was actually an interesting paper written about this recently: http://john-joseph-horton.com/papers/uber_price.pdf

Essentially, when Uber raises fares it increases earnings in the short term, but not long term, because more drivers enter the system and push their earnings back down as each driver gets fewer rides.

Uber could solve this problem by limiting the number of drivers. But that of course turns some underpaid Uber drivers into unemployed ex-Uber drivers. Which doesn't sound like a desirable outcome either.

If you had the option to hire one of two people that will do the same job at the same performance level and one costs you $10 an hour and the other $20 an hour, which one do you choose? Is it the company to blame for picking the $10 an hour person?

The company is definitely at fault if it achieved that $10 rate by misclassifying the individual as a contractor.

Then the government that made the contractor vs employee laws needs to apply it. If a law is not enforced then it is not really a law. Companies are not obligated to do better than enforced laws, they are not charities or social organizations here to make the world a better place, they are here to make money for their shareholders.

I think the EU is doing the right thing. It sometimes takes a while for government laws or competition to catch up and balance out issues, but I don't for a second think that any company is going to play nice if it does not have to.

>> Companies are not obligated to do better than enforced laws

They really are.

You seem to be effectively saying "well, if they can get away with it there's nothing wrong with that"

>> they are not charities or social organizations here to make the world a better place, they are here to make money for their shareholders.

There's a lot more to it than that, we are not a pure, unfettered capitalistic society in Europe.

You are confusing legality with ethics. Ethically, Uber has a lot to be desired.

Uber is a US based company and will try to follow the capitalistic model as much as possible unless restricted by local laws. I would never make an assumption that a US based company's goal is to do good. Assume they are out to maximize profit no matter where they operate. If they seem to do good then there is a driver in their business model where this leads to more profits than doing bad.

>> You are confusing legality with ethics.

In this case I'm not sure I am - if there are laws that companies need to follow, even if they are not always strictly or consistently enforced, I would consider it the legal obligation of a company to follow them.

The thing is, under a lot of systems of law, you don't have that opportunity because you have to pay employees at least a minimum. Using "independent contractor" status to work around that is scummy, and may yet prove illegal.

I have employees and contractors working for me and we have very strict rules on what contractors can do, how you interact with them and when they might be considered employees. The company I work for wants to stay clearly on the legal side of contractor law.

If it is proved illegal then Uber will owe these people back pay and possibly back benefits which might collapse Uber and that is fine. If you want to run that close to the edge of the law then you have to accept the risk. But let these laws and judgments catch up with the new economy/technology.

Well, they are, albeit slowly.

I am a contractor myself, and the law in this area is murky. But in the case of the gig economy it is being used as a tax and rights avoidance strategy, not honestly.

Uber have already lost at least one case in the UK in which drivers sought to be classified as employed.