Also be aware that most polical riots do not get organized as riots, rather they are political demonstrations which turn into riots. Also know that rioters in the state of rioting are not hoping for something better.

In the same way as a strike is the last resort and an indication that negotiations in business has failed, so a riot is a failure. Never want one.

Going back to the 19th-20th century labour movements, rioting sometimes had a leading role in the creation of labour laws, the ones being skirted here.

But I disagree with the OP. I think better standards will emerge. Some level of organised political action would probably do it, but I think Uber drivers and gig-couriers don't identify enough as a group to organise and make political demands.

What we actually need in most places is better categories for on-demand, casual and piecemeal work. Employers are often willing to pay a premium for low commitment employment terms, via 3rd party HR firms/contracts. Put that money towards regulated protections instead, pension and unemployment insurance.

Gig arrangements aren't inherently bad, they are just not regulated/legislated well.

The problem is: Once the gig workers go to strike, the employing companies will either cut their hours/parcels/whatever or terminate them outright on the spot and take the next desperate person into their racket as replacement. And as long as there is a large enough pool of desperate people willing to do any kind of job for virtually no pay this race to the bottom will continue.

Another type is just lobbying/advocacy.

I think the gig-employers (uber etc.) would be pretty happy with clearer legislation. Costs they would shoulder just fine. They can’t/don’t want to (a) have to manage their HR via a HR department and (b) deal with anything short of extreme at-will employment clauses.

IMO (again) there is a ruleset that works for most parties. Define some categories. (EG piecemeal like uber). The definition needs to include restrictions, like “employees control their own hours.” You need to ban certain abusive contracts. Then you need to set aside enough money (more than regular employees) for things like medical insurance, income protection, pensions and everything else that gets left out.

I think most employers would gladly spend a little more money if they get to maintain their flexibility. I think it’s also societally valuable to do this. (a) Uber is a good case study. They expanded a global workforce much faster than would be possible under traditional employment. (b) Also, a lot of gigs are very low barrier to entry, with very little gatekeeping. This helps get employment to people that otherwise struggle to get it for whatever reason.

This is not an unsolvable problem, even the political 3rd order interests and horse trading is not that bad. It just hasn’t been done yet because (a) the gig economy is new (b) a lot of traditional labour advocates are opposed to its existence and (c) our political systems are not doing too well right now.

> There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part! And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop! And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it — that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!

Violence is still by far the most effective way of preventing the machine (whatever the machine in question happens to be) from working. Peaceful protesting has achieved absolutely nothing for the last 50 years, it's a lie told to keep the masses in line.

Where are they advocating for it? I only see a prediction, not an endorsement.

> The only thing that will help for sure is, I am afraid, massive amounts of riots.

Not just that, or even mainly that, I don’t think, it’s the impact on the employment figures.