why does the government need to bend backwards to allow underpaid jobs ?

Why do you presume that laws declaring a third category of worker wouldn't include wage protections?

If people voluntarily choose those jobs then doesn't that mean those jobs are better than the alternatives they have? It also provides a pretty nice service.

That people are able to do what's best for them is a faulty assumption and the key argument for regulation.

This attitude that people need to be saved from themselves usually leads to worse conditions for everyone.

I reckon you are happy that you didn't work in the mines when you were 9 years of age? Or am I completely wrong? Oh wait, naturally you would have been able to decide for your own best.

What a strange example. Nobody forced kids to work in mines.

Full-time driving jobs already exist. Anyone who wants one can already get one. Why take away their freedom to choose flexibility if they want it?

This was about regulations. I never commented on the uber drivers. Tbh, I have not enough insight to know if they should be protected.

I am merely pointing out, that is is easy to forget what regulations do for you. And yes, 9 year old have worked in mines before working age was regulated.

This regulation is specifically about Uber, and it's also easy to forget what regulations can harm and the unintended consequences they create. Balance is key, and that seems to be have been entirely missed here.

> 9 year old have worked in mines before working age was regulated.

I know. They weren't forced to work, they were hired because it was legal and families back then depended on their income. Children still work often in agriculture and it remains the families choice to do so.

Regardless, there's a big difference between child labor and adults choosing how they want to drive for work.

Oh come on, of course those kids were forced to work in those mines. They weren't allowed to refuse. They had to do whatever their parents told them to. The alternative was being a homeless street urchin.

I believe the alternative to driving Uber is serving at McDonald's, not becoming a homeless street urchin, so vivid imagery of this strawman notwithstanding, the argument for regulation isn't nearly as convincing.

Whether people work at McDonald's or Uber, or are homeless, everybody should be able to lead lives with dignity.

Sure, nobody said anything against that. How is that relevant to this discussion?

Regulations are needed to lead lives with dignity. That was basically what the whole discussion was about.

Times were different. The alternative was the family starving, and it gets worse the farther you go back in history. It's not very relevant to today.

By this amazing logic, that people (regulators) do what's best for somebody else who is not even oneself should be an even faultier assumption.

More like: "If people voluntarily choose those jobs then doesn't that mean that any alternatives that aren't even worse have been replaced with ones that are even worse, because the government allows such replacement?", actually.

The government can set any kind of regulations it wants without force-fitting into the antiquated dichotomy of “contractor” vs “employee”

Presumably if sufficient participants in the process of that government prefer to work these jobs.

What does 'underpaid' mean in this context?

Clearly the drivers are paid enough to be willing to do it.

Where do you draw the line on that argument? Was the Victorian child labour cool too because they were willing to do it? Were the labour unions employees bad for everyone involved? If not, why not?

Children used to work because they had to in order to survive. The choices were work or starve to death. Taking away the option to work obviously makes them worse off. This plays out today when western countries force labor laws in countries like Bangladesh. When the children can no longer work in factories they often have to resort to prostitution.

The question of labor unions is a different issue. Labor unions do benefit their members who do get raises because of their actions. They do not benefit the people who will no longer get hired because the cost of labor is now higher. They do not benefit workers in other industries because the prices they will pay will be higher and displaced workers will enter their industry lowering their wages. Labor unions harm society at large in order to benefit their memebers.

These aren't jobs, all jobs I know require a lengthy job application and thorough screening so you probably wont even get it. The fact that it is possible to earn money without all of that is a good thing, and governments trying to outlaw such work is horrible imo.

And no, Ubers model wont work with employees due to the minimum hourly wage. Currently people need to do a good job to earn money, but if each worker is guaranteed a certain amount per hour then uber will be forced to start screening and firing applicants manually like everyone else instead of the current automated process.

What's the new category? Currently in France there is:

- employment where you trade liberty (i.e. subordination) against protection (can't be fired at will, minimum wage, guaranteed income set in the contract...) from a company

- being an independent worker where you keep your liberty and do not get protection

If there is a third category like what Uber is currently doing, you trade your liberty (subordination) against no protection. It is not a new category, it is lowering the protection of employment. Which may or may not be a good thing, that's not my point, but I fail to see where's the new category of work.

The new category is that Uber is as controlling as an employer in some ways (manner of work) but not in others (time and place of work). There should be a legal framework to handle these hybrid scenarios.