[mgraczyk]

If my current job were as a taxi driver and my choices were retain my current job or become a contractor at Uber, I would switch to Uber.

Uber would not have been able to succeed early on if it didn't classify its drivers as contractors. The drivers are better off for it. That doesn't mean the drivers shouldn't sue Uber to be employees now that Uber is successful. It's in their self-interest to do so. However, everybody including current Uber drivers would likely be better off long term if they could not sue.

[pfisch]

"If my current job were as a taxi driver and my choices were retain my current job or become a contractor at Uber, I would switch to Uber."

Why? I don't think it is very clear that being a Uber driver is better than a taxi driver.

[ddoscampaign]

I had a long chat to a taxi driver medallioned in Chico, Sacramento and SF the other day.# It seems Uber is doing good to bring the fight to the pay-to-play bureaucracy, but it doesn't seem to be showing enough demonstrative acts that their drivers are making more/have better conditions than non-Uber drivers.

# This summer, it seemed there were only 1-2 Uber X drivers in Chico which didn't work weekends. If they did, I had a credit to use which would've meant a free ride. Also, the rules in Chico is that a Paradise (a nearby town) company can't pickup in Chico and vice-versa.

[s73v3r]

So basically you're saying that if they didn't cheat, they wouldn't be where they are?

I'm not seeing anything in your post that justifies them ignoring labor laws.

[mgraczyk]

No, I'm saying that if they hadn't "cheated", none of the jobs that Uber drivers currently have would exist. Many of them would be employed by Taxi companies, many would be doing something else entirely, some would be unemployed. I just don't see how Uber's existence could have been possible if they strictly followed employment law, nor do I see how Uber drivers would be better off if Uber didn't exist. Therefore Uber drivers are better off because Uber did not strictly follow employment laws.

[pfisch]

By the same logic I should be able to open up sweat shops in the US and employ a bunch of migrants to work at them.

Like why are there any employment laws at all? I should be able to pay below minimum wage and employ children of destitute families.

[closetnerd]

I understand it differently. Labor laws aren't inherently good for either parties, employers or employees, necessarily.

Perhaps the labor laws need to be reformed and/or scaled back.

[dragonwriter]

> Perhaps the labor laws need to be reformed and/or scaled back.

Perhaps if you want to suggest specific alterations and arguments for them, that would be productive.

[closetnerd]

Well in this case, the need to classify Uber drivers as employees.

[s73v3r]

I do not see how labor laws are not good for employees. Unless you're an apologist who says that unless we let employers fuck people over, they won't bless us with their benevolence and jobs.