Employers have too much power in the asymmetrical employer/employee relationship. In order to counteract this and level the playing field, there must be minimum labor standards enforced by the state.
I know that a lot of right-leaning Americans think that government should stay out of private contracts, but they'd be dead wrong. If the employee was just as powerful as the employer, then the situation would be different.
I think you're giving yourself the ability to reason along the spectrum, but assuming that more libertarian leaning people are incapable of admitting that some standards are OK. Of course some standards are OK, it's these standards that we object to. Workers need to be protected from unsafe working conditions, sure. Minimum standards aside, there's no reason to cast Uber vs. drivers as a Marxist class struggle when the Uber drivers themselves seem to be satisfied with the arrangement.
> Minimum standards aside, there's no reason to cast Uber vs. drivers as a Marxist class struggle when the Uber drivers themselves seem to be satisfied with the arrangement.
(1) The existence of the lawsuit means that the generalization serving as the explicit premise here is incorrect.
(2) Without defending Marxist class struggle as a valid or correct framework for addressing reality, the idea that the drivers seem generally satisfied with the arrangement is relevant to whether characterizing it as a Marxist class struggle is necessary may reveal a poor understanding of the entire idea of Marxist class struggle and particularly the role of class consciousness within such a struggle.
I know that a lot of right-leaning Americans think that government should stay out of private contracts, but they'd be dead wrong. If the employee was just as powerful as the employer, then the situation would be different.