[developer2]

I know, my position isn't quite decided. I just think there's a certain onus on the people who choose to be drivers, who accept the way things are. Why the hell are they agreeing to work for Uber if they're not making any money? Go find a job that pays then. By taking up a job with Uber and dealing with their bull, they're directly supporting and sustaining that system.

I can understand why it would be terrible if every business tried to pull this shit. Nobody gets paid to work? How would society function? But if you work for an outlying company like Uber where there is no money, that is your problem. Go find a paying job. It's not like Uber has a monopoly on the job market and everyone is required to work for them, for nothing. It's a choice. So don't choose to work for nothing? All I'm hearing is "I signed up to be a driver for Uber. I know they pay nothing, but I intentionally choose to work here, knowing it pays nothing!".

If this were a real problem, Uber would not have any drivers, and they would be out of business. If it were an even more serious problem, we'd have tons of companies paying nothing, and our first world economies would collapse overnight.

[Hondor]

You could say the same about gambling, loan sharks, and minimum wage laws in general. We have these laws to protect people from themselves. We aren't all rational decision makers, especially not those of us who are desperate.

[maxerickson]

What would be the downsides of forcing companies that are engaging people in tasks that require operating a vehicle to offer reimbursement for that operation?

A big upside is that it simplifies evaluating the position for the person doing the work.

A downside is that the company would have to monitor for fraud (but this is pretty easy for Uber which is premised on tracking the distance the vehicle travels).

(contractors and employees, either arrangement)