[bencompanion]

It's not slavery. As the sub-contractor, it's your responsibility to contract to provide services under conditions that are safe and sustainable. In the restaurant example, don't offer a 30 minute service guarantee if you can't achieve it safely, or, know that on occasion you're going to have to pay out when you fail.

The sucky bit is being the employee of the scummy sub-contractor who promises more than they can deliver, and expects their staff to do bullshit like this to make it up.

[thraway180306]

So what you say is either the contractor has to subsidize the restaurant, or coerce employees to do it. Gee, wonder what business contractors are in.

Another question is what business the “restaurant” that can't even hire the cooks is in.

[thecatspaw]

they are saying the contractor should not have accepted the offer, since they cannot fullfill what is asked of them without cutting safety.

[pjmlp]

That is so easy to say on an online forum, depending on where one is living and people that depend on their income, it isn't always a clear option.

[bshacklett]

In this case it is a contracting company, not an individual being hired on as a "contractor", who is said to have taken a contract that they could not reasonably fulfill. That is a much less ambiguous situation, and one that seems to be running rampant in businesses these days.

[senectus1]

its not slavery yet, but its compressing and already uneven playing field so that the lower common denominator is suddenly the only avenue for workers to head to.

I worry more about this in the "gig economy" than the impact of AI/Robots on the work force.