[gjulianm]

Above you said "they're doing it because they like working for Uber". Now you say it's just the best option they have. That's quite different

> If uber wasn't their best option they simply move to a better job.

Simply? You know there are costs and risks associated with changing jobs, right?

> If you ban uber you simply remove the current best option for most people working for uber

This is blackmail and using workers as hostages. If Uber were a decent company, it would have hired the workers they need instead of the fraud that is the partner scheme. In this situation of Uber losing license to operate, the drivers would either be still employed or be fired and get severance packages and unemployment benefits.

This is why a lot of people dislike and want the "gig economy startups" gone: they ignore the rules in the name of "user experience", exploit their workers to keep prices down and eat up the market, and then use the position they have to force their views on public policy. Governments must stop them and make them pay what they should have paid if they were operating correctly.

[UK-Al05]

People who want Uber banned are often middle-class people following their left-wing ideology pretending to be on side of the working class worker. That or black cab drivers.

If you actually listen to vast majority workers working Uber they're ok with it. They enjoy the flexibility and the lack of obligations. If people want more fixed work they can get it at the moment.

Essentially you are taking the choice away from these people to work for uber, based on your own version of your morals and not theirs.

Your imposing your own morals on people who don't want your morals. That can be dangerous.

[gjulianm]

They seem very happy indeed. So happy they have recently striked over pay and conditions [1]. A MIT study also showed the big profits they have (26% make more than minimum wage in the US!) [2].

>Your imposing your own morals on people who don't want your morals.

You are wrong. It is not morals. It is the law. Uber is bypassing laws, full stop.

1: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/may/08/uber-driv... 2: https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/02/mit-study-shows-how-much-d...

[UK-Al05]

According to a government report[1] 68% of workers are satisfied working for ride-sharing services. Which admittingly isn't super high, but not awful either. But the most important thing like is the independence it gives.

1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

The laws are created by a minority of people who don't always vote in favour of the public.

You regulate it like a normal job, and the thing they like about it most will be removed.

[gjulianm]

They like the independence it gives? Only 52% are satisfied with it according to the same report.

By the way, the report shows in appendix table 7 that only 23% of the sample reported more than 50% income from the gig economy. Don't you find it weird?

> The laws are created by a minority of people who don't always vote in favour of the public.

And Uber has the interest of the public in mind, right?

> You regulate it like a normal job, and the thing they like about it most will be removed.

Hiring someone as a freelancer to do a regular job (that is, a job where Uber decides fares, conditions and tools for the job and the worker mainly does what it's told) is fraud. And I'm not the one saying this, the courts are saying it in the UK [1] and other countries are following suit.

1: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/dec/19/uber-lose...