[avianlyric]

There are plenty of Uber competitors out there. There model of employment isn’t the only one possible. We can do better, and we should try.

On the basis of your arguments business should make no attempt to care for any of their workers, and all worker protections should be abolished.

That model only works if you buy into the fantasy that employees have any real negotiating power, they don’t. The only negotiating power they have is collective actions taken by governments. France is nice strong democracy, it’s not unreasonable to say this is the French people’s rejection of Uber’s exploitive employment practices.

[manigandham]

You're not protecting the worker. You're taking away their freedom and choice and turning them into a different kind of worker.

Perhaps if you speak to some drivers, you'll find the overwhelming response that shows they want flexibility, not another full-time job.

These kind of laws do not take a majority to pass, and France had violent protests and riots by taxi drivers against ride-sharing with plenty of political infighting. The only votes that matter are Uber drivers, and you would find a very different conclusion if you only asked them.

[duxut_staglatz]

There is nothing that prevents Uber from providing flexibility. The court has not ruled that Uber contracts were illegal, but that they were employment contracts (obviously, with the flexible hours Uber is known for) rather than (Uber) company to (the driver's) company business contracts.

[manigandham]

Full-time employment will mean people work when and where Uber decides they do, with a flat-rate and no bonuses or surge pricing.

[duxut_staglatz]

Only if Uber chooses to, it does not have to.

[hnewsshadowbans]

Uber and Lyft dominate the market as far as I'm aware in the US and neither of them have shown much enthusiasm for these kind of laws afaik.