[jawns]

It's not surprising that only a minority would want to be full-time employees.

But that's the wrong question.

The better question is: What percentage would want to be either full-time or part-time employees?

I would imagine the percentage would be much higher.

When classified as part-time employees, they'd have much of the same flexibility they currently enjoy, but they would at least be covered under minimum-wage laws, same as part-time workers who work at McDonald's or the grocery store.

If Uber/Lyft don't think it's financially viable to offer its workers the same bare-minimum protections that a McDonald's worker gets, then I don't see how it can claim to be a non-exploitative business.

[curryst]

Does being an employee change their liability at all? In CA they seem to be willing to meet some pay and health insurance demands, so I wonder what part of the employee relationship they're opposed to. Is it firing and unemployment?