I’m not sure what you mean. Uber could immediately offer flexible employment in almost all jurisdictions within which they operate, the reason they don’t is because it’s substantially more expensive to have employees than it is to have contractors. There’s no legal reasons why Uber don’t have drivers as employees (with flexible schedules): they don’t because it would be too expensive, benefits are expensive, guaranteed earnings are expensive.
There are plenty of drivers willing to drive under the current arrangement because they don’t have a choice: if you offered them the same flexibility but with the benefits of employment, they would of course take it.
> There are plenty of drivers willing to drive under the current arrangement because they don’t have a choice: if you offered them the same flexibility but with the benefits of employment, they would of course take it.
This is of course absurd. Every driver has a choice to work for Uber, or to do something else. And they chose to work for Uber.
It’s not economic because these people are willing to work for Uber under this arrangement, despite having alternatives, and Uber is willing to pay them for services rendered under this arrangement. The economic problem is solved. The government has decided to step in and say that two consenting parties should not be able to engage in this.
There are plenty of drivers willing to drive under the current arrangement because they don’t have a choice: if you offered them the same flexibility but with the benefits of employment, they would of course take it.