[jljljl]

>>> You can't force anyone to treat anyone fairly. All negotiations between two people are exactly that: Between two people.

Are you sure that wage agreements between a corporate entity like Uber and individual drivers can really be described as "negotiations between two people"? Are you sure that individual drivers are more likely to see their interests represented when they negotiate as individuals vs. when they negotiate as a collective?

>>> Adding an arbiter only centralizes corruption and makes it easier for the already powerful to get even cheaper labor.

I'm not sure this really aligns with the history of labor unions, at least not in the US. The "already powerful" as you describe them have often gone to great links to suppress unionization.

[sighsigh]

So you believe that corporations are people and that individuals with low skill sets and spare time even know how to represent, let alone index, what their best interests actually area?

And if you think mythical unicorn unison is the anti-corporate underdog, you should really come live in a highly pro-union state sometime outside of the SanFran bubble and watch your job opportunities vanish to seniority and petty local politics.

[jljljl]

>> So you believe that corporations are people and that individuals with low skill sets and spare time even know how to represent, let alone index, what their best interests actually area?

No and probably not, which is why your assertion that "negotiations should be between two people" doesn't really apply in this scenario

[sighsigh]

I never said negotiations SHOULD be between two people. I said that they are.

Tell me, when is the last time you engaged in a negotiation with more than one person at the same time? And if you did, why are you intentionally crushing your odds like that? Have you ever conducted a negotiation in your life?