|
|
|
|
|
|
by viscanti
4068 days ago
|
|
|
It doesn't seem an issue of workers negotiating with the individual business. You're redefining "freedom of choice" to mean freedom to negotiate with a company. It's clear that the parent meant freedom to choose when/where they work. If there were better alternatives, people would chose that over Uber. The fact that they aren't choosing other things shows that they're making an informed decision that they believe is best for them given their alternatives. We're free to wonder about if things could be even better for the people who made the choice to work for Uber, which is where some kind of negotiation between workers and Uber would come in, but that seems to miss the point completely. If there were better alternatives provided by any other company, most of the workers would go there. |
|
|
Can't it be both? Really, I don't see how the two can be considered separately. The individual negotiation occurs in the context of the broader field of choices and consequences available, and of the relative power of the participants (which may, perhaps most relevantly, be considered as their ability to cope with any harm that results from saying "no" to a given offer).
> The fact that they aren't choosing other things shows that they're making an informed decision that they believe is best for them given their alternatives.
I don't agree that the fact of a choice having been made gives us any insight in to the degree to which it was "informed" but otherwise, sure.
My point is: that someone said "yes" and that it was within their power to say "no", is a pretty poor metric for freedom per se, and a bit more than that is going to be needed to demonstrate that (say) government intervention would necessarily be inappropriate or harmful.