[JoshTriplett]

> No, I'd expect the government to force you to pay minimum wage. What's the problem with that?

Have you seen any indications that either Uber or taxis are failing to meet minimum wage laws?

Not all "labor laws" are equivalent and useful. Some are bought and paid for by the current set of companies to stifle competition, because it's easier for them to comply than a new company, or because the laws outright ban competition.

[toomuchtodo]

> Have you seen any indications that either Uber or taxis are failing to meet minimum wage laws?

Yes. Uber is violating the guidelines set out for classifying workers as independent contractors. Based on Uber's requirements, they should be properly categorized as employees, with the taxes paid by employers for their employees properly paid.

> Not all "labor laws" are equivalent and useful. Some are bought and paid for by the current set of companies to stifle competition, because it's easier for them to comply than a new company, or because the laws outright ban competition.

And its not up to the tech industry to decide which laws to obey and which to ignore because its convenient for their VCs. Want to change the law? Go change the law.

[JoshTriplett]

> Yes. Uber is violating the guidelines set out for classifying workers as independent contractors. Based on Uber's requirements, they should be properly categorized as employees, with the taxes paid by employers for their employees properly paid.

I specifically asked about minimum wage laws, which are what you held up as being important for protecting workers.

As for contractors versus employees, that's under widespread debate, and is not nearly as clear-cut as you're suggesting.

> And its not up to the tech industry to decide which laws to obey and which to ignore because its convenient for their VCs. Want to change the law? Go change the law.

Sometimes the most effective way to change a bad law is to demonstrate that the world doesn't end when it's ignored. As long as you're willing to accept that you might well get penalized for doing so. (Which in turn can spark critical evaluation of whether such penalty is right or wrong.)

And as long as we're talking about deciding which laws to obey, how about the taxi folks setting fires and other violent acts? Perhaps those much more serious crimes ought to get addressed, as well.

[toomuchtodo]

> And as long as we're talking about deciding which laws to obey, how about the taxi folks setting fires and other violent acts? Perhaps those much more serious crimes ought to get addressed, as well.

In my original post, I specifically mentioned:

(Note: I DO NOT condone property damage or violence)

Violent crimes and property damage should be prosecuted, just as Uber should be fined and prohibiting from operating unless they follow the law.

[bopf]

> Yes. Uber is violating the guidelines set out for classifying workers as independent contractors. Based on Uber's requirements, they should be properly categorized as employees, with the taxes paid by employers for their employees properly paid. I agree. Uber should play fair and hire the drivers, as they have been ordered to do in California. But France is fighting the Uber model to protect and outdated establishment. That in my view is not the job of a government.

[toomuchtodo]

Luckily, our views don't matter and France has taken action.