I have no idea what you newbs are talking about.
What you have now is a company taking over the taxi business where drivers have basic protections and benefits, with a gig model where drivers have few rights and no benefits. Uber calling them private contactors is absurd, when Uber controls everything (mainly fare prices and contracts that are non-negotiable). Well, not everything, because they leave out things that could be a liability. E.g. if the driver crashes the car that hasn't been inspected for 10 years.Does anyone here have a good solution? I'm stuck with the neoliberal dogma "they don't have to work there if they don't like it, all hail business".
The true test for a neoliberal swine is whether you accept that the gig economy workers should be left without protections. Some of those companies that build their entire business model on gig workers are going to close if you give their workers costly protections, so the workers may be left without a source of income. It's a conundrum that needs a nuanced compromise to both keep the jobs and protect the workers, similar to the minimum wage arguments.
Does anyone here have a good solution? I'm stuck with the neoliberal dogma "they don't have to work there if they don't like it, all hail business".
What you have now is a company taking over the taxi business where drivers have basic protections and benefits, with a gig model where drivers have few rights and no benefits.
especially because things like uber are predicated on being able to just throw infinite venture capital money into inherently unprofitable business models.Gig economy parasite companies like uber and airbnb spawn wherever local authorities are too laissez-faire to caire about infrastructure or planning
yes. they can try. good choice of word.they can always try and apply to a formal job
That neoliberal dogma is pretty flawed since it would apply to any poor workplace, leaving all the responsibility for proper working conditions on individuals rather than the companies (and government regulations). It's the political consumer argument: if they use child/slave labour then just don't buy from them (as if consumers could magically regulate the market with their omniscience).
Then again, these apps (Amazon flex deliveries, door dash, ifood, delivery hero, etc) have given an opportunity for income to hundreds of thousands of people who otherwise wouldn’t get anything.
Nobody is forcing the driver to use the app to make some cash and they can always try and apply to a formal job with all the good (regular salary, benefits, etc) and bad (lack of flexibility or autonomy, etc) things that entails.
I highly doubt these companies would do that voluntarily, though, and forcing them to do it will create a temporary problem for them that they will eventually get around anyway. I can't remember the specific details, but I remember Amazon essentially assigning the maximum amount of work to their workers that kept them at no more than part-time status, or whatever it was, so Amazon didn't have to provide full pay/benefits. I expect any attempted regulation of Uber-type companies would end up the same or something similar.