Clearly they are providing a net benefit to the drivers life otherwise they just wouldn't do it.The logic in this statement is inherently flawed. The whole point of the article is that Uber appears, at first, to be providing a net benefit to people who sign up to become drivers -- only to leave them holding the bag when problems (inevitably) arise, and which "real" companies normally take care of for their employees. Like what happened to Casmir Patterson, for example:
Casmir Patterson, 32, found early on in her Uber-driving career that she preferred to work late nights, when the LA traffic was more tolerable and when she could provide rides to women looking for a safe way to get home. But on 13 June 2016, during her last ride of the night, three intoxicated men entered her vehicle in West Hollywood and she quickly sensed trouble.
One of her passengers sounded like he was going to vomit in her car. She pulled over and asked the trio to leave. They refused, and then dragged her into her backseat where they started punching her. “I thought I was going to die,” she told the Guardian.
The men eventually fled, but not before kicking the outside of her car and running off with her keys.
Patterson called police and reported the incident to Uber in the hope that the company could track down her attackers and help her with medical bills. But the criminal investigation went nowhere, and Uber, she said, did little to support her. LA police did not respond to repeated inquiries.
It's not like we need to ask, "is this Uber's problem?" In situations like these, Uber is the problem.