Drivers are not forced into anything. They apply and can quit anytime. Earnings and fares are completely transparent. Their schedule is determined by them. Where's the exploitation?
Have you ever driven for Uber? I find it odd that so many people claim to know better for others without any experience of the situation.
You should explain exactly how these drivers are not free before arguing to take their freedom of work away.
If you can't understand why people have to work, I don't think I can help explain that.
> Have you ever driven for Uber? I find it odd that so many people claim to know better for others without any experience of the situation.
I have not, but calculating the economics is pretty damn simple, and their earnings are shit (most drivers dont take into account taxes, car costs, gas, car depreciation, etc.).
I think the problem is that you have to bifurcate those who want a full-time-like salary with those who drive to earn a few bucks, otherwise the discussion breaks down.
Earnings vary wildy by person. Some people do great, others don't. There's no universal calculation. Ridesharing has always been about flexibility, not full-time employment, even though some people work full-time hours.
There are numerous other driving jobs if you wanted employment instead of being independent. Perhaps suggesting that instead of changing the law for everyone else would be the better option.
See my edit - I clarified this.
> Ridesharing has always been about flexibility, not full-time employment, even though some people work full-time hours.
Have you ever driven for Uber? This is not correct. Why would drivers sue Uber/Lyft if that wasn't the case?
> Earnings vary wildy by person. Some people do great, others don't. There's no universal calculation.
And some earnings don't even give people enough money to live. Do you understand why most modern societies have minimum wage?