Terrible idea. My brother in law makes a living driving for Uber, it's how he supports his family.
Alas, that doesn't mean that everyone will have a utopian job.
Uber argue that most gig workers are just doing it as a spur of the moment side hustle, and therefore the flexibility is necessary. But your anecdote is the opposite.
To me it sounds like drivers support Uber because of some dystopian Stockholm syndrome where it's their only hope in a failed system.
Showing up for work on Monday is no guarantee you will show up on Tuesday. Correspondingly employing you on Monday is no guarantee you will be employed on Tuesday.
I think it's a bit silly to expect any other state of affairs.
That amount of insecurity is to me just insane. I can't fathom living like that.
The moment you have multiple employers to choose from (ie an actual market for labor) then the insecurity is removed. Indeed, for the most part, if you can deliver value, you can find someone to pay you for it and your bills will get paid.
It's not your employer's job to mitigate the risks an employee took on by not saving money. Everyone should have 90 days of expenses saved up.
I think your views come from a point of privilege.
- they have no savings or access to credit
AND
- they get fired on short notice
AND
- they can't get another job
I'm not sure that making the employer fire them with a longer notice period, given that they can't get another job, means they won't be screwed. Therefore, I don't think there is any utility in so restricting the employer.
Not having savings is bad and dangerous. That's not caused by labor law.
Jobs should serve the people.