Let start by agreeing that while in some cases gig economy seems to disguise promotion of precarious jobs in name of "flexibility" it is imo obvious that employment regulations need to be updated to more contemporary needs.
That said, I can't help but read this op piece as: "please raise a regulatory moat around us because we are now safely inside the citadel".
This strategy is so common lately (read Facebook, Google, etc) that I wonder if these incumbents should pay a price (of being broken up) whenever substantial regulatory changes happen.
> "please raise a regulatory moat around us because we are now safely inside the citadel".
Exactly. Competition is probably the best way to make sure that drivers get the most total compensation (regardless of whether it is coming in the form of salary or benefits). What is being described here would really limit other companies ability to compete with Uber on the terms that Uber used to compete with taxi services.
That said, I can't help but read this op piece as: "please raise a regulatory moat around us because we are now safely inside the citadel".
This strategy is so common lately (read Facebook, Google, etc) that I wonder if these incumbents should pay a price (of being broken up) whenever substantial regulatory changes happen.