[quote quote=1094125]Maybe a small cut in the profits the Uber Management[/quote]
I agree, and would go further. Any company whose business model includes bullying its workforce into accepting such disadvantageous terms does not deserve to succeed. If it goes further and not only includes taking advantage of its workforce but actually relies on it, then society is better off without it.
The whole premise of the disrupter economy is that it introduces new and better ways of doing things. Uber has not introduced anything radically new (it is not as if we are short of other forms of transport, including minicabs and orthodox taxis) and it is certainly not better. Instead it is an exercise in getting round the law, both consumer protection and employment legislation. Uber’s business model simply doesn’t work if they are forced to treat their workforce decently – ergo, it simply does not work full stop, and I would not shed tears if it collapsed.
I have never understood why just because something works in a fancy way through an app, the operators feel they can totally ignore all social legislation (AirBnB is another obvious example – it is basically an accommodation agency, but with the twist that it does not follow any of the consumer protection rules that other forms of accommodation, whether hotels or B&Bs, all have to).
It seems Uber found its way: it will apply the ruling only when drivers accept a ride! This will probably be challenged by unions. So the story goes on…
