> ... the most profitable companies continue to be concentrated in a select few HCOL areas that have comparatively better rights for workers.
It's rather odd, then, that these profitable companies keep reusing the same playbook—create companies whose value depends on undermining and/or ignoring workers' rights/protections, particularly by depending overwhelmingly upon placing workers in positions where they have to choose between exercising and enjoying these better rights or earning an income. It's almost like the people creating these companies don't think they have any sort of legal, social, or ethical obligation to respect and perhaps improve workers' rights and conditions, as well as avoid shifting the burdens of their business model onto their "contractors".
It'd be pretty awesome if these profitable companies would make it part of their core mission to be better than their competitors and peers where their labor practices and outlooks are concerned. Of course, they probably wouldn't even be profitable/highly valued in the first place if they were actually employing people at fair wages and treating them as first-class members of the companies.
I'll be the first to recognize the incredible convenience of Uber, Lyft, et al. And as a person who has never even paid attention to the cost of a ride—or when I have, summarily forgotten about it minutes later—I would feel infinitely happier being a customer if I knew the driver wasn't feeling obligated to drive for both companies just to maximize their income potential for whichever one has the next ride—because that is the typical answer I get from drivers on the few occasions I use either service and directly ask them about it when I notice they drive for both services.
>It's almost like the people creating these companies don't think they have any sort of legal, social, or ethical obligation to respect and perhaps improve workers' rights and conditions
How can a private company accomplish this? Haven't consumers proven that they choose to purchase from a competitor that offers the same services/products at a lower price due to not offering the same benefits or conditions at work? If Uber took on this responsibility, then why wouldn't people just switch to using Lyft?
The only way it makes sense to me is if the government mandates certain work conditions/benefits/quality of life to everyone.
It's rather odd, then, that these profitable companies keep reusing the same playbook—create companies whose value depends on undermining and/or ignoring workers' rights/protections, particularly by depending overwhelmingly upon placing workers in positions where they have to choose between exercising and enjoying these better rights or earning an income. It's almost like the people creating these companies don't think they have any sort of legal, social, or ethical obligation to respect and perhaps improve workers' rights and conditions, as well as avoid shifting the burdens of their business model onto their "contractors".
It'd be pretty awesome if these profitable companies would make it part of their core mission to be better than their competitors and peers where their labor practices and outlooks are concerned. Of course, they probably wouldn't even be profitable/highly valued in the first place if they were actually employing people at fair wages and treating them as first-class members of the companies.
I'll be the first to recognize the incredible convenience of Uber, Lyft, et al. And as a person who has never even paid attention to the cost of a ride—or when I have, summarily forgotten about it minutes later—I would feel infinitely happier being a customer if I knew the driver wasn't feeling obligated to drive for both companies just to maximize their income potential for whichever one has the next ride—because that is the typical answer I get from drivers on the few occasions I use either service and directly ask them about it when I notice they drive for both services.