You may not be aware, but recently Uber drivers have been recognised as actual employees in UK by the court.

Just for accuracy, they were actually recognised as "workers"[0], which is a different formal employment status to "employees"[1] and doesn't confer the full set of employment rights in law. Worker status does come with the rights to minimum wages, breaks and holiday pay, though, so it's still a reasonable concern that if/when Deliveroo riders are granted the same status it will increase the company's operating costs considerably.

[0] https://www.gov.uk/employment-status/worker

[1] https://www.gov.uk/employment-status/employee

So far all the courts in the Netherlands have done the same for deliveroo employees (no longer gig workers). They keep appealing and losing so we have to wait another year or so for the final verdict.

> Uber drivers need to be allowed to set their own prices

Yikes this seems terrible for the drivers. There would be a race to the bottom surely with the most desperate drivers who perhaps just need to make a mortgage payment today undercutting everyone else.

The same laws of supply and demand also explain the price of employee labour, no? The big question is whether one price beats flexible pricing. It's not obvious that having a single price for all Uber drivers would benefit everybody, presumably it would have deadweight costs by pricing some drivers out of the market.

The difference is most people aren't providing their labour with a pricing model this dynamic.

If I look for Ubers and one is offering rides for 50p I'd take it, because the result should be the same as anyone else offering something more expensive and I have no relationship with my Uber driver.

If a gardener stats to offer gardening services for 50p an hour I wouldn't go with that, because I have a relationship with my existing gardener and I'm suspicious how quality someone can be for 50p an hour.

See the practical difference?

I see your point. It sounds as if you agree that in Uber's case, flexible pricing is appropriate. Or do you think that Uber should price its cabs flexibly but pay a flat rate to its drivers?

The implementation I have seen is that there is a minimum price, but drivers can set higher prices, if they like. (Which in reality means that they can't set the price at all)

Usually yes, but there are a lot of moments when the prices can be hugely increased after pandemic - and are now increased by surge pricing.

A valid point, but shouldn't this competition on price (i.e. race to bottom) also apply at the level of Uber and its competitors?

A large company like Uber is going to be relatively stable in terms of cash-flow, access to credit, etc day-to-day. If they do sell under cost it's usually part of a longer-term plan.

An individual driver may have a loan-shark threatening to break their fingers for a repayment that day.

I think individuals are going to be much more volatile and so create a worse race to the bottom.

Maybe let drivers set a price above a floor? Could be like their own surge pricing.

not employees. workers. big difference.

> TBH I expected it to be otherwise.

That's because this is always presented in a certain (negative) way in the media so that people have come to believe that all Deliveroo riders or Uber drivers are unhappy.

Of course the reality is a bit different, not least in a country like France that has high structural unemployment (and a very closed taxi industry). The 'gig economy' has no doubt allowed people to get work, and in a rather empowering way.