I wonder -- if Uber converted drivers in California to employees and dealt with the increased costs (passing them on to riders) but also prevented the now-employed drivers from driving with competing services (Lyft) -- whether the company wouldn't actually become even more valuable than they already are. If you are driving for both services but Uber comprises 80% of your volume and Lyft 20%, it's an easy decision to make. Given that the real asset for all these sharing economy companies is their elastic work forces (drivers and cars for Uber, residents and homes for Airbnb), the CLC may have just created an entrenched monopoly without realizing it.
Beyond that there is a really interesting debate as to whether sharing economy jobs are an end-run around minimum wage laws, rendering such laws meaningless for certain industries going forward. If the majority of workers are turned into 1099 consultants, but are doing effectively the same jobs (drivers, delivery people, etc) that employees did in the past, what does that mean for society?
Beyond that there is a really interesting debate as to whether sharing economy jobs are an end-run around minimum wage laws, rendering such laws meaningless for certain industries going forward. If the majority of workers are turned into 1099 consultants, but are doing effectively the same jobs (drivers, delivery people, etc) that employees did in the past, what does that mean for society?