Sad to see they succeeded in obtaining a legal right to restrict other people's right to freely contract, and an indoctrinated public passively accepts it.
Going on strike was the freely chosen decision of the delivery workers. Their employer freely chose to meet their demands rather than going out of business. Sure, the bosses might have preferred to pay independent contractors pennies to work 90 hours a week and destroy their own health, but in just societies that isn't an option.
The laws surrounding striking violate the employer's contract liberty. For example, the employer cannot simply fire the contractors/workers striking, and replace them with people willing to accept their offer.
>>but in just societies that isn't an option.
Someone offering people work on terms that you think are inadequate is not unjust. Interfering in private interactions between other consenting adults, to deny them the option to engage in some voluntary interaction, is what's an unjust act, that is predicated on an unearned sense of moral superiority.
And such an interjection doesn't improve the opportunities available to workers in general. If it were that easy, we could set a minimum wage of $500/hr, under which all employment offers are illegal, and create instant prosperity.
The correct wage level, for maximizing economic development, and by extension, wage growth, is set by market forces, via the intersection of supply of labor, and the output that people are willing to trade for that labor.
The Foodora workers who unionised and won a better contract in Norway were never self-employed, they were always on part-time contracts. What they achieved was for their equipment (bikes, smartphone and clothing) to be compensated by their employer and a higher hourly wage. Would love to see some of your reasoning for how exactly this outcome restricted other workers rights?
>>Would love to see some of your reasoning for how exactly this outcome restricted other workers rights?
It prevents other workers from underbidding them, by making it illegal for the employer to hire those workers due to the contract liberty suppressing mandate to engage exclusively in collective bargaining with the union.
Forcing companies to pay more than market wages is also bad for society at large by discouraging investment into such companies. More investment into companies leads to lower consumer prices which translates to an effective wage hike for all workers.
> It prevents other workers from underbidding them
Reread my comment, they were never able to underbid each other in the first place they already had a fixed hourly rate, the strike and subsequent contract negotiated a higher rate so nothing to do with their ability to underbid was changed since it was never possible. So I'll ask again, how are did this specific incident restrict the rights of other workers?
The company did not agree to anything freely. When the contractors striked, the company was prevented, by contract right violating laws, from replacing the strikers with new workers. They were therefore being extorted, and agreed under duress. The agreement prevented other workers, who are willing to work for the previous hourly wage, from underbidding the unuionized workers.
Poor Foodora being extorted, forced to pay a living wage and provide better working conditions. I’m sure the other workers you’re referring to are really upset that they’ll now receive compensation for equipment and a higher hourly wage.
It's completely irrelevant to human rights which groups stands to benefit from an authoritarian intervention. Rights are not predicated on whether you're big people, or little people.
And as it would happen, giving a select group of 'little people' special privileges, through coercive force against employers, results in higher consumers, which hurts all other little people and/or less investment, which reduces future wage growth, for all workers.
Usually what is the case is that they use these people as workers (Making it so that they can't set their own rates or contract freely like someone who isn't an employee could)
but then call them something else to avoid workers protections and liabilities.
Extra-contractual worker protections and liabilities are simply prohibitions on voluntary interactions between consenting adults (those contracts that exclude said protections/liabilities). Mandating minimum employment benefits is not economically sound, or consistent with a free society.
With respect to the first point, forcing companies to overpay for labor (whether directly, through above market wages, or indirectly, through reduced management flexibility, or more costly benefits) results in higher unemployment, as previously profitable hiring opportunities become unprofitable, and a less optimal allocation of company funds, that leads to less economic development, which is the source of all wage growth.
Also mandatory benefits are a cookie-cutter solution that reduce the flexibility that employers and workers have to reach terms that maximize the benefit the worker enjoys with a given expenditure of resources by the employer. For example, the mandate may require 4 weeks of paid leave a year, while a particular worker may prefer less paid leave, and instead higher hourly wages, but the mandate prevents this. Given companies have a limited amount of funds available to spend on labor expenses, there is an opportunity cost attached to every mandatory benefit.
