> The exact same thing they are doing now, except as employees.
except that's
> that could replace their gig wages under existing market dynamics.
so this job will not exist. The wages and costs required to have such a large fleet of employees, not all of whom is constantly employed and productive, but is costing money, will remove this role completely. Or, the number of them will necessarily be reduced, so that timely deliveries would be harder.
It is insane to propose that people do not deserve worker protection, because the only way their jobs can be done at reasonable prices is if the workers are abused.
Either something is wrong or it isn't and if it is wrong it should be stopped. If that means you have to go get your food yourself and the worker has to work a real job, with a real salary where his employer can not abuse him at his whim, then so be it.
You can not argue a moral point by pointing out some economic consequences.
except that's
> that could replace their gig wages under existing market dynamics.
so this job will not exist. The wages and costs required to have such a large fleet of employees, not all of whom is constantly employed and productive, but is costing money, will remove this role completely. Or, the number of them will necessarily be reduced, so that timely deliveries would be harder.