> That's Uber's business problem to solve, though, not ours.
The solution is going to be dictated by economics, not magic. There is no option where they convert all of the part-time drivers to full-time without any increase in the demand for rides.
What they're trying to do is avoid cutting off the part-time drivers entirely. But stop trying to force them to do that, it doesn't actually help people.
Let's not pretend that they want to have all the benefits of having those part-time drivers without any of the responsibilities.
I don't expect them all to be converted to FTEs. But this unavailability BS is just that, BS.
"You are unable to log in because we have enough drivers to meet anticipated demand." Simple. Not log in, and then do a job or two then "oops, you've been randomly selected to be unable to earn money for the next hour".
Suppose you're a part-time driver. You're at home, going about your other business but are willing to take a fare whenever there is one. They're not at all sure they'll have enough fares for you to do an 8-hour shift, but they know there's one for you right now. They should deny you because they can't guarantee there will be more an hour from now? How does that help you?
Particularly after operating at a loss for a decade by overpaying drivers and undercharging riders, such that they get a monopoly, squeeze out local competition, and change consumer habits to rely on ridehailing.
Now that they won and are making money, boo hoo the government is being tough on us.
That's Uber's business problem to solve, though, not ours.
Sucks to be them. The solution isn't "well, let's make it easier for Uber and screw over their not-employees".
The government, the people, are not obligated to ensure profitability is possible for every corporations every idea.