Mike's Minute: The gig economy has never been compulsory

There is a court case going on in Wellington over Uber drivers and their so-called rights.  It's on the back of a massive case last week in Australia, which Uber lost, over the impact on the market their arrival had.  That’s on the back of any number of cases all over the world where unions have tried to muscle in and change the rules because they see them as unfair.  Along the way Uber has had trouble turning a profit and the ride share business in general has been fraught with difficulties.  The Uber experience for me is largely contained to our kids who have grown up knowing nothing else but apps and rides. What luddite would ring and book a cab?  But as their experiences have shown over and over again, ringing and booking a cab actually works as opposed to their experiences which involve, in no particular order, surge pricing they weren't expecting, Ubers that cancel on them for no reason and the ensuing charge issue around it, Ubers that accept rides then as you wait you watch the arrival time go from one minute, to three minutes, to five minutes, to who knows when.  And that’s before you get to Uber Eats, where you are on the tail of four other deliveries and your meal is a combination of the wrong order, not their fault, and cold, which is definitely their fault.  What I don't get about the court cases is the Uber model is not, and has never been, compulsory.  What the unions want is overtime and mealtimes and holiday times. They want to make it a regulated job and it was never meant to be that.  They never said it was going to be that and the people who work for them never expected that or wanted that.  The whole gig economy idea was predicated on flexibility - work when you want, for as long as you want, for whoever you want.  Why does a union, and by extension a court, have a right to rearrange a series of deals that were entered into by all parties perfectly happily?  Why does a court get to fine a company hundreds of millions of dollars for bringing a new service to a marketplace?  If they do, which they have in Australia, why doesn’t every business or industry have a case against any other business who rolls into town, or the country, and disrupts stuff by way of a competitive edge?  What Uber offers is choice and the thing about choice is you don’t have to engage.  If you want to, fine. If you don’t want to, also fine.  You reckon when they dreamed it up in 2009 they envisaged 15 years later they would only have just turned a profit but still be in court all over the world?   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.