Earlier quoted context omitted.
Safe and maybe fairer for consumers yes, not so much for the employees. That's why they are getting ruled against with employment law. I can think of quite a few other businesses who would love to toss out all employee protections and benefits. I'm sure it would slightly lower prices and improve efficiency here and there. Is that worth the cost though?...
So if Uber does shut down, how are drivers better off than if they simply chose not to drive for Uber? (or Lyft)
This same faulty argument is made often to argue you shouldn’t reduce exploitative child or sex labor, especially in developing countries, but it’s not valid.
If Uber employment option is exploitative, you cannot use drivers’ own willingness to accept work via that platform as some tacit endorsement that “consenting adults” are each ok with the arrangement, because the exploitative nature creates a duress / desperation aspect that means you can’t differentiate between drivers who are fully aware of the situation they are agreeing to and are happy to do it vs people who were banking on Uber being very different and now find themselves underwater on a car loan and not making enough for health insurance and thus unable to stop driving and look for other work because of a nasty feedback loop or reinforcing problems.
Part of a governments job is to set up rules whereby such a situation cannot be entered into in the first place, given that by doing so you become stuck in it under duress (eg not having health insurance, paid rest periods, etc.).