And that's still not responding to the criticism: even with those downsides, it's better than all the government-endorsed options. Whose fault is that, and what does arresting them accomplish with respect to their welfare? (Which I believe was your motivation for objecting to the practice.)
Edit: I'm not trying to be snarky; it's just that this issue comes up a lot, and I always look for such an explanation and yet never get it. Hence why someone came up with the "Copenhagen interpretation of ethics" argument. If you could actually fill this gap in my understanding, I would gladly help spread the insight to those like me who don't see consistent internal logic behind it.
So I just want to make sure I understand the criticism, as I feel we may have inadvertently drifted here:
Someone who knows the risks (physical, emotional, mental what have you and furthermore etcetera) of a job shouldn't be afforded certain protections from the government to minimize those risks, if they take a job that opens them up to the possibility of said risks?
They should be afforded those protections, but they should be waivable by informed parties (barring some dynamic that would explain why this is a bad idea and which no one in the thread has articulated). Is there a reason to believe the drivers aren't informed of such tradeoffs or did not become informed very soon?
Edit: I'm not trying to be snarky; it's just that this issue comes up a lot, and I always look for such an explanation and yet never get it. Hence why someone came up with the "Copenhagen interpretation of ethics" argument. If you could actually fill this gap in my understanding, I would gladly help spread the insight to those like me who don't see consistent internal logic behind it.