It's like a subcategory of petit-bougeoisie. They have some more things in common with the proletariat, but their position as owner means most of their material interests firmly align with the bourgeoisie.
I somewhat disagree that their interests align with the bourgeoisie. The recent drive towards contract work (to get rid of full time employment benefits) has put many proletarian people into the owner-operator category.
For example, a full time uber driver is an owner-operator but I can't think of many ways their interests align with that of the regular bourgeoisie.
I would have to disagree with the Uber example because the drivers do not own the app nor the brand. Both are owned by capitalists and without these two things Uber is just a bunch of people offering rides for money.
But on paper they are the same category of worker as a self employed plumber who works on contract for a bigger company, or even a highly paid lawyer or consultant who works on contracts.
On the other hand, compare that against someone who runs a McDonalds franchise. McDonalds owns the recipes and the brand, without those two things the franchisee is just selling generic burgers. However, that does not change the fact that the franchisee is likely bourgeois or petit bourgeois.
I guess what I wanted to point out is that "owner-operator" encompasses a wide variety of people so it's not necessarily good analysis to say that their interests align with the bourgeoisie. Maybe better examples would be freelancers (artists, editors, writers) who are self-employed and are owner operators on paper but are mostly proletarian in interest.
But on paper they are the same category of worker as a self employed plumber who works on contract for a bigger company, or even a highly paid lawyer or consultant who works on contracts.
On paper, sure. Doesn't mean they should actually be considered the same category. The primary function of the app is to skirt labor laws.
Owner-operator
It's like a subcategory of petit-bougeoisie. They have some more things in common with the proletariat, but their position as owner means most of their material interests firmly align with the bourgeoisie.
I somewhat disagree that their interests align with the bourgeoisie. The recent drive towards contract work (to get rid of full time employment benefits) has put many proletarian people into the owner-operator category.
For example, a full time uber driver is an owner-operator but I can't think of many ways their interests align with that of the regular bourgeoisie.
I would have to disagree with the Uber example because the drivers do not own the app nor the brand. Both are owned by capitalists and without these two things Uber is just a bunch of people offering rides for money.
But on paper they are the same category of worker as a self employed plumber who works on contract for a bigger company, or even a highly paid lawyer or consultant who works on contracts.
On the other hand, compare that against someone who runs a McDonalds franchise. McDonalds owns the recipes and the brand, without those two things the franchisee is just selling generic burgers. However, that does not change the fact that the franchisee is likely bourgeois or petit bourgeois.
I guess what I wanted to point out is that "owner-operator" encompasses a wide variety of people so it's not necessarily good analysis to say that their interests align with the bourgeoisie. Maybe better examples would be freelancers (artists, editors, writers) who are self-employed and are owner operators on paper but are mostly proletarian in interest.
On paper, sure. Doesn't mean they should actually be considered the same category. The primary function of the app is to skirt labor laws.
Uber pays a ton of money to make sure the paper says that
deleted by creator