The behavior of service work employers only makes sense when we consider that it's all geared towards the profits of owners and shareholders. There are few or no worker-owned companies, nonprofits or even corporate charters that make workers a priority. So without viable competition, profit-driven (as opposed to wage-driven) companies will continue to dominate.
We need a new mental framework for organizing companies to be worker-owned:
https://www.noemamag.com/overthrowing-our-tech-overlords/
Worker-owned companies would receive a seal of approval from employees so they know where to apply, and companies that exploit workers would risk losing their seal and having their employees jump ship.
To use courier apps as an example: since there is little complexity in matching vendors with delivery workers, then a worker-first app should be able to compete. After all, it's pretty easy to save millions of dollars when employees vote on who gets bonuses and their sizes, rather than just paying the board (CEO, CFO, etc) whatever it skims for itself.
There's still the chicken-and-egg problem of needing users in order to scale. But I think we've been looking at it as a tough sell for too long, instead of offering a product (consistent employment and income with low constraints and commitments) that workers are eagerly looking for already.
> Worker-owned companies
what or how would such a company form in the first place?
The initial capital would essentially be from the workers themselves. Then, what about the newly hired workers - do they have to pay to get in? or do they get a share of the equity once they're hired?
What about the initial workers who have paid capital - do they get it back if they choose to leave? or do they now own equity, regardless of being an employee there?