I think you're strongly misunderstanding the criticism. It's not "utilitarianism is wrong". It's more like "the specific claim that sub-standard working conditions are better than nothing is a very old and weak argument that has a tradition of being used to justify subjugation".
And frankly I don't see how OP's argument is particularly utilitarian. Is the counterargument of "allowing companies to do this hurts workers in aggregate" not equally utilitarian? Worrying about free will and free association is more the realm of liberalism, isn't it?
> the specific claim that sub-standard working conditions are better than nothing is a very old and weak argument that has a tradition of being used to justify subjugation
It's a weak argument when it's incorrect. slavery is clearly not better than nothing. That doesn't mean that it's a bad argument, it means that slavery isn't defensible by that argument.
Focus on the meat of the argument. A job can either be worth doing or not worth doing for a worker, based on the working conditions. We can agree on that surely. A productive discussion would focus on defining an acceptable working condition and whether or not uber meets that definition.
"Nothing" here is total lack of a job or similar, so slavery at least keeps you from starving and gives you shelter. In this myopic sense it's better than nothing. But in the big picture, it's important to have standards. The argument works in both situations and has similar failings in both situations.
> Focus on the meat of the argument. A job can either be worth doing or not worth doing for a worker, based on the working conditions. We can agree on that surely.
That's basically a tautology, so sure.
> A productive discussion would focus on defining an acceptable working condition and whether or not uber meets that definition.
Which is why it's helpful to point out that people getting something out of a job doesn't show that it's acceptable.
