This is not an uncommon pattern. Regulations hurt experimental young companies challenging a status quo. Evading regulations (not a taxi, not an employer, etc.) allowed uber to become a large incumbent. Regulations tend to lock the status quo in place, and the status quo now is that Uber is a large incumbent.

First they evade regulations, then they propose a new policy that is enticing to potential employees (or whatever they call them) - but the policy is so generous that most competitors would have issues keeping up.

How many companies can afford to pay 21$/hr minimum for example?

So somehow it's both a great step forward and terribly anti-competitive at the same time.

Yes. That's how a disruptive companies operate in outdated regulatory environments, and that can be a win for all. Call it corporate civil disobedience?

Case and point: Uber was basically a (hugely popular) mediator for illegal cabs in my country. They had to shut down, but as a response the government introduced new vastly relaxed regulations to the whole taxi industry, setting the rules under which services like Uber could operate. I am not yet sure if it will actually result in lower rates, but at least they catalyzed a historical change.

See: entire financial industry during and after the 2008 crisis.

The incumbents almost always write the regulations. It protects them from competition.

Self-regulation in action... :/