Very similar here in Germany, I guess. There is the term "Scheinselbstständig", which roughly translates to "fake self-employed". If you are formally self-employed but meet certain criteria, your "customer" (who is then considered to be more your employer than a customer) has certain obligations to you, and you have certain rights, which you can't easily trade away.
I got some letters about that and they asked me to prove that I was indeed self-employed. They didn't like the argument and concluded that I wasn't. The only thing that actually happened after a while is that I had to pay into the public retirement fund against my will. The "Deutsche Rentenversicherung" are seemingly the only people that care. From what I can tell there were no other obligations/rights that appeared after.
There are different parts of German law/government that are affected, retirement is only one of them (and just because one authority noticed/thinks you qualify doesn't automatically mean that the others do).
Tax avoidance (since payroll taxes on your salary weren't paid) is another angle.
For the employer, not paying their part in your social security contributions is similar to not paying you your full salary, and thus a criminal matter as well.
Ordinary self-employed people and sole traders pay nearly the same tax rates as employed people (National Insurance, a strange disguised tax, is at a different rate), but have many fewer rights, eg. no right to paid time off or sick pay.
The question in this case is whether Uber drivers are self-employed or not. Not as it turns out.
What on earth are you talking about... taking out dividends is not illegal, even for individual company owners. IR35 is about HMRC forcing self employed people to apply payroll taxes as if they were employed. Again, nothing to do with dividends.
Sure, I understand that. USA law is fuzzy in the same way. (The IRS 20 rules[1] are guidelines and not binary true false criteria usable for perfect machine learning classification.)
But for the sake of discussion purposes on HN, I'd like for you or anyone to play the role of general counsel for Uber and say exactly and concretely what they would need to do.
As I understand it, if the Uber driver were allowed to have someone else drive their car for Uber when they felt like it, and had the freedom (actual, not nominal) to decide which clients they'd like to take on, and had control of their pricing, then there would be no question it was actual self-employment.
The actual criteria are pretty complicated - see the guidance manual at https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/employment-status-m... - but the essence of it is control ("does the boss have the right to tell the worker what, where, when and how to work?"), personal service/substitutability ("can the worker send someone else to do the job, instead of doing it himself?"), risk ("who is on the hook if something goes wrong?") and some other factors. Very fact-specific.
Incidentally, one of the standard features of traditional taxi drivers in the UK is that they don't set their fares, that being the responsibility of the local government. Uber drivers are licensed in the separate category of 'private hire', which has less stringent licensing (and the right for a firm to set its own fares) but a prohibition on picking up passengers by being hailed, and some other restrictions.