Also, as noted in your article, regular taxi drivers in the UK have always been considered self employed contractors despite also having no ability to change the regulated meter rate. So this whole pricing argument is invalid and inconsistent with historical interpretations.

Another example is doctors here in Canada who bill out to the government at a fixed price schedule. Are they not self employed either? After all, they all bill the same entity and are not allowed to set their own prices.

Yes, you have no commitment to them except following the very stringent rules and regulations set by them, without exception, when you decide to work for them.

> So this whole pricing argument is invalid and inconsistent with historical interpretations.

Merely being not being able to set your own price is not what makes you an employee. The distinction is a tax one, concerning benefits among other things. All "historical interpretations" are ultimately arbitrary like the very distinction between self-employed vs. employed. In the case of Britain, their opinion is pretty clear on this in respect to Uber.

> Another example is doctors here in Canada who bill out to the government at a fixed price schedule. Are they not self employed either? After all, they all bill the same entity and are not allowed to set their own prices.

I know nothing of Canadian doctors to say one way or another. Regardless, the distinction between being an independent contractor vs. an employee and being "self employed" or not are two different conversations. You can be legally an employee and be self employed, e.g. an entrepreneur. You can also be self-employed yet not be an employee, e.g. an independent contractor.

Uber is attempting to argue that its workers are both self employed and independent contractors, yet lack the full autonomy that someone in that position would have, notably, being able to set one's own prices and work environment.

A hypothetical service where you set your own price and profile, ala eBay + Thumbtack and are chosen would be the scenario that Uber supposes its drivers are already in.

---

This pretty much summarizes it: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4a493c30-578d...

However, regular taxi drivers in the UK and elsewhere are subject to almost all the same “suggestive of employee” points and have been uncontroversially classified as self-employed contractors for decades. Especially if you consider Uber to be the modern equivalent of a combination of the old system of taxi regulator, dispatcher, and payment processor. This despite regular taxi drivers also generally not using their own equipment or having as much control over their working hours.

For this reason the EAT decision smells like politically motivated bias again Uber.

Heh, no doubt about that. The decision actually had a bit of controversy for that reason.