It seems like they may have reached critical mass with the US Post Office and the gig delivery drivers. And they have since rolled out gray vans, maybe they see how expensive all that sunk cost is. And it would be better for someone else to pay it.

the thing is that a company can take on another customer without repercussion, or employ someone else to do the job. This is what people always fail to understand when discussing contracting v employment. As a contractor, if I get bored of the work, I can hire someone else to do it. Try explaining to your employer that you've hired someone else to do your job for you.

That’s only true if you run a real business. If you do delivery for amazon or drive for Uber most likely your margins are too low to hire someone and I would expect them to have something in the contract that forbids this.

If they did have something like that in the contract, it would make the contractors employees, with tax and benefit implications.

When I was software dev contractor I had clauses in my contract that said that I had to perform the work myself.

Great, so you are an employee, and can sue for backwages and back-benefits. If the company specifies how the work is performed (rather than what work needs to be performed for compensation), you are an employee, basically full stop.

Actuually, you don't even need to sue. Just file your taxes as if you are an employee and the IRS will handle the rest.

EDIT: See here: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...

> You are not an independent contractor if you perform services that can be controlled by an employer (what will be done and how it will be done). This applies even if you are given freedom of action.

Even if technically you're correct, in the best possible scenario it'll take time to get that money back. In the worst case scenario you get involved in a tax dispute that can drag on for however long they can afford to. Meanwhile you don't have a job.

I was fired from my "contracting" job, and the state eventually ruled that I was technically an employee. But I had to wait the longest 6 weeks of my life to find that out, and what if they had not? Or what if they ruled against me, and I had to appeal it? What if my former employer retaliated in other ways? I would have been even more screwed than I was.

I don't disagree. That's why I said you can file your taxes as an employee. Presumably, since he kept the position, he was paid a living wage in cash flow terms. Filing taxes as an employee forces the IRS to investigate, and expend their resources, rather than your own. If they do find misclassification, they will inflict punishment on the company and force them to reclassify any other contractors.

I'm not sure what else you can ask the state for without severely limiting the economy -- any investigation by the state is going to take time and there will be ambiguity. But, if your work was directed explicitly (such as being told you had to do it), you are pretty much guaranteed you are an employee. The IRS is really nice and they will act on your behalf.

In the UK that would make you an employee. It's specifically called out in IR35.

They already prevent it somewhat with a combination of selfies and facial recognition -

https://mashable.com/article/amazon-flex-delivery-driver-sel...

It'll be interesting to see what would happen if these contractors file their taxes as employees. I sure hope one does.

You need the backing of somebody who can pay for lawyers. I am sure that amazon is ready for such a challenge.

> That’s only true if you run a real business.

What's a 'real business'? In the United States, doing something for cash is an individual, legal right.

> What's a 'real business'?

In this case a real business in the sense that you're legally able to actually hire someone else out and have the margins to do so. A lot of these 'sub contract' out your old job to you new business schemes have a lot of restrictions on what you can do and the company isn't going to be paying as much as it cost to employee you + the cost of running your vehicle (otherwise they wouldn't be saving money really). If you're a 'subcontractor but really you can't afford/can't contractually pay anyone else to do this' you're basically just an employee but paying your own taxes, health insurance, insurance, depreciation, and compliance risks.

> doing something for cash is an individual, legal right

You know plus or minus everything you can't do or a company can't pay you to do because it's illegal.

> In this case a real business in the sense that you're legally able to actually hire someone else out and have the margins to do so.

I think you mean a 'profitable' business then, because several large tech companies have no margins and rely on continued investment. An uber driver is certainly free to seek investment externally to continue to fund themselves presumably.

> You know plus or minus everything you can't do or a company can't pay you to do because it's illegal.

That's assumed, obviously. Just like freedom of religion does not mean you can kill people because your religion says so.

I agree with your sentiment, although I'd be worried if my income was "diversified" by working for Amazon and Walmart.

Uber doesn't work. Lyft doesn't work. Airbnb doesn't work.

Why would it work for delivery?

It works great for these companies and it will work great for Amazon.

Exactly. It's disgusting. Totally unethical.

I think your definition of "work" is different than most other peoples

Work as in a win-win for both the employer and the employee.

And perhaps you mean "most other peoples" [who are on hackernews]