I'm not sure why people think that drivers for Uber & Lyft shouldn't be treated as "contractors". I know I'm in the minority on this, but to me it seems that you can jump in and out of employment with Uber & Lyft quite easily, to the point that it does seem more like contract work.

As an anecdote, I took a Lyft to the airport with someone who had stopped driving for 6 months in order to get started with a new full time job, and had just started driving again to pick up a little more cash on the side. No full time employer would tolerate a 6 month break to start up another job, and then allow you to come back.

In my book, if you can't determine the price for your service, you aren't a contractor, pure and simple. Uber determines the rates, sets their fees, supplies the clients, and has rules about how many times you can skip/pass on choosing to accept a fare. Uber basically controls every aspect of the entire process but let's people choose when they want to work. That "benefit" is thrown out to drivers so that Uber can try to claim they are "contractors" because they can choose when to work. I don't think that should be the only test - and for the states that have rules on how to define such things, most of them do not have that as the only test. Plus, I work for a large corporation and there are salaried people here who choose when to work and when not to work. Mostly the sales team than anyone else but it definitely exists. Similar story for real estate agents, financial planners and investment managers, etc. They are usually salaried employees of a firm who can set their own hours.

Maybe the answer is that they are neither contractors nor employees in the traditionally-understood form.

But the criteria have to make sense in the context of the law. For instance, "unemployment" doesn't make much sense in the context of a driver who works for Uber and Lyft. And "minimum wage" doesn't make sense if the drivers are able to decline or cancel a request.

So can you be more specific about what aspects of employment should apply to an Uber driver?

In the UK we have "employee", "worker" and "self employed" basically. They define different rights for the worker, if the company wants more control it moves things towards employee. If they want fewer responsibilities then they have to give up some control (e.g. disciplinary procedures, setting the price, etc)

> Uber basically controls every aspect of the entire process but let's people choose when they want to work.

No, the main benefit is that Uber doesn't choose who can drive, anyone can sign up and start driving. I don't see how you can classify them as employees without Uber having any selection criteria at all for the drivers except that they have a valid drivers licence.

The workers choose to work at Uber, Uber didn't choose to employ the workers since Uber is open for all.

What about drivers rating?

Don't you start driving before you get a drivers rating? So it is not a blocker for you to start working there. After that isn't the drivers rating just a way for riders to kick misbehaving drivers off the platform? So it is the riders who fire the drivers, not Uber.

The company doesn't give out driver ratings. Other marketplace participants do.

I used to teach snowboarding as a contractor and had no choice over the price of my services. The resort set the price and I had to either accept or not work with them.

Contractors can set their own rates. These drivers are employees.

Your conclusion presupposes that the employee/contractor dichotomy is a useful construct in its typical form.

But the current dichotomy limits the freedom of individuals to contract out their labor on terms that work form them. It replaces the free choice of individuals with the "wisdom" of bureaucrats and politicians.

Taxi drivers don't set their own rates. What's the proper categorization?

The taxi analogy isn't the same. The rates are being set by the local government, not some non-government third-party whom they work with like perhaps the people who actually own the medallions (most are loaned out) or the people who lease out usage of the vehicles, etc. If those places were setting rates on what could be charged then I'd say there's an argument to be made. Also, let's not forget why the government put in those rules on setting the rates in the first place - consumer protection. Cabbies were routinely ripping people off.

Furthermore, it's not just one thing. It's a set of criteria/tests that for certain states like CA and NJ are defined in the law. Taken in aggregate and not just on one single characteristic of the employment a determination can be made.

In NYC and possibly other municipalities, the government sets the minimum rate for uber/lyft. Are they more or less of a contractor then?

This isn't wholesale true. Some areas are highly regulated (see Tokyo) and some are not regulated at all. Also, local government sets a MAXIMUM rate in some jurisdictions. The taxis then choose to set the rate the driver can get paid.

If Uber drivers are taxi drivers, which Uber claims they aren't (they're limousine drivers legally), then they are running illegal taxi services. It seems mighty convenient to pick and choose from laws only when it suits Uber's bottom line.

Im not sure how this distinction matters.

In practice contractors still have to charge market prices. I’m not going to pay 20% more for the same quality of service.

> but to me it seems that you can jump in and out of employment with Uber & Lyft quite easily, to the point that it does seem more like contract work

You can't really look at one aspect of it and make a determination, it's based on several factors. The main ones that come up in this scenario are if the contractor/employee can set their own rates, and how closely management monitors how they do their job. Flexibility of employment - either in terms of scheduling or to take periods of time off - is not considered.

What's the difference between setting your own rate and being offered a rate that you can choose to accept or decline? Is it the marketplace function of Uber (determining a price point between riders and drivers) that makes it different? Does being a contractor really require the ability to set a rate that no one is willing to pay?

At least in Australia I think someone is only a contractor if they earn income from multiple different companies. If it's all from one then they are an employee.

There are a variety of factors that the courts use to determine employment status. Single source of income isn't one

https://www.fairwork.gov.au/how-we-will-help/templates-and-g...

Seems for me every driver works for both Lyft and Uber

Personal Services Income is great fun as a contractor (/s). Worth a read: https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Personal-services-income/

I think there are plenty of low level jobs that would allow that like waiters, cleaners, construction workers, warehouse workers or delivery drivers.

All jobs that are desperate for workers. It's constant shortage if you listen to the news, but when you see conditions it's more that people don't want to work there because the conditions and the pay are quite bad.

My current full time employer would be fine with that -- specifically withing 6 months, I'd keep my RSU grants too

In my book, it's not a "business model" until it's consistently profitable.

I agree with some of your underlying sentiment, but this is a textbook "no true scotsman" example.

There can be a bad “business model”

Exactly. It's just a model of how to piss away money and look bad doing it. Haha.