If so, then the "employment relationship" would last only as long as the job. When employment is specific to one job, it's a contracted job, which is a much better criterion than whatever France came up with. There is no expectation that either side will come back for more.

The French court doesn't buy your interpretation of "There is no expectation that either side will come back for more.", the mere existence of a vetting system and a rating system show Uber expected drivers to come back. The profession of driver isn't new and wasn't invented by Uber.

Uber just found a way around local labour (and tax) laws and a European government, who's getting the downside of the tech company but no fiscal or technological upside, stepped in.

Aren't ratings evidence of an expectation that the one side won't come back for more? The person who received the ride isn't recording their opinion of the driver for themselves -- they already know it. They're leaving it for some other third party.

The existence of Yelp isn't evidence that building contractors are employees, it's the opposite. Actual employers typically don't rate their employees because they're not interested in having the best ones poached by competitors.

I'm not sure what point you're debating here, the question is about "either side" expecting to come back. In this case the drivers who provide the service are expected to come back, hence the vetting and rating. It establishes a relationship that extends beyond a single trip or "job". IF Yelp ever garners a dominant position in terms of qualified leads and monopoly on pricing to building contractors, French law could conceivably look into them.

> Actual employers typically don't rate their employees because they're not interested in having the best ones poached by competitors. "Employee of the Month" posters around America beg to differ.

> "Employee of the Month" posters around America beg to differ.

"Employee of the Month" posters are hung inside your own offices rather than anywhere a competitor would be likely to see them.

> In this case the drivers who provide the service are expected to come back, hence the vetting and rating. It establishes a relationship that extends beyond a single trip or "job".

The relationship between the driver and the rider generally doesn't extend beyond the single trip. They'll probably never see each other again. The relationship between the driver and Uber may continue, but so does the relationship between a plumber and Yelp.

It seems like you're arguing that eBay sellers should be considered the employees of eBay if they do most of their sales through eBay.

No, I'm not comparing an open marketplace or a weak aggregator with the Uber app. The argument of the French court is pretty clear.

Uber pretends to find clients for contractors but treats them like employees due to three proven powers they hold over drivers: the power to give instructions, the power to control the execution, the power to sanction non-compliance with the instructions given.

What do you mean a weak aggregator? eBay sellers have ratings, have their ads ranked and surfaced based on rating and other algorithmic criteria determined by eBay, and sellers must comply with instructions given by eBay w.r.t. listing, selling parameters, payment, contact, delivery, diverting sales off platform, etc., or be deranked, delisted, or kicked off the platform for non-compliance. Literally the same thing, except with goods + services instead of services alone.

Yet sellers are not employees. Your hue and cry that it is different does not compute.

In fact, you see this degree of control or more over participants in every market, forum, or platform operator, Craigslist, Facebook, Google, the list goes on. Just because driving a car seems different does not make it actually different.

Parent seems to pivot to an argument about monopoly instead. That's a slick backslide that should be called out.

I don't see how I'm pivoting to an argument when I'm explaining the decision. Call out the French judges who clearly lack your insights and deeper understanding of local laws.

I'm giving the context of the French legal case, you're arguing from an American market stand point. Yelp or eBay are barely blips in France, Lyft doesn't even exist. Maybe Uber drivers are contractors in the US, but not according to French laws and market conditions as proven by the court decision today.

The monopoly argument doesn't even work. Lyft provides meaningful and direct competition. Observe that the large majority of the fare goes to the driver and not to Uber or Lyft.

Lyft doesn't operate in France.

And yet the majority of the fare still goes to the driver, because they still have other competitors there.

You're missing that there's an intermediary here. The expectation is that they will come back for more with Uber.

Yelp doesn't hire the building contractors on its users behalf.

What of ratings or vetting forces someone to work more? If you sell once at a fleamarket and acquire a word-of-mouth reputation for your actions, are you forced/expected to come again?

It's irrelevant why a government would act, political or fiscal reasons are always part of it, and protectionism. This doesn't have bearing on whether it is making sense or being illogical.

Vetting and ratings are about establishing longer term relationships and not just one trip using the app. It's only illogical in a vacuum and not based on how Uber behaved on the French market.