Anti-Moonlighting clauses are perfectly legal, though not without controversy:

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/...

> In America, there are tens of millions of people who work more than one job.

not simultaneously, or even interleaved in 30 minute increments.

As someone who has the ability to work 2 tech jobs if I wanted to, I could context switch every minute if I wanted to due to the technology allowing me to do so. Why should other people be unable to do this if the tech is there to support it?

Yes, but this is due to the fact that most jobs require your physical presence, Uber does not.

which is actually an argument that they are not employees.

No it is not and never was. Sales people - going back a very long time and include fully traveling ones - are not employees? How about traveling service technicians, not infrequently located all over the country, far from any company office? Home office - not uncommonly full time even, e.g. the company I work for does not even have an office but people employed all over this and other countries - are not employees? Please don't arbitrarily redefine "employment" to make your point.

You are the one who has been entirely disingenuous... the previous post made a very good point which you have not contradicted.

TIL: on-call doctors are not employees.

Fred's Plastic Fork Factory can tell you that you can't moonlight and can fire you if you do.

Such a clause is pretty common in employment contracts.

I've seen these precluding secondary employment with competitive entities, but it seems there'd be little competition between Fred's and Alice's businesses (based on name alone).

there is competition between uber and lyft though, you can driver for both at the same time