This perfectly lays bare why I disagree with the ruling: you don't actually think drivers are employees, you just want them classified as employees so they get X benefits. It's a legislative hack.

It's seems so obvious to me that we need to create a third kind of worker: not an employee, not a contractor, but a new category that has some of the extra freedom of contracting and some of the benefits of employment.

It's important that we maintain integrity in our legal system. Uber drivers are not employees, and saying "we need to classify them as employees so they get insurance" is fundamentally backwards.

No, they pretty much are employees, sorry. Under the current framework, they fit the definition of employee well in the letter and perfectly in the spirit.

Employees can have literally every single freedom that Uber drivers have. Nothing is disqualifying.

I agree that once we reform Healthcare and Unemployment, we can create a third category if we want, but there are actually no inherent disadvantages in freedom of being an employee in this case. The classification as contractor only really benefits Uber and hurts the common man.

>once we reform Healthcare

Your optimism is inspiring, but there's been "bipartisan support" for meaningful healthcare reform going as far back as Nixon. Probably further. If the people who actually make the rules wanted it done, it would be done.

I share your pessimism, it was a rhetorical device, hence the "Once we're done reforming", which will likely never happen. Since Biden is against any form of Universal Healthcare, it is literally impossible before 6 years into the future.

That still doesn't still solve the problem that drivers for UBER and Lyft don't get paid time off and paid sick leave.

Also, neither unemployment insurance nor healthcare are paid through taxes here in Germany, for example, yet the system works very well.

If the business models of Uber and Lyft cannot be profitable without misclassifying workers as independent contractors, then the business model is broken.

I don't understand why so many people, in particular from the US, have such problems understanding the reasoning behind laws to prevent the misclassification of employees as independent contractors.

It's actually very simple:

- If you're employed, you don't get to choose how you do your job and when, that's done by management. In return, the company pays your healthcare, pays unemployment and various other benefits. You are also protected through your company's liability insurance in case of an accident.

Your company basically pays you compensation for stealing your time but they are responsible for your well-being and safety during that time.

- If you're contractor, on the other hand, you get to decide how you do your job and when. You are free to decline offers, set your own prices and work with multiple partners at once. You get the maximum business freedom and are your own boss. In return, that also means you are responsible for your health insurance, your unemployment insurance and the liability insurance. You usually also can make more money as compared to being employed for the same job.

Being an employer and a self-employed contractor are fundamentally different work models with both advantages and disadvantages on their own. What Uber, Lyft and similar companies do is that they want both the benefits of an employee (being able to tell workers what to work and when) without the associated disadvantages and costs for them, shifting the risks and costs towards the workers as if they were independent contractors without the workers having the usual benefits of being an independent contractor.

And that's simply neither fair nor ethical. It's just exploitation. And that's why German (and most European law) protects workers against this misclassification.