To me it sounds like a service like Uber requires so much control over their product that they just can’t use gig workers/independent contractors.

These are all completely reasonable things to require from a company/customer point of view. It’s completely unreasonable to demand these things of independent contractors.

Really? It doesn't sound like maybe the definition of "independent contractor" should be overhauled?

Large scale marketplaces like this are quite unique and probably deserve a look at how we employ/give work to folks in them.

No one said it's an easy business. Your arguments are basically "if they don't get control over that, then it's hurting the business".

If you need to either be at the edge of the law and discriminate or be the edge of the law and misclassify employees as contractors, to make your business work, then maybe your business model is flawed.

If by flawed you mean designed to maximize exploitation by staying on the outer edge of the law, in bad faith, then yes it’s flawed.

That discrimination is the onus of the independent contractor drivers. Without full transparency about a potential ride's pickup, drop off, and how much they will be paid for it, there is effectively no way to argue that Uber drivers are independent contractors.

> Uber does not let you choose your clients because they discovered discrimination occurred based on who the client was and where they were being picked up from.

It was pretty well known that getting a cab from certain (non-white) neighborhoods and just hailing one as a PoC was very hard pre-Uber.

You could always lodge a complain at the centralized taxi authority where some bureaucrats would input it in "the system". But in the end it achieved nothing. Uber kicking out racist drivers probably did more than decades of complains.

You did a good job describing constraints Uber has in order to deliver a product to customers. From your description there might be good reasons for those constraints such as anti discrimination or price stability. But even for "good reasons" it doesn't absolve Uber of liability for treating employees as contractors.

This comment seems to contain a non-sequitur; you argue in favor of one thing, then make a tangentially related assertion (that Uber drivers are employees) with no argument in its favor.

Seems like the non-sequitur would be on the part of the grand-parent since it was in defense of Uber that these limitations were placed.

In your reply I see a theme common in most defences of Uber, it boils down to "without X, the business would not work"

Uber has no inherent right to exist and do business. If the existing laws preclude your prefered business model, you need to get the law changed BEFORE you go into business.

> Uber does not let you choose your clients because they discovered discrimination occurred based on who the client was and where they were being picked up from.

This assumes that the only solution for Uber is to stop drivers from selecting who they pick up and where they pick up from.

Another would be for Uber to allow drivers to make the choice, but subsidize rides from discriminated areas using money from desirable areas.

Sound a lot like Uber needs workers who act like employees (who Uber can dictate the work to) but wants to pay them like contractors.