Uber on the other hand, definitely has an ongoing relationship with their drivers, as well as specifying how they work in fairly detailed ways.
But Uber drivers can also have simultaneous business relationships with Lyft, and be a NY taxicab driver, and offer driving services on Craigslist, etc.
Employers such as Apple Inc or Microsoft would not tolerate an employee working simultaneously for Google Inc.
The folks contending Uber drivers are employees have valid points. However, Uber also has valid bullet points that the drivers are contractors. I don't know which way the scales tip. I guess all this dialogue in the media, the local governments, and maybe the IRS is trying to sort it out.
In contrast, Uber/Lyft drivers own/lease their own cars. Who provides the equipment to do the work is also another IRS factor.[1]
And btw, I don't think sniping with one liners that biases one viewpoint is quality discussion.
[1] see item #14: "FURNISHING OF TOOLS AND MATERIALS."
With Uber/Lift, the "driving" itself is 100% the product.
And why does the discussion continue to be "one bullet point" at a time instead of a combination of factors?
If parents provide all the equipment & materials for the babysitter (infant formula, diapers, toys, Walt Disney DVDs, etc) along with the premises to do the work (the parents' home), does that make babysitter an employee?
If a dog owner provides the leash, the pet treats, and the back yard for the pet sitter to walk and exercise the dog, should the pet sitter be classified as "employee"?
Is it one factor or a combination of factors?
The job description for a Pizza Hut driver is to drive no different to an Uber driver. Whether they are delivering pizza or people is irrelevant. It's all about the nature of the work.
No, it's not _all_ about the nature of the work. Again, that's just applying one-dimensional criteria. To re-emphasize: is the employee/contractor classification just one factor or a combination of factors?
The concept of "driving" does not automatically mean an "employee" relationship. Many (probably most) 18-wheel truck drivers are independent contractors. Many drivers of tour & charter buses are subcontractors as well. Those charter bus drivers transport people like Uber drivers too.
Likewise, the "nature of photography work" does not instantly categorize it as employee vs freelancer. Sports Illustrated had some staff/employee photographers. But National Geographic has freelance photographers.
Another most obvious example to HN would be the existence of both contract and employee programmers.
It isn't just about the "nature of work".
It isn't just about who provides the equipment.
It isn't just about who decides the hours of when the work is performed.
It's isn't just _one_ criteria.
I worked at Apple years ago and nothing was in my contract to say that I couldn't work for another company. Because we all do this when we are running startups on the side.
I worked at Apple years ago and nothing was in my contract to say that I couldn't work for another company.
It is naive to think one can work at both companies simultaneously without repercussions if the manager(s) find out. The managers would not allow an employee to have a badge to the premises and access to the employees' email system at both companies. It would be legitimate grounds for termination. The employee can't sue for wrongful termination because the concepts of "protecting proprietary information", "trade secrets" etc are well-tested and upheld in court.
An employee can certainly resign (or get fired) from one company and then work for the other company but it is unrealistic to say those companies would allow concurrent employee relationships.