What's not OK is when the company wants all the advantages of having contractors but still wants to dictate all these things.
Personally, I think OP is calling out that most of the issues with current Uber (and similar companies) is the asymmetry of information. Only Uber knows where all the riders are, what they are paying, and where they are going. They also are the only ones that know where all the drivers are and how much they are expecting to be paid. This information asymmetry allows them to expose just enough information to both rider and driver to facilitate the outcome Uber wants. In my mind, when Uber (or anyone else) starts controlling the flow of information they cease to be simply a platform/market place.
The majority of issues (in my mind) resolve themselves when this data asymmetry is removed. Driver's have more freedom of choice if they can see all available fares rather than just a yes/no prompt on an individual basis, for example.
I also think there is far more gray area to these types of employment relationships that is generally acceptable when it comes to things like how you do the job, how you dress, etc. For example, if you are an independent delivery driver but enter into a contract with FedEx it is acceptable for FedEx to stipulate that you wear a FedEx uniform while delivering FedEx parcels. If you don't find that stipulation acceptable, you can decline the contract. Likewise, if FedEx discovers you aren't following contractual obligations they can terminate the relationship.
What does set your own hours look like? If I hire someone to mow my lawn, and want it to happen while I'm at the store, am I setting that person's hours?
What does decide how you want to do the job look like? If I specifically want them to use an electric mower for noise reasons, am I deciding how they do the job for them?
Ultimately I feel like we are trying to shoehorn a fundamentally new model into preexisting paradigms, and as a result we waste time haggling over who is what. It feels like instead we should just say this is a new thing, and create a new set of laws to regulate it in the way that we think is best.
> If I specifically want them to use an electric mower for noise reasons
The fundamental difference is you, as a customer, can want these things, but the person doing the mower is self-employed and they can negotiate and figure out whether or not they can come to a mutual agreement with you. They could also just simply not come to an agreement with you and the worst that would happen is they don't get your money, and move on with their work and life.
It's different than if there was Uber Mowing Co. that managed them and forced them to forgo their lunch and mow your lawn while you were at the store or be fired.
These two things are in fundamental conflict, which is part of the issue.
Are you even hearing how ridiculous this sounds.
But I don’t think your examples are relevant. The customer should be able to request as much as they want on the gig worker, as long as there is no middle man employer forcing the worker to agree to subpar conditions.
I don't think it's that clear - it's more like people are still arguing about a) is it really a new paradigm and b) if so, is it on net enough benefit to be worth doing.
Generally, contractors should have expertise, use their own equipment, decide how the job should be done, and have a risk of losing money.
If you insist they use your lawnmower, that's a very quick employee classification (from what I've experienced). My gardener refuses to use any soil/mulch/whatever we own - likely for this reason. I've worked with real estate folks, and when they do a flip, they're very careful not to buy raw materials for the contractors lest some of them sue to be classified as an employee and collect benefits. They'll even use SW to set up an order with Home Depot, which emails the contractor's a simple way to place that order at HD and pick up, and then they'll ask the contractor to add the raw materials cost to the invoice. But they will not buy the materials for them.
Also, if I screw up my current job, I'll merely get fired. My employer cannot demand I repay wages (generally). If your situation with your contractor is comparable, he will be classified as an employee. They must take on risk of losing money if they negotiate poorly or screw up a job.
> It feels like instead we should just say this is a new thing, and create a new set of laws to regulate it in the way that we think is best.
I don't think anyone is disagreeing with this.
In WA State (https://esd.wa.gov/employer-taxes/independent-contractors), there is a three part test. If you force someone to mow your lawn with specific equipment, and at a certain time, they would be en employee; they are not free from control.
When I order an Uber I can never get a ride from a 1980 Ford truck or a snowmobile because those vehicles don't meet Uber's standards and I'm actually scheduling a gig with a representative of Uber who adheres to Uber's standards and acts in line with Uber's policies and takes pay from Uber that is disconnected from what I pay them. There is virtually nothing "independent" about the driver except they independently chose to work for Uber. Yet the driver still bears the costs of equipment maintenance and liability, which happens to be the exact costs that business newbies overlook the most. It's exploitative.
The important thing is them passing on not doing your job won't affect their next one, unlike what happens if an uber driver declines too many rides.
Majority of tech contractors are actually employees of contracting company, so that is one way to get around it. At one point, I was freelancing, and I had only one client. My/their accountant had me open an LLC for this reason.
Now there are a lot of gig workers who are on all of the platforms and probably earn equal amount of money from each platform. But there are plenty who are only on one platform, so they will need to be classified as employees.