They make some references to Case law for a Yellow taxi case back in 1991. (at least that was my reading!)
But I think the Cali court may have had the right of it by going "that's bullshit."
As one can quickly see that line of argument is exceedingly thin. In order for it to make even a little sense it would have to be rephrased to something more like an argument that Uber's business isn't providing rides, but connecting people who need a ride to an independent business that offers rides to people.
But taking a step back, though it does seem to be a vaguely mitigating factor, maybe, in the abstract, the fact is that this woman wasn't a contractor by the legal definition.
The law doesn't say that employee/employer relationships are determined by what could have happened in some alternate universe. There are full time employee plumbers and carpenters and programmers, and contractor plumbers and carpenters and programmers. They use multi-part tests and precedent to determine which is which.
The determination was that this woman was -- in fact - an employee, it was not a hearing to determine a hypothetical scenario.
Somewhere in California there may be an Uber driver with a fact pattern that makes them a contractor, or not, but it'll take more cases to figure that out.
Of course this is assuming a similar situation with an organization that aggregates customers and connects them to contractors doing the work. The specific example that I saw elsewhere in the thread was the contracted chicken farmers[0]
Yes. infact that happens quite a lot (subject to jurisdiction).
Many builders I know are very concerned about hiring the same contractor too often as they might accidently become an employee (and hence have to pay taxes on them).
These things have nothing to do with my status as an employee or contractor as you'd never guess which one I was based on these facts.
In software, the tools are a big determination, i.e., do you provide your own laptop? You might be a contractor. Are you given benefits such as reasonable vacation days? You might be an employee.
Mis-categorization of employees is a big issue for the IRS and few "contractors" are informed or in a position to threaten to challenge it.
In the software business, I've had an employer who gave me an employment contract and then just decided to write me checks like a contractor each month until I raised a fuss.
I don't know for McDonald's, but for many fast food companies that's absolutely true: the main company (the brand) only sells the franchises, and the franchisers actually own and operate the restaurants. However, the main company holds very tight control over the experience (prices, branding, inspections, menus, ...).
So, if Lyft and Uber and a hypothetical third all had similar business models, and a driver could find people to drive on more than one platform they would be considered independent contractors. I assume Uber wouldn't allow an Uber driver to also be a Lyft driver (citation needed).
This makes sense, and is similar to determining if ANY contractor is an employee. One determinator is if the "contractor" has multiple "clients". If a contractor only ever has one client, and is with that client for an extended time they are more likely to be found to be a full time employee instead.
Others factors generally include things like how you get paid (do you bill the client, or are you on payroll?) or the nature of your work (projects and deliverables, or day-to-day operations, etc).
Of course many of these things favour classifying Uber drivers as contractors, but there's enough of a gray zone for a court to rule they are full-time employees.
I think providing a service to connect buyers and sellers should be able to be distinct from having employees.
It is, but the court decided that Uber exercised too much control over the conditions of the work to just be connecting buyers and sellers.
The former is saying a business cannot exist without employees performing critical functions (I'm not saying that this is de facto truth, but just phrasing the argument).
The latter is saying that without a business, you don't have employees/contractors, which makes sense, but seems obvious and inconsequential.
A ride-sharer / driver needs the platform and the platform needs the driver, fundamentally. It's not like most contracting where it's not the end of the world if all the contracts end.
Additionally, McDonald's (or similar) locations are independently managed to a certain extent, that's why ads always say "at participating locations".