The right answer is that the "on demand economy" does not fit into existing labor structures, and trying to shoehorn these new jobs into current legal frameworks is probably doomed to confusion. This is especially complicated because, in the United States, too much of the social safety net is explicitly tied to employer-employee relationships (workers comp, unemployment, healthcare, etc).

What I want is confidence that somebody providing a service to me is provided these benefits - if you work 40 hours/week in "on demand" jobs, you should receive commensurate coverage from the safety net, and you should receive at least the mandated minimum wage. If you work 10 hours in a week, you should receive the pro-rated equivalents of those services. This is, of course, complicated - how do you account for people working two services at the same time, or the "uber on the couch" issue, or who pays for vehicles and other capital goods. But pretending that existing labor laws will cover the changing workforce is silly.

We hear all the time about how the nature of work, especially service work is changing. It seems like a logical consequence that the nature of how society classifies, supports, and regulates work should also change. Uber, et al, and their VC comrades have a huge opportunity to shape the future of how people work, and how the social safety net works - to effect real disruption.

Based on their actions, however, it is hard to conclude that Uber, et al are actually interested in this discussion, beyond the marketing rhetoric it enables. As far as I can tell, they view the friction between existing laws and their business model as a profit opportunity and not a leadership opportunity. And so the inefficient behemoth of government regulation will inevitably step in.