I read the whole thing. There are a couple relevant sections but this one stands out to me as the best succinct summary of the argument:
"Plaintiff's car and her labor were her only assets. Plaintiff's work did not entail any 'managerial' skills that could affect profit or loss. Aside from her car, Plaintiff had no investment in the business. Defendants provided the iPhone application, which was essential to the work. But for Defendant's intellectual property, Plaintiff would not have been able to perform the work."
That's a pretty solid line of reasoning, to be honest. Note that for those unfamiliar with the subtleties of legal jargon, the words "but for" have a specific meaning that relates to causality. In other words that last sentence roughly translates to "if not for the existence of the iPhone app there would be no distinct or independent business here."
In addition, earlier in the ruling they address the fact that mere ownership of a car has historically not been considered the same thing as owning specific "tools" required to perform a job, and it cites the fact that previous precedent for delivery drivers that they are employees, and merely owning the car and paying for gas does not change that.
Can't the same driver provide rides using any other app besides Uber? Lyft, or some other guys that show up? He could have all the apps installed and hop between them, right?
They could. This driver didn't, if they had it might have been relevant to the decision perhaps. If anything that does seem like the one small hole you could poke in this situation on Uber's behalf.
Both Uber and Lyft actively discourage this activity though. Knowing how Uber's data mining team works, they have probably already built models to identify drivers who do this and send fares to them less frequently.
Yeah, too bad the taxi business is rife with semi-legal business tactics (or outright illegal ones like slashing a competitor's tires). Local cab companies have gotten away with it for years because the scale is small enough at the local level that no single company stands out, but Uber is perpetrating these schemes on a national level. I expect them to get smacked down at some point.
I don't follow the argument that the driver can't affect profit and loss. Every driver can decide when and where to drive, and these two factors have a considerable impact on the income.
Yes and shift workers can take more shifts, or fewer shifts, in many situations. That doesn't make them entrepreneurs. There's a distinction between income and profit from a business, and simply deciding to work more or less often isn't an entrepreneurial activity.
But with Uber/Lyft, there's a lot more ingenuity involved in deciding when, where and how to work. It's not just a simple question of working longer hours.
It's essentially the difference between hourly work and piece work. Making things into piece work and trying to get out of labor laws is an old trick that the authorities have thought of already.
Aren't the drivers rated? That would mean the drivers can, by driving badly or be rude, negatively affect their income. At the same time a really good driver might be able to make bit more.
Where can I see the raitings of a waiter before I get seated? What restaurant will let me choose which waiter serves me?
I argue that because I don't get a choice of waiter, their actions have relative little consequence apart from the current transaction - I am not much more likely to come back because I may not get that same waiter - and customers have very limited information. Not so with Uber.
If they had to pay for the iPhone app, then they would have made an investment into the business. If a rival came along, then they could work without the need for Uber.
You're correct that it doesn't have some wildly divergent meaning from plain English, but it is in fact a legal phrase that has a lot of history and specific meaning behind it:
"Plaintiff's car and her labor were her only assets. Plaintiff's work did not entail any 'managerial' skills that could affect profit or loss. Aside from her car, Plaintiff had no investment in the business. Defendants provided the iPhone application, which was essential to the work. But for Defendant's intellectual property, Plaintiff would not have been able to perform the work."
That's a pretty solid line of reasoning, to be honest. Note that for those unfamiliar with the subtleties of legal jargon, the words "but for" have a specific meaning that relates to causality. In other words that last sentence roughly translates to "if not for the existence of the iPhone app there would be no distinct or independent business here."
In addition, earlier in the ruling they address the fact that mere ownership of a car has historically not been considered the same thing as owning specific "tools" required to perform a job, and it cites the fact that previous precedent for delivery drivers that they are employees, and merely owning the car and paying for gas does not change that.