Doesn't seem obvious at all to me since I know several drivers who do rides for several systems at the same time. How could they be an employee or three companies at once? They aren't, they are clearly contractors.

You can see multiple people stating the same here about driving for multiple services: http://qr.ae/7y7fv7

I think this is just another ruling by a clueless government that has no clue what is actually happening on the computers involved.

Many people work for multiple jobs at once. I've been a receptionist who codes for someone else at the same time, and I've been a crowd manager while doing email for my other job. Both were time sheet W2 employee relationships.

This isn't about computers whatsoever. This is about the requirements and business relationship between Uber and Uber drivers. The relationship does not allow Uber drivers to subcontract, negotiate prices, and had control over profit and loss. Uber drivers are employees.

> How could they be an employee or three companies at once?

So by your logic i can't be employed as waiter at a restaurant and also be employed as cashier at a grocery store at the same time. Obviously i can't be scheduled for the same shift at both places, but with Uber, Sidecar, Lyft, etc your shift starts once you accept the rider and ends when you drop them off. You clearly aren't going to pick up an Uber rider while you have a Lyft rider in the car.

So what's the difference between the waiter/cashier scenario and the Uber/Lyft scenario besides shift length?

Many people work for multiple companies, that's nothing new. Computers are just tools not some magical pixie dust.

You've never had two jobs at the same time? Thats life for a lot of people

Excellent point. This was the case for the last Uber cab I took.

I don't see the problem here. Customers like Uber. Drivers are choosing to use it. For some reason the government needs to wade in...

"How could they be an employee or three companies at once?"

Many people have multiple jobs. Uber doing a poor job of making sure that one of their drivers is only working for them at the time doesn't matter.

I think mostly the opposite. I don't think the ruling holds tightly or sees broad copying.

No, Uber does not "control every aspect of the business". Specifically, it doesn't control when you work, where you work, how you work (obviously not the route taken), the conditions of the vehicle (beyond that it is legal), etc.

So if an office position has flex time you're an independent contractor?

You're wrong about the vehicle condition part and "how you work" is questionable (you have limits on how many fares you can refuse, for instance).

Completely different. Uber drivers don't even have to work...ever!

Vehicles can be 10 or 15 years old which includes some 90% of all vehicles. That's hardly "controlling condition". And, OK, lights and seat belts have to work.

There actually aren't any hard limits on how many fares you can refuse but refusing fares is like a contractor turning in lousy work.

They control the important aspects of the business. They control the pricing, they control how the drivers work, they control the condition of the vehicle (can't have an old vehicle, must be newer), and they exert control over when drivers work by punishing those that turn down too many fares.

The pricing, yes, although Lyft explicitly supports tipping and Sidecar actually enables differentiated pricing. Vehicles can be 10 or mor years old which is the vast majority of vehicles on the road (i.e., hardly "control"). And, yes, lights and seat belts must work (that's hardly control). They exert literally zero control over when you work. If you're going to open up the app and start declining fares, that's equivalent to a contractor turning in shoddy work.