Honestly I think all of these ideas about what isn't and is a contractor are wayyyy over-specified.
To my mind, a contractor has always been just someone you are hiring for a particular piece of work. It's about one-offs. You are not hiring them for a year, in which time they will do an indeterminate number of pieces of work. That is what an employee with a salary is for. You are hiring them to do a particular piece of work. That is why you pay them per piece of work. So to me, the simplest (and only) test should be: "are you paying them per piece of work?". If yes, contractor. If no, employee.
I can't think of any occupation where the "employee" is getting paid on a per-task basis (rides in this case) and I would consider them an employee.
If I hire someone to write blog posts for me, and I pay them per blog post, they're a contractor. The employee version is someone I pay a set salary to based on their skillset, and then they output some indeterminate amount of work.
If I hire someone to watch my kids for me, and I pay them per time they watch my kids, they're a contractor, not an employee. The employee version is a nanny who lives in my home.
If someone is getting paid each time they perform a ride (and not otherwise), they're a contractor. An employee is someone that you are paying even when they're not driving.
I don't think "setting prices", "choosing which hours", etc. has anything to do with it.
If I hire someone to write a blog post for me this morning and tell them I need it by lunch time, I'm not giving them a choice of when they want to work – they need to do it now. But they're still clearly a contractor.
The question remains whether or not contractors under this definition need similar protections that are afforded to employees, and I definitely think this is a question worth debating/considering. But California conflating everything to be an employee seems like the worst way to approach the issue.
>I can't think of any occupation where the "employee" is getting paid on a per-task basis (rides in this case) and I would consider them an employee.
Piece rate work payment exists in construction, agriculture, and other industries. People are permanently on staff, but only paid in direct relation to their productivity. It's an old trick to extract the value of labour.
To my mind, a contractor has always been just someone you are hiring for a particular piece of work. It's about one-offs. You are not hiring them for a year, in which time they will do an indeterminate number of pieces of work. That is what an employee with a salary is for. You are hiring them to do a particular piece of work. That is why you pay them per piece of work. So to me, the simplest (and only) test should be: "are you paying them per piece of work?". If yes, contractor. If no, employee.
I can't think of any occupation where the "employee" is getting paid on a per-task basis (rides in this case) and I would consider them an employee.
If I hire someone to write blog posts for me, and I pay them per blog post, they're a contractor. The employee version is someone I pay a set salary to based on their skillset, and then they output some indeterminate amount of work.
If I hire someone to watch my kids for me, and I pay them per time they watch my kids, they're a contractor, not an employee. The employee version is a nanny who lives in my home.
If someone is getting paid each time they perform a ride (and not otherwise), they're a contractor. An employee is someone that you are paying even when they're not driving.
I don't think "setting prices", "choosing which hours", etc. has anything to do with it.
If I hire someone to write a blog post for me this morning and tell them I need it by lunch time, I'm not giving them a choice of when they want to work – they need to do it now. But they're still clearly a contractor.
The question remains whether or not contractors under this definition need similar protections that are afforded to employees, and I definitely think this is a question worth debating/considering. But California conflating everything to be an employee seems like the worst way to approach the issue.