> 1. Uber actively solicits drivers to work certain hours and pays bonuses/hourly salaries to do so.
Do you mean surge pricing? Either way, this doesn't meet the bar of being an "employee." If you can work only 4 hours a week, then you are setting your own hours.
> 2. Uber, at least historically, has solicited drivers to travel outside their county
Define solicited. The law allows a company to encourage contractors to do certain things, but if it's not mandated then it's not instructions.
> all other equipment to facilitate the ride is provided by Uber
Uber does not always (or even usually) supply the iPhone. In fact, drivers have to pay Uber to rent an iPhone if they want it.[1] That's indicative of a contracting relationship.
The fact that Uber writes the software is immaterial: Uber is not contracting drivers to provide a ride-sharing service, it's contracting them to drive from point A to point B. The fact that Ebay provides the software for transacting on their marketplace doesn't make Ebay sellers employees.
> 4. It is my understanding Uber will finance vehicles for Uber drivers, making Uber the owner of the cars being used by Uber drivers in many cases.
While Uber does sometimes offer financing, that does not imply Uber owns the car. More importantly, this has no bearing on the majority of drivers who are driving non-Uber-financed cars.
> 5. Where ride sharing violates the law, ranging from traffic tickets to criminal arrests, Uber will pay for the Uber driver's lawyer.
Like you said, there is not caselaw determining this. But I don't agree that it necessarily implies an employment relationship.
If I, as a freelance developer, built a casino site for a client and was later charged in the lawsuit resulting from the operation of an online gambling site I would expect the client to offer assistance with legal counsel.
Also, do you have evidence of Uber paying for representation when it comes to non-ride-sharing traffic tickets?
No, hourly wages. Along the lines of emails/notifications going out to drivers telling them if they drive in certain areas/times they will be paid an additional hourly rate. For example, in Florida they will recruit out of town drivers into different towns for eventsm such as Spring Break in Panama City where recruited drivers were arrested, and recruites drivers to do this by offering an hourly wage during these times.
>Uber does not always (or even usually) supply the iPhone.
I have had multiple drivers tell me otherwise. I don't know why they would make it up, but take note, amazingly all Uber drivers will have an iphone (figure ~50% would have an Android...but nope all iphones).
>While Uber does sometimes offer financing, that does not imply Uber owns the car. More importantly, this has no bearing on the majority of drivers who are driving non-Uber-financed cars.
Perhaps in your eyes, but the eyes of the law care who owns the equipment, and the law does not have to make broad decisions, they can look at each specific set of facts on a case by case basis.
>If I, as a freelance developer, built a casino site for a client and was later charged in the lawsuit resulting from the operation of an online gambling site I would expect the client to offer assistance with legal counsel.
That is a very odd expectation you have, especially if it is not explicitly in your Agreement, and I'd ask anyone to show me an IC Agreement where the company agrees to provide a lawyer for the contractor should the contractor's performance of the agreement violate the law (as such an Agreement would be unenforceable as you can not contract to break the law). Moreover, having drafted 100's of IC Agreements, I always include language to the complete opposite, to the effect that the contractor must warrant that their performance of the Agreement will comply with Federal, State and local laws and otherwise the contractor indemnify the company if they breach any laws.
>Also, do you have evidence of Uber paying for representation when it comes to non-ride-sharing traffic tickets?
I live in Miami/Fort Lauderdale, where Uber drivers are regularly ticketed and sometimes arrested. Its common knowledge around here Uber pays for the lawyer and pays fines. In fact Uber had an outstanding debt to Broward County alone for ~$3M.
>...it's a pretty novel interpretation that financing somehow transfers ownership.
Its not uncommon for lender to be on the title and hold title until the loan is paid then transfer it to you. Hence why if you default they can repo, because you are not the owner, otherwise it would be stealing.
>And where is there any evidence of Uber owning the equipment.
Some drivers claiming they paid for the Uber iPhone, some might have to put a deposit and others getting it free. FWIW every driver I have spoken to in person said they were given an iPhone for free.
As to the cars, I did originally understand Uber was acting as a Lender, it is anything but clear. Moreover, Uber has financing, leasing and rental programs. If you lease a car through the Uber program your payments go to Uber not the dealer or a lender. Eventually there will be a case where the discovery will answer the question if Uber ever found its way onto the title of any of the vehicles being driven by its drivers. Separately, they are currently being probed in CA for at least the leasing practice (not having to do with the IC issue).
Do you mean surge pricing? Either way, this doesn't meet the bar of being an "employee." If you can work only 4 hours a week, then you are setting your own hours.
> 2. Uber, at least historically, has solicited drivers to travel outside their county
Define solicited. The law allows a company to encourage contractors to do certain things, but if it's not mandated then it's not instructions.
> all other equipment to facilitate the ride is provided by Uber
Uber does not always (or even usually) supply the iPhone. In fact, drivers have to pay Uber to rent an iPhone if they want it.[1] That's indicative of a contracting relationship.
The fact that Uber writes the software is immaterial: Uber is not contracting drivers to provide a ride-sharing service, it's contracting them to drive from point A to point B. The fact that Ebay provides the software for transacting on their marketplace doesn't make Ebay sellers employees.
> 4. It is my understanding Uber will finance vehicles for Uber drivers, making Uber the owner of the cars being used by Uber drivers in many cases.
While Uber does sometimes offer financing, that does not imply Uber owns the car. More importantly, this has no bearing on the majority of drivers who are driving non-Uber-financed cars.
> 5. Where ride sharing violates the law, ranging from traffic tickets to criminal arrests, Uber will pay for the Uber driver's lawyer.
Like you said, there is not caselaw determining this. But I don't agree that it necessarily implies an employment relationship.
If I, as a freelance developer, built a casino site for a client and was later charged in the lawsuit resulting from the operation of an online gambling site I would expect the client to offer assistance with legal counsel.
Also, do you have evidence of Uber paying for representation when it comes to non-ride-sharing traffic tickets?
[1] https://help.uber.com/h/1eaa91f9-be2e-463d-809a-df7e4cdeb593