I could get into things like (a) how most Uber drivers get to write off $0.575/mi as an expense when they actually only incur actual costs of $0.20/mi, (b) how contractors get to write off other things employees don't (like health insurance premiums), etc, but explaining those clearly in a single blog post is difficult.
Also, keep in mind this post completely ignores opportunity cost, which is arguably the most important aspect and one that is incredibly unique to each individual.
If you're just looking to make a bit of money, then sure -- working once a month during a surge pricing event is ideal. If you're looking to earn a living driving for uber, being an employee appears to be better.
In SF, minimum wage will be $15 by 2018, and indexed to cpi thereafter, further eroding the argument.
Also, as minimum wage increases, then those employee jobs become more appealing, so theoretically the market rate for contractors would also increase in order to keep it a viable option. Though don't forget other benefits; many drivers value the flexibility more than anything.
It's also worth pointing out that workers often value flexibility when they have a second, predictable income source that covers basic necessities—like a spouse's income. For workers who need the money to make rent, it's far less credible to say that they can "choose" whether they want to work or not.
Uber drivers may prefer to be contractors, but their opinion isn't the only one that matters. Allowing them to be contractors may expand the legal definition of contract work, which affects millions of other workers who have nothing to do with Uber or the sharing economy.
Agreed on flexibility being more important when it's not the primary source of income. 'Different drivers have different needs and desires' is really the takeaway here.
And agreed. It's unfortunate that the sharing / on-demand economy are just now bringing light to the nearly 40% of the workforce that is contract/contingent labor. Honestly, I don't think most people appreciate the significant implications the Uber/Lyft lawsuits might have on the labor markets.
Consumers would revolt, because they hate surge pricing. It is only acceptable because Uber argued that it was necessary to get drivers on the streets. If Uber starts setting shifts, then it looks to the consumer like pure greed. A probable outcome is regulation to cap fares. The main reason to set shifts is to maximize asset utilization, but Uber doesn't own the assets (vehicles), so this isn't an issue.
