[cornholio]

"Gig work" when dependent on a single major market mediator, such as Uber, Door Dash etc. is clearly a form of masked employment, your criteria notwithstanding.

The fundamental feature of freelance work is that you get your own customers and you are not dependent on a market maker who cuts you in.

Some of the other criteria seem arbitrary. Of course companies want to pay their employees per task, only if a customer is present, they love zero cost employees that are available as a reserve workforce to pick up any sudden demand. A monthly base salary is a labour protection for the employee, forcing the employer to take the business risk and distribute revenues from the peak times to the slow times, ensuring a stable revenue for their workforce.

[throwaway66023]

It's a choice of the freelancer to work for only one app. Drivers in my city usually use multiple - Uber, Bolt, a local taxi company app. I had many Bolt rides in an Uber branded car and vice versa, and many Uber/Bolt rides in a "normal taxi" car. I saw the drivers switch between the different apps, choosing which one offers them the best rides right in that moment.

Food delivery is the same - I saw drivers have multiple different branded bags in the car when they delivered food to me.

I really don't see how it's masked employment if this can be done without any issue.

> The fundamental feature of freelance work is that you get your own customers and you are not dependent on a market maker who cuts you in.

They got their own customers - the gig work platform is the customer. How do you even define "getting their own customers"? Do I have to take them out to nice dinners? Is an ad in newspaper sufficient? What about an online ad? And what about an ad on a job platform? I worked for a private jet Air Operator company - their entire business was done through Avinode platform, that's basically Uber but for private jets. Are they masked employees of Avinode too?

Would you say that developers working through Upwork or Toptal are not freelancers? I specifically asked my tax government office this question - they said it doesn't matter whether there is a marketplace, what matters are the criteria I listed above.

> that are available as a reserve workforce to pick up any sudden demand.

That doesn't sound like "set your own schedule".

[cornholio]

> you are not dependent on a market maker who cuts you in.

Is the software freelance market created and dominated by Upwork, which arbitrarily sets prices and defines the product? No, they are just one of the many marketplaces. Customers don't expect "an Upwork solution" because there is no such thing, they are fully aware a myriad small developers sell their services there. The small developers take on business risk and they are rewarded with market freedom.

Compare that with Uber, where customers are interacting with the company as a finite product, they "get an Uber". In many cities, there is no such thing as a "ride sharing market". Uber might compete with other transport solutions, but the individual drivers clealry do not have market freedom, they are a fungible workforce.

The notion that drivers have Uber as a customer is just silly. By that standard, any employee has their employer as a temporary important client, erasing any distinction and employee protection. The clients are clearly the riders who use the aps. Can Uber drivers compete with Uber and short circuit their fees by establishing direct to customer relationships? If it's generally no, then Uber is not a marketplace, it's an end product and the suppliers of the services are either employees or other subcontractors that have their own employment law obligations.

[lotsofpulp]

> A monthly base salary is a labour protection for the employee, forcing the employer to take the business risk and distribute revenues from the peak times to the slow times, ensuring a stable revenue for their workforce.

This sounds like it should be the concern of the government, not a business. Such as a universal basic income.

[cornholio]

The government takes care of that need by regulating tha labour market and shifting the burden onto the private sector, which in turn passes it over to the consumers through prices. It's a functional system more than a century old that is politically feasible today, unlike most UBI proposals. So until we can have superior alternatives in place, companies aren't really free to "disrupt" that social model.

[lotsofpulp]

The government is clearly not taking care of that by regulating the labor market, given the difficult it has in classifying “gig work”.

For example

> The fundamental feature of freelance work is that you get your own customers and you are not dependent on a market maker who cuts you in.

Are electrical/plumbing/painting/etc subcontractors hired by a general contractors freelancing?