Only the plumber is a contractor/employer scenario. The rest of the examples are irrelevant.
Individual plumbers are often contractors. If they work for a larger plumbing company, they'd be an employee. There are specific criteria at play here:
> A worker is an employee when the business has the right to direct and control the work performed by the worker, even if that right is not exercised.
Uber sets the driver standards, how the work should be done, policies, pricing, etc. They clearly have some aspects of an employer/employee relationship. The line's a little blurry in spots; I can see both sides of the argument, and I'd say it's clear the law didn't anticipate this scenario.
They are person or company leasing labor aka providing services. The other items I listed were both services and goods.
The point is that you shouldn't force a platform to employ or act as anything other than what it is (a routing system). Uber is not directly employing people, it's connecting customers to produces of a service (taxis, effectively). It's also acting as the payment processor and price setter. Everyone can know what they're getting / paying ahead of time. It's a transaction.
Individual plumbers are often contractors. If they work for a larger plumbing company, they'd be an employee. There are specific criteria at play here:
https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/understanding-employee-vs-contr...
> A worker is an employee when the business has the right to direct and control the work performed by the worker, even if that right is not exercised.
Uber sets the driver standards, how the work should be done, policies, pricing, etc. They clearly have some aspects of an employer/employee relationship. The line's a little blurry in spots; I can see both sides of the argument, and I'd say it's clear the law didn't anticipate this scenario.