That would be employment then - uber and lyft claim that they are self employed contractors not employees - which is what all the legal arguments are about.
But that's crazy. If you're a store owner and painting the awning is a one man, once every three year job, you are not going to employ someone to do it. You are going to contract someone. If you are taking a taxi from the airport to the home you are not employing them, you are contracting them.
Having been a full time Lyft and Uber driver for 1.5 years, I honestly don't think classification as employees makes sense. I'm paid by each ride (which you could think of as an individual contract). I have walkaway rights at any given time. I could be logged on to both platforms simultaneously and pick up whichever came first (logging off of the other one as appropriate). Nobody forced me to work any given hours. This is very much unlike any employment condition I've ever been in.
But a self employed painter is self employed - whereas the legal Q is are these "gig" economy really self employed.
The self employed painter could send some one else to do the work for example - I know employment law is a trickily area for civilians (ie non hr specialist and lawyers) to get there head around
A self-employed painter could not send someone else to do the work (without the client's consent) if he was personally contracted to do it. There's no contradiction there.
If you "personally contract" with some one you are their employer.
You might hire Joe Blogs And Son's to do a painting job but it does not mean Joe Blogs does the work personaly it might be his son or he may "get a lad in" to do some of the work
