Could this ruling be used to argue that the farmers in poultry raising contracts with Tyson, Poultry House, etc to raise chickens owned by Tyson are also employees?
1) Chicken farmers own and provide equipment that (2) the parent company requires and has set standards.
3) The contractee chooses farmers based on some criteria(not certain, but I would assume it's fairly extensive).
4) Contractee sets prices; the farmers do compete with each other for the best pay based on quality, but the farmers do not set prices. Chicken quality could be seen as equivalent to Uber's pay based on hours/distance driven.
5)Chicken farmers do possess skills that influence Tyson's profit or loss, so this point differs.
6)I'm very much doubt that the farmers can subcontract.
7) The chicken farmers are vital to the contractee's business; the profit of Tyson and other companies that use poultry contracts depends primarily on the supply and quality of the chickens raised by the contracted farmers.
Overall, Uber drivers and contracted chicken farmers seem fairly similar though the chicken farmers may conform slightly more to the traditional contractor role.
6) is critical, you can't just brush it off: someone who can hire other people to perform their labour is generally not an employee. What you're claiming applies to pretty much any fixed price contract, and it should be obvious that most such contracts don't result in an employee relationship. ALL of the necessary criteria must be met for that to happen - not just some.
e.g. I could be paid by a farmer to to work on such a chicken farm (presumably many people are), but I can't be paid by an Uber employee to cover their shift. That is a critical difference.
Then the farmer is just a manager exercising 'managerial skills' and his job cannot be sub-contracted, because Tyson only contracts with the manager/owner of the farm, not with someone that the manager/owner chooses to represent them before Tyson.
In South Africa, that seems to be exactly the case, at least for most of the rides I've taken on Uber. The vehicle owners are not the same as the drivers (most of the Uber drivers here wouldn't be able to afford their own vehicles). Uber invoices are issued on behalf of third parties that employ the drivers and own the cars (drivers are still rated directly as individuals on the Uber app).
This seems an extension of the existing South African minibus taxi industry model, where drivers make a daily quota for taxi owners, then keep the rest. (It has also led to at least one early-afternoon Uber ride with a very sleepy driver who was up from before dawn making his quota for his owner).
In any case, in South Africa, at least, Uber is clearly acting as a facilitator, rather than a direct employer.
I think it would be a pity if rulings like the one in OP lead to the worldwide emergence of capital-rich fleet owners taking on the role of employers, because Uber became hesitant to deal with individual driver/owners for fear of being designated as their employer.
That's the case for most taxi drivers in general in Vietnam & China. One family member/friend gets the taxi license and lends the car out while he's sleeping/drinking.
It's a little rare to actually see the same person driving as is in the official picture in the cab. But then again, the cab is used 24/7 for maximum efficiency...
I don't know if it is a distinction that matters, however, I was under the impression that Tyson et al., SELL the chicks at a set price to the farmer; then, offer to buy back all the chickens that are X days old after that, that meet their standards, whatever they are.
As to 1, I cannot find anything on Independent contractors moving livestock? I went to Purdue, and all truck drivers look like employees? Maybe I missed something?
1) Chicken farmers own and provide equipment that (2) the parent company requires and has set standards.
3) The contractee chooses farmers based on some criteria(not certain, but I would assume it's fairly extensive).
4) Contractee sets prices; the farmers do compete with each other for the best pay based on quality, but the farmers do not set prices. Chicken quality could be seen as equivalent to Uber's pay based on hours/distance driven.
5)Chicken farmers do possess skills that influence Tyson's profit or loss, so this point differs.
6)I'm very much doubt that the farmers can subcontract.
7) The chicken farmers are vital to the contractee's business; the profit of Tyson and other companies that use poultry contracts depends primarily on the supply and quality of the chickens raised by the contracted farmers.
Overall, Uber drivers and contracted chicken farmers seem fairly similar though the chicken farmers may conform slightly more to the traditional contractor role.