you say it seems straightforward, but your first standard for the case of a de facto employer matches what you explicitly list under a true contractor:
First you state:
>If, in the case of outfits like Handy and Uber and Instacart, the "employer" is laying down rules, requiring certain performance, setting the price, and enforcing metrics, they are an employer and the person doing the work is an employee who should be treated as such.
Then you state:
> If, in the case of outfits like Redbeacon, the site is collecting leads and distributing them while letting the two parties work out the arrangement for themselves, the site is a referrer and the contractor is a contractor. Redbeacon doesn't require that the contractor who I hire to paint a room show up in Redbeacon attire, only do work through Redbeacon, charge what Redbeacon dictates, and follow Redbeacon's rules for how the work is done.
So the standards you've listed start by saying an "employer" can't lay down rules and ends by giving an example of "true contractors" that follow Redbeacon's rules for how the work is done.
If you can't even write four paragraphs without a blatant contradiction[1] perhaps the case doesn't seem nearly as simple as you make out at all!
[1] (No offense, I spotted it because I was reading carefully for guidance and your two sentences were strikingly parallel and started with the exact words "if, in the case of outfits like" [a] and then [b], where you listed the difference.)
EDIT: I misread the second sentence as "Redbeacon doesn't require a, only b, c, and d."
Redbeacon requires none of the following things of its contractors:
1) that they show up in Redbeacon attire.
2) work solely through Redbeacon.
3) charge what Redbeacon dictates.
4) follow Redbeacon's rules for how the work is done.
>If, in the case of outfits like Redbeacon, the site is collecting leads and distributing them while letting the two parties work out the arrangement for themselves, the site is a referrer and the contractor is a contractor. Redbeacon doesn't require that the contractor who I hire to paint a room show up in Redbeacon attire, ONLY do work through Redbeacon, charge what Redbeacon dictates, and follow Redbeacon's rules for how the work is done.
What probably confused your reading is that the word "only", coming at the end of clause, seems like it changed the sense of the rest of the sentence, whereas I believe the author meant it to apply to the phrase "do work in Redbeacon clothing".
yes, this is what confused me. I made this clear in my second reply. Note that the first clause "only do work through Redbeacon" makes sense because it sounds like you're prohibiting disintermediation - i.e. swapping phone numbers through their site and then cutting Redbeacon out of the transaction.
I think you missed the presence of the word "doesn't" in the sentence about Redbeacon.
"Readbeacon DOESN'T require that the contractor who I hire to paint a room show up in Redbeacon attire, only do work through Redbeacon, charge what Redbeacon dictates, and follow Redbeacon's rules for how the work is done."
I didn't miss it! The sentence is actually ambiguous :) I read ONLY as a change in sense!! The sentence reads "Redbeacon doesn't require a, only b, c, and d."
I actually read this as:
Redbeacon DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT the CONTRACTOR who I hire to paint a room SHOW UP in Redbeacon attire; ONLY (THAT THEY) DO WORK through Redbeacon[1], CHARGE what Redbeacon dictates[2], and FOLLOW Redbeacon's rules for how the work is done.[3]
It's clear that this isn't what you meant. But not so clear that I didn't misread it. Rules against disintermediation, arbitration of disputes, terms and conditions, are all things that make contractors seem more like employees...
[1] i.e. not disintermediate by connecting directly off-site and cutting out redbeacon
First you state:
>If, in the case of outfits like Handy and Uber and Instacart, the "employer" is laying down rules, requiring certain performance, setting the price, and enforcing metrics, they are an employer and the person doing the work is an employee who should be treated as such.
Then you state:
> If, in the case of outfits like Redbeacon, the site is collecting leads and distributing them while letting the two parties work out the arrangement for themselves, the site is a referrer and the contractor is a contractor. Redbeacon doesn't require that the contractor who I hire to paint a room show up in Redbeacon attire, only do work through Redbeacon, charge what Redbeacon dictates, and follow Redbeacon's rules for how the work is done.
So the standards you've listed start by saying an "employer" can't lay down rules and ends by giving an example of "true contractors" that follow Redbeacon's rules for how the work is done.
If you can't even write four paragraphs without a blatant contradiction[1] perhaps the case doesn't seem nearly as simple as you make out at all!
[1] (No offense, I spotted it because I was reading carefully for guidance and your two sentences were strikingly parallel and started with the exact words "if, in the case of outfits like" [a] and then [b], where you listed the difference.)
EDIT: I misread the second sentence as "Redbeacon doesn't require a, only b, c, and d."