> what's the point of beating around the bush and inventing that one of the marks of employment is a "sometimes-lousy arrangement"? I don't think anyone seeks

> what's the point of beating around the bush and inventing that one of the marks of employment is a "sometimes-lousy arrangement"? I don't think anyone seeks to apply such a test; the lousiness of the arrangement is incidental. I had attempted to argue that the mere fact that workers knowingly take a questionable or even bad deal does not mean they are contractors. The legal status of employee vs. contractor does not hinge on that.