Here's California's guidance to taxi companies on how to classify workers. http://www.edd.ca.gov/pdf_pub_ctr/de231tc.pdf http://www.edd.ca.gov/pdf_pub_ctr/de23

Here's California's guidance to taxi companies on how to classify workers. http://www.edd.ca.gov/pdf_pub_ctr/de231tc.pdf http://www.edd.ca.gov/pdf_pub_ctr/de231tc.pdf [PDF] Cites precedent in Santa Cruz Transportation v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. Here's what's relevant to Uber: 1) Drivers could be terminated if they did not maintain good relations with the public. 2) The company required the drivers to account for the fares they received. 3) The work did not require the expertise of a skilled professional. 4) The drivers depended on the company’s dispatcher for their livelihood. 5) The drivers did not set their own rates, but were paid according to the number and distance of fares they carried. 6) There was no evidence of entrepreneurial risk. 7) The customers called the company and the company arranged for the performance of the services. 8) The drivers did not advertise their services. 9) The driver’s work was part of the regular business of the taxicab company.