A lot of IT contracting firms in the UK have in recent years had to drastically change their practices exactly because ensuring a contract does not create a relationship that would be deemed to be an employment relationship has gotten progressively harder, exactly because it was being massively abused, so this is a very poor argument in the UK.

The lack of ability to negotiate prices - be it with a middleman or the actual customer - is one of several tests to that points strongly towards an employee relationship, whether you're a driver or an IT contractor.

I'll note that I see you say elsewhere you're an IT contractor. If you're an IT contractor in the UK, I presume you've had to answer questions about IR35. If you haven't, then you really should have a discussion about IR35 with your accountant, because get that wrong and you risk facing a massive tax bill.

I don't understand what do you mean. Does the middleman have to accept whatever I say, or how does this negotiation work? Either we agree, or we don't, I don't see any difference between my IT contracting negotiation and using Uber. One would say that employment is hourly/daily/monthly/yearly based payment - so IT contracting would fall into that, but I don't see how Uber's per-ride rating would fit there. That the price is set by the middleman doesn't mean there isn't negotiation - the contractor can simply disagree, as opposed to an employee who has to do the assigned work and isn't paid based on its completion.

I'm an IT contractor in the UK, but not an UK resident nor citizen; my accountant said IR35 doesn't apply to me then.

There needs to be an actual ability to negotiate. If they say no, so be it, but Uber does not provide a mechanism for drivers to give a counter-offer, so there is no negotiation.

For your comparison to contracting, I've contracted quite a lot, and I have always had the ability to state my rate, and the client have had the ability to state theirs, and we arrive at something that may be mine, or theirs or something in between, but there has always been actual discussion.

With Uber you're presented with a price, and you take it or leave it, and if you leave it Uber never comes back with a higher price - on the contrary, if you keep leaving it they may penalise you.

That alone would not necessarily have caused it to be deemed employment, but combined with the other element that all points to drivers having very little control demonstrates that this is not a contract entered into by equals, but one were drivers are subservient, and that points very strongly to an employee relationship under UK law.

That there may be similar elements in your IT contracting does not mean Uber drivers are not employees, but that you might be.

E.g. when I did contracting:

* I always negotiated a rate, whether or not there was a middleman in the process.

* There was always a defined end to the contract (but it could be extended)

* I had marketing costs.

* I paid for my own equipment, and the costs were amortised over my contracts.

* I had more than one client at a time a lot of the time, but certainly more than one per year.

* I decided when I worked, and how to do the work, and where to work and it was not ordinarily in their offices.

Each one of those pointed towards me being a genuine contractor outside of IR35. Each one of them going the other way would not individually mean I was suddenly inside IR35 or in a deemed employment, but each additional one would increase the likelihood the relationship is an employment relationship.

EDIT: To make it clear, IR35 is the tax treatment only, but it's often a useful proxy to indicate whether or not you have a claim to be an employee, because the tests that indicate if you're within IR35 are much the same things a court or tribunal would consider if you were to ask them to rule on whether or not you're an employee.

EDIT2: Also, if you're a contractor in the UK but not resident that points to a short term contract. That does suggest you'd not be considered an employee, certainly.