1. The extent to which services are integral to the employer's business. Greater integration favors an employee-employer relationship.
2. The permanence of the relationship. More established relationships favor employee status.
3. The amount of investment in equipment. More investment suggests an independent contractor relationship.
4. The degree of control by the principal. More control favors employee-employer status.
5. The amount of financial risk. More opportunity for profit or loss favors an independent contractor relationship.
6. The amount of initiative, judgment or foresight in open-market competition with others required for the success of the claimed independent enterprise. Entrepreneurial and distinctive work favors an independent contractor relationship.
Hitting ONE out of 6 is very unlikely to qualify uber drivers as employees (#1). Particularly in the face of very strong counter bullets (#2 , #3, #4)
this is something for the courts to decide. I am very pro employee and contractor protection, but the legal distinction is not arbitrary. Your instance that YOU absolutely know for sure shows great hubris.
Just because you are not creative enough to think of a valid reason does not mean the rest of the world is unable to.
not-a-secret decision to not install a urea injection system. they don't work by themselves and never talk to others
These are teams they talk mostly internally. The drive mode switching team could very plausibly have no idea what a urea injection system is, let alone being aware of a design decision.
Plus there appears to be evidence that the engineers were WELL aware of the problem because when it first came up they engaged in all sorts of delaying tactics.
I have no idea if they did or did not. Nor do I care. I am just pointing out that it is in fact VERY easy to hide critical actions like this in large organizations with very specialized teams.
Just because you walk onto the field in the all star MLB game does not mean you actually are competent enough to truly be there. .
At best when this situation arises the news agencies are children playing in a professional league of a game they do not even understand or know that is going on.
If anyone gives confidential, secret, top secret etc they are personally responsible for that information being COMPLETELY breached.
Doing so could still be considered a worthwhile whistle blow, but you go into the situation knowing that you are personally, morally and legally responsible for exposing the whole worth to the information. Denying this a child's lie.
" My main point was this: if the press deals with top secret information all the time (and very definitely get away with it), why are THEY not facing charges and prison time, along with the Washington insiders who leak to them?"
No they dont. and No they dont. Above I let you pretend that News agencies get exposed to top secret information often. That is simply not true (luckily) The average reporter in their lifetime will never get access top secret information. A more valid estimate would be something like maybe 2 or 3 a decade. They do get ahold of information which is considered secret and confidential a bit more than that.
Also when the authorities do find about this heads do, and should roll. Some do unfortunately get away with it, but it is not, nor should that be the standard.
10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.