Re: I am conflicted on this
Maybe this is a generational thing, but I've never liked the concept of protecting people when they don't want protected.
I think different legal frames and cultural backgrounds lead to some misunderstanding here.
In EU the issues with Uber have little to do with unwanted protection. Fact of the matter is that Uber tries to dodge their legal obligations because it's advantageous for them financially. That this works in the US is possible because there are different/ no employer legal obligations here with regard to for example health insurance or ensuring other (employer) social contributions (e.g pension payments, disability).
Again, we can argue whether this is about protection, but that discussion is cut short because of the simple fact that it's the law, whether you like it or not. Hence, non-compliance is illegal, and, as Uber now finds, trying to outsmart it troublesome.
I'm afraid that, as we find frequently, it isn't so much about the individual (your Uber drivers are happy being contractors), but more about somebody convincing you of that point because it serves their (bigger) purpose... As you mention yourself with your (very correct) Vietnam point...