If you're right and file a complaint, don't assume that you and your colleagues will be reclassified as employees and then continue working.
The position, as you describe, seems like a bad deal for you, but also not a big money maker for the company. If the company has to reclassify you, they may pay a settlement for back pay, but then decide it's not worth continuing those positions as employees. So you all might get a chunk of money up front, but cutoff the future revenue.
I personally wouldn't want to be responsible for cutting that opportunity off for my colleagues. In your shoes I'd just walk away and chalk up the wasted time to a learning mistake.
I strongly disagree with this. It isn't the OP that would be responsible for cutting off these jobs. It would be the employer who wants to be able to continue to take advantage of employees, as they have been for years. Calling them out on their illegal behavior is not unreasonable. If they react by cutting jobs, that's unfortunate but on them, not on the OP. And those employees, who are currently getting screwed, would leave with fat settlements to help cushion the blow of any potential lost jobs.
THIS! 100% THIS! You are NOT responsible for any actions, not downstream consequences, from your employer not following the rules.
I agree with these points. I don't see them going back to any of the previous styles of working if they need to get away from 1099's. Having the benefit of OP's response regarding the importance of the job, I would say that the company would probably decide to structure this position differently. I could see them bringing in as many people full time as they need to cover those 3 hour blocks/shifts. If those shifts are mostly spent waiting for phone calls, they would add related office tasks to fill the time spent waiting. I would think they'd still keep the commission-based pay to encourage engagement of clients outside of office hours. I think going back to paying an hourly wage for the 3-hour blocks/shifts would make the position
more like an employee, not less.
When and where to do the work is one category of the level of instruction that would lead to the work being W2 instead of 1099, but I think there
are legitimate 1099 situations where a company
does direct when to do the work. For example, language interpretation for a courthouse, or other business can only happen when the parties requiring the service are trying to talk to each other. Also some types of IT outsourcing require availability during office hours (I'm imagining a situation where a bank or other non-IT business needs some IT services). In construction, it's common for both the owner and Contractor to impose work hour limits on a jobsite.
Have you had a look at the IRS website?
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/independent-contractor-self-employed-or-employee The links under the Common Law Rules are particularly good.
It makes several points that I see backed up in your posts, for example:
"Employee benefits ... Businesses generally do not grant these benefits to independent contractors"
"If a worker provides services that are a key aspect of the business, it is more likely that the business will have the right to direct and control his or her activities. For example, if a law firm hires an attorney, it is likely that it will present the attorney’s work as its own and would have the right to control or direct that work. This would indicate an employer-employee relationship." -- it's interesting they mention attorneys here, because lots of other companies hire attorneys as 1099 work, but their function is as a supportive role, not the main aspect of the business
You mentioned about the possibility of working long hours and ending up with low pay, but "having the possibility of incurring a loss indicates that the worker is an independent contractor."
But very related to your concern over the 3-hour shift blocks, and rating system, is it shows a degree of instruction missing from 1099 relationships "The key consideration is whether the business has retained the right to control the details of a worker's performance or instead has given up that right." If you're being paid only by commission when products are purchased through you (the results), then you should have the ability as a 1099 person to stop doing those 3-hour shifts and not be penalized. Because the 3-hour shifts are details of how the work is performed.
I'm having a difficult time understanding how these 3-hour shifts work, but if it's a key to their business model that this period be staffed by you or another part time fellow, than I think that points to an employer-employee relationship. I believe, but haven't seen it in the IRS link, that the fact that they need
multiple people in your position also points to an employer-employee relationship.