In the United States v. Silk, 1946 case, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether coal unloaders and truck drivers working for Albert Silk Coal Co., were employees or independent contractors under the Social Security Act. The company argued that they were not liable for social security taxes because these workers were independent contractors rather than employees. However, after examining factors such as control over work details and permanency of relationship between parties involved, the court ruled in favor of the government stating that these workers should be classified as employees due to their economic dependence on and integral role within Silk's business operations. This decision expanded upon previous interpretations of "employee" under federal law by emphasizing a broader view based on economic reality rather than technical concepts.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Silk, Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision to classify coal unloaders as employees rather than independent contractors was inconsistent with previous rulings and Congressional intent. He contended that Congress intended a broad interpretation of "employee" under the Social Security Act, but not so expansive as to include those who are in business for themselves. The justice believed that factors such as control over work details and permanency of relationship should be considered when determining employment status, but they shouldn't be decisive on their own. Instead, he suggested an approach where all aspects of economic reality are examined holistically to determine whether individuals are economically dependent upon businesses or essentially run their own businesses. In this case, he felt that coal unloaders were more akin to independent contractors due to their ability to negotiate rates and choose clients freely.