10 ms·

Seattle's Uber union law set to go into effect

83 points by juanplusjuan 10y ago

Flammy 10y ago
Interestingly all drivers are covered, but not all drivers will be voting members. > only to drivers who have been with a company for the past 90 days and who have made at least 52 trips to or from Seattle during any three-month period in the past 12 months. Lyft and Uber fought against this, under the logic that more part-time drivers are less likely to support unionization. Meanwhile: > Teamsters Local 117 and other drivers have pushed for stricter criteria [1] http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/city-unveils-rules-for-unionizing-uber-lyft-drivers/ http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/city-unvei...
- charleslmunger 10y ago
  Not a huge surprise that unions would push for fewer drivers to be voting members - one tried and true union tactic is to negotiate with an employer to take money from non-powerful-union-members and give it to union members. That's how you end up with pay by seniority rather than performance, layoffs where the union decides who gets laid off, and pension deals that are unavailable to new workers.
  - bogomipz 10y ago
    Can you elaborate on this: >"One tried and true union tactic is to negotiate with an employer to take money from non-powerful-union-members and give it to union members." What exactly is negotiated directly between the employer? How does this redistribution work in practice? Thanks.
    - tomnipotent 10y ago
      My understanding is that non-union employees are required to pay union dues since they still benefit from collective bargaining. Some states & contracts have an opt-out.
      - cperciva 10y ago
        That's the theory, yes. But there are plenty of examples of unions throwing some of their members (typically part-time employees or those without seniority) under a bus in order to get benefits for the rest; if the members being thrown under a bus don't even get to vote, they're even more screwed.
      - bogomipz 10y ago
        I am wondering how a practice of an employer requiring non-union members to pay union dues would be legal. Doesn't this constitute a tax? Edit: it looks like this practice is not legal in right-to-work states in the US. This article seems to explain "Union security agreements" pretty well if anyone is interested: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/employee-rights-book/chapter15-5.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/employee-r... I wonder are non-union workers in union shops ever pressured to join?
  - wfo 10y ago
    And it's also how you end up with weekends, benefits, worker protection, full-time employment and reasonable wages.
    - Flammy 10y ago
      I think the point is more limited the voting body causes unequal membership. Basic worker benefits and protection can happen regardless of the number of voting members...
      - bogomipz 10y ago
        That's how I inferred the OPs comment as well. Shouldn't a union that represents the majority of its workers also be majority vote?
        pm24601 10y ago
        No -- the people most affected by the decisions should have the greater voice. If a driver drives once: 1. they have less knowledge about working conditions 2. the trip was more of a fling with being an Uber driver and not a source of income. 3. It is easier for Uber or Lyft to stack the deck with drivers who are less informed on the issues
        charleslmunger 10y ago
        On the other hand, a union that's run by people depending on uber as a full time source of income has a significant interest in reducing the number of people driving for a "fling" or part time - more surge pricing, more guarantee minimum income from uber, less risk of low ratings leading to punitive action, since uber can't just replace them easily. My point is that while unions benefit some workers, they don't benefit all workers. It's not a black and white situation.
    - chronic0d 10y ago
      > And it's also how you end up with weekends, benefits, worker protection, full-time employment and reasonable wages. This will only apply to the top 10% of Union workers. The workers who came late (or the majority of Uber drivers) will receive less pay, have less power, work longer hours, and fewer benefits than the "senior" drivers. Do you really think unions will help everyone? They, just like everything else in this world, are designed to benefit the top.
  - crdoconnor 10y ago
    >That's how you end up with pay by seniority rather than performance You get pay by seniority as a compromise because it's an objective measure, it correlates with performance and it can't be gamed by either side.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      Does that correlation hold true for jobs already based on seniority?
    - richdougherty 10y ago
      > it correlates with performance "Results suggest that, contrary to common beliefs, job tenure is largely unrelated to job performance." http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001879113001395 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001879113...
      - crdoconnor 10y ago
        "we conducted meta-analyses on the relationships of job tenure with four types of job performance: core task performance, citizenship behavior, creativity and innovative behavior, and counterproductive work behavior" Paywalled. However, the abstract ("citizenship behavior" / "creativity"... meaning what exactly?) hints that the measures are largely subjective and somewhat bullshitty. Here's another, unpaywalled study: http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mamcdani/Publications/McDaniel,%20Schmidt%20&%20Hunter%201988%20Job%20experience.pdf http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mamcdani/Publications/McDaniel,%2... "Results indicate that for all levels of job experience and for both low- and high-complexity jobs, the correlation between job experience and job performance is positive. " (up to 12 yrs)
  - valarauca1 10y ago
    That's how you end up with pay by seniority rather than performance Frankly this is the fault of the employer not the union. Yes the union is the one _forcing_ the employer to enact such policies but _why_ does the union exist? Because the employer treated their employees unfairly. Unions are a bandage on a gaping wound, yes you can say the bandage isn't doing the best job. But why do you have the gaping wound to start with?
    - avar 10y ago
      Whatever the historical reasons for power structures, once enacted they tend to serve their own ends. That they're disenfranchising some of their own members should be a big red flag.
  - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
    > unions...push for fewer drivers to be voting members Leaders are incentivised to minimise the number of key supporters they need to stay in power [1]. Having a large pool of potential supporters is a plus. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectorate_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectorate_theory
- solidsnack9000 10y ago
  This rule excludes two kinds of people: * People who are new to Uber. * People who don't work at Uber very much. These are people who know less about what it's like to work at Uber or don't have very much skin in the game. In any voting system, if you let people vote who don't know very much about the environment they are voting in or don't have much at stake, it makes fair representation difficult (unless you have fractional votes). To take an extreme example: people who visit Louisiana or have family there are certainly affected by state laws but that does not necessarily mean it is fair for them to vote on the same footing as Louisiana residents.
  - analog31 10y ago
    It also prevents Uber from paying an unlimited number of people to sign up just to manipulate the union.
    - solidsnack9000 10y ago
      From a certain point of view you can see these as people who don't have much skin in the game -- so they are willing to sell their votes. A more insidious way for this to work is that Uber could slightly favor candidates who are likely to vote their way during the on-boarding process -- varying their strategy on a month by month basis, depending on what issues are coming up for vote. You don't need a crushing margin -- and maybe don't want one -- just a good solid 3-4%.
  - mikeryan 10y ago
    Its more then that. People who drive for Uber rarely or are new to it don't want to pay union dues and are likely going to vote against the union. The city didn't want a bunch of part-time or brand new drivers killing a union for the larger "full-time" group over union dues. Its a smart and relatively fair play by the authors of the law. The reason Uber/Lyft want these folks to vote is that they're likely to opt out just because of the dues.
    - spoonie 10y ago
      I get that union dues can be a contentious issue for members. However, does organizing necessitate membership fees? It feels like jumping the gun to assume right away that an uber-drivers'-union would both have dues and they would be expensive enough to put off new members.
ams6110 10y ago
Will Uber simply ignore the law, as they have done in other cases?
- dexterdog 10y ago
  Hopefully
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    I wonder if you'd feel the same way if I hoped someone would sustain a DDoS against their API endpoints due to their egregious violations of laws around the world; because I'd be fine with that. Or is it only okay when Uber is disrupting the law and labor rights?
    - grapevines 10y ago
      Labor rights were an important fight... In the 19th century. The era of digital technology and communication ought to have a new approach to Labor laws. I think it's important to remember that in the current case, we are dealing with a single company doing business as a US corporation, but in the theoretical case, we could be dealing with a peer-to-peer network where the prices-per-ride are determined in the decentralized market. Crush uber with union laws, City restrictions, taxes, and other regulations, and a successor will fill the void which cannot be brought down so easily. It's not like uber is threatening to disconnect the driver if they don't work, it is entirely an at-will engagement. Like many unions today, the intent is to cement the power of the status-quo and raise the barrier of entry for new drivers.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - athenot 10y ago
        > it is entirely an at-will engagement Yes but one side has significantly more leverage, bargaining power and resources to skew the contract in their favor than the other. We don't think a large multinational and a 1-person shop have the same bargain power and access to markets, nor do we generally consider the US and Lichtenstein to have equal powers. Yet when it comes to employment, it's bizarre than some consider an individual with maybe $10,000 in the bank is somehow on equal footing with a company with over $10,000,000,000 in the bank.
valarauca1 10y ago
Move the goalposts much? I'm discussing the underlying problem why the union formed you are still attacking the fundamental existence of unions. As I stated Unions are a bandage on a gaping wound, yes you can say the bandage isn't doing the best job. But why do you have the gaping wound to start with? You say That they're disenfranchising some of their own members should be a big red flag. Okay but that doesn't disagree with my core point. Unions aren't a solution to the underlying problem. I agree with you. Why are you still attacking a temporary solution to a much larger problem? Do you just hate unions that much? :.:.: Whatever the historical reasons for power structures, once enacted they tend to serve their own ends. Power Structures are a spook! - Avar and Max Stirner That they're disenfranchising some of their own members should be a big red flag. Enforcement of a power structure is disenfranchisement? Every single organization in modern society experiences this. Either you truly are on some next level Max Strirner individualism or you don't really realize what you insinuating (which is every single human organization is a fundamental oppression again humanity, this is what Strirner wrote about).
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  > a temporary solution to a much larger problem There might be disageeement on how "temporary" this will be.
  - valarauca1 10y ago
    The temporary problem is a lack of respect and exploitation of workers in their employment. The employer can correct this anytime they want. They refuse too and fuel employees will to unionize. The problem is as temporary as the employer wishes for it to be. This is no different then any other management driven mistake. Why is it okay our site crashes every 48 hours? Management won't allocate money to fix it. Why are our workers striking for better pay? Management won't allocate money to fix it. You may argue the money doesn't exist to fix that issue. Which is really just stating the company is going out of business at a rather slow rate...
    - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
prodigal_erik 10y ago
That's normal. The point of a union is to threaten vandalism and violence to prevent non-members from offering their labor at market prices.
- literallycancer 10y ago
  Good drone.
- dang 10y ago
  Ideological trolling isn't allowed on HN. It results in flamewars, and divisive topics are hard enough to discuss without it. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13298026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13298026 and marked it off-topic.
literallycancer 10y ago
And you even made a new account to post this, how cute.
- dang 10y ago
  Please don't post uncivil comments. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13297287 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13297287 and marked it off-topic.
haberman 10y ago
I really don't understand why a municipal law would dictate the organizational structure of a union (a private organization). If Uber drivers want to organize, why do they need the Seattle City Council to pass a law first allowing it?
- mikeryan 10y ago
  Independent contractors (the drivers) can join or create a "union" but they don't have the same privileges as a traditional (Full-Time employee) bargaining unit - most importantly a union of ICs have no collective bargaining rights. For example striking independent contractors are not protected under the National Labor Relations Act. My understanding is that this law is meant to bridge some of the gaps in the labor laws by the drivers being independent contractors.
- ahh 10y ago
  I don't know for certain with this law in particular, but typically the answer is that the description is a lie: they are not being granted permission from the council to organize. The council is banning Uber from hiring anyone not represented by the union (should they vote for it, but the fix is in, as noted by the carefully gerrymandered voting rules.) Anyone can organize at any time, and the employer is free to tell you to pound sand and hire someone else. Seattle's trying to change that. Expect rates to go up and availability to go down.
  - mikeryan 10y ago
    Anyone can organize at any time, and the employer is free to tell you to pound sand and hire someone else This is not correct. Independent Contractors can organize but they have no right's covered by the National Labor Relations Act - which means they have little power or protections of a traditional union including collective bargaining rights. Organizing groups (who are covered by the NLRA) can not be fired by the employers for organizing.
    - chimeracoder 10y ago
      > Independent Contractors can organize but they have no right's covered by the National Labor Relations Act - which means they have little power or protections of a traditional union including collective bargaining rights. Well, they don't have the normal protections that employees have, either, because they're independent contractors and not employees. That has nothing to do with the NLRA or collective bargaining rights. Part of the point of independent contracting is that the relationship isn't an employment relationship, so the same rights aren't relevant. If you're saying that this is something that should be protected for Uber drivers, the real answer is that they should be classified as employees, not to blur the responsibilities of an independent contracting relationship.
cavisne 10y ago
I wonder if Uber will just leave, like they did in Austin. Its hard to imagine the impact this would have, uber has a huge presence in seattle. I would imagine this would be political suicide for the council, certainly the impact it would have on my life would turn me into a full time shill for whoever opposes it politically
- adrienne 10y ago
  So you're totally fine with workers getting exploited as long as your life is fine? Good to know!
  - brightball 10y ago
    Unless I'm missing something...is Uber forcing people to drive for them? If not...how exactly is Uber exploiting them?
- bruceb 10y ago
  seems unlikely having Uber leave town would have a great impact on a councilperson's reelection prospects.
- pm24601 10y ago
  :-) In my experience with local politics, Uber driver-status has little weight in elections. Now on the other hand, favoring of building a highrise apartment building next to "my" house -- that can lead to an election loss. (where "my" is some very effective local resident)
sageikosa 10y ago
collectivists unite

83 points by juanplusjuan 10y ago

Interestingly all drivers are covered, but not all drivers will be voting members. > only to drivers who have been with a company for the past 90 days and who have made at least 52 trips to or from Seattle during any three-month period in the past 12 months. Lyft and Uber fought against this, under the logic that more part-time drivers are less likely to support unionization. Meanwhile: > Teamsters Local 117 and other drivers have pushed for stricter criteria [1] http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/city-unveils-rules-for-unionizing-uber-lyft-drivers/ http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/city-unvei...

charleslmunger 10y ago
Not a huge surprise that unions would push for fewer drivers to be voting members - one tried and true union tactic is to negotiate with an employer to take money from non-powerful-union-members and give it to union members. That's how you end up with pay by seniority rather than performance, layoffs where the union decides who gets laid off, and pension deals that are unavailable to new workers.
- bogomipz 10y ago
  Can you elaborate on this: >"One tried and true union tactic is to negotiate with an employer to take money from non-powerful-union-members and give it to union members." What exactly is negotiated directly between the employer? How does this redistribution work in practice? Thanks.
  - tomnipotent 10y ago
    My understanding is that non-union employees are required to pay union dues since they still benefit from collective bargaining. Some states & contracts have an opt-out.
    - cperciva 10y ago
      That's the theory, yes. But there are plenty of examples of unions throwing some of their members (typically part-time employees or those without seniority) under a bus in order to get benefits for the rest; if the members being thrown under a bus don't even get to vote, they're even more screwed.
    - bogomipz 10y ago
      I am wondering how a practice of an employer requiring non-union members to pay union dues would be legal. Doesn't this constitute a tax? Edit: it looks like this practice is not legal in right-to-work states in the US. This article seems to explain "Union security agreements" pretty well if anyone is interested: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/employee-rights-book/chapter15-5.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/employee-r... I wonder are non-union workers in union shops ever pressured to join?
- wfo 10y ago
  And it's also how you end up with weekends, benefits, worker protection, full-time employment and reasonable wages.
  - Flammy 10y ago
    I think the point is more limited the voting body causes unequal membership. Basic worker benefits and protection can happen regardless of the number of voting members...
    - bogomipz 10y ago
      That's how I inferred the OPs comment as well. Shouldn't a union that represents the majority of its workers also be majority vote?
      - pm24601 10y ago
        No -- the people most affected by the decisions should have the greater voice. If a driver drives once: 1. they have less knowledge about working conditions 2. the trip was more of a fling with being an Uber driver and not a source of income. 3. It is easier for Uber or Lyft to stack the deck with drivers who are less informed on the issues
        charleslmunger 10y ago
        On the other hand, a union that's run by people depending on uber as a full time source of income has a significant interest in reducing the number of people driving for a "fling" or part time - more surge pricing, more guarantee minimum income from uber, less risk of low ratings leading to punitive action, since uber can't just replace them easily. My point is that while unions benefit some workers, they don't benefit all workers. It's not a black and white situation.
  - chronic0d 10y ago
    > And it's also how you end up with weekends, benefits, worker protection, full-time employment and reasonable wages. This will only apply to the top 10% of Union workers. The workers who came late (or the majority of Uber drivers) will receive less pay, have less power, work longer hours, and fewer benefits than the "senior" drivers. Do you really think unions will help everyone? They, just like everything else in this world, are designed to benefit the top.
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  >That's how you end up with pay by seniority rather than performance You get pay by seniority as a compromise because it's an objective measure, it correlates with performance and it can't be gamed by either side.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    Does that correlation hold true for jobs already based on seniority?
  - richdougherty 10y ago
    > it correlates with performance "Results suggest that, contrary to common beliefs, job tenure is largely unrelated to job performance." http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001879113001395 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001879113...
    - crdoconnor 10y ago
      "we conducted meta-analyses on the relationships of job tenure with four types of job performance: core task performance, citizenship behavior, creativity and innovative behavior, and counterproductive work behavior" Paywalled. However, the abstract ("citizenship behavior" / "creativity"... meaning what exactly?) hints that the measures are largely subjective and somewhat bullshitty. Here's another, unpaywalled study: http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mamcdani/Publications/McDaniel,%20Schmidt%20&%20Hunter%201988%20Job%20experience.pdf http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mamcdani/Publications/McDaniel,%2... "Results indicate that for all levels of job experience and for both low- and high-complexity jobs, the correlation between job experience and job performance is positive. " (up to 12 yrs)
- valarauca1 10y ago
  That's how you end up with pay by seniority rather than performance Frankly this is the fault of the employer not the union. Yes the union is the one _forcing_ the employer to enact such policies but _why_ does the union exist? Because the employer treated their employees unfairly. Unions are a bandage on a gaping wound, yes you can say the bandage isn't doing the best job. But why do you have the gaping wound to start with?
  - avar 10y ago
    Whatever the historical reasons for power structures, once enacted they tend to serve their own ends. That they're disenfranchising some of their own members should be a big red flag.
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  > unions...push for fewer drivers to be voting members Leaders are incentivised to minimise the number of key supporters they need to stay in power [1]. Having a large pool of potential supporters is a plus. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectorate_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectorate_theory
solidsnack9000 10y ago
This rule excludes two kinds of people: * People who are new to Uber. * People who don't work at Uber very much. These are people who know less about what it's like to work at Uber or don't have very much skin in the game. In any voting system, if you let people vote who don't know very much about the environment they are voting in or don't have much at stake, it makes fair representation difficult (unless you have fractional votes). To take an extreme example: people who visit Louisiana or have family there are certainly affected by state laws but that does not necessarily mean it is fair for them to vote on the same footing as Louisiana residents.
- analog31 10y ago
  It also prevents Uber from paying an unlimited number of people to sign up just to manipulate the union.
  - solidsnack9000 10y ago
    From a certain point of view you can see these as people who don't have much skin in the game -- so they are willing to sell their votes. A more insidious way for this to work is that Uber could slightly favor candidates who are likely to vote their way during the on-boarding process -- varying their strategy on a month by month basis, depending on what issues are coming up for vote. You don't need a crushing margin -- and maybe don't want one -- just a good solid 3-4%.
- mikeryan 10y ago
  Its more then that. People who drive for Uber rarely or are new to it don't want to pay union dues and are likely going to vote against the union. The city didn't want a bunch of part-time or brand new drivers killing a union for the larger "full-time" group over union dues. Its a smart and relatively fair play by the authors of the law. The reason Uber/Lyft want these folks to vote is that they're likely to opt out just because of the dues.
  - spoonie 10y ago
    I get that union dues can be a contentious issue for members. However, does organizing necessitate membership fees? It feels like jumping the gun to assume right away that an uber-drivers'-union would both have dues and they would be expensive enough to put off new members.

ams6110 10y ago

Will Uber simply ignore the law, as they have done in other cases?

dexterdog 10y ago
Hopefully
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  I wonder if you'd feel the same way if I hoped someone would sustain a DDoS against their API endpoints due to their egregious violations of laws around the world; because I'd be fine with that. Or is it only okay when Uber is disrupting the law and labor rights?
  - grapevines 10y ago
    Labor rights were an important fight... In the 19th century. The era of digital technology and communication ought to have a new approach to Labor laws. I think it's important to remember that in the current case, we are dealing with a single company doing business as a US corporation, but in the theoretical case, we could be dealing with a peer-to-peer network where the prices-per-ride are determined in the decentralized market. Crush uber with union laws, City restrictions, taxes, and other regulations, and a successor will fill the void which cannot be brought down so easily. It's not like uber is threatening to disconnect the driver if they don't work, it is entirely an at-will engagement. Like many unions today, the intent is to cement the power of the status-quo and raise the barrier of entry for new drivers.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - athenot 10y ago
      > it is entirely an at-will engagement Yes but one side has significantly more leverage, bargaining power and resources to skew the contract in their favor than the other. We don't think a large multinational and a 1-person shop have the same bargain power and access to markets, nor do we generally consider the US and Lichtenstein to have equal powers. Yet when it comes to employment, it's bizarre than some consider an individual with maybe $10,000 in the bank is somehow on equal footing with a company with over $10,000,000,000 in the bank.

valarauca1 10y ago

Move the goalposts much? I'm discussing the underlying problem why the union formed you are still attacking the fundamental existence of unions. As I stated Unions are a bandage on a gaping wound, yes you can say the bandage isn't doing the best job. But why do you have the gaping wound to start with? You say That they're disenfranchising some of their own members should be a big red flag. Okay but that doesn't disagree with my core point. Unions aren't a solution to the underlying problem. I agree with you. Why are you still attacking a temporary solution to a much larger problem? Do you just hate unions that much? :.:.: Whatever the historical reasons for power structures, once enacted they tend to serve their own ends. Power Structures are a spook! - Avar and Max Stirner That they're disenfranchising some of their own members should be a big red flag. Enforcement of a power structure is disenfranchisement? Every single organization in modern society experiences this. Either you truly are on some next level Max Strirner individualism or you don't really realize what you insinuating (which is every single human organization is a fundamental oppression again humanity, this is what Strirner wrote about).

JumpCrisscross 10y ago
> a temporary solution to a much larger problem There might be disageeement on how "temporary" this will be.
- valarauca1 10y ago
  The temporary problem is a lack of respect and exploitation of workers in their employment. The employer can correct this anytime they want. They refuse too and fuel employees will to unionize. The problem is as temporary as the employer wishes for it to be. This is no different then any other management driven mistake. Why is it okay our site crashes every 48 hours? Management won't allocate money to fix it. Why are our workers striking for better pay? Management won't allocate money to fix it. You may argue the money doesn't exist to fix that issue. Which is really just stating the company is going out of business at a rather slow rate...
  - JumpCrisscross 10y ago

prodigal_erik 10y ago

That's normal. The point of a union is to threaten vandalism and violence to prevent non-members from offering their labor at market prices.

literallycancer 10y ago
Good drone.
dang 10y ago
Ideological trolling isn't allowed on HN. It results in flamewars, and divisive topics are hard enough to discuss without it. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13298026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13298026 and marked it off-topic.

literallycancer 10y ago

And you even made a new account to post this, how cute.

dang 10y ago
Please don't post uncivil comments. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13297287 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13297287 and marked it off-topic.

haberman 10y ago

I really don't understand why a municipal law would dictate the organizational structure of a union (a private organization). If Uber drivers want to organize, why do they need the Seattle City Council to pass a law first allowing it?

mikeryan 10y ago
Independent contractors (the drivers) can join or create a "union" but they don't have the same privileges as a traditional (Full-Time employee) bargaining unit - most importantly a union of ICs have no collective bargaining rights. For example striking independent contractors are not protected under the National Labor Relations Act. My understanding is that this law is meant to bridge some of the gaps in the labor laws by the drivers being independent contractors.
ahh 10y ago
I don't know for certain with this law in particular, but typically the answer is that the description is a lie: they are not being granted permission from the council to organize. The council is banning Uber from hiring anyone not represented by the union (should they vote for it, but the fix is in, as noted by the carefully gerrymandered voting rules.) Anyone can organize at any time, and the employer is free to tell you to pound sand and hire someone else. Seattle's trying to change that. Expect rates to go up and availability to go down.
- mikeryan 10y ago
  Anyone can organize at any time, and the employer is free to tell you to pound sand and hire someone else This is not correct. Independent Contractors can organize but they have no right's covered by the National Labor Relations Act - which means they have little power or protections of a traditional union including collective bargaining rights. Organizing groups (who are covered by the NLRA) can not be fired by the employers for organizing.
  - chimeracoder 10y ago
    > Independent Contractors can organize but they have no right's covered by the National Labor Relations Act - which means they have little power or protections of a traditional union including collective bargaining rights. Well, they don't have the normal protections that employees have, either, because they're independent contractors and not employees. That has nothing to do with the NLRA or collective bargaining rights. Part of the point of independent contracting is that the relationship isn't an employment relationship, so the same rights aren't relevant. If you're saying that this is something that should be protected for Uber drivers, the real answer is that they should be classified as employees, not to blur the responsibilities of an independent contracting relationship.

cavisne 10y ago

I wonder if Uber will just leave, like they did in Austin. Its hard to imagine the impact this would have, uber has a huge presence in seattle. I would imagine this would be political suicide for the council, certainly the impact it would have on my life would turn me into a full time shill for whoever opposes it politically

adrienne 10y ago
So you're totally fine with workers getting exploited as long as your life is fine? Good to know!
- brightball 10y ago
  Unless I'm missing something...is Uber forcing people to drive for them? If not...how exactly is Uber exploiting them?
bruceb 10y ago
seems unlikely having Uber leave town would have a great impact on a councilperson's reelection prospects.
pm24601 10y ago
:-) In my experience with local politics, Uber driver-status has little weight in elections. Now on the other hand, favoring of building a highrise apartment building next to "my" house -- that can lead to an election loss. (where "my" is some very effective local resident)

sageikosa 10y ago

collectivists unite