6 ms·

The interesting part of the article for me was the news that the Seattle city council voted to allow Uber drivers to unionize. It was illegal before? I thought

The interesting part of the article for me was the news that the Seattle city council voted to allow Uber drivers to unionize. It was illegal before? I thought the constitution guaranteed freedom of assembly. Do workers need permission to elect representatives to negotiate on their behalf?

cperciva 10y ago
Companies can't unionize -- it's called anti-competitive behaviour. Depending on who you ask, Uber drivers aren't necessarily workers; they might be independent contractors, i.e., companies. EDIT: Also, depending on the definition of "allowed to unionize" here, it's possible that this goes beyond allowing collective bargaining to prohibiting Uber from hiring anyone who isn't "blessed" by the union.
- baq 10y ago
  california most definitely thinks they're workers, even if they think they're companies. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/18/business/uber-contests-california-labor-ruling-that-says-drivers-should-be-employees.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/18/business/uber-contests-ca...
  - hueving 10y ago
    >california most definitely thinks California is a state, it doesn't think. Please be more precise with commentary like this (e.g. state judicial rulings vs local laws vs state laws). In this particular case it's the California Labor Commissioner's office and it's a ruling for one case. From your article: >The ruling does not apply beyond Ms. Berwick and could be altered if Uber’s appeal succeeds. So this is a long ways away from being a law in California.
    - bildung 10y ago
      Let me introduce you to a wonderful element of human language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche
      - hueving 10y ago
        I appreciate the condescension, but saying that a state thinks something when referring to an enforcement ruling from a particular office is very misleading. In particular you can say the state both simultaneously thinks that they are contractors (how the rest of the Uber employees are treated) and it thinks that they are not (the ruling outcome of this one case). So saying a state thinks something when there are many conflicting internal positions is worthless and just ends up being a tool to push a particular political agenda.
        __realtime 10y ago
        why are both your comments greyed out?
        gambiting 10y ago
        That's what happens when comments get a lot of downvotes. You don't see a "karma" score on HN, but comments with negative number of votes get more and more grayed out until they are hardly visible.
        hnbroseph 10y ago
        very poor content, presumably.
        vinceguidry 10y ago
        It's not so much the content, it's the tone. People don't like being talked down to, even if the points are relevant.
        hueving 10y ago
        How about this comment that is both condescending and irrelevant in response to mine? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13856422 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13856422
        10y ago
- slowmotiony 10y ago
  It's not really depending on who you ask and it's very surprising for me to read comments like yours on HN of all places, the law is very clearly laid out and some protest signs in Sillicon Valley do not change the reality. You can check the IRS website if you're confused about what the distinction is between a contractor and a worker.
  - cperciva 10y ago
    Sorry, I was unclear. I should have said "depending on the context and which law applies". The IRS definitions apply when you're dealing with the IRS (unless they don't, e.g., if you convince a court that the IRS is incorrectly applying the law) but they're not necessarily the same as the definitions which are legally relevant for antitrust purposes or for the purpose of Labour relations regulations.
  - walshemj 10y ago
    Actually the worker / employee distinction is complex and not as cut and dried as you think. This is a big part of the Uber/Delivered style of companies business model that is dodging the employer social security taxes.
    - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
      The taxes are never dodged. Either Uber pays them (W2) or the independent contractor does (1040). The bigger issue, st least under Obamacare, was if they were elegiabke for group health insurance if they worked more than 30 hours.
      - walshemj 10y ago
        Depends on country often self employed get better tax breaks in return for less benefits - this is "real" self employed contractors not faux self employment like Uber et al
        seanmcdirmid 10y ago
walshemj 10y ago
It might have been just a gesture of solidarity rather than anything having legal standing
quanticle 10y ago
I was also confused by that part of the article, so I looked up the relevant legislation [1]. It seems that taxicab drivers are classified as independent operators, and so aren't subject to the same sorts of collective bargaining protections that traditional employees posess. This legislation appears (IANAL) to say that Uber (and other entities that contract with for-hire drivers) cannot include provisions in their contracts that prohibit collective bargaining. As a result, since Uber can't prohibit unionization through its contracts with drivers, it's now trying to prevent unionization through propaganda efforts. [1]: http://clerk.seattle.gov/~legislativeItems/Ordinances/Ord_124968.pdf http://clerk.seattle.gov/~legislativeItems/Ordinances/Ord_12...
modeless 10y ago
Laws to "allow" unions do not grant additional rights. In fact they take away rights. Specifically they make it illegal to do certain jobs without being a member of the union, creating a government-sanctioned monopoly. Union advocates say that people are better off without the right to work outside the union.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  While this can definitely be true, note that that "laws that allow union" can also take the form of lifting restrictions against anti-competitive behavior (i.e., restrictions against monopolies on the supply side of labor). Therefore, such laws really can be a reduction in regulation rather than a misleading way to describe increased regulation. Indeed, the "right to work" laws usually take the form of restrictions on the sorts of free contracts that employers and groups of employees can enter into. This is all depressingly similar to the choice of whether to call something a "subsidy", "tax cut", "welfare", or "entitlement". Although those terms can be given distinct objective definitions made with respect to either the status quo or an idealized laissez faire world, in practice the choice of terminology is political.
  - modeless 10y ago
    > note that that "laws that allow union" can also take the form of lifting restrictions against competitive behavior (i.e., restrictions against monopolies on the supply side of labor) This wording doesn't make sense to me. Can you give an example?
    - jessriedel 10y ago
      Sorry, that should be "anti-competitive behavior". (Edited.) Thank you. In many places, there are laws against collusion by market participants, e.g., doctors can't talk with each other about their prices, the CEOs of GM and Toyota can't coordinate on whether to have a sale, and the CEOs of Apple and Google can't agree not to hire each other's employees (heh). These laws often impede the formations of unions, which are collective groups of employees who coordinate on wages, benefits, etc. By repealing anti-competitive laws, or paring them back so they do not apply to unions, this can allow unions to form where they would not. The argument is that allowing monopolies (or at least oligopolies) in the supply of labor is a way to balance the negotiating advantage that businesses have on account of natural monopolies/oligopolies in the demand for labor.

cperciva 10y ago

Companies can't unionize -- it's called anti-competitive behaviour. Depending on who you ask, Uber drivers aren't necessarily workers; they might be independent contractors, i.e., companies. EDIT: Also, depending on the definition of "allowed to unionize" here, it's possible that this goes beyond allowing collective bargaining to prohibiting Uber from hiring anyone who isn't "blessed" by the union.

baq 10y ago
california most definitely thinks they're workers, even if they think they're companies. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/18/business/uber-contests-california-labor-ruling-that-says-drivers-should-be-employees.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/18/business/uber-contests-ca...
- hueving 10y ago
  >california most definitely thinks California is a state, it doesn't think. Please be more precise with commentary like this (e.g. state judicial rulings vs local laws vs state laws). In this particular case it's the California Labor Commissioner's office and it's a ruling for one case. From your article: >The ruling does not apply beyond Ms. Berwick and could be altered if Uber’s appeal succeeds. So this is a long ways away from being a law in California.
  - bildung 10y ago
    Let me introduce you to a wonderful element of human language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche
    - hueving 10y ago
      I appreciate the condescension, but saying that a state thinks something when referring to an enforcement ruling from a particular office is very misleading. In particular you can say the state both simultaneously thinks that they are contractors (how the rest of the Uber employees are treated) and it thinks that they are not (the ruling outcome of this one case). So saying a state thinks something when there are many conflicting internal positions is worthless and just ends up being a tool to push a particular political agenda.
      - __realtime 10y ago
        why are both your comments greyed out?
        gambiting 10y ago
        That's what happens when comments get a lot of downvotes. You don't see a "karma" score on HN, but comments with negative number of votes get more and more grayed out until they are hardly visible.
        hnbroseph 10y ago
        very poor content, presumably.
        vinceguidry 10y ago
        It's not so much the content, it's the tone. People don't like being talked down to, even if the points are relevant.
        hueving 10y ago
        How about this comment that is both condescending and irrelevant in response to mine? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13856422 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13856422
      - 10y ago
slowmotiony 10y ago
It's not really depending on who you ask and it's very surprising for me to read comments like yours on HN of all places, the law is very clearly laid out and some protest signs in Sillicon Valley do not change the reality. You can check the IRS website if you're confused about what the distinction is between a contractor and a worker.
- cperciva 10y ago
  Sorry, I was unclear. I should have said "depending on the context and which law applies". The IRS definitions apply when you're dealing with the IRS (unless they don't, e.g., if you convince a court that the IRS is incorrectly applying the law) but they're not necessarily the same as the definitions which are legally relevant for antitrust purposes or for the purpose of Labour relations regulations.
- walshemj 10y ago
  Actually the worker / employee distinction is complex and not as cut and dried as you think. This is a big part of the Uber/Delivered style of companies business model that is dodging the employer social security taxes.
  - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
    The taxes are never dodged. Either Uber pays them (W2) or the independent contractor does (1040). The bigger issue, st least under Obamacare, was if they were elegiabke for group health insurance if they worked more than 30 hours.
    - walshemj 10y ago
      Depends on country often self employed get better tax breaks in return for less benefits - this is "real" self employed contractors not faux self employment like Uber et al
      - seanmcdirmid 10y ago

walshemj 10y ago

It might have been just a gesture of solidarity rather than anything having legal standing

quanticle 10y ago

I was also confused by that part of the article, so I looked up the relevant legislation [1]. It seems that taxicab drivers are classified as independent operators, and so aren't subject to the same sorts of collective bargaining protections that traditional employees posess. This legislation appears (IANAL) to say that Uber (and other entities that contract with for-hire drivers) cannot include provisions in their contracts that prohibit collective bargaining. As a result, since Uber can't prohibit unionization through its contracts with drivers, it's now trying to prevent unionization through propaganda efforts. [1]: http://clerk.seattle.gov/~legislativeItems/Ordinances/Ord_124968.pdf http://clerk.seattle.gov/~legislativeItems/Ordinances/Ord_12...

modeless 10y ago

Laws to "allow" unions do not grant additional rights. In fact they take away rights. Specifically they make it illegal to do certain jobs without being a member of the union, creating a government-sanctioned monopoly. Union advocates say that people are better off without the right to work outside the union.

jessriedel 10y ago
While this can definitely be true, note that that "laws that allow union" can also take the form of lifting restrictions against anti-competitive behavior (i.e., restrictions against monopolies on the supply side of labor). Therefore, such laws really can be a reduction in regulation rather than a misleading way to describe increased regulation. Indeed, the "right to work" laws usually take the form of restrictions on the sorts of free contracts that employers and groups of employees can enter into. This is all depressingly similar to the choice of whether to call something a "subsidy", "tax cut", "welfare", or "entitlement". Although those terms can be given distinct objective definitions made with respect to either the status quo or an idealized laissez faire world, in practice the choice of terminology is political.
- modeless 10y ago
  > note that that "laws that allow union" can also take the form of lifting restrictions against competitive behavior (i.e., restrictions against monopolies on the supply side of labor) This wording doesn't make sense to me. Can you give an example?
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    Sorry, that should be "anti-competitive behavior". (Edited.) Thank you. In many places, there are laws against collusion by market participants, e.g., doctors can't talk with each other about their prices, the CEOs of GM and Toyota can't coordinate on whether to have a sale, and the CEOs of Apple and Google can't agree not to hire each other's employees (heh). These laws often impede the formations of unions, which are collective groups of employees who coordinate on wages, benefits, etc. By repealing anti-competitive laws, or paring them back so they do not apply to unions, this can allow unions to form where they would not. The argument is that allowing monopolies (or at least oligopolies) in the supply of labor is a way to balance the negotiating advantage that businesses have on account of natural monopolies/oligopolies in the demand for labor.