3 ms·

I started talking to uber drivers in Seattle about unionization / Seattle regulations, and was surprised to discover nearly unanimous opposition to the idea. Th

I started talking to uber drivers in Seattle about unionization / Seattle regulations, and was surprised to discover nearly unanimous opposition to the idea. The only person not opposed was a career taxi driver. Almost no one else was or wanted uber to be a full time gig, and they wanted minimal hassle/regulation/etc. between them and an easy source of side income. Anecdotal, with an n around 10, so not worth much, but I found it surprising. I suspect a lot of the Seattle unionization movement is thinly veiled rent seeking from the taxi lobby.

leggomylibro 10y ago
One of the reasons why Uber, and maybe some of those drivers, were opposed to the idea of the unionization push was the restriction on voting rights; iirc, only drivers with at least 6 months experience (or thereabouts) would have a say in the direction of the union. That takes a lot of power from people who just want to use it as a form of supplementary income now and then, and those people aren't unreasonable for thinking that a union would continue to champion the interests of those 'career drivers' over them, if it got going. I wouldn't call that rent-seeking behavior from the "taxi lobby," but it would disproportionately benefit people who saw their jobs with Uber as full-time taxi drivers.
Twirrim 10y ago
This seems an example of how the US approach to unions is completely broken. In the UK, unions exist that cover pretty much every single industry. Membership is, however, entirely optional. If the union has a sufficient sized membership (percentage based, I think), then they have to be involved in various types of management discussions, but that's it. If you don't want to be in a union, you don't have to be, and you don't have to make payments out of your wages.
Herodotus38 10y ago
If I may give a weaker, counter example with anecdotal data from Seattle: I have only used Uber three times, and the last time I asked the driver about unionization and he was very for it (so an n of 1). He explained that all of the risk is on the driver and that sometimes Uber makes it very hard to work. He gave an example of a friend who was driving and ran over a rock while pulling into an apartment complex. The protocol was that another driver came and completed the ride for the user. However, his vehicle was now flagged as 'in an accident' when the problem was a flat tire, which his friend was able to fix that day. Unfortunately, by being flagged as an accident the friend couldn't work again for a number of days as there was some sort of vetting process to ensure the vehicle was working right (very reasonable imo). However, as explained to me, there was some hang up with Uber where he couldn't get vetted for much longer than usual and couldn't work. He thinks that being unionized would allow for more driver friendly policies that would have prevented this.
xg15 10y ago
I'd guess the line runs between the group that considers driving for uber a "side gig" and the group that actually does it full-time. Seems to me, these two groups have vastly different backgrounds ans needs. I think the question has to be which of the two groups is the bigger one and how well the needs of both groups can be reconciled.

leggomylibro 10y ago

One of the reasons why Uber, and maybe some of those drivers, were opposed to the idea of the unionization push was the restriction on voting rights; iirc, only drivers with at least 6 months experience (or thereabouts) would have a say in the direction of the union. That takes a lot of power from people who just want to use it as a form of supplementary income now and then, and those people aren't unreasonable for thinking that a union would continue to champion the interests of those 'career drivers' over them, if it got going. I wouldn't call that rent-seeking behavior from the "taxi lobby," but it would disproportionately benefit people who saw their jobs with Uber as full-time taxi drivers.

Twirrim 10y ago

This seems an example of how the US approach to unions is completely broken. In the UK, unions exist that cover pretty much every single industry. Membership is, however, entirely optional. If the union has a sufficient sized membership (percentage based, I think), then they have to be involved in various types of management discussions, but that's it. If you don't want to be in a union, you don't have to be, and you don't have to make payments out of your wages.

Herodotus38 10y ago

If I may give a weaker, counter example with anecdotal data from Seattle: I have only used Uber three times, and the last time I asked the driver about unionization and he was very for it (so an n of 1). He explained that all of the risk is on the driver and that sometimes Uber makes it very hard to work. He gave an example of a friend who was driving and ran over a rock while pulling into an apartment complex. The protocol was that another driver came and completed the ride for the user. However, his vehicle was now flagged as 'in an accident' when the problem was a flat tire, which his friend was able to fix that day. Unfortunately, by being flagged as an accident the friend couldn't work again for a number of days as there was some sort of vetting process to ensure the vehicle was working right (very reasonable imo). However, as explained to me, there was some hang up with Uber where he couldn't get vetted for much longer than usual and couldn't work. He thinks that being unionized would allow for more driver friendly policies that would have prevented this.

xg15 10y ago

I'd guess the line runs between the group that considers driving for uber a "side gig" and the group that actually does it full-time. Seems to me, these two groups have vastly different backgrounds ans needs. I think the question has to be which of the two groups is the bigger one and how well the needs of both groups can be reconciled.