
Seattle's Uber union law set to go into effect - juanplusjuan
http://www.geekwire.com/2016/seattles-landmark-uber-union-law-set-go-effect-city-releases-final-rules/
======
Flammy
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-
unvei...](http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/city-unveils-
rules-for-unionizing-uber-lyft-drivers/)

~~~
charleslmunger
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.

~~~
wfo
And it's also how you end up with weekends, benefits, worker protection, full-
time employment and reasonable wages.

~~~
Flammy
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
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
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
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.

------
haberman
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?

~~~
ahh
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
_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
> 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.

~~~
pm24601
"Independent Contractors" \-- is still debated.
[http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/21/11485424/uber-suit-
califor...](http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/21/11485424/uber-suit-california-
Massachusetts-drivers-employee-contractor)

------
cavisne
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

~~~
pm24601
:-) 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)

------
ams6110
Will Uber simply ignore the law, as they have done in other cases?

~~~
yazaddaruvala
One interesting thing is, they do not seem to need to "ignore" them. The law
is just about allowing communication for drivers to band together. Uber could
easily cooperate with this law, but not cooperate with demands of a future
driver's union.

Because, the brilliance (terrible?) part about Uber is that its so easy for
them to get new drivers. The barriers to entry are soo very low. Almost every
American that is able to work, is trained to drive, the large majority of them
have cars, a decently large set of those people would like extra money, and
they have the spare time.

If there was a strike, 1. Surge pricing would kick in, tempting a lot of
people to forgo the strike. 2. Within days/weeks there will be a new set of
drivers willing to work at the current price.

This whole notion of a "strike" only works if you get 100% of the able bodied
men/women to cooperate. The larger the working pool of people, the lower the
chances of a successful strike.

~~~
literallycancer
A strike would not be limited to not working, right? They could block the
roads and so on.

~~~
twblalock
They would lose most of their public support if they did that. This isn't like
France, where the majority of people are wiling to put up with hardship to
support strikers. Block the roads in the US, or prevent transit from working,
and people won't like you anymore.

------
valarauca1
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).

~~~
avar

        > you are still attacking the fundamental
        > existence of unions.
    

Still? I think you've got me confused with someone else. I can hardly be said
to "still" be maintaining some position when my one contribution to this
thread as of writing this is a one paragraph comment.

I don't see how any reading of my one comment here could indicate that I'm
attacking the fundamental existence of unions, which to clarify, I have
nothing against.

    
    
        > Why are you still attacking a temporary
        > solution to a much larger problem?
    

My one paragraph comment was simply pointing out, something you failed to
address in the grandparent's comment, that power structures once enacted tend
to stick, and they tend to serve their own ends.

Which is not to say that unions can't be a net positive for workers employed
as part of the union, that obviously depends.

But if you're being made part of a union's purview and they've structured
their rules in such a way that you can't vote, then it should be fairly
obvious that they're structurally not interested in representing you, and will
in fact represent the interests of voting members at your expense.

~~~
valarauca1

         My one paragraph comment was simply pointing out, 
         something you failed to address in the grandparent's 
         comment, that power structures once enacted tend to stick
    
    

I don't know what point you are trying to make. I really don't think you do
either. Yes power structures attempt to keep themselves in place (which is
indeed towards their own ends).

But this isn't just true of a union.

It is true of any government, company, VC firm, bank, school, sports team,
etc. This isn't an attack on a unions. It is a condemnation of the entire
system of organization the human race uses. Which I point out by relating this
to the work of Max Strirner as he does levy this full criticism in a logically
consistent fashion.

I am addressing the point the parent-N poster is making. Their point is moot.

Either they're stating there is a fundamental issue with _all_ human
organizations. Or they're just being biased towards unions making a _No True
Scotsman_ logical fallacy to support their argument. As are you as well.

:.:.:

    
    
        they've structured their rules in such a way that you can't vote, then 
        it should be fairly obvious that they're structurally not interested in 
        representing you
    

This criticism is out of scope. And logically inconsistent.

It can be applied to any representational democracy where the majority of
members do not vote (USA for example).

This is the exact same logic the DNC uses to explain why the RNC is racist (it
suppresses the voting rights of minorities, _QED_ it is not structurally
interested in representing them).

I literally addressed this issue in my _unions are flawed_ statement. Yes I
admit they aren't prefect. They aren't always interested in representing _all_
of their members. But the company is interested in far less.

You are also refusing to qualify all members.

The main restriction is to prevent part time uber drivers (those who Uber
driving isn't their sole source of income). And very new Uber drivers (if Uber
paid people to manipulate union voting).

This makes complete sense. Why would a full time person who depends on Uber be
interested in helping a guy who only drives 2-3 hours a month?

