# Judge halts Seattle Union.



## Jesusdrivesuber (Jan 5, 2017)

A landmark decision by Seattle's city council, which would allow drivers for ride-hailing apps like Uber and Lyft to unionize despite being classified as independent contractors, has hit a snag according to a report from the _Associated Press_.

BREAKING: U.S. judge temporarily blocks Seattle's first-in-the-nation law allowing drivers of ride-hailing companies to unionize.

- The Associated Press (@AP) April 4, 2017
In December 2015, Seattle's city council voted 9-0 to allow freelance drivers to unionize and collectively bargain for better benefits. Uber immediately sued to halt the plan from moving forward but was stymied by a Washington state judge who ruled in favor of the city late last month.

However, a pair of lawsuits from the US Chamber of Commerce and the Freedom Foundation, alleging that the council's decision violates federal labor laws, have instigated U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik to issue a temporary injunction against the city. This is the second such lawsuit the USCC has filed. Its previous effort was thrown out by a judge last August.

"The issues raised in this litigation are novel, they are complex, and they reside at the intersection of national policies that have been decades in the making," Lasnik wrote in his order. "The public will be well-served by maintaining the status quo while the issues are given careful judicial consideration as to whether the city's well-meaning ordinance can survive the scrutiny our laws require."

https://www.engadget.com/2017/04/04/seattle-court-strikes-blow-to-uber-driver-unionization-efforts/

Uber bribes another top tier.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Please don't turn NEWS into FAKE NEWS.

Forum Rules for Posting In the NEWS section:

1) A link to your source
2) *The headline in the title and in the thread*
3) *Please do not post your opinion in the first post*
4) Include a screen capture of the news article if you can

Thanks
UPNet​


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...w-allowing-uber-and-lyft-drivers-to-unionize/
*Judge temporarily blocks Seattle law allowing Uber and Lyft drivers to unionize*
Seattle Times April 4, 2017 By David Gutman

*Seattle's first-in-the-nation law letting Uber and Lyft drivers unionize is on hold
after a federal judge issued a temporary injunction, in response to
a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.*​
A federal judge in Seattle has temporarily blocked the city's first-in-the-nation law that attempts to allow Uber, Lyft and taxi drivers to unionize.

Seattle's law, passed in 2015, allows Uber, Lyft and taxi drivers - who are categorized as independent contractors, not employees - to form a union and collectively bargain for things like pay, benefits and working conditions.

It was challenged by two separate lawsuits, one from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and one from about a dozen Uber and Lyft drivers - backed by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Freedom Foundation, groups that fight for right-to-work laws and other conservative, anti-union legislation across the country.

_"The issues raised in this litigation are novel, they are complex, and they reside at the intersection of national policies that have been decades in the making," _U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik wrote in granting a preliminary injunction Tuesday, halting the law from going into effect._ "The public will be well-served by maintaining the status quo while the issues are given careful judicial consideration."_

*Lasnik repeatedly stressed in his order that the hold should not be viewed as foretelling an ultimate court victory for the Chamber*.

Kimberly Mills, a spokeswoman for the Seattle City Attorney, said the city will continue working to defeat the legal challenges to the law.

Adrian Durbin, a Lyft spokesman, called the city's law "experimental" and "poorly drafted" and said they were pleased that it was on hold.

While the court battle plays out, both sides had been moving forward, anticipating a possible eventual vote by drivers about whether they want to unionize or not.

Teamsters Local 117 recently applied and got permission from the city to begin efforts to organize drivers at 12 local ride-hailing or taxi companies.

The taxi and ride-hailing companies would have had to give Local 117 a list of their drivers this week, with contact information. Now they will not, while the lawsuits proceed.

"We have no benefits," said Don Creery, an Uber driver and longtime supporter of the unionization effort. "I work full-time for a $70 billion company. The American taxpayers should not have to subsidize my health care. That's not right."

Gary Kunze, one of the Uber and Lyft drivers who sued to block the law, said that while he had complaints with the companies, a union was not the way to address them.

"I am not a union person, I don't believe in what they stand for," Kunze said. "The city of Seattle and the Teamsters got together and decided to do this at the request of a very small number of drivers."

And Uber and Lyft, not content to pin their hopes on the courtroom, are waging aggressive campaigns to persuade their drivers to vote against the union.

The Chamber argues that federal law, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), does not give contractors the right to unionize and that it cannot be pre-empted by Seattle's law.

The Chamber's lawsuit says that drivers are competitors, not co-workers, and that allowing them to unionize is anti-competitive and amounts to "forming a cartel."

Seattle argues that although contractors are not covered by federal unionization laws, the federal government left state and local governments free to regulate a union of independent contractors.

The NLRA explicitly excludes five categories of workers from its coverage and protections: public-sector workers, agriculture workers, domestic workers, supervisors and independent contractors.

The first three are allowed to unionize under various state laws.

City attorneys argued in court last week that independent contractors - Uber, Lyft and taxi drivers in this circumstance - are more like workers than they are supervisors and that the city has the authority to let them unionize, even if they're not covered by the NLRA.

Lasnik, speaking from the bench during those arguments, appeared sympathetic.

... [ _read the rest of the story HERE_ ]


----------



## Red Leader (Sep 4, 2016)

Of course any judge who follows the law is a scumbag when you disagree with them.

Maybe we should do like what some clown said in another thread.....let the "free thinkers" Make the decisions.


----------



## Jesusdrivesuber (Jan 5, 2017)

Red Leader said:


> Of course any judge who follows the law is a scumbag when you disagree with them.
> 
> Maybe we should do like what some clown said in another thread.....let the "free thinkers" Make the decisions.


So now the judge follows the law?

How about uber climbing to higher gov tiers to change decisions in local gov? Through payments or impossible paperwork?

Lol, using arbitration to stop Google's injunction when they clearly know the guy stole the tech after he pleaded the fifth, it's war, son, in love and war everything is allowed, they aren't bullying anyone anymore.


----------



## Red Leader (Sep 4, 2016)

Jesusdrivesuber said:


> So now the judge follows the law?
> 
> How about uber climbing to higher gov tiers to change decisions in local gov? Through payments or impossible paperwork?
> 
> Lol, using arbitration to stop Google's injunction when they clearly know the guy stole the tech after he pleaded the fifth, it's war, son, in love and war everything is allowed, they aren't bullying anyone anymore.


Can you show where the judge didnt follow the law?

Do you even know what the law is and how it applies here?

Once again you are woefully out of your depth.


----------



## Jesusdrivesuber (Jan 5, 2017)

Red Leader said:


> Can you show where the judge didnt follow the law?
> 
> Do you even know what the law is and how it applies here?
> 
> Once again you are woefully out of your depth.


Again you fail to read.

https://www.hookedonphonics.com/

On the house.


----------



## Red Leader (Sep 4, 2016)

Jesusdrivesuber said:


> Again you fail to read.
> 
> https://www.hookedonphonics.com/
> 
> On the house.


So..let's recap.....you have zero evidence that the judge isn't following the laws and procedures that all courts follow every day in this country.

You don't even know what those processes are. And you have zero experience in the legal fried.

Yup.....another goose egg for you. You're a conspiracy theorist, aren't you?

Gonna be at lunch tomorrow?


----------



## Red Leader (Sep 4, 2016)

Seattle is doing an excellent job at playing Uber and the drivers against each other.

It saves them from having to take responsibility for this situation while collecting money from both parties.


----------



## 7Miles (Dec 17, 2014)

Somebody need just sue Uber that's all. In each and every state. All this unionising communist [email protected] is just that.
Sue them left and right and then sue again. Money talks.
Nobody sued them and everybody was happy when they paid drivers well. People made YouTube videos how wonderful it is work for Uber. 
They just need to go back where they where or one way or another they will pay


----------



## d0n (Oct 16, 2016)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_contractor

Look boys! new things are being created for the sake of not letting you walk away with your pockets full of cash!



> *Dependent contractor[edit]*
> A growing number of workers do not neatly fit the government's categorizations of independent contractors and statutory employees, and are increasingly being classified as dependent contractors. Some of these contingent workforce-independent contractors, temporary workers, and part-time workers, who work when and for how long they want, such as those who work for such companies as Uber, Handybook, Inc., and CrowdFlower-have filed lawsuits that argue that companies that substantially control workers' work and behaviors while working (such as at Handybook, Inc.: when to knock on customers' doors vs. ring the doorbells, and how to use the customers' bathrooms) should be covered by minimum-wage and overtime rules under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as receive other traditional employee protections. Wilma Liebman, former chairperson of the National Labor Relations Board, has observed that Canada and Germany have such protections in place for contingent workers. And UK Prime Minister David Cameron has appointed an overseer for freelance workers in that country, to determine how the government should support freelance workers.[15][16][17]


----------



## Red Leader (Sep 4, 2016)

7Miles said:


> Somebody need just sue Uber that's all. In each and every state. All this unionising communist [email protected] is just that.
> Sue them left and right and then sue again. Money talks.
> Nobody sued them and everybody was happy when they paid drivers well. People made YouTube videos how wonderful it is work for Uber.
> They just need to go back where they where or one way or another they will pay


Wrong target and idea.

You guys will never get it. And it's why Uber doesn't have to listen to you. They have even given you the answer, and yet, you completely ignore it.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

lol @ that driver who sued to overturn the law. "This isn't the way to do it". 

This is the ONLY way to do it. Does he think asking Uber pretty please is going to fix it ?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> lol @ that driver who sued to overturn the law. "This isn't the way to do it".
> This is the ONLY way to do it. Does he think asking Uber pretty please is going to fix it ?


Just in case others here didn't read it - or missed it in the article, this is what uberdriverfornow is referring to (and I join him in his lol') ...

_Gary Kunze, one of the Uber and Lyft drivers who sued to block the law, said that while he had complaints with the companies, a union was not the way to address them. "I am not a union person, I don't believe in what they stand for," Kunze said._​


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

Why in the hell is everyone so concerned about a union? Uber is not a union company. They WILL NOT meet your demands. They are NOT REQUIRED to meet your demands. Unionize all you want. Uber will just deactivate you, go on a hiring frenzy and offer signup bonuses to all new drivers. Just as easy as all of you drivers signed up to drive for pennies a mile there are 4 million more every year becoming of legal age to drive for Uber. You're dreaming if this thing is ever going to work in your favor. The fare for hire industry is ruined. By the way, how's that CA and MA lawsuit coming?


----------



## Red Leader (Sep 4, 2016)

SEAL Team 5 said:


> Why in the hell is everyone so concerned about a union? Uber is not a union company. They WILL NOT meet your demands. They are NOT REQUIRED to meet your demands. Unionize all you want. Uber will just deactivate you, go on a hiring frenzy and offer signup bonuses to all new drivers. Just as easy as all of you drivers signed up to drive for pennies a mile there are 4 million more every year becoming of legal age to drive for Uber. You're dreaming if this thing is ever going to work in your favor. The fare for hire industry is ruined. By the way, how's that CA and MA lawsuit coming?


Yea. People are blinded by their ignorance. Add anger in there and well....they just become down right stupid.

Case in point.....they ant even find the right target.



Michael - Cleveland said:


> Just in case others here didn't read it - or missed it in the article, this is what uberdriverfornow is referring to (and I join him in his lol') ...
> 
> _Gary Kunze, one of the Uber and Lyft drivers who sued to block the law, said that while he had complaints with the companies, a union was not the way to address them. "I am not a union person, I don't believe in what they stand for," Kunze said._​


There ya go, pointing out the obvious.


----------



## Jermin8r89 (Mar 10, 2016)

How about a union for humanity? How many times does elon musk come out to explain humans are nothing unless you fuze with machienes


----------



## EagleX (Jan 24, 2016)

Where is JIMMY HOFFA when you need him?.... oops, I guess he is sleeping with with fish in the Detroit river, which is just North of the country of Canada, but South of Detroit, Michigan USA.


----------



## PrestonT (Feb 15, 2017)

Jesusdrivesuber said:


> How about uber climbing to higher gov tiers to change decisions in local gov?


That's called "Appeal" and it's a cornerstone tenet of our legal system.


----------



## Jesusdrivesuber (Jan 5, 2017)

PrestonT said:


> That's called "Appeal" and it's a cornerstone tenet of our legal system.


It's called bribing higher tiers of the gov when uber does it.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/11/17/uber-spokesman-austin-says-ride-hailing-app-may-re/



> State Sen. Charles Schwertner, R-Georgetown, filed Senate Bill 176, which would require national background checks for drivers and require that users be able to request wheelchair-accessible rides. In addition, state Sen. Don Huffines, R-Dallas, filed Senate Bill 113, which would prevent cities from imposing "burdensome" regulations on transportation network companies, including taxi companies and ride-hailing firms. It would also put rules governing those companies in the hands of the state.


Lol, "Appeal", ****ing please.


----------



## PrestonT (Feb 15, 2017)

Jesusdrivesuber said:


> Lol, "Appeal", &%[email protected]!*ing please.


I know. The concept sucks until you need it.


----------



## Jermin8r89 (Mar 10, 2016)

Jesusdrivesuber said:


> Lol, "Appeal", &%[email protected]!*ing please


Government shouldnt appeal anything. Its about the people. All the government wants to do is have b!tch fights with eachother and blow stuff up!


----------



## Polomarko (Dec 20, 2016)

We do live Capital dictatorship.At the time when Judicial Branch instead of servings justice, serves ruling parties interest
Is a definition of dictatorship.
Unfortunately Uber is not the only one. See all around country
Basic human rights vaiolation.
So called Judge, fined a contractor in USA, that charge $18 p/r
Basic rules of contracting is:Two parties negotiating about work that has to be done for amount of money in certain period of time.
Is any Uber driver ever negotiated anything with Uber????
Mr. Judge where did you got degree?


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

Where did you got engrish?


----------



## john2g1 (Nov 10, 2016)

PrestonT said:


> I know. The concept sucks until you need it.


I think Jesusdrivesuber is talking about something different than you.

A city comes out with a law say no posting pics of BDUs only ACUs and Multicam.
Then you lobby (bribe, coerce, reach around, whatever) a state level politician to create a law that directly counters the city law:
Cities are no longer allowed to regulate pictures bill... or
Uniform discrimination is not allowed... or
BDUs are specifically allowed... or worst case
Only BDUs are allowed

That is not an appeal that is getting someone with superseding power to specifically target a rule made by a city. I also know from eavesdropping on conversations of state lobbyist I drive around that this is a common tactic of Uber.

You could argue that that too is "a cornerstone tenet of our legal system" but there is a problem here (aside from lobbying turning into legalized bribing). Major cities like say Atlanta or Austin or New Orleans vote, want, and need things that are the polar opposite of their state as a whole.

Example:

The capitol of PrestonT say PrestonT Jr is full of post 9/11 vets and ACU/Multicam is what they're wearing in all of their pics anyway. But the state of PrestonT is full of cold war era vets and they are in BDUs and Greens only.

In Jesusdrivesuber example the people specifically wanted something at a local level and it was put to a democratic vote and won. Now there are two avenues the state could vote OR the state congress could vote without asking their constituents. In his/that case a decision will be made FOR the people but only partially BY the people it affects.

People like to moan about the Federal government taking state rights away but is it not hypocritical for a state to completely go against the wishes of a city?


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

lol all of these people not in a union with no benefits, horrible pay, bad working conditions, etc etc complaining about how bad a union is

hilarious


----------



## old geezer (Feb 1, 2016)

I come in late to this debate. So do I understand that the drivers in Seattle want to unionize? A judge shot it down? In the liberal state of Washington where they are mostly liberal. I thought the liberals were in favor of unions. Oh wait that ship sailed now it's the conservatives that love unions. My how things change over time. For me I am retired so not that concerned about the money but I cannot for the life of me understand why Uber would not allow tips on the apps...


----------



## phillipzx3 (May 26, 2015)

You get your tips during surge when Uber is 5 times the rate of a cab. As it is, it cost you zip to drive for Uber in Portland. When you start paying the City of Portland $3000 a year in fees, I'll support your need of a tip.

Portland has some of the highest rates in the country (notice all those out of state cars with Uber stickers in the window?). You should be clearing $500 to $600 a day.....like the 10,000 other Uber drivers in Portland do. ;-)


----------



## old geezer (Feb 1, 2016)

ha ha you kill me. I make on average 40.00 per day. I drive about 4 hours during the daytime. Hey I am 70 years old can barely get out of my lazy boy you think I'm driving nightime drunks? But you mention something interesting Phillip can you drive in another state say Florida with a Maine license etc. I wanna go to my graveyard in the winter.

oh and by the way I am in Portland Maine not Oregon


----------



## Polomarko (Dec 20, 2016)

Regulation are protection from Corporate America unlawful business practices.


----------

