# Judge refuses to block Seattle Uber, Lyft driver union law



## KevinH (Jul 13, 2014)

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/08/25/judge-clears-way-for-seattle-lyft-uber-drivers-to-unionize/
*Judge refuses to block Seattle Uber, Lyft driver union law*
The Mercury News - Aug 25, 2017

SEATTLE - For the second time this month, a federal judge has rejected a challenge to Seattle's first-in-the-nation law allowing drivers of ride-hailing companies such as Uber and Lyft to unionize over pay and working conditions.

U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik late Thursday rejected a challenge brought by 11 drivers, saying that their claims against the law were premature or too speculative.
He earlier rejected a challenge brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on behalf of the companies. The organization is appealing that decision. The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which represents the drivers, said Friday that it too would appeal.

But *the judge declined to keep Seattle's law on hold pending the appeals, clearing the way for the Teamsters to try to begin unionizing the drivers unless the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals says otherwise.*

"The court recognized the public importance of maintaining and promoting the safety and reliability of the for-hire transportation industry in the City of Seattle, goals which this law advances," Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes said in a written statement Friday. "We are very pleased with the court's decision and will continue to vigorously defend this publicly important law on appeal."

The 2015 law requires companies that hire or contract with drivers of taxis, for-hire transportation companies and app-based services to bargain with them if a majority show they want to be represented.

The companies say a collective bargaining agreement could undermine the flexibility of how often and for how long drivers work - some of the things that make the companies attractive to drivers and passengers alike. But unionization supporters say it could help fix practices that have included unjust terminations and deceptive payment structures.

The drivers who sued to challenge the law argued that it conflicted with federal labor law as well as their right to free association. Lasnik disagreed, suggesting that any collective bargaining agreement could comport with labor law and the Constitution, and that their claims were thus premature.

"The ruling is very disappointing and means Uber and Lyft drivers will soon be targeted by Teamsters organizers with a coercive card check campaign seeking to impose one-size-fits all monopoly unionization, including forced union dues on drivers," Patrick Semmens, vice president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation Vice President, said in a written statement.

Dawn Gearhart, a spokeswoman for Teamsters Local 117, said Seattle's law "provides the only tangible vehicle for gig workers to have a voice in their working conditions."

"We are looking forward to taking the next steps towards a meaningful resolution to the myriad of issues with the current practices of these companies," Gearhart wrote in an email.


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

This crap makes no sense. So what happens when all the drivers Unionize and Uber tells them to F off and just hires a bunch of new drivers with signup bonuses? With an unlimited supply of new drivers a union will never work. Their isn't any law that says Uber/Lyft must use Union drivers.


----------



## 2Cents (Jul 18, 2016)

Hire?
They don't hire any one.
You volunteer any time you take a non surging X fare.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

KevinH said:


> http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/08/25/judge-clears-way-for-seattle-lyft-uber-drivers-to-unionize/
> 
> SEATTLE - For the second time this month, a federal judge has rejected a challenge to Seattle's first-in-the-nation law allowing drivers of ride-hailing companies such as Uber and Lyft to unionize over pay and working conditions.
> 
> ...


The union fees would pale compared to what you can do with a union, you can STRIKE, and force Uber to pay a livable amount of money, plus pay mileage for use of vehicles. If that puts them out of business, then you are still good because you can lease a cab ( which, if there is no Uber, you'll do really well, I made as much driving for yellow 25 years ago as I am making today with Uber ).



SEAL Team 5 said:


> This crap makes no sense. So what happens when all the drivers Unionize and Uber tells them to F off and just hires a bunch of new drivers with signup bonuses? With an unlimited supply of new drivers a union will never work. Their isn't any law that says Uber/Lyft must use Union drivers.


I've worked for union shops before, when you are hired, you are required to join the union ( if it's a union shop ). In other words, they can't hire scabs ( though union drivers could drive, and "cross the picket line" so to speak , they are called scabs, which is probably what will happen ) Even with scabs, a drastic drop in the number of drivers on a strike, you can really put on the pressure with a union, plus you have union to negotiate for you, one voice, people skilled in this sort of thing.

Another benny is that the Union has ALL of the driver's telephone numbers. The problem now, without a union, we have no way to contact all the other drivers, as UBer doesn't make tis info available.

A strike wouldn't last more than a few hours, because it will KILL the biz, everyone would go to Lyft immediately.

I would love to have a union. Sure, some unions are bad, corrupt, but not the ones I've been a member of way back when, when they were more common in the 70s.



KevinH said:


> http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/08/25/judge-clears-way-for-seattle-lyft-uber-drivers-to-unionize/
> 
> SEATTLE - For the second time this month, a federal judge has rejected a challenge to Seattle's first-in-the-nation law allowing drivers of ride-hailing companies such as Uber and Lyft to unionize over pay and working conditions.
> 
> ...


Big companies hate unions. Why? Because unions prevent big companies from exploiting drivers ( the good ones, anyway).

This is one gig that Uber can't shift overseas, so a union here would be very powerful.


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

Oscar Levant said:


> In other words, they can't hire scabs ( though union drivers could drive, and "cross the picket line" so to speak , they are called scabs, which is probably what will happen )
> 
> .


What law states that Uber can't hire scabs? Uber doesn't have to answer to anybody. Uber isn't a company contructing a building for an owner. Uber isn't a company building planes for Boeing. Uber provides an app that matches drivers with riders. And for that provision Uber charges a fee. Now, unless the pax demand that their drivers are Union drivers I don't see what the hell any court ruling is going to do for a driver.


----------



## jonhjax (Jun 24, 2016)

I thought the government imposed significant fines on companies that don't comply. Am I wrong about this? Please let me know what the actual laws are.


----------



## UBERPROcolorado (Jul 16, 2017)

KevinH said:


> http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/08/25/judge-clears-way-for-seattle-lyft-uber-drivers-to-unionize/
> 
> SEATTLE - For the second time this month, a federal judge has rejected a challenge to Seattle's first-in-the-nation law allowing drivers of ride-hailing companies such as Uber and Lyft to unionize over pay and working conditions.
> 
> ...


Just great. Unionizing Uber drivers defeats the entire purpose of Uber. Seattle will end up with nothing more than taxi drivers. Just what uber is trying to get rid of.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Oscar Levant said:


> The union fees would pale compared to what you can do with a union, you can STRIKE, and force Uber to pay a livable amount of money, plus pay mileage for use of vehicles. If that puts them out of business, then you are still good because you can lease a cab ( which, if there is no Uber, you'll do really well, I made as much driving for yellow 25 years ago as I am making today with Uber ).
> 
> I've worked for union shops before, when you are hired, you are required to join the union ( if it's a union shop ). In other words, they can't hire scabs ( though union drivers could drive, and "cross the picket line" so to speak , they are called scabs, which is probably what will happen ) Even with scabs, a drastic drop in the number of drivers on a strike, you can really put on the pressure with a union, plus you have union to negotiate for you, one voice, people skilled in this sort of thing.
> 
> ...


Before the ruling, as independent contractors, if we colluded with each other to fix pricing, it might be considered a violation of federal law.

A union can organize a strike but will drivers obey the call to strike? If demand during the strike exceeded the supply of drivers, it would surge. How many drivers will strike with a 5x surge? 10x? In the longer term, how many drivers would resist a $500 bonus for x number of rides? Leverage gone.

Attempting to close Uber's doors is a bad idea. Competition is good. A cartel of cab companies is not good for drivers or riders. Its good for cab company owners.

Its true that businesses generally don't like unions. So why would one be a union shop? Seems like a contradiction.

Why don't businesses like unions? It reduces their flexibility. With a good economy, unions don't do as much harm as times of a weak economy. GM nearly went out of business. They didn't have the flexibility of firing, reducing hours, or reducing pay rates to uaw members. We almost didn't have any Twinkies until Hostess was bought out and the new owners fired 95% of the union workforce. Unions can stifle innovation in businesses due to the risk involved in expansion of its labor force.

Uber acts in its own best interests. Drivers should act in their own best interests. Organizing drivers can be good. A single voice would be good. But that single voice may not represent a large portion of the members. Some may want tipping in the app, others don't. Some may only want cars 5 years or newer, other don't. Some may want drug testing, others don't. Some may want higher fares to pay for their higher rates even though that will mean less customers and less total income to all drivers, others don't.

How would the union collect their dues? $10/mo. from everyone? Part timers might have an issue. $0.10/mile with riders in the car? Good luck with that bookkeeping and expense to track the data.

Maybe I'm wrong. Say Seattle got 100% of drivers to strike and forced Uber to raise the rates to drivers. Uber would raise the fares to riders. There would be fewer riders. There would be more drivers, due to the increase in rates, but fewer riders. Not a good situation for the drivers, riders, or economy. A win for cab companies.


----------



## UberProphet? (Dec 24, 2014)

bsliv said:


> Before the ruling, as independent contractors, if we colluded with each other to fix pricing, it might be considered a violation of federal law.
> 
> A union can organize a strike but will drivers obey the call to strike? If demand during the strike exceeded the supply of drivers, it would surge. How many drivers will strike with a 5x surge? 10x? In the longer term, how many drivers would resist a $500 bonus for x number of rides? Leverage gone.
> 
> ...


To summarize.

GIVE UP!

Accept your lot in life because you deserve to be abused. Do not try to improve your circumstances because you will reopen the door for the great scourge of our time, The Taxi Cartels.

Don't even try. There are potential difficulties along the road.

I think I got the gist of your rant.

[Sarcasm off]


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

UberProphet? said:


> To summarize.
> 
> GIVE UP!
> 
> ...


What you should have got is be realistic of your goals and be careful what you wish for. What would you have a union do? How much would you be willing to contribute to their cause?


----------



## UberProphet? (Dec 24, 2014)

bsliv said:


> What you should have got is be realistic of your goals and be careful what you wish for. What would you have a union do? How much would you be willing to contribute to their cause?


Prayer is not the answer, unions are not the answer, government is not the answer. Give up! Accept your wretched life! You don't deserve dignity and a fair compensation because you didn't become a doctor. (who have a union by the way)

Yes, we heard you BSlives.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

More religion or government is not the answer to any relevant question. If a union is the answer depends on the question. Never give up, that's a poor attitude. Some doctors are employees. Some employees are unionized. Makes sense that some doctors are in a union. 
No one deserves fair compensation. One earns, commands, or demands compensation or walks away. Whether that is fair or not depends partly on your business skills and one's perception of fair. 
I'd appreciate a rational discussion.


----------



## UberProphet? (Dec 24, 2014)

bsliv said:


> I'd appreciate a rational discussion.


No, I don't think you would. [But thanks for playing]


----------



## Johnydoo (Jul 25, 2017)

SEAL Team 5 said:


> This crap makes no sense. So what happens when all the drivers Unionize and Uber tells them to F off and just hires a bunch of new drivers with signup bonuses? With an unlimited supply of new drivers a union will never work. Their isn't any law that says Uber/Lyft must use Union drivers.


They will just leave Seattle like they did in Austin in 2015.


----------



## KMANDERSON (Jul 19, 2015)

Johnydoo said:


> They will just leave Seattle like they did in Austin in 2015.


I was just about to say that before I seen your post.


----------



## Safe_Driver_4_U (Apr 2, 2017)

Johnydoo said:


> They will just leave Seattle like they did in Austin in 2015.


 the Uber andLyft killer is a driver owned TNC. Austin created a kind of one after U/L left. Creating a union and the union vs management paradigm wouldn't be very smart. The TNC concept and technology is a hand in glove fit for a driver owned TNC with revenue sharing. Unions are obsolete in light of the technology.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Bad enough that they're going to try to start a union, but they're going to join the Teamsters?

Teamsters were wonderful a couple of decades ago, but now they don't fight for the individual driver for squat. It's not an all for one and one for all thing like it used to be. Better to sign up with someone else if you're going to sign up. Teamster is now known by employment attorneys as being the union that does not fight for its members at all.


----------



## canyon (Dec 22, 2015)

jonhjax said:


> I thought the government imposed significant fines on companies that don't comply. Am I wrong about this? Please let me know what the actual laws are.


The government needs to stay out of the free market that's what they need to do.


----------



## TNCMinWage (May 18, 2017)

Safe_Driver_4_U said:


> the Uber andLyft killer is a driver owned TNC. Austin created a kind of one after U/L left. Creating a union and the union vs management paradigm wouldn't be very smart. The TNC concept and technology is a hand in glove fit for a driver owned TNC with revenue sharing. Unions are obsolete in light of the technology.


What do you mean Austin created "kind of" one? We have a non-profit one called Ride Austin built by local tech entrepreneurs, and another called Fasten that operates in Austin and Boston. They work great, and only take $1 from our fare. But...you are incorrect that they are U/L killers. Those scumbags just returned in June, and unfortunately are doing quite well back in our market.


----------



## Safe_Driver_4_U (Apr 2, 2017)

TNCMinWage said:


> What do you mean Austin created "kind of" one? We have a non-profit one called Ride Austin built by local tech entrepreneurs, and another called Fasten that operates in Austin and Boston. They work great, and only take $1 from our fare. But...you are incorrect that they are U/L killers. Those scumbags just returned in June, and unfortunately are doing quite well back in our market.


 what I meant was a TNC app where the drivers got a decent fare rate and also revenue sharing based upon their miles. So the people in Austin are choosing the evil ones over a (assuming) fair TNC? You guys need a PR campaign. I have spoken with many pax and they all say they would galdly pay a few bucks more knowing the drivers are being fairly compensated. My bet is the evil ones are winning huge in the advertising and PR game in Austin. Additionally, if the drivers have an option besides the evil ones why would they download the apps?


----------



## TNCMinWage (May 18, 2017)

We don't get rev share but we do get a higher cut since they only take a flat $1 of our fare (that is a significant differential on longer rides). It's crazy what's going on here since U/L's return. They came back in June right when summer slowness kicked in. Drivers panicked and turned on U/L cause they weren't busy so figured they'd hedge with U/L. That in turn made etas quick with U/L, and pax started using them more and more. Plus U/L gave out massive promos to pax. Plus incentives to drivers whom aren't thinking long term that once those dry up, they'll be left with a 25-50% pay cut if our local TNCs leave Austin. Also, tourists used to download our TNC apps upon arrival, that no longer occurs - I lost a ton of rides due to that which really sucked. The whole thing has been disgusting to watch. I've tried hard on here to convince drivers to play the long game and know that they do have an influence over what pax use (see my Austin posts in June), but try convincing a bunch of lesser intelligent people whom are desperate for cash, and there you have it. It sucks. I do take U/L rides purely to educate pax on our pay cut and to get the to switch back. Generally, it's been working (except for cheap millennials whom purely want the promos from U/L). But older Austinites "get it", and I've gotten many of them to "ride local". But it's tough for our local TNCs to compete with little marketing budget. Like I said, this has been disgusting to watch.


----------



## mindthelines (Jan 2, 2017)

SuzeCB said:


> Bad enough that they're going to try to start a union, but they're going to join the Teamsters?
> 
> Teamsters were wonderful a couple of decades ago, but now they don't fight for the individual driver for squat. It's not an all for one and one for all thing like it used to be. Better to sign up with someone else if you're going to sign up. Teamster is now known by employment attorneys as being the union that does not fight for its members at all.


Just wanted to double this here from SuzeCB.

I'm a member of Teamsters for my regular job and our representation is PITIFUL. They haven't been able to get shop stewards in place in over 18 months and they're too busy trying to sign up every 2-bit shop in the county to enforce the contract.

And whats the point of having an agreement if they won't hold management's feet to the fire over basic QOW issues?


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

mindthelines said:


> Just wanted to double this here from SuzeCB.
> 
> I'm a member of Teamsters for my regular job and our representation is PITIFUL. They haven't been able to get shop stewards in place in over 18 months and they're too busy trying to sign up every 2-bit shop in the county to enforce the contract.
> 
> And whats the point of having an agreement if they won't hold management's feet to the fire over basic QOW issues?


I have to admit I'm a bit ignorant on how unions work. Why would a 2-bit shop only hire union workers? This is not a rhetorical question. I really want to know. I understand the benefits of collective bargaining for the employees but what's the incentive for the business?


----------



## Carbenger (Aug 27, 2017)

I live in a right to work state, no forced dues, so a union would be powerless and obsolete here.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Oscar Levant said:


> The union fees would pale compared to what you can do with a union, you can STRIKE, and force Uber to pay a livable amount of money, plus pay mileage for use of vehicles. If that puts them out of business, then you are still good because you can lease a cab ( which, if there is no Uber, you'll do really well, I made as much driving for yellow 25 years ago as I am making today with Uber ).
> 
> I've worked for union shops before, when you are hired, you are required to join the union ( if it's a union shop ). In other words, they can't hire scabs ( though union drivers could drive, and "cross the picket line" so to speak , they are called scabs, which is probably what will happen ) Even with scabs, a drastic drop in the number of drivers on a strike, you can really put on the pressure with a union, plus you have union to negotiate for you, one voice, people skilled in this sort of thing.
> 
> ...


A union would put an end to all of those groundless accusation. Suspensions without pay !



Carbenger said:


> I live in a right to work state, no forced dues, so a union would be powerless and obsolete here.


False.



bsliv said:


> I have to admit I'm a bit ignorant on how unions work. Why would a 2-bit shop only hire union workers? This is not a rhetorical question. I really want to know. I understand the benefits of collective bargaining for the employees but what's the incentive for the business?


Unions could actually be beneficial to Uber Lyft in certain circumstances.
Like false accusations against drivers.
The union could handle an Actual investigation.

Anything that could clear a driver within 12 hours could save him hundreds !

A union could offer group discount life, accident, vehicle insurance.



Johnydoo said:


> They will just leave Seattle like they did in Austin in 2015.


Have you read the Austin forum lately ?
Drivers are not thrilled about Ubers return.
Local companies paid fair wage while uber was gone
Uber has ruined that upon return.

No one missed them in Austin.


----------



## Johnydoo (Jul 25, 2017)

tohunt4me said:


> A union would put an end to all of those groundless accusation. Suspensions without pay !
> 
> False.
> 
> ...


If it was up to me uber/lyft will for ever cease to exist!


----------



## Carbenger (Aug 27, 2017)

Im not sure you understand what right to work state means. A union could come to my work place have a election get voted in by a majority of workers, and I would not have to join or pay any dues and would still be able to work there. Also the employer is under no obligation to deduct the dues from the employees pay check so they would have to stroke a monthly or yearly check to the union themselves. Bottom line is, I will not pay a bunch of crooked thugs for the privilege of working even if it is just a part time Uber gig.


----------



## Carbenger (Aug 27, 2017)

SEAL Team 5 said:


> This crap makes no sense. So what happens when all the drivers Unionize and Uber tells them to F off and just hires a bunch of new drivers with signup bonuses? With an unlimited supply of new drivers a union will never work. Their isn't any law that says Uber/Lyft must use Union drivers.


You are right. Some people are under the false impression that they are employees of uber. They are not. Drivers are independent business owners who contract with uber to drive uber customers. And uber can void that contract any time they want for any reason they want.


----------



## driverdoug (Jun 11, 2017)

The chief benefits of unionization for workers is :
The contract is negotiated between the company and the union. As a non-union worker you are just presented the contract and have no say in drawing it up or how it gets implemented.

All work conditions can be addressed in the contract. This obviously is better for the workers. No company will just give you these rights. The workers have to fight for them and stick together.

Unions always say "right to work" means right to work for less money.


----------



## phillipzx3 (May 26, 2015)

UBERPROcolorado said:


> Just great. Unionizing Uber drivers defeats the entire purpose of Uber. Seattle will end up with nothing more than taxi drivers. Just what uber is trying to get rid of.


They'll NEVER get rid of "taxi drivers." Uber drivers ARE taxi drivers. They drive unbranded cabs and carry wonky insurance. That's the only difference.



canyon said:


> The government needs to stay out of the free market that's what they need to do.


There is no such animal as the "Free Market."


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Carbenger said:


> Im not sure you understand what right to work state means. A union could come to my work place have a election get voted in by a majority of workers, and I would not have to join or pay any dues and would still be able to work there. Also the employer is under no obligation to deduct the dues from the employees pay check so they would have to stroke a monthly or yearly check to the union themselves. Bottom line is, I will not pay a bunch of crooked thugs for the privilege of working even if it is just a part time Uber gig.


The vast majority of Unions do what they are supposed to do. A few which have been corrupted, are coloring your objectivity. History proves that when there are unions, workers do much better in terms of benefits, not getting fired without just cause, higher wages, better working conditions, etc.

http://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp143/

Unions raise wages of unionized workers by roughly 20% and raise compensation, including both wages and benefits, by about 28%.
Unions reduce wage inequality because they raise wages more for low- and middle-wage workers than for higher-wage workers, more for blue-collar than for white-collar workers, and more for workers who do not have a college degree.
Strong unions set a pay standard that nonunion employers follow. For example, a high school graduate whose workplace is not unionized but whose industry is 25% unionized is paid 5% more than similar workers in less unionized industries.
The impact of unions on total nonunion wages is almost as large as the impact on total union wages.
The most sweeping advantage for unionized workers is in fringe benefits. Unionized workers are more likely than their nonunionized counterparts to receive paid leave, are approximately 18% to 28% more likely to have employer-provided health insurance, and are 23% to 54% more likely to be in employer-provided pension plans.
Unionized workers receive more generous health benefits than nonunionized workers. They also pay 18% lower health care deductibles and a smaller share of the costs for family coverage. In retirement, unionized workers are 24% more likely to be covered by health insurance paid for by their employer.
Unionized workers receive better pension plans. Not only are they more likely to have a guaranteed benefit in retirement, their employers contribute 28% more toward pensions.
Unionized workers receive 26% more vacation time and 14% more total paid leave (vacations and holidays).

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/04/art2full.pdf

"ECEC data for December 2011 show that unionized service workers earned more than non-unionized service workers. Among all civilian workers in this occupational group, those who were unionized earned an average of $19.83 per hour while their nonunion counterparts earned only $10.54 per hour. In private industry, unionized service workers earned an average of $16.17 per hour, compared with $10.16 per hour for non-unionized service workers"

In truth, "right to work" is a euphemism for "with this law corporations can get away with exploiting workers with impunity".

The right wing is great at labeling something that is good for the rich in such a way that it appears good for the the little guy. I'll give them that much.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

As a libertarian, I have no issue with private sector unions. If a person is qualified, they should be able to join any organization they wish to join. Unions give the workforce leverage during negotiations with businesses. Unions increase employee well being. But there is no free lunch. Every sword has 2 edges. Even the sun rising in the morning means its setting on someone else. There are a limited amount of resources to be used for any operation. 

I still don't see the benefit to a private business that hires a unionized workforce. For instance, why would Uber pay a driver who is a member of a particular organization more than a driver who wasn't a member of the same organization? I suggest that Uber would only pay the increased rate if they can't find enough of the low rate drivers. Similar to how surge is supposed to work.

Why don't fast food employees unionize and ask for $15/hr, guaranteed hours, compensation for being fired for slacking, etc.? Asking the government to mandate $15/hr for a job that isn't worth $15/hr and for people that aren't worth $15/hr is similar to the government making pi equal to 3.00 to help the mathematically challenged. What if an architect obeyed the laws of people instead of the laws of geometry? If an employer obeyed the laws of economics instead of the laws of people, they would be met by people with guns. Every one should be allowed to live their life with their own best interests in mind, as long as they don't violate the rights of others. Voluntary action is always preferred over force.

We are endowed by certain inalienable rights. Among these rights are liberty. Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Taking from those what they can give and giving to those what they deserve sounds great. Enforcement of that principle removes liberty, incentive, and at the extreme, life.


----------

