Slashdot Mirror


Contractors or Not, Seattle Uber Drivers Might Get Collective Bargaining

The Seattle Times reports on a development in Seattle that might have implications for other cities with contentious relationships with transportation coordinating services like Uber. Seattle councilman Mike O'Brien has proposed a system under which drivers for Lyft, Uber, and similar companies would be represented in collective bargaining agreements with the companies they do work for. The proposal would require taxi companies, for-hire vehicle companies and app-based ride-dispatch companies, including Uber and Lyft, to negotiate agreements with drivers on issues such as payment and working conditions. The approach would be novel because of the drivers’ employment status. The National Labor Relations Act gives employees, but not independent contractors, the right to bargain as a union. ... Under O’Brien’s plan, a nonprofit organization would need to show support from a majority of a company’s drivers to be designated by the city as their bargaining representative. The organization would use a list of drivers provided by the company.

79 of 127 comments (clear)

  1. Fun uber fact by ickleberry · · Score: 3, Funny

    Uber secretly hates its drivers, and is dieing to replace them with bots. Its founding members can't wait until the day Uber becomes a fully autonomous moneymaking machine and they can live a life of endless hedonism on the Bahamas while being fed a constant supply of effortless funds

    1. Re:Fun uber fact by speedplane · · Score: 1

      [Uber's] founding members can't wait until the day Uber becomes a fully autonomous moneymaking machine and they can live a life of endless hedonism on the Bahamas

      I think the founders are already well rich enough to do that, especially in the Bahamas.

      --
      Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
    2. Re:Fun uber fact by SeaFox · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You misspelled "all companies" and "employees" in that paragraph.

    3. Re:Fun uber fact by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Yes, but will they get paid in Bitcoin?

      3D printed Bitcoin.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Fun uber fact by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      auto drive cars are at last 5-10 years out. Also the legal part may take longer / have a few long cases.

    5. Re:Fun uber fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The very point in capitalism is to make bank without labour, whereas the very principle of socialism is that you can only earn while labouring. Laziness is a capitalist virtue, as long as it is smart laziness.

      This is lost on some of the college-capitalist blowhards who go around calling socialists lazy. Socialism is unpopular precisely because more intelligent people aren't able to use their brains to reduce the amount of labour they are required to do to survive, so instead go for cronyism.

      (This isn't speaking in defence of or opposition to either. I'm a mixed market pragmatist.)

    6. Re:Fun uber fact by supremebob · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why "secretly" was in there was well. Most employers are pretty blatant about hating their entry level employees. If you need an example, just look at all of those KMart and Walmart employees who had to work on Thanksgiving.

    7. Re:Fun uber fact by Simulant · · Score: 1

      You should have a long conversation with your next Uber driver.

    8. Re:Fun uber fact by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      You should have a long conversation with your next Uber driver.

      Actually, I DO have long conversations with all my Uber drivers, and when I ask then how they like it and all...so far, ALL of them have been quite emphatic about how much like liked doing it and the set up.

      So far, the majority are either students, or adults with real jobs that just do it occasionally as supplemental income, but all seem to like it.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    9. Re:Fun uber fact by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Oh, look. Another vector to power, via government, to hamper free people from competing. Government allows a union to take over all employees, not just those who freely join.

      Alas, I must AGREE with you 100% on this one!

      :)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    10. Re:Fun uber fact by sabri · · Score: 1

      Government allows a union to take over all employees, not just those who freely join.

      Which is exactly why I hate unions (and keep getting modded down for it). Unions are destroying jobs, and even cities. Want an example? Detroit.

      And yes, you can mod me down, but that doesn't make you right.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    11. Re:Fun uber fact by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      Very very few people will tell a stranger while on the job that they hate their job.

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
  2. Sorry uber drivers by SuperKendall · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Sucks to have your pay docked by a shadow government that does nothing for you, but that's the way it's going to have to be in some retrograde cities.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  3. Uber drivers are Borg by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    the Collective.

  4. How much is the mob paying O'Brien? by jcr · · Score: 1, Informative

    It's not the drivers who are calling for Guido to take a cut of their earnings to buy hookers and blow for mobsters and politicians.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  5. Not Contractors by JimSadler · · Score: 2, Informative

    The IRS defines who is and is not a contractor. These drivers simply are not independent contractors. First they would need a business permit in order to be contractors. They can not be supervised by Uber in any way, And they would need a written contract that offers them benefits roughly equal to any benefits Uber gets by offering the contract. So many businesses steal money by falsely calling people independents or piece workers and it is fraud both to the workers as well as numerous public agencies. For example, a Uber driver, injured in a wreck can not get Workman's comp. And Workman's compensation suffers an economic loss when employees are falsely called independent contractors.

    1. Re:Not Contractors by mi · · Score: 1

      The IRS defines who is and is not a contractor

      That might be because the taxpayers do not have the collective-bargaining powers, when talking to the IRS.

      The distinction between employees and contractors is artificial and should not exist.

      For example, a Uber driver, injured in a wreck can not get Workman's comp

      His injuries — and the "pain and suffering" are covered by the auto-insurance. The "workman's compensation" was a solution in search of a problem, became a breeding ground for fraud, and should be abolished ASAP — along with all other involuntary insurance schemes.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    2. Re:Not Contractors by Etherwalk · · Score: 2

      The IRS defines who is and is not a contractor. These drivers simply are not independent contractors. First they would need a business permit in order to be contractors. They can not be supervised by Uber in any way, And they would need a written contract that offers them benefits roughly equal to any benefits Uber gets by offering the contract.
                  So many businesses steal money by falsely calling people independents or piece workers and it is fraud both to the workers as well as numerous public agencies. For example, a Uber driver, injured in a wreck can not get Workman's comp. And Workman's compensation suffers an economic loss when employees are falsely called independent contractors.

      Not exactly. Someone can be an IC without a business permit--that just means they're operating a business illegally. Also, "supervised in any way" doesn't necessarily make someone an employee. I can watch my plumber work on pipes in my house, and it doesn't make him my employee. I can even supply the parts. I can even let him borrow a tool.

      Whether someone is an IC or not is a fact-based inquiry, and is determined by looking at a variety of factors including to what degree someone is supervised, whether they provide their own tools, etc... There is no single absolute rule.

    3. Re:Not Contractors by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      First they would need a business permit in order to be contractors. They can not be supervised by Uber in any way, And they would need a written contract

      None of these are specific requirements to be an independent contractor. The IRS has a list of 20 criteria for classification as a contractor. No single criteria is either necessary or sufficient.

    4. Re:Not Contractors by plopez · · Score: 1

      "That might be because the taxpayers do not have the collective-bargaining powers, when talking to the IRS"

      Tat would be getting tens of thousands of voters to sign petitions and forming alliances with organizations like the Chamber of Commerce and NFIB.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    5. Re:Not Contractors by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      No, the insurance company will not pay for injury or damages when the car was being used as an illegal hire car.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    6. Re:Not Contractors by mi · · Score: 1

      No, the insurance company will not pay for injury or damages when the car was being used as an illegal hire car.

      Even if this were true, that would've been a direct result of the driver's conscientious decision.

      But it is not true.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    7. Re:Not Contractors by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Someone can be an IC without a business permit--that just means they're operating a business illegally.

      You can operate as a sole proprietorship under your own SSN without any kind of license. You still have to withhold FICA on your earnings. It is far more likely that someone will operate illegally as a sole proprietorship, but it is not a given.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    8. Re:Not Contractors by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      First they would need a business permit in order to be contractors.

      All states that I am aware of, including Washington, allow sole proprietorship businesses to operate under an individual's SSN.

      They can not be supervised by Uber in any way

      They HAVE to be supervised in some way, as they have to meet the goal agreed to, which is to get a person from point A to point B. The method that they choose to do that, must be completely up to the contractor (which, of course, it isn't).

      And they would need a written contract that offers them benefits roughly equal to any benefits Uber gets by offering the contract.

      I have never in my life ever heard such a requirement. If they offered that, then the person would be an employee.
      The IRS does (and should not) define who is and is not a contractor, but the above are not part of the definition. The Department of Labor also defines who is and is not an Independent Contractor, and what the DoL says is not always in agreement with what the IRS says.
      Neither entity should be able to establish who is an Independent Contractor. If a person wishes to be an Independent Contractor and a company wishes to be in a contracting relationship with such person, then there should be no reason why they should not be able to form and maintain that relationship.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    9. Re:Not Contractors by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      From all I've heard about Uber, I think they are more employees than not. But I think a compromise is in order. How about if the drivers gross less than $2000/year, it's more "hobby-based" than "commercial-based"?

      I'm fine with that as long as they pay their taxes and maintain commercial insurance. If you are going to carry someone for hire for anything more than zero cents, then you have to have commercial insurance.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    10. Re:Not Contractors by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      So if a friend offers to drive you to the airport to catch your plane, and you pay for gas, that friend needs to get commercial insurance?

      No. But then that is not what Uber does. If it did, then we wouldn't need Uber as a company to oversee. However, they are taking a cut, which makes it a commercial venture.

      No. I don't think zero cents is feasible. I think if someone is grossing less than $2k/year, regular auto-insurance should cover it.

      It only covers it if he only drives friends. And only then if the friends are close enough not to sue him if he has an accident.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  6. Yep, Unions do nothing by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    except for the increased wages by bringing strike pressure to bear. Oh, and they make sure you can strike without fear of reprisal and with enough food/money to survive a strike. Oh, and then there's the better benefits from the bargaining. Then there's enforcing worker safety when OSHA can't or won't. Then There's protecting workers from age discrimination. Then there's ensuring workers get trained instead of paying for their own training out of pocket.

    You know, you're right. Unions have done about as much for the working man as the Romans did for those guys from Monty Python.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Yep, Unions do nothing by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Informative

      except for the increased wages by bringing strike pressure to bear.

      Totally vaporized and then some by the overhead of the union.

      Unions get enough extra to thrive themselves, over time the union leaders care nothing for the workers but only for personal income to grow the union - to the extent they do not care if they kill the host they are attached to, putting many out of work.

      At least that's how it has played out so far over the last few decades. Why is there any reason to think it will alter for Uber? There is none.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    2. Re:Yep, Unions do nothing by MacDork · · Score: 2

      Totally vaporized and then some by the overhead of the union.

      Not really, but I'm sure there's nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.

    3. Re:Yep, Unions do nothing by plopez · · Score: 1

      Smith had a few choice things to say about corporations too. His economics in fact does not work if you allow corporations to function.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    4. Re:Yep, Unions do nothing by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Here's a list of some of the things we can thank unions for:

              Weekends
              All Breaks at Work, including your Lunch Breaks
              Paid Vacation
              FMLA
              Sick Leave
              Social Security
              Minimum Wage
              Civil Rights Act/Title VII (Prohibits Employer Discrimination)
              8-Hour Work Day
              Overtime Pay
              Child Labor Laws
              Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSHA)
              40 Hour Work Week
              Worker's Compensation (Worker's Comp)
              Unemployment Insurance
              Pensions
              Workplace Safety Standards and Regulations
              Employer Health Care Insurance
              Collective Bargaining Rights for Employees
              Wrongful Termination Laws
              Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
              Whistleblower Protection Laws
              Employee Polygraph Protect Act (Prohibits Employer from using a lie detector test on an employee)
              Veteran's Employment and Training Services (VETS)
              Compensation increases and Evaluations (Raises)
              Sexual Harassment Laws
              Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
              Holiday Pay
              Employer Dental, Life, and Vision Insurance
              Privacy Rights
              Pregnancy and Parental Leave
              Military Leave
              The Right to Strike
              Public Education for Children
              Equal Pay Acts of 1963 & 2011 (Requires employers pay men and women equally for the same amount of work)
              Laws Ending Sweatshops in the United States

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    5. Re:Yep, Unions do nothing by turbidostato · · Score: 3, Funny

      All right... all right... but apart from that, what have the Romans done for us?

    6. Re:Yep, Unions do nothing by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 1

      I know it's been a while but I heard about what happened to your dad. Sorry for your loss.

    7. Re:Yep, Unions do nothing by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      That's great, but a good 2/3rds of those we could have by natural attrition as well. The world is an ever changing place with ever changing social norms. Right now the biggest changes are happening and have nothing to do with unions. Unions didn't provide me with a free gym at work. They had nothing to do with Parental Leave in my country, especially for males. They haven't had anything to do with the rise of flexible hours and better employment care. That is simply general market trends. Also I can't believe you actually wrote holiday pay. Holiday pay in America is a joke among western nations. If the union were to thank for that they deserve a collective punch in their faces.

      They did bring some real benefits but you give them way more credit than they are due.

      All the while you fail to point out that unions also:

      Created a protected class within organisations.
      Created unequal benefits and contracts depending on worker class.
      Have a big negative impact on the efficiency of the workplace.
      And there are a couple of examples where they have achieved great short term gains in return for everyone losing their job because fuck it I deserve to be paid $100 / h to sit on my arse while the company is not making a profit. (Yes I'm jaded with this last comment. Someone actually said this to my face. 6 months later they accused management of running the unprofitable company into the ground).

    8. Re:Yep, Unions do nothing by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The Unions did a lot for the average worker. But now they've stopped doing that, and only serve their own ends. Since union workers get paid multiples of the minimum wage, they do campaign to raise it occasionally, but never enough to actually help anyone who is not in a union.

      Unions have done a great deal for the average worker. But now we have reached a point where it is difficult to unionize the rest of the workers, yet they still need rights. It is time to move beyond the trade union, and work again to secure rights for all workers.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re: Yep, Unions do nothing by JeffOwl · · Score: 1

      LOL. You are asking him to disprove something for which nobody here has given any evidence except something from the organization that is literally the most biased in the world on this subject. I'm not disputing the original claim, I don't really have a dog in this fight, but your statement is silly.

    10. Re:Yep, Unions do nothing by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      Weekends

      Like most self-serving statements from organizations hyperventilating about their unassailable merit, this is overblown propaganda. As an alternative, I refer you to bona fide scholarly research which discusses how the forty-hour week was won

      primarily through labor market tightness (wage increases, manufacturing employment expansion, and curtailment of immigration). State and federal government labor market intervention, increased union power, and technological changes in industry played smaller roles.

      -- The shortening of the American work week: An economic and historical analysis of its context, causes, and consequences (Whaples, 1990).

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    11. Re:Yep, Unions do nothing by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      About half of those don't exist. Why should I thank unions for an 8 hour work day when I work 12 or more? Why should I thank them for overtime pay when i don't get overtime pay? Same for FMLA, Pregnancy and Parental Leave, right to Strike, Compensation Increases and Evaluations, Age Discrimination Act, Wrongful Termination Laws, Collective Bargaining, Sick Leave, 40 Hour Work week, Pensions, Privacy Rights. None of those apply to me nor to most other Americans.
      Then there are the things you mention which do apply, but shouldn't:
      Social Security. If you took the amount that you and your company pay into social security and put it into an S&P 500 tracking fund, you would be a multimillionaire when you retire. Instead, you will get maybe $1,500 a month for perhaps 12 years. Social Security actually pays a NEGATIVE interest rate, if you do the calculations.
      Employer Dental, Life, Vision and Health insurance. Extremely rare that an employer pays for your family. Somewhat more common that the employer pays for the employees insurance. Most common is that they claim to "offer" this, but you as the employee actually pay for it. In my experience, it is always cheaper to buy a third party independent plan than to participate in the employers insurance, unless they are subsidizing you. It is cheaper to let them pay for you and get a third party plan for your family. If they offer you healthcare credits, it is better to take that as salary and put your whole family on a third party plan.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    12. Re:Yep, Unions do nothing by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

      Unions tend to start off with their hearts in the right place but, over time, tend to degrade into self-serving platforms whose sole purpose seems to be extracting more money every contract.

      Let's not dance around the subject, Unions will fight tooth and nail to increase the wages of their members because it is, in reality, a self serving issue. The amount of money their members is a direct correlation to how much the Union makes since Union dues are typically a percentage of Union members pay. Ergo, as members pay increases, so does Union dues. As a result, the Union has a self interest in taking up this fight.

      The Unions will claim to pitch a fit about your benefits / health care, but since it doesn't impact their bottom line, they don't put a whole lot of effort into it. They may even call a strike over it but the only thing that needs to be done is keep the employees out for a predetermined amount of time. All of that pay that would have gone to members, now finds itself in a pool that will ultimately pay for your health care benefits over the course of the next contract. X amount of time passes, the company pretends to " give in ", the Union gets to claim victory over the "evil" company, and everyone goes back to work with the healthcare benefits they wanted. Completely oblivious to the fact that they just paid for it themselves. :|

      When we had a problem with mold in the building, calls to the Union and Company pretty much resulted in sending a cleaning crew out to wipe down the green stuff on hard surfaces. They never bothered to remove it from the furniture, carpet, and other items. Over the YEARS, the same complaints netted the same results. Finally, we grew tired of the game and called OSHA in. We provided them with what had been done and photos of the issue. We didn't bother to notify the company nor the Union. Upon arrival and after seeing our issue in person ( with company and union reps in tow ) OSHA effectively told them to remove all employees from the affected areas immediately or they would shut the entire building down. We were vacated in under thirty minutes. The impacted floor was completely gutted of everything mold could possibly live on or in.

      Training. I work in the networking side of IT. In my company, there has not been a formal training course offered to any non-mgmt employee for over a DECADE. Any and all training an employee has is done on their own time and dime. Several thousand dollars later and a whole lot of time spent studying, I have a certification that I feel is relevant to the work that I do currently. I am working on the next level ( again, on my own ) so I can leave this place behind the first opportunity I get. Picture this: Imagine a bunch of employees who have absolutely zero training being given full enable access to about twenty thousand routers and switches across the entire company. Everything from the access layer all the way up through the core. Not a single minute of training from the company on the equipment or even the theory behind it. That scenario would scare anyone who knows what it means.

      Age discrimination. The only thing that matters to a Union is seniority. Period. Your skills, level of knowledge and capabilities mean ZERO to a Union. Your performance in the company could be worthy of a spandex outfit, complete with a cape and a mask, but your pay / compensation is on par with the lowest common denominator sitting in the corner drooling on themselves. In some instances, your pay may even be lower. ( An example being when the company brings in employees from a different Union to back fill positions and to ensure that if a strike does happen, they still have employees there doing the work since they are under a different contract ) Nothing says " Go Union " like making lower pay than the person sitting next to you doing the exact same job :| Would you like to guess what the company and Union did / said when this issue was brought before them ? Hint: T

    13. Re:Yep, Unions do nothing by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      What I don't understand is why people are SO opposed to unions.

      There is enough non-unionized labor force out there that unions are almost irrelevant these days.

      So why vocalize so loudly about getting rid of what is left?

      Sort of like why some people are so vocal against gay marriage... it doesn't affect you... why do you care so much?

      Could it be that you are just towing a line fed to you by someone with an agenda?

      In the case of unions, just like with "tort reform" the message is coming down from the corporate overlords and the shills just eat it up because it is spun "right" and intermingled with other, unrelated noise.

      If unions have a place, they will survive. If there isn't, they will fall on their own.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    14. Re:Yep, Unions do nothing by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Why someone works overtome when he is not payed for it, is beyond me.
      Do you live in a dictatorship with corrupt courts, that you can not sue for your payment?

      Working 12h for an extended time is illegal in most countries.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    15. Re:Yep, Unions do nothing by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Why someone works overtome when he is not payed for it, is beyond me. Do you live in a dictatorship with corrupt courts, that you can not sue for your payment?

      Working 12h for an extended time is illegal in most countries.

      Welcome to America. If you are not working 12 hours a day, there is someone else with no family fresh out of college who doesn't know any better (and also has no work experience, but they are willing to overlook that) who will happily work 12 hours a day for less than you are getting.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    16. Re:Yep, Unions do nothing by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Well, in Germany you need a special permit to work 10h for more than a few weeks (no idea how long, it is 20 years ago that I had to read up the details), a special part of the company called "Betriebsrat", loosely translated to "workers' council" has to agree, the boss has to "command" it. However it gets complicated if you count "work days" etc. as the weekly hours are by law based on work days and Saturday is a workday, but usually peopler don't work on Saturdays.

      If you indeed reach 10h a day, you have to get a compensation in free time, I believe at the latest after half a year.

      If you are asked to work more than 10h it needs to be approved by an public authority, specially tracked, it must be short term (usually), extra payed with 1.5 the wage, the boss has to take special care about safety, e.g. has to take care that you don't drive completely exhausted, worst case the company has to organize and pay a driving service etc.

      If any mistake is made, the boss is close to commit a crime, not only a regulatory offense.

      The topic is pretty complex as there are jobs with exceptions, e.g. for Sailors.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  7. What year do you think this is? by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    We busted up the mob years ago. They've got nothing to do with Unions now. They mostly made it in because some muscle was needed to deal with the strikebreakers (which, btw, is a word Firefox's spellchecker recognizes, which depresses me to no end...).

    See, if there's a problem with something with an enormous upside you solve it. You don't just declare the whole thing over and call it a day.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:What year do you think this is? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Informative

      >> We busted up the mob years ago. They've got nothing to do with Unions now.

      You must not live near Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Philly, etc. or take a close look at who's involved in the pension plans then.

      e.g., http://deadline.com/2015/09/mo...

    2. Re:What year do you think this is? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      You must not live near Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Philly, etc. or take a close look at who's involved in the pension plans then.

      You must have been in a coma for the last 50 years. Before the FBI could create terror plots with paid informants and then swoop in for arrests, they had to make do with prosecuting mobsters. That and breaking up anything approaching "the left" is what the FBI does.

    3. Re:What year do you think this is? by jcr · · Score: 1

      We busted up the mob years ago. They've got nothing to do with Unions now.

      That's what's known in rhetoric as a bald-faced lie. Unions will be lousy with mobsters until we get rid of unions altogether.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    4. Re:What year do you think this is? by jcr · · Score: 1

      The mob were always Democrats. All the way back to the Copperheads and Tamany Hall.

      Sam Giancana delivered the Chicago graveyard vote that put JFK in the white house.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    5. Re:What year do you think this is? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      'Dealing with strikebreakers with muscles' is illegal.
      The mafia did not allign with unions because the unions needed some muscles.
      The mafia alligned with unions or infiltrated them to get a part of the workers wages.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  8. Pro or Anti union by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Whether you are pro or anti union, you shouldn't deny workers the right to organize.
    Being able to stand together as a counter-balance to the power of the company is kind of important, whether they choose to take advantage of that right or not.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:Pro or Anti union by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "on one hand i agree that you cannot DENY anybody right to group up and self organize,
      but unions are opposite of that, first they FORCE workers to "self organize" (be members) otherwise they cant work for that specific company,
      also they FORCE company to employ one of people on their "approved list" even though company might found someone willing to do better work and/or for less money"

      In other words, you are in need of European-style unions.

    2. Re:Pro or Anti union by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      ...whether they choose to take advantage of that right or not.

      This part is important.

      As long as I am not required to be part of a union in order to get a job, I am fine with it.

      But if I'm forced to pay for a Union I want no part in, that's when I get really upset.

    3. Re:Pro or Anti union by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      I was a Teamster at one point when I worked for UPS.

      I hated the union dues because my pay was already really low.

      However, I REALLY liked the union-negotiated medical benefits which was 100% medical, dental and vision coverage, no co-pays on anything and no money withheld.

      Some union dues (I don't think they were more than $30/mo) are really insignificant compared to how much that benefit package was worth.

      So, this was over 10 years ago now but I don't think things have changed very much at UPS and they seem to be doing just fine even compared to FedEx, which, is not unionized and *should*, by all arguments made here, be eating UPS's lunch.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    4. Re:Pro or Anti union by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I'm not aware of a single country where you can be forced to be a member of a union ... where do you live?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  9. You *do* realize, right... by tlambert · · Score: 1

    And Workman's compensation suffers an economic loss when employees are falsely called independent contractors.

    You *do* realize, right... Workman's Comp is not supposed to be a profit center for the state, and that because contractors who do not pay into it can not make claims against it, you're only counting a lack of revenue from taxes as them suffering a loss, and they aren't suffering an actual loss in terms of having to pay out funds that they did not collect in the first place?

    I know that many states treat it as a slush fund they can borrow against, and (effectively) never pay back what they;ve borrowed out of it, in the same way the federal government borrows from the social security trust fund. But it's not actually *supposed* to work that way.

  10. I really wonder how other employers/employees... by tlambert · · Score: 1

    I really wonder how other employers/employees are going to take this.

    The Seattle areas top ten employers all make heavy use of contractors:

    1. Boeing
    2. Microsoft
    3. University of Washington
    4. Amazon
    5. Weyerhaueser
    6. Group Health Cooperative
    7. Fred Meyer
    8. Bank of America
    9. Qwest Communications
    10. Nordstrom

    Good luck with the lawsuits guys! You're going to be getting it from both side, if this passes!

    Side A: The employers who provide all your jobs, and don't want to have to give up contract workers
    Side B: The contract workers for those employers, who wonder why Uber contractors deserve your intervention, but they don't

  11. Right to bargain as a union by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 1

    The statement about contractors not having a right to bargain as a union isn't quite the full story. What contractors don't have is a right to have a union as the sole bargaining unit for all contractors. With employees, the union bargains on behalf of all employees whether they're members of the union or not. Contractors have every right to form a union and have it bargain on their behalf, but it can only bargain on behalf of those contractors who're members. If you aren't a member, you negotiate your own terms. And the company can't refuse to negotiate with the union because they aren't negotiating with the union, they're negotiating with you with the union acting as your agent. They can of course refuse to negotiate with you, but they could do that anyway (and frankly any sane contractor has an attorney involved in contract negotiations to make sure there aren't any hidden loopholes or gotchas in the contract, so refusing to deal with a representative would be a red flag that these aren't negotiations) and the basic idea behind a union is that refusing to deal with the union cuts the company off from so many contractors that they can't afford to do that.

    The thing to be wary of is joining a union or other organization where the management has the right to overrule the membership. That's when things always go badly.

    1. Re:Right to bargain as a union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      An important aspect is that union rights are protected for those classes of workers who are protected. This means that a person cannot be fired for being a member of a union. That is the most important reason for making all members of the company protected by the union, so the company cannot drive a wedge right through it. And those who would choose not be a member of that union would benefit from the negotiations paid for by others. This is why joining a union is done as a class, in a democratic way. The rationale is very clear, and has a very strong precedent.

  12. The propaganda's still working then by matbury · · Score: 1

    Reading some of the horribly misinformed comments about unions here leads me to believe that the anti-union propaganda's still working. Check your facts before you assume that workers that have union representation are worse off than those who don't. Also check out the difference in performance of companies that have majority unionised workers vs. those that don't. If a union isn't protecting your pay, health and safety, contracts, and benefits, then who is?

    1. Re:The propaganda's still working then by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Reading some of the horribly misinformed comments about unions here leads me to believe that the anti-union propaganda's still working.

      Substitute anti with pro and the statement remains valid.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  13. Re:You are all hypocrites by plopez · · Score: 2

    You have the implicit assumption that technology equates to doing things better. It does not. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Uber's way of doing things may not be better even if it does use technology.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  14. Re:Listen yoos by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

    I see that you just stepped out of a time machine after travelling from pre-1980.

    Here's a news flash: the mob doesn't have any appreciable influence over unions anymore. They haven't for decades.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  15. Re: Listen yoos by Osgeld · · Score: 1, Troll

    Correct they grew out of the small level organized crime that the mobs provided and ushered in a whole new level of organized crime

  16. Re: Listen yoos by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

    Correct they grew out of the small level organized crime that the mobs provided and ushered in a whole new level of organized crime

    You are spectacularly ignorant of history.

    Unions grew out of a desire for fairness and justice for workers. There have been sad periods where mobs influenced some unions (not to mention governments and police forces) but unions were never founded on the objectives of mobsters.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  17. Hey. Wingnut. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    but unions are opposite of that, first they FORCE workers to "self organize" (be members) otherwise they cant work for that specific company

    Walk into your local Chamber of Commerce and tell them you're a business owner. Then, demand all the benefits of a Chamber membership while paying none of the dues, and see what the response is.

  18. As opposed to CEO's paid $5000 an hour? by Uberbah · · Score: 2

    It's funny how many people hear the word "unions" and race to the garbage disposal to cram in their brains and flip the "on" switch, based on the same tired 50-year-old capitalist buuuuuulshit. If you work for a living and are against unions, then you're as much of an idiot as a slave who opposed the 13th Amendment.

  19. Re:You are all hypocrites by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    when Uber greatly improves the taxi industry

    For who? Certainly not the owner-drivers, for them it is an uninsured race to the bottom. As for customers - Uber do not have any "taxis", they are a plain old (illegal) limo company "on a computer". Taxi's can be hailed on the street, taxi's have ranks and other infrastructure to manage street queues at popular locations, you can talk to a human to book a taxi or use an uber style booking app, taxi's have appropriate insurance, taxis have regular mechanical inspections, and yes, you can legally negotiate an up front price with a taxi driver.

    You claim to embrace technology and better ways of doing things.

    I was desperate enough to drive cabs in the 80's for three years, I can't imagine being desperate enough to be an Uber driver. Uber brings absolutely nothing to the taxi/limo industry that wasn't already illegal 30yrs ago.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  20. Re:Hey. Wingnut. by Richy_T · · Score: 2

    Or try opening a business in a gang run area then demand all the benefits of the gang's protection (i.e. not having your store burned to the ground) while paying none of the dues.

    Voluntary association. It either is or it isn't.

  21. Re:You are all hypocrites by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    There's also the assumption that taxi companies don't have "technology", when in fact they have had computerised dispatch since before the internet was a thing.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  22. Re:Hey. Wingnut. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Or try opening a business in a gang run area then demand all the benefits of the gang's protection (i.e. not having your store burned to the ground) while paying none of the dues.

    Or try praying to Santa? Has as much relevance to the subject as your non sequitur about protection money. But, there's something about the word "union" that causes a lot of people to toss their brains down the garbage disposal without a second thought....must be a trigger word buried somewhere in Atlas Wanked.

  23. Hmm by backslashdot · · Score: 1

    Somebody will need to be president of such an organization. And secretary. And they would need to of course be paid and have a cushy office.

  24. Re: Listen yoos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Ahem. The Daily Heil is NEVER a reliable source on history, technology, literature, art, science, politics, or indeed, anything. At best, it's a reliable source for previous things they've got wrong. An article plugging someone's new book is not a primary, or any, reference.

  25. Re:You are all hypocrites by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    when Uber greatly improves the taxi industry

    For who? Certainly not the owner-drivers, for them it is an uninsured race to the bottom.

    That is a problem that should be fixed. Insurance companies should not be able to deny you coverage while you are on your way to pick up a fare. Uber provides additional insurance while you are transporting them.

    As for customers - Uber do not have any "taxis", they are a plain old (illegal) limo company "on a computer".

    Oh, so it's better than taxis?

    Taxi's can be hailed on the street,

    Not in most cities.

    taxi's have ranks and other infrastructure to manage street queues at popular locations,

    Not in most cities, or at least, they don't function.

    you can talk to a human to book a taxi or use an uber style booking app,

    Most companies don't have a booking app, and it is not uber style in any case. It's just like making a phone call. It doesn't do any of the things that the Uber app does.

    taxi's have appropriate insurance,

    You said that already. Having trouble following your own conversation? Are you new?

    taxis have regular mechanical inspections,

    A problem best solved by demanding mechanical inspections at mileage checkpoints for all vehicles, taxis or not.

    and yes, you can legally negotiate an up front price with a taxi driver.

    In my experience, they always tell you that they can't do that in the USA. In other countries, I've had more luck.

    Uber brings absolutely nothing to the taxi/limo industry that wasn't already illegal 30yrs ago.

    having failed to make a valid logical argument you resort to the false idea that legality equals morality

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  26. Re:I really wonder how other employers/employees.. by tlambert · · Score: 1

    The contractors they use are corporations which provide workers who are W-2 employees of those corporations. A true contractor is an independent 1099 worker who set rates, covers their own healthcare, retirement, etc. Don't confuse the two.

    I don't. The contracts we dealt with at IBM and Apple, and the contractors I've personally dealt with in the context of Microsoft and HP, were all 1099 workers.

    While I've dealt with contracting corporations in the service industry as well, most of the people who fulfilled the contracts were doing piecework as 1099 contractors, and not full time employees of the contracting corporation. In this context, I'm referring to "temp reps" (for sales), and traditional temp agencies for seasonal work, or to bolster e.g. accounting or HR departments during "flash mob" situations (accountants brought on as 1099 contractors for audits are a good example of this).

    Most things like forensic accounting or private investigation for law firms are run on billable hours. Most law firms which do not operate on a retainer or contingency fee basis, are also contractors. Generally, in Silicon Valley, you'll see a lot of outside law firms brought in to prosecute patents (for example) after vetting by in house counsel to ensure that the boiler plate on the application, and the claims, are more or less correct.

    When I was tech lead for the UNIX Conformance project at Apple, we had four contractors, all 1099 workers: one for man pages, one for some of the user space work, one to run the tests, and one to do the compiler conformance work on gcc. We ended up hiring two of them full time, later on, which is something which we couldn't have done, if they were employees of a contracting agency.

    In fact, I have to say I've personally only interacted with an agency at one point in time, and that was at IBM. The agency was contracting a worker to IBM that was in the U.S. on an H1-B visa, and the contractor whose services were being provided to us had to have a placeholder to act as the sponsor for the visa as a means of (eventually) getting a green card. Generally, I've only seen contracting agencies use either 1099 workers themselves, or they employ H1-B workers who have to have a business sponsor them, without actually having a job at one business long enough to deal with the Green Card process (although you can get a Green Card in about six months, if you do the things, like medical, in parallel with all the other steps that can be done at the same time).

  27. Re:Hey. Wingnut. by Richy_T · · Score: 1

    And as much relevance as your comparison of an act of voluntary association to one of compulsion. Which was the point.

  28. Re:I really wonder how other employers/employees.. by plopez · · Score: 1

    In the cases I have seen "contractors" have all been W-2s I should move to your part of the country, I hate being a W-2

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  29. Re:I really wonder how other employers/employees.. by tlambert · · Score: 1

    In the cases I have seen "contractors" have all been W-2s I should move to your part of the country, I hate being a W-2

    The easiest way to accomplish this is to start your own contracting agency, and then employ yourself, and any friends who are in the same boat, as a 1099 worker. The bonus is that this will let you deduct most of your taxes as either "operating expense" or "capital outlay" on the part of the agency, you can run an expense account for most of the day to day expenses, including a car if you want, you can incorporate retirement fund operating company for the contracting agency to reallocate income into for the principals in the contracting agency, and you still get your 1099 job on top of it.

    BTW: This is how most massage studios, day spas, nail salons, hair salons, and so on operate. Everyone who does the actual work is a 1099, with the exception of the owner, and maybe a hourly receptionist, if the business is big enough to merit one for bookings.

  30. Re: Listen yoos by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    yes extorting protection money and strong arming are not mob practices at all

  31. Easy by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    There's a multi-billion dollar lobbying industry telling them to oppose unions.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/