Slashdot Mirror
Seattle Passes First Uber Drivers' Union Into Law (thestack.com)
An anonymous reader writes: The city council of Seattle has unanimously voted in favour of a proposal which will require Uber — and driving-related companies which operate on the same principle — to allow its drivers to be represented by a union, the first of its kind in the US. The lead-up to the vote was hallmarked by opposition from Seattle's mayor Ed Murray, and by a publicity campaign from Uber, which opposed the bill. Though the law will allow collective bargaining for drivers which are effectively on zero-hours contracts, any effect it has on current disputes as to whether Uber drivers are employees or contractors will be ambient rather than direct.
I don't see why they would need this.. if the rates you get aren't competitive... why even do it... move on and do something else... it's not like uber is the only option in seatle...
California will pass legislation giving self driving cars the right to form unions. The AI civil rights movements needs to start somewhere.
Uber has a problem with calling its drivers "employees". That is to say, they don't.
Really, they shouldn't be calling them contractors either, but if they didn't employ the drivers one way or the other, how would they extract their profit from the drivers' work? They should have looked harder at ebay and other companies that manage to extract profits from their users without employing them. Nobody calls the guy selling random junk on ebay an employee or a contractor, do they?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Unions have a dark side, too, like the inability to fire incompetent people, valuing seniority over ability, creating artificial scarcity (you can only hire union people for job x, and the union won't let people in), etc.
There's no upside for Uber. If they were going to do everything the union wants anyway, then at best the union is a NOOP.
I'm sure the other taxi services in Seattle are unionized, there is no reason for the Uber taxi service not to have the same.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Germany is happy with unionisation. Unions act as the negotiator between management and non-management, ensuring that employees have sufficient compensation to maintain an interest in keeping their job, updating their skills often, and keeping as productive as possible. Everybody wins.
Not everybody wins. The people without jobs don't win. Unions are only useful once you're in the union. Unions usually try to impose limits on the number of new hires. Unions also always carve out the more lucractive territories and the better schedules for its more senior members.
And in the United States at least, collective bargaining usually doesn't allow for individual bargaining, so a portion of your income goes to Union fees whether you want the Union representing yourself, or not.
Not unlike corporations taking your labor and then using the money generated from it to lobby for laws that will put you out of work.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
> so a portion of your income goes to Union fees whether you want the Union representing yourself, or not.
Why would you work for a company that has a union then? The union requires the contract to unionize employees, because otherwise you get into situations like Indiana where unions are toothless. They cannot enforce contracts and management can feel free to violate those contracts without much danger. Unions come about and exist today because companies continue to view their employees like simple "resources". To your average MBA grad, you're not much different than a pen or pencil. You're a resource to be scheduled, consumed, abused, and then terminated depending on whatever business needs there are. Today's employee protections provide a minimum and some unions help to extend that minimum into something worthwhile.
Why would you work for a company that has a union then?
That's an interesting sociopathic question.
So your view is that all the Uber drivers who don't want to be represented by a Union should just quit then? That should make things easier for you, right. Anyone who isn't willing to work for the common good of the group should just become selfless and quit whenever a Union comes in. Either be with us, or move out of the way.
I'll give you one concession. If you want me to contribute to a strike fund (or to a fund that pays for a Union lawyer), allow me to put aside money for that union in an escrow account at the very least, and if we don't strike, or if I don't need a lawyer, allow me to get that money back (with interests) whenever I leave my job.
I'm not saying that all corporations are good, but Unions are supposed to look out for the employees, these days in the US they act like pimps, and when business shut down it's usually because the unions wanted too much, screwed over the company. Take a look at Hostess they were a large company, and only 40% percent of it's employees were unionized but they wanted too much, they stopped production and shut down, because that was more cost effective. I remember around 2002 there was a company Consolidated Freightways, they were a HUGH multi state company with union employees. One day everyone showed up to work with at the local facility of theirs, all the building were locked down and just a sign in the driveway that the company was shut down permanently. They were basically fighting the Teamsters for 20 years at that point.
Though the law will allow collective bargaining for drivers which are effectively on zero-hours contracts, any effect it has on current disputes as to whether Uber drivers are employees or contractors will be ambient rather than direct.
zero-hours contracts? ambient? whaa?
Actually germany is not at all happy with uinions.
Constantly unions are Merging to get more and more power. Unions are meanwhile some of the biggest employers themself.
The unions in germany are one reason why unemployment is so high, they are the prime reason we have such a low rate of part time workers. Part time workers don't need unions, you know. If the job, the boss or the coworkers suck, or the payment is not adequate: they switch.
The only way to get a decent payed part time job in germany is to get a full time employment, and then force the employer into a part time agreement, which he is oblieged to accept by law.
Like in France the unions are masturbating in public showing their power by disabeling whole industries due to performing strikes in key areas: somthey only pay 'strike money' to a very low amount of people and the companies have to pay all the rest of people who can not work but have to show up anyway.
E.g. train drivers ... if they are on strike the rest of the 40.000 employes have to work and get payed anyway, even as they can't do anything productive.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
How is that sociopathic? If an employer says it wants it employees to be able to lift 60lbs to do their job and I can't do that, is the employer the sociopath since it's saying it can't hire me to do a job I can't do? The union contract, that the company agreed to, is saying the same thing. And your concession is dubious at best. Can I tell my home owners insurance company, when I leave my house, that I want my money back?
Unions are only useful once you're in the union.
Nonsense, everyone is subject to the same tarriff contract, regardless if in a union or not.
Unions usually try to impose limits on the number of new hires.
No they don't. That would be idiotic.
Unions also always carve out the more lucractive territories and the better schedules for its more senior members.
Yes! And? What is wring with that?
so a portion of your income goes to Union fees whether you want the Union representing yourself, or not.
You want to tell me, you have to pay union fees in the USA if you are not a member of a union? Sorrrry, that is hard to believe!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I don't see why they would need this.. if the rates you get aren't competitive... why even do it... move on and do something else... it's not like uber is the only option in seatle...
It's a fight about who gets to abuse whom. Ideally workers have enough bargaining power to prevent too much abuse from employers while employers have enough bargaining power to remain competitive and profitable while getting the job done they need done. The result is then that the employer continues to provide the service and profits, while the employees continue to provide their service and profit.
The problem is when either side gets too much power, the other side will get abused. For example, the UPS guy who throws packages all the time and can't be removed, the teacher who is totally incompetent but can't be fired, the teacher who can't drill a hole in his own desk or install a bookshelf in his office without having a union go apeshit all over his school. For example, the employer who will fire you if take a holiday, who provides only the salary for an IC and no benefits when you're clearly an employee, or who promises retirement at thirty years and then makes up a reason to fire you at twenty-nine years eleven months.
Guilds can be great, but can also close ranks around people who shouldn't be protected or prevent others from competing. Employers can be great, but can also do really evil things in the name of shareholders.
If Uber was like eBay, you'd have to negotiate the price with the driver *and pay him* before he evens show up. And then he just doesn't show up at all. So you call Uber and they promise to start an investigation, but do nothing. In the end, 6 months later, you get your money back, but you're still stranded on the street corner.
And for the Uber drivers, they'd experience getting a call to pick up someone. The driver and client are in Seattle. However, when the client, who has already negotiated a price with the driver actually gets into the car, he insists on being driven to Romania. And he'll give you negative feedback if you don't immediately do this.
And that's why Uber is not run like eBay.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
But....NOT every job has to be one with a living wage, that's the problem here. Some jobs are meant to be starter jobs
Also don't forget about "filler" jobs, which are ones that help supplement a small income (like social security or disability). Those jobs are important too, and equally being culled by the onslaught of a higher minimum wage.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
ebay sellers have a lot more control. They are like flea markets that are a few rules (no where near uber) and they change fees for the space. The sellers have full control over pricing and can't be told stuff like no tips.
I don't understand this. What is stopping any group of people from forming a "union" for any purpose? Why do they need permission from the government?
I am not a fan of workers' unions as we typically understand them, but I would never deny them the right to act collectively.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
and thus why there is a push for some type of "third" grouping. The idea is a “dependent contractor" or something; a new area that has parts of the former two. But it seems the USA doesn't like having more than two options for anything really...so I doubt anything like this will ever happen. Neither the unions nor the corps will allow any control to be lost and both will use their purchased lawmakers to keep this from happening.
Nobody calls the guy selling random junk on ebay an employee or a contractor, do they?
And yet eBay does the same thing as Uber, in terms of rating sellers, which is what people are claiming results in Uber's contractors supposedly being employees.
Personally, were I in charge at Uber, it would cost only a few million dollars to set up either franchise operations, or set up each driver as a corporation, and then contract with the corporation on a 1099 basis, instead of with the driver themselves.
We really know that there are two issues here: (1) The taxi companies have historically held a medallion/lease monopoly, and so were able to give shitty service when they were called to locations they didn't really want to go, and (2) it's a lot easier for a government agency to collect taxes if they only have one business entity to deal with, and can manage it as an unfunded mandate on the business, rather than having to collect from each individual contractor.
The second reason is the same one that causes most government agencies to make it really, really miserable to get licensed as a 1099 contractor as a massage therapist, or a nail salon worker, or a hair stylist, all of which are typical 1099 contractor jobs.
Corporations have a dark side, too, like the inability to fire incompetent people, valuing seniority over ability, creating artificial scarcity, etc.
Fixed that for you.
You didn't fix it very well. Most corporations look at seniority as a liability, in terms of the premium they end up paying for it.
There's a reason the average age at many Silicon Valley companies is far lower than the average age of Silicon Valley CEOs. Google and other tech companies run at an average age of about 29 years old. Larry Page, on the other hand, is 42. The median age of U.S. workers across all industries is 42.4. The average age of a Facebook employee is 26; Zuckerberg is currently 31. Apple is slightly higher, with an average age of 33; Tim Cook is 55.
In other words, there's a bias *against* seniority; for seniority to be meaningful, you pretty much have to be in a union job, at a higher grade than apprentice or journeyman.
Corporations generally have a fiduciary responsibility to get rid of incompetent people. Unlike, for example, the unionized Muni drivers who show up to their job reeking of alcohol, or the bad teachers you can't get rid of, or the bad cops that immediately call their union rep, etc., etc..
While I agree that corporations may in fact create artificial scarcity, that's usually a scarcity of product, rather than of service. For example, Apple is well known to do hold backs on new product releases, so that demand outstrips supply, and therefore people are willing to pay a premium; on the other hand, if you walk into an Apple store, and go to the "genius bar", you pretty much get helped, and they sales associates on the floor tend to not approach you first, or push any particular product, they are there to answer questions and take payment in exchange for goods. Good service is just good business.
You're saying a union agreement is an agreement between an employer and its employees. You and I both know this is becoming less and less the case. The government is often the one coercing companies to unionize.
In this case especially with Uber, a couple of politicians have started all of this. The fact is, many Uber drivers are driving for Uber precisely because it offers them so much flexibility (and not because it's a union shop). Saying that those people should just move aside and quit if they don't want to join a union lacks empathy to their circumstances.
> You and I both know this is becoming less and less the case.
Do you have any evidence to back your statement up?
> In this case especially with Uber, a couple of politicians have started all of this.
Actually Uber's employees started this and judging by what I've read it's being met with some happiness by Uber drivers.
Unions are classified by the IRS as 501(c)(5) corporations. (PDF)
Unions are corporations.
That might be the case in the US where the company/union relationship is frequently toxic. In Germany the relationship is valued by both parties, as it is demonstrably the only way to reliably address any problems and reach the best outcome. Don't assume unions the world over are like those in the US.