Uber Sues City of Seattle To Block Landmark Driver Union Ordinance (geekwire.com)

Seattle's landmark law that lets drivers for ride-hailing companies decide if they want to bargain collectively was set to go into effect today, but an Uber subsidiary has sued to block key rules of the ordinance governing which drivers get to vote on unionization and other key rules. From a report: Uber subsidiary Rasier filed a petition in King County Superior Court Tuesday to block recently-published rules from Seattle's department of Finance and Administrative Services that cover issues like which drivers get a say in whether they want to unionize, working conditions subject to bargaining and how an organization gets certified to represent drivers exclusively. In court documents, Uber called the city's process flawed and asked the court to suspend the new rules. Uber wants the city to go back and tweak the rules so that they better reflect driver conditions in the ride-hailing industry. "The City failed to provide comprehensive rules and disregarded the facts and circumstances of drivers and the industry," according to Uber's petition. "Moreover, the Cityâ(TM)s rules are inconsistent with fundamental labor law principles ensuring every worker has a voice in whether to be represented by a labor organization."

Comments

Just what we need

[Anonymous Coward]

There will be one Uber union worker to put the car in gear while another union worker supervises. The union worker who steers the car will be entitled to 20 minute breaks every 45 minutes. The union worker who presses the brake and gas pedals will only be allowed to work on certain 'certified' models of cars. And all 4 of them will retire on full benefits after 10 years.

Re:Just what we need

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck this made up anti union crap already. For every (likely made up) story you have about how your father's uncle's brother's first cousin's roommate had a union job and it was full of lazy people there are about 100 well documented stories of management and owners acting like the slime most of them are. Yet we allow capital to organize (corporations) complete with special legal protections and far too many here would be just fine if we deny labor the same thing. Somehow your heads don't explode from the sheer cognitive dissonance of it--but reflecting on that one actually has to think to have cognitive dissonance.

Re:Oregon is NOT a right-to-work state

[jfdavis668]

Seattle is not in Oregon.

Re:Oregon is NOT a right-to-work state

[Fire_Wraith]

For one, this is about Seattle. Seattle is in Washington (State), not Oregon.

Second, Unions, like most organized groups of humans, can be good or bad, depending on who is running them, and how accountable the membership holds them. There are many unions whose members are quite pleased with them, because they believe they gain more in terms of improved wages and benefits than they pay in terms of union dues.

And more importantly, this does not impose a union on these drivers - it merely grants them the choice of whether or not they want one.

Re:Union Supporting

[Anonymous Coward]

And thanks to people being ignorant of history we are going to have to relive the 1800's all over again. All hail the new Robber Barons!

Standing?

[gnasher719]

How can Uber have standing in a court case about regulations for employees, when the swear blind that the drivers they are employing are not employees?

Don't realize who the robber barons are, do you?

[SuperKendall]

All hail the new Robber Barons!

That would be the unions of today, who steal from their members to give to themselves. Why do you think so many unions make it MANDATORY for workers to become members?

If a union was useful to a worker, workers would be eager to join instead of being forced to. Being forced to pay for an organization that provides no goods or services to you is the LITERAL DEFINITION of robbery.

Re:Don't realize who the robber barons are, do you

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

I'm forced to pay taxes. I may not agree with what my government does with the money. But I don't question the fairness of paying my share of taxes.

Exactly. We don't live in a vacuum and the day of the self-sufficient "rugged individualist" is over for 99.9999% of the population. We all have to pay for things that we personally may not want, but other people are saying the exact same thing about things we do want.

We're all in this together, like it or not and just because Joe Blow doesn't want to pay for a school or a library or other service that he may not use directly doesn't mean that making him pay for it is evil or wrong- other members of the society he lives in may need it.

The fact is that we all need to share the burden in order to provide a certain standard of living for the society in which we live.

If you literally live 100% off the grid and NEVER use a road or any centrally operated service (electricity, food, water, hospitals, police, etc), then you might have a case for not paying taxes. But I don't think those people really exist anymore. Even if they do, unless they're living a 17th century lifestyle they're still using the fruits of society's labor.