Skip to main content
  1. Home
  2. Mobile
  3. News

Seattle just became the first city to allow Uber and Lyft drivers to unionize

Lulu Chang
By

uber paris protest
Aleksey Boldin/123rf
Six years later, Uber drivers are finally getting rights. In a landmark unanimous decision on Monday, the Seattle City Council voted to allow Uber, Lyft, and other for-hire drivers the right to unionize. It’s a move that these transportation giants have tried desperately to avoid, as the regulations that come along with unionizing (or the ability to do so), may come as a hindrance and lessen the edge the companies have maintained over traditional taxi services. (It should be noted that taxi drivers themselves are also gaining the right to unionize under the decision.)

Uber has long claimed that its drivers are independent contractors and thus ineligible for such federal protections, and that allowing independent contractors to engage in collective bargaining may constitute price-fixing under federal law. But now, Seattle is officially disagreeing.

Recommended Videos

“This is amazing,” Saad Melouchi, a 30-year-old Uber driver, told the BBC. “I’m so happy for myself and for other drivers.” A number of employees have pushed for such an ordinance in recent months, despite facing backlash from Uber and other companies for doing so. Takele Gobena, 26, who led the push for Uber driver unionization, was even temporarily removed from Uber after participating in a news conference with Seattle City Council member Mike O’Brien, who sponsored the bill.

Related

“I’m so excited. I’m so happy,” said Gobena. “This is a big change for us.”

“My intent is to make sure that the people, the drivers, the workers in our community continue to have access to good wage jobs,” said O’Brien. “I am proud Seattle is continuing to lead the nation in advancing labor standards for our workers.”

But not everyone in Seattle is thrilled about the new law, including Seattle’s mayor. Noting the “valuable new tools” companies like Lyft and Uber provide for city residents, Mayor Ed Murray said, “I remain concerned that this ordinance, as passed by the Council, includes several flaws, especially related to the relatively unknown costs of administering the collective bargaining process and the burden of significant rule-making the Council has placed on City staff.” Murray has refused to sign the bill, but as his signature is not required for the legislation to go into effect, the protest is more symbolic than anything else.

Uber and Lyft, for their part, have made clear their opposition to the ordinance, and have promised to fight it in court. “Uber is creating new opportunities for many people to earn a better living on their own time and their own terms,” said the company in a statement on Monday. Lyft struck a similar tone, stating, “We urge the mayor and full council to reconsider this legislation and listen to the voices of their constituents who choose to drive with Lyft because of the flexible economic opportunity it offers.”

But to Council member O’Brien and other drivers, this decision comes as a huge victory for the many drivers employed by these enormous corporations. “This bill was only introduced out of necessity after witnessing how little power drivers themselves had in working for a living wage,” said O’Brien.

Here’s hoping this ordinance will do some good.

Editors' Recommendations

Topics
Lulu Chang
Lulu Chang
Former Digital Trends Contributor
Fascinated by the effects of technology on human interaction, Lulu believes that if her parents can use your new app…
Uber just got hit with a massive fine over how it classifies its drivers
uber settles driver background check case man driving in car the city ride share lyft getaround zipcar

It’s an issue that has been rumbling on ever since the first Uber hit the streets back in 2011: Are the men and women that operate vehicles on Uber’s platforms “employees of the company,” or are they, as an Uber executive once described them, “independent, third-party transportation providers”?

Uber has always considered them as self-employed, which exempts it from having to offer the kind of labor protections and benefits enjoyed by regular company employees, saving it a huge amount of money in the process.

Read more
Uber is now arguing that it doesn’t actually have any drivers
An Uber App on a smartphone.

If you've been living a life where you thought Uber had “drivers,” it’s time to rethink your entire existence.
In 2017, Uber executive Nicholas Valentino, the operations manager for the company’s Atlanta operations at the time, repeatedly corrected the plaintiff’s attorney in a case when the latter referred to the people operating cars on Uber’s platform as “drivers,” the Washington Post reported Monday.
According to Valentino, they are not drivers. Instead, he wanted those individuals referred to as “independent, third-party transportation providers."
If that sounds like an off-the-cuff remark, think again. Apparently, Valentino repeated the claim a total of 16 times in the course of the case. The case, Jessicka Harris v. Uber, was filed by a woman who almost lost her leg when she was struck by a vehicle being operated on Uber’s behalf that she claimed had veered off the road.
In that same case, Uber was asked to “admit or deny that Uber is in the business of providing transportation,” to which the company’s attorneys also repeatedly “denied.”
Uber later settled the case out of court but has maintained throughout a number of similar cases that it does not employ its drivers, going as far as to say about one driver that it “never had an agency, employment, partnership, joint venture, or joint enterprise relationship with him.”
Gives you the warm fuzzies, right?
The transcript of the 2017 case comes as Uber is fighting a similar but different battle in its home state of California regarding whether or not its “third-party transportation providers” should be considered employees.
Last month, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill AB5, which will give gig workers some of the same labor protections and benefits afforded to regular employees of companies, including health care subsidies, paid parental leave, overtime pay, and a guaranteed minimum hourly wage. It also gives employees the ability to unionize.
Uber strongly opposes the bill and said that the majority of the drivers on the platform would prefer to stay independent and have flexibility rather than be classified as employees.
“We expect we will continue to respond to claims of misclassification in arbitration and in court as necessary, just as we do now. But we will also continue to advocate for the independence and choice that drivers tell us again and again in surveys, polls, focus groups, and personal conversations that they value most,” Tony West, Uber’s chief legal officer, said in a blog post after Newsom signed the bill.
“Today, drivers have control over when, where, and how they work," West said. "They can choose to work for any of our competitors at the same time, and many do. In the U.S., 92% of drivers drive less than 40 hours per week, and 45% of drivers drive less than 10 hours per week. This would all change dramatically if they were employees. We will continue to defend the innovation that makes that kind of choice, flexibility, and independence a reality for over 200,000 drivers in California.”
AB5 is expected to go into effect on January 1, 2020.

Read more
Uber says drivers aren’t an essential part of its business
Uber Chief Legal Officer Tony West

Uber’s top lawyer said it would not comply with a California bill that would force it to treat its contract drivers as employees, claiming that drivers are not a core part of the company’s business.

Speaking on a conference call on Wednesday, Uber chief legal officer Tony West pushed back against the newly passed Assembly Bill 5 (AB5), which will require app-based companies in the gig economy to reclassify their workers as regular employees.

Read more