Trending: What is a blockchain? GeekWire’s guide to this game-changing technology and its vast potential

IMG_4622
For-hire drivers gather at Monday’s Seattle City Council meeting in support of a new law that paves the way for drivers to unionize.

The Seattle City Council today unanimously passed legislation that gives Uber, Lyft, taxi and other “for-hire” drivers the right to unionize — the first such law in the nation.

Seattle Councilmember Mike O'Brien.
Seattle Councilmember Mike O’Brien speaks at today’s City Council meeting.

The ordinance, which still needs a signature from Mayor Ed Murray, gives drivers the ability to negotiate pay rates and employment conditions. Currently, these drivers are considered independent contractors and are not protected by traditional labor standards — including Seattle’s new $15 per hour minimum wage law. They also do not have collective bargaining rights covered by the National Labor Relations Act.

However, this legislation, first introduced by councilmember Mike O’Brien, creates a way for drivers to gain benefits typically given to employees.

“The intent of this legislation is to frankly create a regulatory environment where innovation can continue to happen, but not at expense of the workers,” O’Brien said today at City Hall, where several supporters of his bill cheered when the council approved it with an 8-0 vote.

[Related: Seattle mayor objects to Uber union legislation, declines to sign bill and asks for changes]

During the public comment portion of today’s meeting, one man said “we shouldn’t let tech companies undermine progress we’ve made against income inequality in Seattle.”

IMG_4613

IMG_4616

20151214_135800

O’Brien’s unique plan is to let drivers that have a minimum threshold of trips join a “Driver Representative” organization that would then allow them to negotiate pay rates and employment conditions. These organizations would have 120 days to demonstrate that “a majority of drivers for a specific company choose to be represented.” From there, they would be able to participate in collective bargaining conversations on behalf of their drivers.

“This is an example of legislation that allows our economy and our community to continue to evolve and innovate, but insures that as we do that, we do it in a way that’s not a race to the bottom that benefits few, but rather we do it in a way that sustains the whole community and lifts everyone up — especially those that are at the bottom who need access to opportunities,” O’Brien said today. “I firmly believe that this legislation is a great step in that direction.”

All eight councilmembers at City Hall on Monday approved the new legislation, more than a year after Seattle lawmakers created regulations for “transportation network companies” like Uber and Lyft. Councilmember Kshama Sawant called it a “historic step toward offering collective bargaining rights for otherwise precarious workers.”

sawantobrien
Councilmember Kshama Sawant speaks in support of legislation that gives Uber, Lyft, and other “for-hire” drivers the right to unionize.

“Any councilmember who votes ‘no’ on this will clearly be saying that they care more about profits of a multibillion-dollar company than rights of Seattle workers,” Sawant said.

New councilmember Lorena Gonzalez said she understands the importance for low-wage workers to have a voice.

“This is good policy for our city,” she said. “I ask all of us to ask ourselves: Do we want to use the law as a shield, or do we want to use it as a sword? I say, use it as a sword.”

Teamsters Local 117teamsters, an organization that represents taxi drivers and unions across the Puget Sound region, helped create the “App-Based Drivers’ Association” earlier this year for drivers who were frustrated with how they were treated by Uber and Lyft. Teamsters Local 117 Business Representative Dawn Gearhart was pleased with Monday’s unanimous vote, calling it the “next logical step to support working people” in Seattle.

“In the bigger picture, even though workers are classified as independent contractors or outside of traditional employment, governments and other workers are actually recognizing that they still need protection at work and they still need a say,” Gearhart told GeekWire. 

Gearhart added that drivers like the flexibility of working when you want, which is what companies like Uber and Lyft tout as a reason for classifying workers as independent contractors versus employees — in exchange, they don’t offer benefits often provided to employees of traditional private companies.

But she said the definition of “flexibility” has changed since the companies first began operating in Seattle.

“A lot of drivers have to now work 12 hours to make the same amount they used to make in eight,” she said. “That really cuts into their flexibility. They aren’t able to take a second job or spend time with their family because instead, they are spending more time on the road trying to supplement the income they lost from these companies.”

Uber driver Don Creery.
Uber driver Don Creery.

Don Creery, a driver for both Uber and Lyft who’s been interviewed by The New York Times and local radio stations on this topic, called it a “really good victory” for drivers.

“There’s always this talk of, if you don’t like it, quit,” Creery told GeekWire. “My attitude is that, that’s the lazy route to go. I drove at a time when pay was better, and I know it can be better now. It’s not better for a simple choice: To impose these non-competitive rates on the industry in an attempt to attain monopolization.”

Added Creery: “Civil society rejects monopolization. Instead of walking away from this, I would prefer to stay within it and try improve it.”

Creery noted that there will be “undoubtedly” be litigation from companies like Uber and Lyft.

David Plouffe speaks in Seattle earlier this month.
David Plouffe speaks in Seattle earlier this month.

“Going forward, it’s going to be a lot of work,” he said. “If they choose litigation, it will be a long route.”

Litigation is certainly not out of the realm, at least from Uber’s side. Speaking in Seattle earlier this month, Uber strategic policy advisor David Plouffe called the ordinance “puzzling,” and warned that it may cost the city some money.

“I think the ordinance is puzzling because it’s generally believed to be flatly illegal, and I assume the courts will look at that if it were to be successful,” Plouffe said. “My understanding is that a couple councilmembers here also asked the Federal Trade Commission to look at this, as they had some concerns about the anticompetitive behavior that this ordinance might be suggesting.”

Plouffe added: “At end of the day, we don’t think it makes a lot of sense and could be something that costs the city a lot of money.”

Seattle Councilmember Tom Rassmussen said today that “everyone expects this ordinance to be challenged in court.”

Seattle skyline and Rainier at sunset“But to me, that’s the cost of seeking innovative policies that addresses issues like income inequality and working conditions,” he said. “Seattle has often led the way with innovative policies. If this City Council or previous ones were to be discouraged from enacting reform legislation because of the threats of lawsuits, we wouldn’t have our early housing laws back in the 1960s, laws protecting the LGBT community from discrimination, the $15 minimum wage, or the mandatory sick leave ordinance.” 

Uber and Lyft have dealt with lawsuits and pressure from workers rights advocates over the past few years who contend that drivers should be classified as employees, not contractors. But the companies, which have both dropped ride rates for passengers in past few years, maintain that their service gives drivers flexibility to work when they want — in exchange, they lack benefits often provided to employees of traditional private companies.

Just last week, a federal judge expanded a class-action lawsuit by California Uber drivers looking to establish themselves as employees. In response, Uber sent all of its U.S. drivers a legal agreement that would let them opt-out of future class-action lawsuits, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

There are others who aren’t too thrilled with the approved legislation, either. Eastside for Hire General Manager Sam Guled called the vote “unfortunate” and said the city has stepped out of its local regulatory authority.

Photo via UberX
Photo via uberX.

Guled added that “unions have been a negative force in this industry,” noting that they “divide our community.”

“The people who are celebrating today are the taxi owners of Yellow Cab and other taxis, because that’s basically who Teamsters really work for,” Guled told GeekWire. “And this isn’t just about Uber. It actually affects us small companies. It’s unfortunate the council was misled in a way that makes them think they’ve done something for drivers, when in fact, they haven’t.”

Guled said there are other options city lawmakers can take to help level the playing field and offer drivers more rights without creating unions, like adding taxi licenses or helping lower the cost of insurance.

Abdul Yusuf, another Eastside for Hire manager, said that “our community has enjoyed the status of independent contractor for many years.”

“I don’t think this legislation will ever take effect and we’ll oppose it all the way through,” added Yusuf. 

We were at the City Council meeting live-blogging the proceedings and you can follow along below for more details. Here are statements from Uber and Lyft:

“Uber is creating new opportunities for many people to earn a better living on their own time and their own terms. Drivers say that with flexible and independent work with Uber, 50% of them drive fewer than 10 hours a week, 70% have full-time or part-time work outside of Uber and 65% choose to vary the hours they drive 25% week-to-week.” — Uber spokesperson

“Lyft provides consumers with convenient and affordable transportation, and drivers with the ability to make money in their free time. Lyft drivers are entirely in control of where or when they work, and this flexibility is exactly why the service is so popular with with people looking to make extra income. Unfortunately, the ordinance passed today threatens the privacy of drivers, imposes substantial costs on passengers and the City, and conflicts with longstanding federal law. 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.” — Lyft spokesperson

Taylor Soper 12/14/20152:04 pm

Packed house here at City Hall. All councilmembers except for Sally Bagshaw are present. Here is today’s agenda: https://seattle.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=449835&GUID=712D0B7C-A536-498E-8C99-D3037AE814D9

Taylor Soper 12/14/20152:05 pm

Drivers have signs here with “Driver Unity.” Some Teamsters representatives here. Not seeing many Uber folks. 

Taylor Soper 12/14/20152:05 pm

Here is a quick preview for today’s vote: http://www.geekwire.com/2015/seattle-councilmembers-vote-law-unionize-uber-lyft-drivers/

Taylor Soper 12/14/20152:06 pm

The New York Times, as with media around the nation, are also watching how Seattle handles this legislation: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/14/technology/seattle-considers-measure-to-let-uber-and-lyft-drivers-unionize.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

Taylor Soper 12/14/20152:08 pm

Public comment period now. First guy, Larry Brown (not the former NBA head coach), says drivers deserve more rights. “This legislation will help make that happen.”  

Taylor Soper 12/14/20152:12 pm

You can watch today’s meeting here: http://www.seattlechannel.org/live

Taylor Soper 12/14/20152:13 pm

“They have moral right to organize and they need legal right to do so.”

Taylor Soper 12/14/20152:13 pm

“Uber does not share and does not care.”

Taylor Soper 12/14/20152:13 pm

“This is the tyranny of pixels.” 

Taylor Soper 12/14/20152:14 pm

“Please may we stop this now, the time to organize is now.”

Taylor Soper 12/14/20152:18 pm

Sam Guled, Eastside For-Hire GM Sam Guled asks Council to delay vote. Says bill isn’t inclusive of all drivers and says it has been “rushed.” Says it is “shameful.” 

Taylor Soper 12/14/20152:19 pm

In regard to his “shameful” comment, Guled said the sub-committee voted 7-0 on this legislation on a Friday afternoon while “most of us were praying.”  

Taylor Soper 12/14/20152:19 pm

Full legislation here: http://www.seattle.gov/council/issues/VoiceForDrivers/

Taylor Soper 12/14/20152:21 pm

Another for-hire rep, not associated w/ Uber or Lyft, says that even if council passes law today and there are no follow-up legal challenges, there will be at least a year before the collective bargaining process starts. “This is a scam,” he says. 

Taylor Soper 12/14/20152:24 pm

Driver for Eastside says they haven’t been included in any discussions about this and “as beneficiaries of it, we want to know how this will affect us and the future.” Wants council to delay vote. 

Taylor Soper 12/14/20152:25 pm

John Grant says “we shouldn’t let technology companies undermine progress we’ve made against income inequality in Seattle.” Says “shared economy is a myth because wealth is not being shared.” Huge applause. 

Taylor Soper 12/14/20152:26 pm

Elderly woman now takes a dig at Amazon, says company should provide free transit fares to students, seniors, and people with disabilities. 

Taylor Soper 12/14/20152:28 pm

“They’re going to go after our public transportation with uberHOP.” 

Taylor Soper 12/14/20152:33 pm

Taylor Soper 12/14/20152:34 pm

Nobody from Uber here spoke at public comment. Perhaps they’ve already had closed-door talks with counclimembers. One source says that Uber strategic advisor David Plouffe met with the mayor when Plouffe was in Seattle earlier this month. 

Taylor Soper 12/14/20152:35 pm

Interesting that one guy thought uberPOOL was going to take over public transportation. Some insight on the economics of Uber’s new carpooling service here: http://www.geekwire.com/2015/economic-experts-optimistic-ubers-new-5-flat-fee-carpool-service/

Taylor Soper 12/14/20152:36 pm

OK, be back in a bit. Council moving through other ordinances, including one tech-related law that will renew a contract with Comcast: http://www.geekwire.com/2015/take-two-comcast-seattle-reach-revised-franchise-agreement-city-complains-philly-got-sweeter-deal/

Taylor Soper 12/14/20152:46 pm

So the new Comcast contract passed, 8-0, with no discussion except for councilmember Bruce Harrell re-hashing what’s already known. 

Comcast and Seattle reach revised franchise agreement after city complains that Philly got a sweeter deal

Taylor Soper 12/14/20152:49 pm

The only pushback at the last council meeting with that Comcast bill was concern that newly-added benefits were not part of the actual franchise agreement, but rather included in a separate letter. 

Taylor Soper 12/14/20152:49 pm

So, seems as though that has been settled. 

Taylor Soper 12/14/20152:52 pm

OK, almost time for discussion to being. Again, here is the full legislation: http://seattle.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?m=l&id=/matter.aspx?key=2910 

Here with some explainers: http://www.seattle.gov/council/issues/VoiceForDrivers/

Taylor Soper 12/14/20152:53 pm

A “proposed substitute”: http://seattle.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=72cfc490-6517-4db4-881d-f439bdba2bc7.pdf

Taylor Soper 12/14/20152:53 pm

And “Summary and Fiscal Note” http://seattle.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=37eac737-d08c-44f7-975e-d4b3dfd906c4.docx

Taylor Soper 12/14/20152:55 pm

Taylor Soper 12/14/20153:02 pm

O’Brien: “The intent behind this legislation is consistent with a lot of the things” that Seattle is about. “We want to create an environment where workers in our city have a chance to be treated fairly and earn a living wage.”

Taylor Soper 12/14/20153:02 pm

“Intent of this legislation is to frankly create a regulatory environment where innovation can continue to happen, but not at the expense of the workers.”

Taylor Soper 12/14/20153:03 pm

“I’d imagine we will have a little discussion here,” O’Brien says. 

Taylor Soper 12/14/20153:05 pm

Councilmember Sawant: “Uber does not share and does not care. That is absolutely correct.” Says workers take a loan to get a car to drive for Uber, then are “trapped into debt” with “no legal protection.” 

Taylor Soper 12/14/20153:06 pm

“This is a reflection of a decimation of the union movement in the past many decades.” — Sawant

Taylor Soper 12/14/20153:08 pm

“Any councilmember who votes ‘no’ on this will clearly be saying that they care more about profits of a multibillion company than rights of Seattle workers.” — Sawant.

Taylor Soper 12/14/20153:09 pm

Sawant is “proud to vote yes on this proposal.” 

Taylor Soper 12/14/20153:11 pm

Councilmember Tom Rassmussen says he’ll vote for legislation, says Seattle has led the way with other innovative laws. 

Taylor Soper 12/14/20153:13 pm

Councilmember Gonzalez: “This is good policy for our city. I ask all of us to ask ourselves, do we want to use the law as a shield, or do we want to use it as a sword? I say, use it as a sword.”

Taylor Soper 12/14/20153:16 pm

Councilmember Harrell supports it. Looks like it will pass. “This is the beginning of something, certainly not the end.” That’s an understatement. 

Taylor Soper 12/14/20153:19 pm

Councilmember Licata will vote “yes.” He says “this will be the first jurisdiction in the nation to come up with this model. That is a very important element.”

Taylor Soper 12/14/20153:21 pm

Licata said he’s happy that the council all seems to agree on this. Says it’s important as they move forward and important to work w/ mayor, who will need to sign this legislation. 

Taylor Soper 12/14/20153:22 pm

Council votes 8-0 to pass law. Huge applause. “When we fight, we win!”

Taylor Soper 12/14/20153:40 pm

Just spoke with some drivers, Teamsters rep, for-hire general managers. Drivers and Teamsters (which reps taxi drivers) are happy. For-hire GMs not happy. 

Taylor Soper 12/14/20153:41 pm

Lyft statement: Lyft provides consumers with convenient and affordable transportation, and drivers with the ability to make money in their free time. Lyft drivers are entirely in control of where or when they work, and this flexibility is exactly why the service is so popular with with people looking to make extra income. Unfortunately, the ordinance passed today threatens the privacy of drivers, imposes substantial costs on passengers and the City, and conflicts with longstanding federal law. 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.

Taylor Soper 12/14/20153:41 pm

Uber statement:  Uber is creating new opportunities for many people to earn a better living on their own time and their own terms. Drivers say that with flexible and independent work with Uber, 50% of them drive fewer than 10 hours a week, 70% have full-time or part-time work outside of Uber and 65% choose to vary the hours they drive 25% week-to-week.

Like what you're reading? Subscribe to GeekWire's free newsletters to catch every headline

Comments

Job Listings on GeekWork

Director, Semantic ScholarAllen Institute for Artificial Intelligence
Find more jobs on GeekWork. Employers, post a job here.