If you’ve been following the legal fight over Seattle’s 2015 proposal to permit ride-sharing drivers who work for companies such as Uber and Lyft to organize and form the country’s first gig economy unions, you might feel like you have been watching a tennis match. At first a court granted a preliminary injunction to block the ordinance from taking effect in April 2017, but a few months later the court dismissed a legal challenge and cleared the way for the ordinance to eventually take effect. But just today, before the law could become official, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals revived a challenge filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the ordinance on antitrust grounds, sending the case back down to the lower court for further action.
Imagine one of your worst corporate nightmares comes true: a government body has determined that you have misclassified your workers, and they should be considered employees and not contractors. The ramifications could be devastating for your organization. You could be on the hook for overtime or minimum wage payments in the tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars, you may have unemployment insurance consequences to face, you may have an obligation to provide a cache of benefits to your workers, and perhaps even workers’ compensation insurance issues could arise. Your very business model may be threatened. But if certain administrative law judges had anything to say about it, your trouble could be just beginning: you could also be facing an automatic unfair labor practice (ULP) charge on top of your other worries.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard argument today over a proposal that would permit ride-sharing drivers who work for companies such as Uber and Lyft to organize and form unions. Given what could be at stake—the potential for the first-ever gig worker union—this has been a hard-fought legal battle to date, and today’s argument has been no different in nature.
Of all the public policy debates surrounding the gig economy of late, one of the hottest topics has been “portable benefits” – the concept that gig economy workers should have flexible, portable benefits that they can take with them from job to job, or “gig to gig.” This push just got a major jumpstart that may turn out to be a game-changer.
As union membership in the private sector continues to dwindle (down to 6.4% in 2016), the American labor movement finds itself at a crossroads with the momentous, non-union gig economy. Just as the economy has evolved juristically over time, organized labor will also be forced to reinvent itself to maintain any form of relevancy. One way this is being done is through micro-unions.
The gig economy just got a strong ally in its fight to remain union-free: the federal government. The latest development in the ongoing saga involving an attempt to put into place the nation’s first unionization law that would cover certain gig economy companies involves the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission throwing its support behind gig companies.
Josh Eidelson from Bloomberg reported that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a complaint against gig economy mainstay Handy earlier this week, alleging that the on-demand workers who provide home cleaning services through its online platform are actually employees and not independent contractors. The complaint was issued on August 28 out of the NLRB’s Boston office; a copy has not yet been made public, but if Eidelson’s report is accurate (and there is no reason to think it isn’t), this is a troubling sign for gig businesses.
Chalk this round up to the unions. In a pair of decisions issued last week, a Seattle federal judge ruled that Seattle’s January 2016 Ordinance that seeks to allow for-hire drivers to form unions and collectively bargain with their rideshare companies should stand, and dismissed a series of challenges pending against the law.
The battle over organizing workers in the on-demand economy continues to heat up. Yesterday, a federal court in Washington dismissed a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others challenging the City of Seattle’s landmark ordinance that essentially authorizes ride-hailing drivers to unionize. However, the law remains on hold as an injunction remains in place pending the outcome of related litigation.