Main Menu

Gig Employer Blog

Posts tagged unions.

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.

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.

Not two weeks ago, we discussed several active court cases seeking to challenge the City of Seattle’s first-of-its-kind ordinance aimed at unionizing ride-sharing drivers, pointing out that the battle was about to reach a critical point. We’re happy to report that a federal court struck a blow against the ordinance yesterday and blocked it from proceeding for the time being. While this is just the first step in what is sure to be a long and complex fight, and it is only temporary in nature, it is incredibly positive news and a step in the right direction.

If the City of Seattle has its way, your next ride-sharing driver could be part of a first-of-its-kind union. And if on-demand economy companies have their way, the courts will block any such unionization efforts before they end up altering the way these companies currently operate. Although this battle has been brewing for over a year, we’re reaching a critical point in the fight, and we might now the direction this situation will take sooner rather than later.

In an effort to head off litigation by workers claiming they have been misclassified as contractors, companies using a largely on-demand workforce have been working with the New York State Assembly to develop a system of portable benefits to provide occasional workers with some level of benefits that would be available to them despite not being attached to a particular employer.

The first shot was fired by the City of Seattle last year when it passed an ordinance intended to assist with the unionization of ride-sharing drivers. The ordinance was groundbreaking in that it is the first of its kind in the country. The ordinance was also seen as controversial because it remains to be seen whether such a regulation could comply with national labor laws. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce tried to join the fight by filing a lawsuit against the City, claiming the ordinance violated antitrust and labor laws. But a federal judge dismissed that lawsuit by concluding that the Chamber didn’t have standing to pursue the claims, and even if it did, that no damage had yet been done and so the lawsuit was premature.

Recent Posts

Archives

Back to Page