Impact on sharing economy as Uber and Lyft drivers union bill is passed
Yesterday we reported that Seattle City Council were voting on a bill that would allow drivers for ride-sharing firms such as Uber and Lyft to form unions. Today we can report that the bill was unanimously passed, making Seattle the first city in the US to allow drivers to collectively bargain. This could have wide ranging implications for sharing economy businesses, as the drivers will now be able to negotiate their salaries and working conditions as a unit, however, and this is important, it does not mean that they’ll be considered employees, the bill refers to the workers as independent contractors. While the bill is being seen as a test case for the rest of America, the story is not over yet. Charlotte Garden, an assistant law professor at Seattle University, said it's a "virtual certainty" that the ordinance will be challenged in court if it's enacted. "I anticipate that other cities will consider similar measures, but they may wait to see whether the ordinance survives review by a federal court," she said. 
Lyft was the first to speak out against the new bill, stating: “…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.” 
Whilst Uber is yet to comment, there is no doubt this is another piece of bad news for the ridehailing giant, which is currently facing a class-action lawsuit in California on behalf of some drivers who wish to be considered full-time employees, not contractors. Uber has consistently resisted that effort, underscoring the flexibility its service affords those who drive for the company.

Ride-hail drivers have fought to self-organize harder in Seattle than in almost any other American city, and lawmakers in Seattle have been struggling to regulate ride-hailing companies for two years, but have so far failed to compel Uber, Lyft and others to share the data the city needs to write reasonable legislation. This new legislation could require transportation network companies, as they're called, to share information about drivers that they have previously fought very hard to keep under wraps.



Seattle city council member Kshama Sawant said in her remarks that the legislation would be a victory for American labor, which has seen a "decimation of the union movement" in recent years. She called the bill "a historic step towards offering collective bargaining rights for otherwise precarious workers."



The law also gives taxi and for-hire drivers throughout the city the right to organize. During public comments at city hall on Monday, multiple for-hire drivers spoke against the bill, saying they had not been given adequate time to read and understand the legislation. Others who opposed the bill argued that city council could more positively impact workers by setting rates and controlling the number of licenses distributed than by forging a path toward collective bargaining. "This is a scam," said taxi lobbyist Chris Van Dyk.

From here, it won't be a straight shot to organization: First, drivers will have to vote on whether they even want to seek representation as a group; if they do, they'll have to select what group they want to be represented by. The city will approve groups that meet the necessary qualifications; they must be registered nonprofits experienced in negotiations between employers and contractors. Uber, Lyft and the other companies will then be required to share lists of people who work near full-time for them as drivers with the third-party group. The "near-full-time" classification will be based on a multi-part formula; to earn a vote, drivers have to work at least 80% of what full-time employment would be.



Following the vote, a spokesperson for Lyft said via email, "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."