U.S. court revives challenge to Seattle’s Uber, Lyft union law

A U.S. appeals court on Friday revived a leading
business group’s challenge to a Seattle law, the first of its kind,
that would allow drivers for ride-hailing services such as Uber
Technologies Inc UBER.UL and Lyft to unionize.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said
the city did not have the power to regulate payment arrangements
between companies like Uber and Lyft and their drivers.

The litigation is unfolding amid a national debate over whether
workers in the “gig economy” are independent contractors, who
typically cannot form unions, or employees.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which sued over the law last year
and counts Uber and Lyft among its members, said in a statement
that it was pleased with the decision.

“The Chamber brought this lawsuit because allowing every city or
town to create its own unionization scheme would have burdened
innovation, increased prices, killed jobs, and harmed consumers,”
said the group, the largest U.S. business lobby.

The Seattle city attorney’s office did not respond to a request
for comment.

Seattle’s law, passed in 2015, requires the city to select a
union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the estimated
9,000 drivers in Seattle who work for Uber, Lyft and other
services. The law was put on hold pending the outcome of the
chamber’s lawsuit.

The chamber argued that by allowing drivers to bargain over
their pay, which is based on fares received from passengers, the
city would permit them to essentially fix prices in violation of
federal antitrust law.

A federal judge in Seattle last year disagreed, saying the state
of Washington had specifically authorized its cities to regulate
the for-hire transportation industry.

But the 9th Circuit on Friday said state law allows the city to
regulate rates that companies charge to passengers, but not the
fees that drivers pay to companies like Uber or Lyft in exchange
for ride referrals.

The court sent the case back to the judge in Seattle to
reconsider the chamber’s antitrust claim.

The city and supporters of the law, including labor unions, have
said that allowing drivers to unionize would improve their working
conditions, making ride-sharing services safer for passengers.

Lawyers for the city had told the 9th Circuit that in some
cases, drivers were engaging in unsafe behavior such as driving on
little or no sleep because they are not paid adequately.

The case is U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. City of Seattle, 9th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 17-35640.

reuters

A U.S. appeals court on Friday revived a leading
business group’s challenge to a Seattle law, the first of its kind,
that would allow drivers for ride-hailing services such as Uber
Technologies Inc UBER.UL and Lyft to unionize.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said
the city did not have the power to regulate payment arrangements
between companies like Uber and Lyft and their drivers.

The litigation is unfolding amid a national debate over whether
workers in the “gig economy” are independent contractors, who
typically cannot form unions, or employees.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which sued over the law last year
and counts Uber and Lyft among its members, said in a statement
that it was pleased with the decision.

“The Chamber brought this lawsuit because allowing every city or
town to create its own unionization scheme would have burdened
innovation, increased prices, killed jobs, and harmed consumers,”
said the group, the largest U.S. business lobby.

The Seattle city attorney’s office did not respond to a request
for comment.

Seattle’s law, passed in 2015, requires the city to select a
union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the estimated
9,000 drivers in Seattle who work for Uber, Lyft and other
services. The law was put on hold pending the outcome of the
chamber’s lawsuit.

The chamber argued that by allowing drivers to bargain over
their pay, which is based on fares received from passengers, the
city would permit them to essentially fix prices in violation of
federal antitrust law.

A federal judge in Seattle last year disagreed, saying the state
of Washington had specifically authorized its cities to regulate
the for-hire transportation industry.

But the 9th Circuit on Friday said state law allows the city to
regulate rates that companies charge to passengers, but not the
fees that drivers pay to companies like Uber or Lyft in exchange
for ride referrals.

The court sent the case back to the judge in Seattle to
reconsider the chamber’s antitrust claim.

The city and supporters of the law, including labor unions, have
said that allowing drivers to unionize would improve their working
conditions, making ride-sharing services safer for passengers.

Lawyers for the city had told the 9th Circuit that in some
cases, drivers were engaging in unsafe behavior such as driving on
little or no sleep because they are not paid adequately.

The case is U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. City of Seattle, 9th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 17-35640.

reuters