Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org)
Home > Uber, Airbnb and the Clash Between Workers and the On-Demand Economy
________________________________________
Uber, Airbnb and the Clash Between Workers and the On-Demand Economy
By Justin Miller [1] / The American Prospect [2]
May 2, 2016
The Uber Battle Has Only Just Begun
It's one of those universally acknowledged truths that the rise of the
on-demand economy creates challenges for the labor movement. Last week, a
major court settlement and a backroom fracas between two unions emphasized
the immediacy of those challenges.
Ride-hailing giant Uber agreed to pay $84 million [3] to settle two
class-action lawsuits from its drivers, essentially buying time before the
company has to answer to whether its business model-classifying drivers as
independent contractors-is legal. Meanwhile, the Service Employees Union
International and hospitality union Unite Here's competing interests in the
sharing economy came to blows when SEIU tried to broker a controversial deal
[4] with Airbnb.
Both the court settlement and the SEIU-Unite Here brouhaha have created more
questions than answers to how unions-and the labor movement more broadly-can
effectively combat the harmful consequences of Silicon Valley's disruption
of the employer-employee relationship.
Uber's $84 million settlement with drivers made for nice headlines, but as
Michael Hiltzik notes [5] for The Los Angeles Times, when looked at closely
it's a far better deal for the company than the workers. The most active
drivers in the suit will receive up to $8,000, but compensation for the vast
majority of the drivers involved will likely be just a couple hundred bucks.
Additionally, Uber must now show cause for "deactivating" (its Orwellian
phrasing for "canning") drivers, and not accepting enough rides cannot be
one of those causes. Whether this will actually lead to fewer unpredictable
firings remains to be seen.
A final concession in the deal requires Uber to "facilitate and recognize"
drivers' associations that can bring up drivers' concerns and discuss them
with the company on a quarterly basis. Again, the degree to which such an
association would have any real benefit for workers-or whether it'd be a
pseudo-company union-remains unclear.
Meanwhile, Uber's $84 million payout is a bargain. By agreeing to the
settlement, Uber completely avoided any legal ruling on whether the company
must classify its drivers as employees. Uber has an estimated valuation of
$64 billion (how much of that is attributable to its refusal to acknowledge
its drivers are employees is anybody's guess), and the company likely sees
the settlement as a way to buy some legal breathing room on the issue of
misclassification as it faces attacks on several other fronts.
For instance, the National Labor Relations Board is currently investigating
whether Uber's drivers are in fact traditional employees, and thus eligible
for minimum wages, overtime, workers' compensation, and importantly, the
right to unionize. Unions like the Teamsters are already attempting to
organize drivers in anticipation of a favorable ruling and lobbying for
legislation that allows for gig workers to unionize. Seattle, which is on
the vanguard of passing labor-friendly ordinances, recently passed a law
granting independent contractors the right to unionize. Democrats in the
California legislature were also pushing a similar law, though they recently
announced [6] that they are holding off for now (the California bill
apparently gave workers less power than the Seattle ordinance, prompting
some unions to temper or withhold their support). The Teamsters have
announced that they are forming an association [7] for Uber drivers in
California similar to the association they are helping support [8] in
Seattle.
The union strategy for gaining ground among app-based drivers so far appears
to be a rather chaotic approach of throwing everything-organizing, lawsuits,
legislation-at the wall and seeing what sticks. Central to a cohesive
strategy is the question of whether labor can force companies like Uber to
classify its drivers as employees, which may result in the happiest outcome
for workers but which also may require a long, expensive battle in the
courts.
An alternative route, pioneered by Seattle, is to push for collective
bargaining rights for independent contractors, which would ensure workers'
right to organize but gives employers flexibility and enables them to duck
many of traditional employers' legal responsibilities. Some centrists in the
Democratic Party favor establishing a new, third classification [9], often
called a "dependent contractor," that would extend some legal guarantees to
workers like Uber drivers; many in labor see this as an unnecessary
concession [10] to employers who just want to craft new, less comprehensive
regulations to better fit their business models. The Uber settlement settles
none of these issues; indeed, it merely ensures that the debate, both within
and without the labor movement, will continue.
When Solidarity Softens
Early last week, news broke that SEIU was trying to reach a deal [4] with
home-rental company Airbnb. In exchange for the union's tacit seal of
approval, the company would endorse a $15 minimum wage and promote the use
of unionized housekeepers to its hosts. When Unite Here, which represents
hotel workers, heard that this deal was in the works, it furiously mobilized
a coalition of labor and housing activists calling on SEIU to pull out.
"We are appalled by reports that SEIU is partnering with Airbnb, a company
that has destroyed communities by driving up housing costs and killing good
hotel jobs in urban markets across North America," said Unite Here
spokesperson Annemarie Strassel in a statement [4]. "Airbnb has shown a
blatant disregard for city and state laws, has refused to cooperate with
government agencies, and turns a blind eye to the fact that its business
model exacerbates the affordable housing crisis."
"They are essentially selling cheap cover to an American corporation for
union dues from a few members," said [4] Peter Ward, head of the Unite Here
local in New York. "It goes against all the principles of the labor
movement."
It was also discovered that former SEIU President Andy Stern was acting as a
representative for Airbnb in the negotiations, reigniting criticism from
many within labor that the union (and Stern in particular) was too inclined
to cut deals with corporations that might add to its membership rolls. But
SEIU quickly released a statement saying that they were merely having an
early-stage conversation and denying that they had reached a deal. "We
actively and regularly engage in conversations with companies who are
committed to doing right by their workforce by paying better wages and
giving them a voice at work through their union," an SEIU spokesperson said
in a statement. Airbnb is one such company, however, there is no formal
relationship or agreement between SEIU and Airbnb."
Later in the week, reports surfaced that the SEIU-Airbnb deal had crumbled,
and after privately meeting, Unite Here and SEIU agreed "to find a common
approach to protect and expand the stock of affordable housing in all
communities across the country and to protect and preserve standards for
workers in residential and hotel cleaning while also growing opportunities
for these cleaners to improve their lives," according to an SEIU statement.
The not-so-small irony here is that SEIU has for years been funding and
directing probably the largest union campaign in history to have directly
benefited millions of workers-the Fight for 15-despite the fact, as the
union must know, that it has faint prospects of turning the vast majority of
those workers into dues-paying members. And yet, when the union was
presented with perhaps the first such campaign that could have generated
more members-the Airbnb initiative-it came at the expense of another union,
Unite Here, which has a vested interest in the industry where most of its
members are employed, as SEIU does not. Understandably, Unite Here took
SEIU's pursuit of the Airbnb deal as a direct affront to its own mission,
and it had no trouble rallying affordable housing advocates and other unions
to its cause.
This is far from the first time that unions have had contentious turf
battles. However, with membership rolls diminished, the more active unions
(such as SEIU and Unite Here) are constantly searching for new organizing
opportunities. Silicon Valley and its startup economy bring with them both
organizing opportunities and organizing conundrums. But unless and until
labor can agree on a common strategy and appropriate jurisdictions, the
SEIU-Unite Here fracas will just be the first chapter in what could be a
chaotic period within the movement.
Share on Facebook Share
Share on Twitter Tweet
Report typos and corrections to 'corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx'. [11]
[12]
________________________________________
Source URL:
http://www.alternet.org/labor/uber-airbnb-and-clash-between-workers-and-dema
nd-economy
Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/justin-miller
[2] http://www.prospect.org/
[3]
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/technology/uber-settles-cases-with-concess
ions-but-drivers-stay-freelancers.html
[4]
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/18/airbnb-seiu-backlash-labo
r-union-deal-new-york-california
[5]
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-uber-settlement-201604
22-snap-htmlstory.html
[6]
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article73082972
.html?link_id=14&can_id=519f304ea7b1331ef92001fdc7653749&source=emai
l-todays-headlines-jobs-with-justice-42216&email_referrer=todays-headlin
es-jobs-with-justice-42216&email_subject=todays-headlines-jobs-with-just
ice-42216
[7]
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2016/04/22/teamsters-plan-association-ube
r-drivers/83396610/
[8] http://prospect.org/article/road-nowhere-3
[9]
http://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/files/modernizing_labor_laws_for_twent
y_first_century_work_krueger_harris.pdf
[10]
http://www.epi.org/publication/uber-business-model-does-not-justify-a-new-in
dependent-worker-category/
[11] mailto:corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx?Subject=Typo on Uber, Airbnb and the
Clash Between Workers and the On-Demand Economy
[12] http://www.alternet.org/
[13] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B
Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org)
Home > Uber, Airbnb and the Clash Between Workers and the On-Demand Economy
Uber, Airbnb and the Clash Between Workers and the On-Demand Economy
By Justin Miller [1] / The American Prospect [2]
May 2, 2016
The Uber Battle Has Only Just Begun
It's one of those universally acknowledged truths that the rise of the
on-demand economy creates challenges for the labor movement. Last week, a
major court settlement and a backroom fracas between two unions emphasized
the immediacy of those challenges.
Ride-hailing giant Uber agreed to pay $84 million [3] to settle two
class-action lawsuits from its drivers, essentially buying time before the
company has to answer to whether its business model-classifying drivers as
independent contractors-is legal. Meanwhile, the Service Employees Union
International and hospitality union Unite Here's competing interests in the
sharing economy came to blows when SEIU tried to broker a controversial deal
[4] with Airbnb.
Both the court settlement and the SEIU-Unite Here brouhaha have created more
questions than answers to how unions-and the labor movement more broadly-can
effectively combat the harmful consequences of Silicon Valley's disruption
of the employer-employee relationship.
Uber's $84 million settlement with drivers made for nice headlines, but as
Michael Hiltzik notes [5] for The Los Angeles Times, when looked at closely
it's a far better deal for the company than the workers. The most active
drivers in the suit will receive up to $8,000, but compensation for the vast
majority of the drivers involved will likely be just a couple hundred bucks.
Additionally, Uber must now show cause for "deactivating" (its Orwellian
phrasing for "canning") drivers, and not accepting enough rides cannot be
one of those causes. Whether this will actually lead to fewer unpredictable
firings remains to be seen.
A final concession in the deal requires Uber to "facilitate and recognize"
drivers' associations that can bring up drivers' concerns and discuss them
with the company on a quarterly basis. Again, the degree to which such an
association would have any real benefit for workers-or whether it'd be a
pseudo-company union-remains unclear.
Meanwhile, Uber's $84 million payout is a bargain. By agreeing to the
settlement, Uber completely avoided any legal ruling on whether the company
must classify its drivers as employees. Uber has an estimated valuation of
$64 billion (how much of that is attributable to its refusal to acknowledge
its drivers are employees is anybody's guess), and the company likely sees
the settlement as a way to buy some legal breathing room on the issue of
misclassification as it faces attacks on several other fronts.
For instance, the National Labor Relations Board is currently investigating
whether Uber's drivers are in fact traditional employees, and thus eligible
for minimum wages, overtime, workers' compensation, and importantly, the
right to unionize. Unions like the Teamsters are already attempting to
organize drivers in anticipation of a favorable ruling and lobbying for
legislation that allows for gig workers to unionize. Seattle, which is on
the vanguard of passing labor-friendly ordinances, recently passed a law
granting independent contractors the right to unionize. Democrats in the
California legislature were also pushing a similar law, though they recently
announced [6] that they are holding off for now (the California bill
apparently gave workers less power than the Seattle ordinance, prompting
some unions to temper or withhold their support). The Teamsters have
announced that they are forming an association [7] for Uber drivers in
California similar to the association they are helping support [8] in
Seattle.
The union strategy for gaining ground among app-based drivers so far appears
to be a rather chaotic approach of throwing everything-organizing, lawsuits,
legislation-at the wall and seeing what sticks. Central to a cohesive
strategy is the question of whether labor can force companies like Uber to
classify its drivers as employees, which may result in the happiest outcome
for workers but which also may require a long, expensive battle in the
courts.
An alternative route, pioneered by Seattle, is to push for collective
bargaining rights for independent contractors, which would ensure workers'
right to organize but gives employers flexibility and enables them to duck
many of traditional employers' legal responsibilities. Some centrists in the
Democratic Party favor establishing a new, third classification [9], often
called a "dependent contractor," that would extend some legal guarantees to
workers like Uber drivers; many in labor see this as an unnecessary
concession [10] to employers who just want to craft new, less comprehensive
regulations to better fit their business models. The Uber settlement settles
none of these issues; indeed, it merely ensures that the debate, both within
and without the labor movement, will continue.
When Solidarity Softens
Early last week, news broke that SEIU was trying to reach a deal [4] with
home-rental company Airbnb. In exchange for the union's tacit seal of
approval, the company would endorse a $15 minimum wage and promote the use
of unionized housekeepers to its hosts. When Unite Here, which represents
hotel workers, heard that this deal was in the works, it furiously mobilized
a coalition of labor and housing activists calling on SEIU to pull out.
"We are appalled by reports that SEIU is partnering with Airbnb, a company
that has destroyed communities by driving up housing costs and killing good
hotel jobs in urban markets across North America," said Unite Here
spokesperson Annemarie Strassel in a statement [4]. "Airbnb has shown a
blatant disregard for city and state laws, has refused to cooperate with
government agencies, and turns a blind eye to the fact that its business
model exacerbates the affordable housing crisis."
"They are essentially selling cheap cover to an American corporation for
union dues from a few members," said [4] Peter Ward, head of the Unite Here
local in New York. "It goes against all the principles of the labor
movement."
It was also discovered that former SEIU President Andy Stern was acting as a
representative for Airbnb in the negotiations, reigniting criticism from
many within labor that the union (and Stern in particular) was too inclined
to cut deals with corporations that might add to its membership rolls. But
SEIU quickly released a statement saying that they were merely having an
early-stage conversation and denying that they had reached a deal. "We
actively and regularly engage in conversations with companies who are
committed to doing right by their workforce by paying better wages and
giving them a voice at work through their union," an SEIU spokesperson said
in a statement. Airbnb is one such company, however, there is no formal
relationship or agreement between SEIU and Airbnb."
Later in the week, reports surfaced that the SEIU-Airbnb deal had crumbled,
and after privately meeting, Unite Here and SEIU agreed "to find a common
approach to protect and expand the stock of affordable housing in all
communities across the country and to protect and preserve standards for
workers in residential and hotel cleaning while also growing opportunities
for these cleaners to improve their lives," according to an SEIU statement.
The not-so-small irony here is that SEIU has for years been funding and
directing probably the largest union campaign in history to have directly
benefited millions of workers-the Fight for 15-despite the fact, as the
union must know, that it has faint prospects of turning the vast majority of
those workers into dues-paying members. And yet, when the union was
presented with perhaps the first such campaign that could have generated
more members-the Airbnb initiative-it came at the expense of another union,
Unite Here, which has a vested interest in the industry where most of its
members are employed, as SEIU does not. Understandably, Unite Here took
SEIU's pursuit of the Airbnb deal as a direct affront to its own mission,
and it had no trouble rallying affordable housing advocates and other unions
to its cause.
This is far from the first time that unions have had contentious turf
battles. However, with membership rolls diminished, the more active unions
(such as SEIU and Unite Here) are constantly searching for new organizing
opportunities. Silicon Valley and its startup economy bring with them both
organizing opportunities and organizing conundrums. But unless and until
labor can agree on a common strategy and appropriate jurisdictions, the
SEIU-Unite Here fracas will just be the first chapter in what could be a
chaotic period within the movement.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Report typos and corrections to 'corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx'. [11]
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.[12]
Source URL:
http://www.alternet.org/labor/uber-airbnb-and-clash-between-workers-and-dema
nd-economy
Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/justin-miller
[2] http://www.prospect.org/
[3]
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/technology/uber-settles-cases-with-concess
ions-but-drivers-stay-freelancers.html
[4]
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/18/airbnb-seiu-backlash-labo
r-union-deal-new-york-california
[5]
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-uber-settlement-201604
22-snap-htmlstory.html
[6]
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article73082972
.html?link_id=14&can_id=519f304ea7b1331ef92001fdc7653749&source=emai
l-todays-headlines-jobs-with-justice-42216&email_referrer=todays-headlin
es-jobs-with-justice-42216&email_subject=todays-headlines-jobs-with-just
ice-42216
[7]
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2016/04/22/teamsters-plan-association-ube
r-drivers/83396610/
[8] http://prospect.org/article/road-nowhere-3
[9]
http://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/files/modernizing_labor_laws_for_twent
y_first_century_work_krueger_harris.pdf
[10]
http://www.epi.org/publication/uber-business-model-does-not-justify-a-new-in
dependent-worker-category/
[11] mailto:corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx?Subject=Typo on Uber, Airbnb and the
Clash Between Workers and the On-Demand Economy
[12] http://www.alternet.org/
[13] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B
