Seattle's Uber union law set to go into effect

Interestingly all drivers are covered, but not all drivers will be voting members.<p>&gt; only to drivers who have been with a company for the past 90 days and who have made at least 52 trips to or from Seattle during any three-month period in the past 12 months.<p>Lyft and Uber fought against this, under the logic that more part-time drivers are less likely to support unionization.<p>Meanwhile:<p>&gt; Teamsters Local 117 and other drivers have pushed for stricter criteria<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.seattletimes.com&#x2F;seattle-news&#x2F;politics&#x2F;city-unveils-rules-for-unionizing-uber-lyft-drivers&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.seattletimes.com&#x2F;seattle-news&#x2F;politics&#x2F;city-unvei...</a>

I really don&#x27;t understand why a municipal law would dictate the organizational structure of a union (a private organization).<p>If Uber drivers want to organize, why do they need the Seattle City Council to pass a law first allowing it?

I wonder if Uber will just leave, like they did in Austin. Its hard to imagine the impact this would have, uber has a huge presence in seattle. I would imagine this would be political suicide for the council, certainly the impact it would have on my life would turn me into a full time shill for whoever opposes it politically

Will Uber simply ignore the law, as they have done in other cases?

Move the goalposts much?<p>I&#x27;m discussing the underlying problem <i>why</i> the union formed you are still attacking the fundamental existence of unions.<p>As I stated<p><pre><code> Unions are a bandage on a gaping wound, yes you can say the bandage isn&#x27;t doing the best job. But why do you have the gaping wound to start with? </code></pre> You say<p><pre><code> That they&#x27;re disenfranchising some of their own members should be a big red flag. </code></pre> Okay but that doesn&#x27;t disagree with my core point.<p>Unions aren&#x27;t a solution to the underlying problem. I agree with you.<p>Why are you still attacking a <i>temporary solution</i> to a <i>much larger</i> problem? Do you just hate unions that much?<p>:.:.:<p><pre><code> Whatever the historical reasons for power structures, once enacted they tend to serve their own ends. </code></pre> Power Structures are a spook! - Avar and Max Stirner<p><pre><code> That they&#x27;re disenfranchising some of their own members should be a big red flag. </code></pre> Enforcement of a power structure is disenfranchisement?<p>Every single organization in modern society experiences this. Either you truly are on some next level Max Strirner individualism or you don&#x27;t really realize what you insinuating (which is every single human organization is a fundamental oppression again humanity, this is what Strirner wrote about).