Rantz: Is Seattle trying to destroy Uber?

I love Uber. I always have. When they first came to the region, I was an early adopter because they offered something taxis lacked. Uber gave me a safe, clean, and inexpensive way to get around the area when I didn’t want to walk or drive myself. Uber is so amazing, I’m proudly their KIRO Radio on-air endorser. And when a service I love and evangelize is under direct threat, it bothers me. It should bother you too in this case.

The Seattle City Council, doing their best to kowtow to the unions, decided to allow for collective bargaining between Uber and their drivers. This rule was passed due to union pressure and influence over the Council. It could force Uber to be operated like a traditional taxi company (the companies that failed so miserably, it gave way for the innovative ride share services).

Related: Is this the Seattle you want to live in?

Now, the Finance and Administrative Services (FAS) for the City is trying to determine how the collective bargaining ordinance is to be implemented. To that end, they’re surveying rideshare, for-hire, and taxi drivers. But the system is flawed and it’s leaving thousands of drivers out of the process.

FAS is using a King County driver database to send out survey links, via text, to drivers. The database has cell phone numbers of drivers with permits. Only, the database has many old cell phone numbers of drivers (many of who rely on ‘burner phones’ so Uber knows they’re not receiving survey notifications), the County, per Uber, has a backlog of over 2,000 driver applicants, and the database still contains information of drivers no longer working. This is problematic.

Not only do you have driver’s voices being totally ignored, you have former drivers who may have a say in the ordinance. This is patently unfair. When you throw into the equation the fact that there are many people of color who drive for these services, Seattlites from the East African community in particular, you wonder why the City would be okay with such a flawed survey given how often the Council gives lip service to caring about social justice.

It seems like this survey is a way to get to a pre-determined result. It makes unfortunate sense given the context.

A key issue at stake here is which set of drivers will be able to vote. You have a union-backed effort to only include “full time” drivers in the collective bargaining. The claim is that they are the ones whose livelihood depends on the job and they should have a say, not the driver who only works a few hours a week. But the truth is, the union is going with FT workers because they believe those workers will help them push their union agenda (many of these drivers, for example, are former or current taxi drivers and the thinking is the Teamsters will be able to get the drivers to represent them in negotiations with Uber).

While the FTers absolutely have a lot on the line, let’s stop pretending the PTers don’t. They may work less that FT hours, but they do this for help with their rent or tuition. They should be kept out of the process because this is just PT work for them? Why is it that under the secure scheduling ordinance, the PTers mattered so much but now, in this case, they don’t? (As it happens, yet again, it’s because in that case, unions know making PTers more costly to employers, the employer may want to go with cheaper union workers, as unions are magically exempt from the secure scheduling exemptions).

I have a clear financial conflict here. I am paid to voice commercials for Uber on the radio (though I’m not being paid for this blog). But I only take on clients I actually use and love, and I have been on the side of Uber long before I become an endorser. I care about this company because it is the epitome of the region: tech savvy solutions to huge problems. And I care about the drivers I’ve gotten to know. These are people who like working for Uber (and other ride share services like Lyft) because of the flexibility. They like the extra money they’re earning to help pay for college or for medical bills. Should they be punished due to union greed? Should Uber be forced to operate the same way taxi cabs operated?

And while the unions work behind the scenes to help ensure an ordinance in their favor, PT workers who don’t want to unionize will suffer. Beyond that, a collective bargaining agreement that favors the union too heavily will do to rideshare companies what was done to the taxi industry: destroy it. But so long as unions get their membership dues, I guess it’s ok?

Follow @https://twitter.com/jasonrantz