How California Reached a Union Deal With Tech Giants Uber and Lyft (politico.com) 15
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Politico: In roughly six weeks, three California Democrats, a labor head and two ride-hailing leaders managed to pull off what would have been unthinkable just one year prior: striking a deal between labor unions and their longtime foes, tech giants Uber and Lyft. California lawmakers announced the agreement in late August, paving a path for ride-hailing drivers to unionize as labor wanted, in exchange for the state drastically reducing expensive insurance coverage mandates protested by the companies. It earned rare public support from Gov. Gavin Newsom and received final approval from state lawmakers this week.
The swift speed of the negotiating underscores what was at risk: the prospect of yet another nine-figure ballot measure campaign or lengthy court battle between two deeply entrenched sides, according to interviews with five people involved in the talks. Their accounts shed new light on how the deal came together: how the talks started, who was in the room, and the lengths they went to in order to turn around such a quick proposal -- from taking video meetings while recovering from surgery to the unexpected aid of one lawmaker's newborn baby.
"This was really quite fast," said Ramona Prieto, Uber's chief policy expert in Sacramento. "It wasn't like this was months of negotiating." The landmark proposal is only the second time a state has reached such a framework for Uber and Lyft drivers, after Massachusetts did so in 2024. And unlike Massachusetts, it came together without reverting to a ballot fight. California already saw its most expensive ballot measure effort to date in 2020, when Uber and Lyft spent more than $200 million backing an initiative to bar app-based workers from being classified as traditional employees, known as Proposition 22. Its passage sparked a legal challenge from labor leaders that wasn't resolved until July 2024, when California's Supreme Court affirmed the ballot measure's constitutionality. [...]
But the compromise still faces hurdles ahead. A recent lawsuit has raised fresh scrutiny of how the deal came together and what truly motivated it. Further criticism from those left out of the negotiating room is putting dealmakers on the defense as they try to sell it more widely. Plus, the final deal isn't what some labor leaders hoped when they first set out to strengthen drivers' rights in 2019. [...] And while the deal allows gig workers to unionize, that doesn't guarantee the necessary 10 percent of the state's 800,000 ride-hailing drivers actually will. Many who drive for Uber and Lyft do so part-time, and labor leaders acknowledge the challenge of organizing a disparate population that doesn't have a space to meet one another.
The swift speed of the negotiating underscores what was at risk: the prospect of yet another nine-figure ballot measure campaign or lengthy court battle between two deeply entrenched sides, according to interviews with five people involved in the talks. Their accounts shed new light on how the deal came together: how the talks started, who was in the room, and the lengths they went to in order to turn around such a quick proposal -- from taking video meetings while recovering from surgery to the unexpected aid of one lawmaker's newborn baby.
"This was really quite fast," said Ramona Prieto, Uber's chief policy expert in Sacramento. "It wasn't like this was months of negotiating." The landmark proposal is only the second time a state has reached such a framework for Uber and Lyft drivers, after Massachusetts did so in 2024. And unlike Massachusetts, it came together without reverting to a ballot fight. California already saw its most expensive ballot measure effort to date in 2020, when Uber and Lyft spent more than $200 million backing an initiative to bar app-based workers from being classified as traditional employees, known as Proposition 22. Its passage sparked a legal challenge from labor leaders that wasn't resolved until July 2024, when California's Supreme Court affirmed the ballot measure's constitutionality. [...]
But the compromise still faces hurdles ahead. A recent lawsuit has raised fresh scrutiny of how the deal came together and what truly motivated it. Further criticism from those left out of the negotiating room is putting dealmakers on the defense as they try to sell it more widely. Plus, the final deal isn't what some labor leaders hoped when they first set out to strengthen drivers' rights in 2019. [...] And while the deal allows gig workers to unionize, that doesn't guarantee the necessary 10 percent of the state's 800,000 ride-hailing drivers actually will. Many who drive for Uber and Lyft do so part-time, and labor leaders acknowledge the challenge of organizing a disparate population that doesn't have a space to meet one another.
So what did they gain for their concessions? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're an ignorant slut. You have no idea what unions do for the members.
Oh, and you have this delusion that union dues are big bucks - wrong-o. They average 2-3% of your wages. And the head of the biggest union, the AFL-CIO, gets about $350k. Now, how much does your fucking CEO make, millions?
Re:So what did they gain for their concessions? (Score:4, Informative)
Usually when unions cut a deal for a workplace that can have non-union employees or contractors working in the same positions, they have provisions in their contracts to standardize rates or pay so that the union can't be pushed out so easily.
Totally challenging (Score:2)
labor leaders acknowledge the challenge of organizing a disparate population that doesn't have a space to meet one another.
Maybe they could use the internet or something.
Soon to be replaced by remote drivers anyway (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
A fundamental problem with "remote controlled by the cheapest of workers somewhere on earth" is latency. Just considering network latency, you're looking at hundreds of milliseconds of round trip time if you try to have (for example) people in India remote controlling a vehicle in America.
That might be fine for high level executive directions for an AI system, but it isn't going to work if you want them to actually take over and drive the vehicle. The latter really needs someone probably within a few hund
Re: (Score:2)
Uber and Lyft broke all the taxi laws (Score:1, Troll)
But they had a ton of money, so fuck all the taxi drivers.
Meanwhile, the California CTA union supports antisemitism, so my wife just quit that shit.
Fuck unions. Useless and evil half the time, and ineffective the other half. Hey, workers, fuck your rights. They go right in the shitter.
Re: (Score:1)
Of all the times I've taken a taxi, I don't recall once ever wishing there wasn't a driver in the car.
We know what they gave the unions! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Same people that always did, presumably.
Re: (Score:2)
Customers ALWAYS have a say. They can use the business, or not.
Tech Giants? (Score:1)