Federal Law covers who can unionize in private companies (States have control over their own employees in regard to Unionization, but have almost no say in private companies unionization).
This bill says that under Seattle law, independent contractors can form a "Union" but it is NOT a union as that is understood under Federal or State law. In fact I can say it is a restraint on trade and thus a violation of the Federal Sherman Anti-Trust Act UNLESS it fits under the exception to that act.
People forget that when the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was passed in 1890, one of its targets were unions. Unions managed to get an exception to the Sherman Anti-Trust act in 1914 when the Clayton Anti-Trust Act was passed. It is codifed in 15 USC section 17
The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce. Nothing contained in the antitrust laws shall be construed to forbid the existence and operation of labor, agricultural, or horticultural organizations, instituted for the purposes of mutual help, and not having capital stock or conducted for profit, or to forbid or restrain individual members of such organizations from lawfully carrying out the legitimate objects thereof; nor shall such organizations, or the members thereof, be held or construed to be illegal combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade, under the antitrust laws.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/17The problem here is these businesses do NOT supply the vehicles, thus something more then labor is involved and thus illegal under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Independent Contractors can NOT combine to set prices, that is a clear violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. On the other hand employees, who are providing primarily their labor, fit under the Clayton's act exception. The key is that LABOR not a vehicle is the prime thing such employees are providing, anything else must be minor at best.
What is an independnet Contractor:
http://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/whd/flsa/docs/contractors.asp
Thus this sounds like an attempt to delay unionization by providing a way to unionized that is clearly illegal. People will opt for that road, and sooner or later some court will rule the whole effort violates the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and thus illegal, thus delaying efforts at unionization three to five years.
Remember this proposal keeps the drivers as Independent Contractors and as such they do NOT come under the Clayton's Act exception to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. It is only with a finding that the Drivers are providing mostly labor and thus employees do they come under the Clayton's Act exception to the Sherman Anti-Trust laws. Such a finding requires an appeal to the National Labor Relations Board, and Federal Law only permits EMPLOYEES to use that route. Thus this sounds like an attempt to delay unionization by providing a false road for such efforts that can only end with failure to unionized.
The better route is the route being done in California when the drivers call themselves employees and had the National Labor Relations Board rule on that matter and see how the courts handle that issue (i.e. are they employees or not).
= new reply since forum marked as read
