“The Seattle City Council has approved a law allowing the drivers of on-demand ride companies like Lyft and Uber to unionize” (Golson, 2006). “It allows for drivers for ride-hailing apps like Uber and Lyft to unionize and collectively bargain for better working conditions, earnings, and other benefits” (Hawkins). These unions will provide much needed advantages to currently underprivileged drivers for companies like Uber and Lyft. This current need for better working conditions for drivers of companies like Uber is recognized by Uber as well. “The company recently named 2017 ‘the year of the driver’ and has said it will devote energy and resources to improving its relationship with the hundreds of thousands of people who drive on its platform” (Hawkins). The company recognizes implicitly the working conditions and compensations for the driver are not currently being met for the drivers’ needs and desires.
The company has recently received some poor press and reputation. “But the company’s bungled response to a taxi strike during the recent JFK protests led to a grassroots #DeleteUber campaign that saw 200,000 riders canceling their accounts” (Hawkins). Uber has not always maintained the best view within the eyes of the public and is currently looking to develop a stronger reputation among the applications users.
Uber’s main legal argument describes the authorities of Seattle of being incosistent with the labor laws of the city. “Shortly thereafter, Uber filed a lawsuit challenging the city’s rulemaking authority, calling it ‘arbitrary and capricious’ and inconsistent with ‘fundamental labor laws,’ according to court document” (Hawkins). Uber claims these laws do not have purpose and display a brash decision-making process on behalf of the city of Seattle.