This afternoon the Seattle City Council will vote on a proposal that would allow "taxicab, transportation network company, and for-hire vehicle drivers" to unionize. (Uber is an example of a transportation network company.)

The proposed ordinance states,

Business models wherein companies control aspects of their drivers’ work, but rely on the drivers being classified as independent contractors, render for-hire drivers exempt from minimum labor requirements that the City of Seattle has deemed in the interest of public health and welfare, and undermine Seattle’s efforts to create opportunities for all workers in Seattle to earn a living wage.

The proposal was passed 7-0 by the Finance and Culture Committee in October. If passed by the full Council, the ordinance will almost certainly be legally challenged. The New York Times notes:

Uber has two potential legal arguments against the measure if it passes. The first is that federal law reigns supreme when it comes to organizing, rendering a city ordinance on the subject essentially null and void. The second is that collective bargaining by independent contractors would amount to illegal price-fixing under antitrust law.

On that first: "Federal law governs organizing when the workers are employees, but clearly omits independent contractors." In the case of Uber and similar companies, whether drivers are employees or independent contractors is a matter of contention. More from the Times:

The second argument favors Uber. According to John Kirkwood, a professor of antitrust law at the Seattle University School of Law, the only way organizing by Uber drivers could be legal is under a so-called state action exemption from antitrust law.

The proposed legislation does not appear to meet the requirements for such an exemption, he said. . . .

Mr. O’Brien, the Seattle councilman, said he believed the law would be “legally defensible” if it passed, having developed the ordinance “in consultation with our law department.”

Regardless of the outcome, the effort’s rise to national attention could motivate others to follow.

As council member Lorena González told PubliCola,

“These are how movements get built regardless of whether it’s legal or not,” she said. “Really what we’re looking at is whether independent contractors have the right to unionize and negotiate their own working conditions. They are not covered by the Labor Relations Act. [So] We won’t know unless we push the envelope on this and this is an area worth pushing the envelope.”

Meanwhile, the Seattle Times editorializes,

HERE’S a cautionary note to local government officials dealing with the growing prevalence of independent contractors: Be careful about inviting a lawsuit at taxpayers’ expense to serve the interests of a few.