By Matthew Benzmiller

Labor unions love centralization, and so absolutely hate the sharing economy. 

After all, the inherent nature of industries in the shared economy is decentralization. Companies like Uber, Lyft, and Airbnb contract out work to individuals with available rides and rooms. This set up allows the individuals working for sharing economy to have more freedom in most aspects of their work.

For example, Uber advertises to prospective drivers:

No office, no boss. Whether you’re supporting your family or saving for something big, Uber gives you the freedom to get behind the wheel when it makes sense for you. Choose when you drive, where you go, and who you pick up.

This sort of flexibility is what attracts many drivers to the modern services of Uber and Lyft. Surveys show that most drivers are satisfied with driving for Uber. Harry Campbell, also known as the “Rideshare Guy,” an Uber and Lyft driver expert, talks about possible reasons some drivers might not be satisfied. Harry explains in a more in-depth perspective of a rideshare driver. He says:

You’ve probably heard the cliche radio ads that say “Be Your Own Boss” and “Set Your Own Hours” but the funny thing is that being a rideshare driver really is a lot like running your own mini-business. And as any business owner can tell you, running a business is very rewarding but it’s also a lot of work and there are a ton of challenges that you will face.

Unions want to take away that autonomy and flexibility in the name of virtue signaling. Many labor leaders say they are upset at the thought of a worker, voluntarily contracted to a shared economy business, who does not receive the same “benefits” that a union could offer him.

The AFL-CIO, one of the biggest and most powerful labor organizations in America, is very outspoken about its distaste with the way shared economy companies work. According to one AFL-CIO statement:

Making the right policy choices begins with ensuring people who work for on-demand companies enjoy the rights and protections of employees. Under current law, only workers who are defined as ‘employees’ are protected by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and enjoy minimum wage, overtime, unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation, and family and medical leave.

So unions like the AFL-CIO and Teamsters aim to use the coercive power of the state to force people into unions. If this is starting to sound old, it’s because it is not the first time labor unions have employed these methods.

Glen Spencer, vice president of the Workforce Freedom Initiative at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, points out that traditional labor unions are outdated and do not address the concerns of the modern worker. This is why they use the government to make people join unions:

And so, some union leaders, hoping to preserve a dated business model, are attempting to impose rigid controls on working arrangements that are, by their very design, flexible. Unfortunately, they have found a few politicians willing to play along, but neither group seems to care that millions of Americans rely on the sharing economy every day.

Seattle lawmakers have already taken this matter into their own hands and forced unionization on rideshare drivers. Councilmember Mike O’Brien said, “We’re trying to balance the playing field. We have this multibillion-dollar company trying to monopolize the taxi industry around the world, and then we have drivers making less than minimum wage.” Jared Meyer, fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, points out that ridesharing companies having a monopoly is far from the truth:

However, as Lyft’s success and the continued introduction of new ridesharing firms have shown, Uber does not have a monopoly. Rather, Uber’s breakthrough puts pressure on taxi companies—often actual, government-enforced monopolies—to improve their services. This increased competition benefits riders and drivers by providing them with more options.

This is clearly an act of desperation from unions to keep hold of their existing monopoly on driver labor via taxis. But Meyer strikes at the heart of the matter, union dues:

Without a heavy influx of new members, many more union retirement plans will be insolvent long before millennials retire. This is why large unions such as the Teamsters are so eager to add Uber drivers, over half of whom are under 40, to their declining membership rolls.

Drivers could be adding 2-4 percent more in tax to their paychecks, not including initiation fees that can cost up to $100. On top of that, unions are rigid, inflexible organizations, the complete opposite of everything the sharing economy stands for. Being able to list a room for rent or drive somebody at your convenience would no longer be possible if union dues were not paid, or specific union regulations not followed.

To look at what a unionized sharing economy might look like, we need not look further than Seattle. It's a world of fewer opportunities, less flexibility, more regulations and less take home pay thanks to union dues and fees.

A true sharing economy requires the capacity to share.  Unfortunately, sharing has never been a part of Big Labor's playbook.