For the second election cycle in a row some Massachusetts rideshare drivers are working to have the voters decide whether they can be legally classified as independent contractors or employees.
Before Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell sit no less than nine versions of an initiative petition submitted by the group Flexibility and Benefits for Massachusetts Drivers, all of which advocates say aim to keep drivers independent and any one of which should meet the state’s legal requirements to be placed before voters on their 2024 ballots.
“There are thousands of us, ten thousands of us, who just want to be able to keep our flexibility and independence while getting benefits that fit the way we work,” rideshare driver Charles Clemons Muhammad said. “We all know that, no matter what our opponents say, there is no way to get that kind of flexibility while being an employee. We know because we’ve been employees — many of us still are at other jobs. This ballot question will protect our flexibility.”
Last election a similar question was on its way toward the ballot when it was removed from consideration by the state’s Supreme Judicial Court, after justices expressed concerns over the “relatedness” of what voters would be asked to consider.
Offering Campbell more than one question to certify for 2024 increases the chances the group has complied with the SJC’s rulings, according to the group.
“We heard loud and clear that the SJC had concerns about relatedness, and we know that trial lawyers and labor will once again try to use legal loopholes to deny voters the chance to weigh in on this important issue,” Conor Yunits, a spokesperson for the ballot campaign, said in a statement. “We have provided the Attorney General’s office with a number of options for certification that should address these concerns and ensure that voters have an opportunity to make their voices heard.”
The proposal, according to advocates, will allow drivers to continue to drive when and with however many companies they wish while creating a guaranteed earnings floor equal to 120% of the state minimum wage before tips. Drivers would earn healthcare stipends, get occupational accident insurance, see an appeals process put in place to respond to account deactivation, and receive paid sick time.
Opponents of the initiative, many of them rideshare drivers themselves, say that the claims being made by proponents of the ballot question add up to the benefits drivers would get by law, if they were simply allowed to form a union.
“Rideshare companies such as Uber and Lyft might put forth the argument that their efforts in lobbying for new state laws are driven by their concern for the welfare of their drivers. However, they are the ones who created the poor conditions to begin with. The reality is that they have constructed an industry comparable to a mobile sweatshop, where drivers are compelled to work grueling hours, receive meager compensation, and face a glaring lack of safeguards,” Roxana Rivera, assistant to the union president of 32BJ SEIU, one of members of the coalition Drivers Demands Justice.
The group of labor unions, community organizations, and Uber and Lyft drivers is encouraging drivers to vote against the initiative if it sees the ballot and to instead pressure the Legislature to pass S.666 and H.1099, or the “Rideshare Drivers Justice Bill.”
“All (Uber and Lyft) do is provide an app – we provide everything the rider needs, and yet Uber and Lyft take most of the money for each ride. We need the right to have a union, which the Rideshare Justice Bill would provide,” driver Djonny Fernandes said in a statement.