Politics

Mass. voters green-light letting ride-hailing drivers unionize

The move could spur similar efforts in other states.
In this Jan. 12, 2016, file photo, a ride share car displays Lyft and Uber stickers on its front windshield in downtown Los Angeles. (AP Photo/Richard Vogel, File)

Massachusetts voters on Tuesday approved a ballot measure to allow the state’s more than 80,000 Uber and Lyft drivers to unionize, a groundbreaking vote that could spur similar unionization efforts in other states.

The vote is the latest development in an ongoing battle over the role of gig workers in the U.S. economy. It comes on the heels of a lawsuit settlement in Massachusetts that guaranteed drivers minimum pay and access to some worker benefits.

Question 3 was approved with 54% support. It grants ride-hailing drivers the right to form unions and negotiate pay, benefits and work conditions. The state will have the final say on whether to approve negotiated recommendations.

The new law will also establish what constitutes unfair work practices and allow drivers to take their cases before the state’s Employment Relations Board, according to the official ballot measure description.

To form a union, at least 5% of active drivers would have to approve a union drive. That would enable a union to obtain a list of all active drivers to begin an organizing effort. Ultimately, 25% of drivers would have to agree to be represented. Any collective bargaining agreement would have to receive majority support from drivers who had completed at least 100 trips in the previous quarter.

The measure enjoyed broad support from a coalition of legislators, unions and progressive groups who said the companies are profiting at the expense of their drivers.

“This would be the first in the nation to establish a union for drivers in this way,” April Verrett, president of the Service Employees International Union, told the Associated Press earlier this year.

 

In an editorial endorsing Question 3, the Boston Globe said it could serve as a “national model.”

Opponents said unionization would drive up prices for riders and force drivers to pay dues to unions they don’t control. Some critics also faulted the measure because it only covers ride-hailing service drivers, not those who deliver goods for companies such as DoorDash. Lyft and Uber did not actively oppose the measure. 

Bloomberg Law reported last month that a win in Massachusetts could lead to similar driver unionization efforts in states such as California, Minnesota, New York and Washington.

Ride-hail drivers and other gig workers — many who are immigrants — are at the center of a national debate over whether they should be considered independent contractors or employees. A push to improve their work conditions in a handful of blue states has resulted in agreements that they remain independent contractors but become eligible for some of the benefits that typically accrue to traditional employees.  

Read more: Blue states demand better pay, benefits for rideshare drivers

That is what happened earlier this year in Massachusetts. Lyft and Uber agreed to pay drivers a minimum of $32.50 an hour and provide them sick leave, accident coverage and stipends to pay for health care as part of a lawsuit settlement with the state. New York enacted a similar settlement last year.

After the Massachusetts settlement was announced, Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell (D) said she still supported the unionization effort to “empower and allow workers to collectively bargain for even greater pay and benefits.”

The California Supreme Court in July upheld an industry-backed 2020 ballot measure that affirmed the independent contractor status of gig drivers while giving them minimum pay and other benefits. Lyft and Uber had been preparing a similar ballot measure in Massachusetts this year but dropped the effort after the lawsuit settlement.

Democratic lawmakers in Colorado, Minnesota and Washington have also passed laws to give drivers access to better pay, benefits or both without requiring that the companies treat them as traditional employees.