This question is also the result of a long-running dispute, and one that is not confined to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The dispute is essentially about whether drivers for network transportation companies — primarily Uber and Lyft, but also for services like Instacart or Grubhub — should be considered “independent contractors” or “employees.” If they are to be considered employees it would require the companies to pay them benefits, but it would also restrict some of the scheduling freedoms that drivers currently have.

This question was to be addressed by the Supreme Judicial Court back in May of this year, as the result of a civil lawsuit filed in 2020 by Maura Healey, who was Attorney General at the time. The lawsuit accused the companies of unlawfully classifying their drivers as contractors to avoid treating them as employees entitled to a minimum wage, overtime and earned sick time. 

In June the Office of the Attorney General entered into a settlement agreement with Uber and Lyft, which requires the following, inter alia:

• Drivers are to receive a minimum of $32.50 per hour for time spent traveling to pick up riders and transporting them to their destination; 
• A $175 million restitution amount will be split between Uber ($148 million) and Lyft ($27 million), most of which will be distributed to current and former drivers who were underpaid by the companies;
• Drivers are to receive guaranteed paid sick leave, earning one hour of sick pay for every 30 hours worked, up to a maximum of 40 hours per year;
• Drivers are to receive a paid stipend to buy into the state’s paid family and medical leave program;
• Uber and Lyft will allow drivers to pool their hours driving for the two companies to obtain access to a health insurance stipend under which anyone who drives for more than 15 hours per week will be able to earn a health insurance stipend to pay for a plan on the Massachusetts Health Connector; 
• Drivers are eligible for occupational accident insurance paid by the companies for up to $1 million in coverage for work-related injuries. 

The settlement also put to an end the companies’ attempts to rewrite state employment law via a 2024 ballot initiative which would have resulted in drivers receiving inadequate protections and an earnings standard that would not guarantee minimum wage.

But this current ballot initiative was left standing. What it does is authorize drivers to form unions to bargain collectively with network transportation companies. The Employment Relations Board would be the agency designated to determine whether a bargaining unit is legitimately constituted and what category of drivers would be covered by any resulting bargaining agreement. 

The text of this petition is long and complicated, and there are questions relative to whether any portion of this text would be in conflict with federal labor law. Some support for labor organizations is also muted: as was noted in the Majority Report of the Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions, a panel consisting of representatives from SEIU California, the Center for American Progress American Worker Project, and the International Association of Machinists District 15 was generally “supportive” of the initiative petition, their posture was that drivers are “currently misclassified as independent contractors and that any proposals allowing a union should not definitively declare the drivers as independent contractors under Massachusetts law.”

The Special Commission itself also opined that the initiative petition ought not to be enacted.

In looking at this ballot question, the Center for State Policy Analysis found the following:

• The ballot question covers workers who transport passengers using platforms like Uber and Lyft, but not gig workers who provide food delivery or other services; 
• The initiative would likely increase the cost of rides and curtail usage to some degree; Drivers may not be able to start forming unions right away because of anticipated legal challenges; 
• Sector-based bargaining requires a complex and detailed regulatory framework, and some of the minute regulatory choices could prove pivotal. 

As an example, the report notes that the number of drivers needed to create a union is very low — roughly 12.5% — which simplifies organizing, but risks the emergence of an unpopular union with limited driver support.

So, to reiterate, the petition is complicated and its outcome — even if enacted — is unclear. It would almost certainly lead to litigation, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. It could clarify the legal status of drivers and of what they might or might not be entitled to do.

For the reasons set forth above, I give this a very cautious endorsement for a “yes” vote.