Summary
Massachusetts Question 3 would authorize the formation of a union and collective bargaining for ride-hail drivers. The new labor framework would be overseen by state regulators, who would approve agreements between the parties.
Fiscal Impact
The state elections office has determined that Question 3 “has no discernible material fiscal consequences for state and municipal government finance.”
Proponents’ Arguments
Proponents argue that ride-share workers are not subject to the same protections as other workers and that Question 3 would lead to higher wages, enhanced discrimination protections, and continued work-condition improvements.
Roxana Rivera of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) stated:
“This is common sense, and voters overwhelmingly agree. It’s past time to grant drivers the basic union rights that workers across Massachusetts have enjoyed for generations.”
Domingo Castillo, a driver, commented:
“During the pandemic, I was working 12-hour days every single day. At that time, we were making what we deserved, but after the pandemic is when we started to see the pay really decrease, despite that we had been providing a service the community needed. They just started lowering pay, waiting time became longer, and unjust deactivations occurred more frequently. A union is the only thing that would give us a voice to be able to have some say in the things that really directly affect us.”
Opponents’ Arguments
Opponents argue that approving Question 3 would raise prices faced by ride-hail customers, give state regulators the final say on driver wages and benefits, and violate federal labor law. Some in organized labor are also opposed.
Henry DeGroot, a driver, argues the ballot question isn’t a fair deal:
“DeGroot said the question doesn’t create a democratic system where all drivers have rights. He said no rights are included in the initiative beyond basic collective bargaining, including details on how dues are spent.”
The Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance Foundation argued that the initiative violated the requirement that ballot questions focus on one topic:
“We have no doubt that most Massachusetts voters will not be aware of the radical and far-reaching consequences this question will have on labor law, if passed. It goes well beyond its stated goal of simply allowing Transportation Network Drivers—rideshare and delivery drivers—to unionize. Instead, it will create a completely new labor category, and in violation of federal labor law.”
Moreover, they argue that
“Question 3 does not really create bargaining for workers. Drivers will have no control over leadership of the union and will pay significant dues without real representation. Drivers in Massachusetts already receive:
- Base of $32.50 per hour with yearly increases
- Paid Sick Leave
- Paid Family Medical Leave
- Healthcare Stipend
- On-the-Job Injury Insurance
- Anti-Discrimination Protections
- Domestic Violence Leave
- Anti-Retaliation Protections
- Appeals Process”
Discussion
Question 3 is part of a broader debate taking place across the country at the state and federal levels on how to classify “gig workers,” such as ride-hail drivers for Uber and Lyft. Classifying workers as either an employee or independent contractor triggers different obligations under state and federal labor laws. For instance, independent contractors have more flexibility to set their own schedules but cannot unionize and are not subject to certain employee benefits requirements, such as overtime premium pay.
This trade-off between greater worker flexibility and greater labor protections is at the heart of the debate. For labor unions, the inability to organize independent contractors into bargaining units threatens their business model. Likewise, limiting the ability of firms to hire independent contractors threatens the business models of labor- and asset-light “gig platform” companies that are designed to function as matchmakers between workers and consumers. For gig workers, a 2021 Pew Research Center survey found that 78% of them said they are very positive or somewhat positive about their current arrangements with platform companies.
Question 3 aims to create a third classification for “Transportation Network Drivers.” Ride-hail companies will be required to provide state regulators with the names, contact information (including home addresses), and number of rides provided for each driver. If at least 25% of “active drivers” (those who have completed more than the median number of trips in the past quarter) sign petitions to join a union, the union would be recognized as the exclusive representative of all drivers in collective bargaining negotiations with the ride-hail companies and gain the ability to collect dues payments from drivers.
Any proposed collective bargaining agreement would be subject to the approval of a majority of drivers who have completed at least 100 trips during the previous quarter, as well as state regulators. The approved collective bargaining agreement would specify requirements around driver wages, benefits, and terms and conditions of work. It would remain in effect for three years. Due to driver voting eligibility requirements, the part-time nature of the work for the vast majority of gig workers, and high driver turnover, one practical implication is that a minority of drivers may be able to force the majority of drivers into work arrangements they may not favor.
Uber and Lyft had planned their own ballot initiatives. But the two companies reached a settlement with the state. The rideshare companies’ five initiatives are no longer on the ballot.