In a significant development that could have far-reaching implications for gig-economy drivers and tech giants like Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash, a pair of different ballot questions are set to go before Massachusetts voters this fall. The state’s highest court, the Supreme Judicial Court, recently ruled that proposed ballot questions concerning drivers’ employment rights and status meet the requirements outlined in the state Constitution, paving the way for these questions to appear on the Nov. 5 ballot.
One set of five industry-backed questions aims to establish under Massachusetts law that gig-economy drivers for ride-hail and delivery platforms should be classified as independent contractors rather than employees. The campaign behind these proposals, known as Flexibility and Benefits for Massachusetts Drivers, decided to file multiple versions of the question this cycle after a previous attempt was struck down by the SJC two years ago.
Justice Gabrielle Wolohojian, in the ruling, indicated that the court could revisit the issue and withdraw the opinion if proponents sought to place more than one petition on the November ballot. This decision sets the stage for a contentious and costly campaign as labor unions and tech companies prepare to battle it out to sway voters for and against the question.
Conor Yunits, spokesperson for the Flexibility and Benefits for Massachusetts Drivers committee, hailed the court’s decision as a “huge win” for rideshare and delivery drivers. He expressed excitement for the drivers who have been part of the campaign for over three years and anticipated a victory on Election Day.
Proponents of the contractor question argue that it would ensure drivers maintain the flexibility they value. However, critics contend that it would prevent drivers from receiving the benefits entitled to employees. The classification of gig drivers as employees or contractors is also the subject of a pending state lawsuit filed by Gov. Maura Healey, which alleges that companies like Uber and Lyft deny drivers protections such as a minimum wage by misclassifying them as contractors.
Massachusetts AFL-CIO President Chrissy Lynch, who leads the opposition campaign Massachusetts is Not For Sale, criticized the court’s decision on the ballot question, calling it a step back for the state’s voters, workers, consumers, taxpayers, and law-abiding businesses. Lynch emphasized the importance of protecting the rights of workers, consumers, and communities.
In addition to the contractor question, the SJC also cleared a separate ballot question that would allow ride-hail drivers to unionize. This question, supported by the Drivers Demand Justice Coalition, includes labor unions such as the International Association of Machinists and Local 32BJ of the Service Employees International Union. The coalition believes that granting drivers basic workplace rights and protections is essential, especially in light of the tech companies’ efforts to curtail those rights.
Paul Craney, spokesman for the Fiscal Alliance Foundation, was among the plaintiffs who challenged the unionization question. He expressed concerns that the proposal, if passed in its current form, could eliminate the ability for many independent contractors to be their own boss, increase prices for riders, and lead to legal battles due to poorly worded provisions.
Campaigns have until July 3 to submit enough voter signatures to Secretary of State Bill Galvin to secure a spot on the ballot. The upcoming months promise to be filled with intense campaigning and debates as Massachusetts voters prepare to weigh in on these critical issues that could reshape the relationship between gig-economy drivers and tech giants.
