Massachusetts App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative (2022)
| Massachusetts App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 8, 2022 | |
| Topic Business regulation and Labor and unions | |
| Status Not on the ballot | |
| Type State statute | Origin Citizens |
The Massachusetts App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative was not on the ballot in Massachusetts as an indirect initiated state statute on November 8, 2022.[1][2][3]
Sponsors filed two versions of the initiative. Both versions of the initiative would have classified app-based drivers as independent contractors and enacted several labor policies. The versions are identical except Version A would have required paid occupational safety training before accessing a company's platform or mobile application.[3]
At the 2020 general election, California voters approved an initiative that classified app-based drivers as independent contractors and adopted labor and wage policies specific to app-based drivers and companies. The initiative passed by a vote of 58.6% to 41.4%.
Measure design
- See also: Text of measure
Click on the arrows (▼) below for summaries of the different provisions of the initiative.
Definition of app-based drivers: Criteria to be an independent contractor
- couriers of a delivery network company (DNC) or drivers of a transportation network company (TNC),
- companies do not prescribe the time and days worked by the courier or driver,
- contracts with DNC or TNC cannot be terminated for rejecting service or delivery requests, and
- couriers and drivers are not captive to any specific DNC or TNC and are not restricted from performing other work.
Examples of companies that hired app-based drivers included Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash.
Labor and wage policies: Wages, health insurance coverage, paid sick leave, and occupational training
The initiative would have enacted labor and wage policies that are specific to app-based drivers and companies, including:[2]
- payments for the difference between a worker's net earnings, excluding tips, and a net earnings floor based on 120% of the minimum wage applied to a driver's engaged time and 26 cents per engaged mile, adjusted for inflation after 2023;
- for drivers who average at least 25 hours per week of engaged time during a calendar quarter, require companies to provide healthcare subsidies equal to 100% of the average ACA contribution for the applicable average monthly Health Connector premium for each month;
- for drivers who average at least 15 hours but less than 25 hours per week of engaged time during a calendar quarter, require companies to provide healthcare subsidies equal to 50% of the average ACA contribution for the applicable average monthly Health Connector premium for each month;
- provide drivers with earned paid sick leave at a rate equal to either the driver’s average hourly earnings or the guaranteed net earnings, whichever is greater;
- coverage under Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave, unless written declination is received;
- require companies to provide or make available occupational accident insurance to cover at least $1 million in medical expenses for up to 156 weeks following the injury;
- require the occupational accident insurance to provide disability payments of 66 percent of a driver's average weekly earnings before the injuries suffered (while the driver was online but not engaged in personal activities) for up to 156 weeks following the injury; and
- require companies to provide or make available accidental death insurance for the benefit of a driver's spouse, children, or other dependents when the driver dies while using the app.
The two versions of the initiative are identical except Version A would have required a paid occupational safety training program before couriers or drivers can access the network company’s platform. The training would have included recognizing and preventing sexual assault or misconduct; learning collision avoidance and defensive driving techniques; and maintaining food safety for grocery or meal deliveries.
The initiative would have defined a driver's engaged time as the time between accepting a service request and completing the request. The law would have taken effect on January 1, 2023.[2]
Text of measure
Ballot summary
The final ballot summary for Version A of the initiative would have been as follows.[4]
| “ | This proposed law would classify drivers for rideshare and delivery companies who accept requests through digital applications as 'independent contractors,' and not 'employees' or 'agents,' for all purposes under Massachusetts law. This proposed law would establish alternative minimum compensation and benefits for these 'independent contractors.'
The proposed law would require rideshare and delivery companies to provide drivers with a guaranteed amount of minimum compensation, equal to 120% of the Massachusetts minimum wage for time spent completing requests for transportation or delivery, plus an inflation-adjusted per-mile amount (starting at 26 cents) for each mile driven in a privately-owned vehicle while completing a request. The minimum compensation calculation would not include time spent by a driver between requests. A driver whose earnings, not including tips and gratuities, fall below the minimum compensation amount would be paid the difference to be brought up to the minimum compensation amount. The proposed law would require rideshare and delivery companies to provide drivers with paid sick time, to treat drivers as eligible to take medical or family leave under the Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave Act, and to provide healthcare stipends to some drivers. Drivers would earn a minimum of 1 hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours spent completing requests for transportation or delivery. The proposed law would require rideshare and delivery companies to purchase accident insurance for drivers who are injured or killed while fulfilling or accepting requests and not engaging in personal activities. Companies would be required to provide drivers with mandatory safety training. The proposed law would prohibit rideshare and delivery companies from terminating the contract of a driver, or refusing to contract with a driver, based on race, sex, sexual orientation, or other protected characteristics unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification or a safety need. Companies would be required to provide a driver who is terminated with an opportunity to appeal their termination.[5] |
” |
The final ballot summary for Version B of the initiative was as follows.[6]
| “ | This proposed law would classify drivers for rideshare and delivery companies who accept requests through digital applications as 'independent contractors,' and not 'employees' or 'agents,' for all purposes under Massachusetts law.
The proposed law would require rideshare and delivery companies to provide drivers with a guaranteed amount of minimum compensation, equal to 120% of the Massachusetts minimum wage for time spent completing requests for transportation or delivery, plus an inflation-adjusted per-mile amount (starting at 26 cents) for each mile driven in a privately-owned vehicle while completing a request. The minimum compensation calculation would not include time spent by a driver between requests. A driver whose earnings, not including tips and gratuities, fall below the minimum compensation amount would be paid the difference to be brought up to the minimum compensation amount. The proposed law would require rideshare and delivery companies to provide drivers with paid sick time, to treat drivers as eligible to take medical or family leave under the Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave Act, and to provide healthcare stipends to some drivers. Drivers would earn a minimum of 1 hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours spent completing requests for transportation or delivery. The proposed law would require rideshare and delivery companies to purchase accident insurance for drivers who are injured or killed while fulfilling or accepting requests and not engaging in personal activities. The proposed law would prohibit rideshare and delivery companies from terminating the contract of a driver, or refusing to contract with a driver, based on race, sex, sexual orientation, or other protected characteristics unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification or a safety need. Companies would be required to provide a driver who is terminated with an opportunity to appeal their termination.[5] |
” |
Full text
Massachusetts Coalition for Independent Work filed two versions of the initiative.
Support
Yes For Massachusetts Drivers led the campaign in support of the initiative.[7]
Supporters
Corporations
Organizations
- Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM)
- Black Joy
- Cape Cod Canal Region Chamber of Commerce
- Chamber of Progress
- College Bound
- Elevate Boston
- Mashpee Chamber of Commerce
- Massachusetts High Technology Council
- One South Coast Chamber of Commerce
- Technet
- U.S. Haitian Chamber of Commerce
Arguments
Opposition
Massachusetts Is Not For Sale led the campaign in opposition to the initiative. For a complete list of endorsements, click here.[8]
Opponents
Officials
- U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D)
- U.S. Representative Ayanna Pressley (D)
- State Sen. Lydia Edwards (D)
Unions
- Asian American Resource Workshop
- Boston Independent Drivers Guild
- Brazilian Worker Center Inc.
- Independent Drivers Guild
- Massachusetts AFL-CIO
- Massachusetts Building Trades Council
- Massachusetts Employment Lawyers Association
- SEIU Massachusetts State Council
- Western Mass Area Labor Federation
Organizations
- ACLU of Massachusetts
- Action for Equity
- Chinese Progressive Association
- Coalition for Social Justice
- Community Labor United
- Gig Workers Rising
- Justice at Work
- Mass Alliance
- Massachusetts Jobs with Justice
- Massachusetts Law Reform Institute
- NAACP New England Area Conference
- National Consumer Law Center
- National Employment Law Project
- Neighbor to Neighbors
- Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts
- Public Rights Project
- Sierra Club Massachusetts
- Union of Minority Neighborhoods
- VietAid
Arguments
Campaign finance
There is one ballot measure committee, Flexibility and Benefits for Massachusetts Drivers, registered in support of the initiative. It reported $17.8 million in contributions. There is one ballot measure committee, Coalition to Protect Workers' Rights, registered in opposition to the initiative. It reported $1 million in contributions.[9]
| Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Support | $17,263,166.67 | $582,097.77 | $17,845,264.44 | $2,843,093.69 | $3,425,191.46 |
| Oppose | $935,200.00 | $72,137.71 | $1,007,337.71 | $252,541.55 | $324,679.26 |
| Total | $18,198,366.67 | $654,235.48 | $18,852,602.15 | $3,095,635.24 | $3,749,870.72 |
Support
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the ballot measure.[9]
| Committees in support of App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
| Flexibility and Benefits for Massachusetts Drivers | $17,263,166.67 | $582,097.77 | $17,845,264.44 | $2,843,093.69 | $3,425,191.46 |
| Total | $17,263,166.67 | $582,097.77 | $17,845,264.44 | $2,843,093.69 | $3,425,191.46 |
Donors
The following table shows the top donors to the committee registered in support of the ballot measure.[9]
| Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lyft | $14,087,500.00 | $309,717.44 | $14,397,217.44 |
| Instacart | $1,115,666.67 | $100,870.16 | $1,216,536.83 |
| Door Dash | $1,109,500.00 | $67,583.52 | $1,177,083.52 |
| Uber | $950,500.00 | $103,926.65 | $1,054,426.65 |
Opposition
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in opposition to the ballot measure.[9]
| Committees in opposition to App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
| Coalition to Protect Workers' Rights | $935,200.00 | $72,137.71 | $1,007,337.71 | $252,541.55 | $324,679.26 |
| Total | $935,200.00 | $72,137.71 | $1,007,337.71 | $252,541.55 | $324,679.26 |
Donors
The following table shows the top donors to the committee registered in opposition to the ballot measure.[9]
| Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Omidyar Network | $150,000.00 | $0.00 | $150,000.00 |
| Massachusetts AFL-CIO General Fund | $50,000.00 | $57,181.06 | $107,181.06 |
| Local 103 I.B.E.W. | $100,000.00 | $0.00 | $100,000.00 |
| Open Society | $100,000.00 | $0.00 | $100,000.00 |
| The Grand Lodge - International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers | $100,000.00 | $0.00 | $100,000.00 |
Methodology
To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.
Background
California Proposition 22 (2020)
At the 2020 general election, California voters approved Proposition 22, which defined app-based transportation (rideshare) and delivery drivers as independent contractors and adopted labor and wage policies specific to app-based drivers and companies. Therefore, the ballot measure overrode Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5), signed in September 2019, on the question of whether app-based drivers are employees or independent contractors. The vote margin was 58.6% to 41.4%. Proposition 22 was the most expensive ballot measure campaign in California's history according to available records. The support reported $202.9 million in contributions, with Uber, Doordash, Lyft, InstaCart, and Postmates as top donors. The opposition reported $19.7 million in contributions, with unions as the top donors.[10][11]
Austin, Texas, Proposition 1 (2016)
On December 18, 2015, the Austin City Council passed an ordinance to regulate transportation network companies (TNCs), also known as rideshare companies. The ordinance was designed to require rideshare drivers to receive fingerprint-based background checks.[12] The campaign Ridesharing Works for Austin was launched to repeal and replace the ordinance with Proposition 1. Uber and Lyft funded Ridesharing Works for Austin, which received $10.32 million from the rideshare companies. Uber provided $7.64 million, and Lyft provided $2.67 million. Ben Wear, a reporter for the Austin American-Statesman, wrote that Proposition 1 had "the most expensive campaign in city history."[13]
Proposition 1 would have repealed the ordinance and instead required rideshare companies to conduct background checks on drivers through third parties. Under Proposition 1, the background checks did not need to be fingerprint-based. Proposition 1 would have repealed other requirements, including a requirement that the company's emblem be displayed on driver's vehicles and a ban on stopping, parking, and loading or unloading passengers in a travel lane or at a designated bus stop.[14]
After Proposition 1 was defeated on May 7, 2016, Uber and Lyft suspended rideshare operations in Austin, Texas. Both Uber and Lyft stated that their companies had about 10,000 drivers in Austin, Texas, prior to the suspension.[15]
Uber and Lyft resumed rideshare operations in Austin on May 29, 2017, after Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed a law that preempted Austin's ordinance. Gov. Abbott said, "This is freedom for every Texan — especially those who live in the Austin area — to be able to choose the provider of their choice as it concerns transportation."[16]
Path to the ballot
The state process
In Massachusetts, the number of signatures required to qualify an indirect initiated state statute for the ballot is equal to 3.5 percent of the votes cast for governor in the most recent gubernatorial election. No more than one-quarter of the verified signatures on any petition can come from a single county. The process for initiated state statutes in Massachusetts is indirect, which means the legislature has a chance to approve initiatives with successful petitions directly without the measure going to the voters. A first round of signatures equal to 3 percent of the votes cast for governor is required to put an initiative before the legislature. A second round of signatures equal to 0.5 percent of the votes cast for governor in the last election is required to put the measure on the ballot if the legislature rejects or declines to act on a proposed initiated statute. Signatures for initiated statutes in Massachusetts are collected in two circulation periods. The first period runs from the third Wednesday in September to two weeks prior to the first Wednesday in December, a period of nine weeks. If the proposed law is not adopted by the first Wednesday of May, petitioners then have until the first Wednesday of July (eight weeks) to request additional petition forms and submit the second round of signatures.
The requirements to get an initiated state statute certified for the 2022 ballot:
- Signatures required (first round): 80,239 signatures
- Signatures required (second round): 13,374 signatures
- Deadline (first round): The deadline to submit the first round of signatures to the secretary of state was December 1, 2021. Signatures needed to be submitted to local registrars by November 17, 2021.
- Deadline (second round): The deadline to submit the second round of signatures was July 6, 2022.
If enough signatures are submitted in the first round, the legislature must act on a successful petition by the first Wednesday of May. The measure only goes on the ballot if the legislature does not pass it and if the second round of signatures is successfully collected.
Details about this initiative
- Two versions of the initiative were filed by Massachusetts Coalition for Independent Work on August 4, 2021.[1]
- On September 1, 2021, the attorney general announced the initiatives were cleared for signature gathering.[17]
- On November 16, 2021, the campaign announced it had submitted a total of 260,000 signatures (130,000 signatures for each version of the initiative) to county administrators.[18]
- On December 1, 2021, the campaign submitted over 100,000 signatures for each version of the initiative to the secretary of state.[19]
- At the end of December, the secretary of state certified the petition to the legislature.[20]
- On January 18, 2022, a lawsuit was filed with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court arguing that Attorney General Maura Healey (D) should not have certified the petitions and that Secretary of State William Galvin (D) should not be allowed to put them before voters because the petitions violate the state's constitutional requirement that subjects of an initiative are “mutually dependent.”[21]
- The state legislature did not pass the initiative before the May deadline. The campaign was cleared to gather a second round of signatures.
Lawsuit
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the subjects contained in the initiative were "related or mutually dependent" according to the state constitution | |
| Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; the subjects of the initiative are not related. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Martin El Koussa et al. | Defendant(s): Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin (D) and Attorney General Maura Healey (D) |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative violates the state constitutional requirement that subjects of an initiative must be "related or mutually dependent." | Defendant argument: The subjects of the initiative are "related or mutually dependent." |
Source: Commonwealth Magazine
On January 18, 2022, a lawsuit was filed with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court arguing that Attorney General Maura Healey (D) should not have certified the petitions and that Secretary of State William Galvin (D) should not be allowed to put them before voters because the petitions violate the state's constitutional requirement that subjects of an initiative are “related or mutually dependent.”
On June 14, 2022, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs disqualifying the initiatives from the 2022 ballot. Justice Scott Kafker, who wrote the opinion, said, "The petitions thus violate the related subjects requirement because they present voters with two substantively distinct policy decisions: one confined for the most part to the contract-based and voluntary relationship between app-based drivers and network companies; the other — couched in confusingly vague and open-ended provisions — apparently seeking to limit the network companies’ liability to third parties injured by app-based drivers’ tortious conduct."[22]
Conor Yunits, a spokesperson for Flexibility & Benefits for Massachusetts Drivers, said, "A clear majority of Massachusetts voters and rideshare and delivery drivers both supported and would have passed this ballot question into law. That’s exactly why opponents resorted to litigation to subvert the democratic process and deny voters the right to make their own decision. The future of these services and the drivers who earn on them is now in jeopardy, and we hope the legislature will stand with the 80% of drivers who want flexibility and to remain independent contractors while having access to new benefits."[23]
Reports and analyses
- Note: The inclusion of a report, white page, or study concerning a ballot measure in this article does not indicate that Ballotpedia agrees with the conclusions of that study or that Ballotpedia necessarily considers the study to have a sound methodology, accurate conclusions, or a neutral basis. To read a full explanation of Ballotpedia's policy on the inclusion of reports and analyses, please click here. If you would like to submit a report or analysis to be considered for inclusion in this section, email editor@ballotpedia.org.
BW Research Partnership hourly earnings of app-based drivers report
BW Research Partnership (BW Research) and Mass Insight Global Partnerships conducted a study of Massachusetts app-based rideshare and food delivery drivers working for DoorDash, Instacart, Lyft, and/or Uber earned on average $26.08 per hour between April to September of 2021. The average rate was calculated using data provided by the companies and considered those same drivers' costs of vehicle operation. Phil Jordan, vice president and principal researcher at BW Research, said, "The data paints a very clear picture of what drivers actually earn in Massachusetts, and in our analysis it is substantially more than many likely alternative forms of work. That is $26 per hour on top of the flexibility that drivers say in surveys is what they like most about this work."[24][25]
To read the full report, click here.
See also
External links
Support |
Opposition |
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Massachusetts Secretary of State, "List of petitions," accessed August 4, 2021
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Massachusetts Secretary of State, "Initiative text-Version B," accessed August 4, 2021
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Massachusetts Secretary of State, "Initiative text-Version A," accessed August 4, 2021
- ↑ Massachusetts Attorney General, "Final Summary Letter," accessed September 1, 2021
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Massachusetts Attorney General, "Final Summary Letter," accessed September 1, 2021
- ↑ Yes for Massachusetts Drivers , "Home," accessed December 4, 2021
- ↑ Massachusetts Is Not For Sale, "Home," accessed August 4, 2021
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance, "Registered filers," accessed August 5, 2021
- ↑ Cal-Access, "Homepage," accessed November 3, 2019
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Ballot Title and Summary," accessed July 28, 2020
- ↑ The Texas Tribune, "With New Rules, Will Uber, Lyft Stay in Austin?" December 17, 2015
- ↑ Austin American-Statesman, "Prop. 1 goes down as activist proclaims: ‘Austin made Uber an example’," May 19, 2017
- ↑ Austin City Council, "Ordinance No. 20160217-001," accessed August 19, 2020
- ↑ Tech Crunch, "Uber and Lyft ‘pause’ Austin operations today in standoff over regulation," May 9, 2016
- ↑ 'The Texas Tribune, "Uber, Lyft return to Austin as Texas Gov. Abbott signs ride-hailing measure into law," May 29, 2017
- ↑ Mass Coalition for Independent Work, "MASSACHUSETTS RIDESHARE & DELIVERY DRIVERS REACT TO CERTIFICATION OF BALLOT QUESTION," accessed September 1, 2021
- ↑ Press release emailed to Ballotpedia staff on November 16, 2021.
- ↑ Facebook, "Yes For Massachusetts Drivers," December 6, 2021
- ↑ Boston Globe, "Gig worker petitions move one step closer to 2022 ballot," December 27, 2021
- ↑ Boston Globe, "Labor coalition asks Mass. high court to block gig worker ballot questions," January 19, 2022
- ↑ Commonwealth Magazine, "SJC throws out Uber-Lyft ballot question," June 14, 2022
- ↑ Ballotpedia Staff, "Email correspondence to Ballotpedia staff." June 14, 2022
- ↑ Yes for Mass Drivers, "Hourly Earnings of App-Based Rideshare Drivers and Food Delivery Workers in Massachusetts," accessed March 29, 2022
- ↑ Yes for Mass Drivers, "Study shows average hourly earnings for Massachusetts app-based drivers are substantially higher than those for employees in benchmark jobs," March 24, 2022
 |
State of Massachusetts Boston (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
