Massachusetts App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative (2024)
| Massachusetts App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 5, 2024 | |
| Topic Labor and unions and Business regulation | |
| Status Not on the ballot | |
| Type State statute | Origin Citizens |
The Massachusetts App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative (#23-24-32) was not on the ballot in Massachusetts as an indirect initiated state statute on November 5, 2024.
Several versions of the initiative were filed. The initiative's provisions would have considered app-based drivers to be independent contractors and enact several labor policies related to app-based companies.[1]
Measure design
- See also: Text of measure
The initiative would have stated that an app-based driver is not an employee of the app-based company they contract with. The initiative would have defined an app-based driver as a person who is a delivery network courier (e.g. Door Dash), a transportation network driver (e.g. Uber or Lyft), or both and who has a contract with a company meeting the following requirements:
- does not specify the times of day or minimum number of hours worked;
- cannot terminate the contract if the app-based driver refuses a service request unless it violates a law; and
- does not restrict the app-based driver from working with other app-based networks or other lawful businesses.
Other versions of the initiative would have also required app-based network companies to offer minimum compensation, healthcare stipends, earned paid sick time, and occupational accident insurance. The initiative would have also protected app-based drivers' freedom and flexibility to choose when and for whom they work.
Text of measure
Full text
The full text of the different versions of the measure are listed below:
- Initiative #23-24
- Initiative #23-25
- Initiative #23-26
- Initiative #23-27
- Initiative #23-28
- Initiative #23-29
- Initiative #23-30
- Initiative #23-31
- Initiative #23-32
Support
Massachusetts Coalition for Independent Work led the campaign in support of the initiative.[2]
Supporters
Corporations
Organizations
- Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM)
- Massachusetts High Technology Council
- Retailers Association of Massachusetts
- The United Regional Chamber of Commerce
Arguments
Opposition
Ballotpedia did not locate a campaign in opposition to the ballot measure.
Opponents
Unions
- Massachusetts AFL-CIO
- Massachusetts Teachers Association
- Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ
Organizations
Campaign finance
One committee registered in support of the initiative—Flexibility and Benefits for Massachusetts Drivers 2024. The committee reported $7.1 million in contributions.[3]
| Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Support | $6,891,347.16 | $279,521.32 | $7,170,868.48 | $6,659,264.14 | $6,938,785.46 |
| Oppose | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
| Total | $6,891,347.16 | $279,521.32 | $7,170,868.48 | $6,659,264.14 | $6,938,785.46 |
Support
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the ballot measure.[3]
| 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 | $6,891,347.16 | $279,521.32 | $7,170,868.48 | $6,659,264.14 | $6,938,785.46 |
| Total | $6,891,347.16 | $279,521.32 | $7,170,868.48 | $6,659,264.14 | $6,938,785.46 |
Donors
The following table shows the top donors to the committee registered in support of the ballot measure.[3]
| Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Uber | $2,433,188.64 | $45,054.13 | $2,478,242.77 |
| Instacart | $1,719,658.52 | $77,069.19 | $1,796,727.71 |
| DoorDash, Inc. | $1,632,500.00 | $50,700.24 | $1,683,200.24 |
| Lyft | $1,106,000.00 | $76,722.59 | $1,182,722.59 |
Background
Massachusetts App-Based Drivers Initiatives (2022)
In 2022, Uber and Lyft sponsored two similar ballot initiatives that would have considered app-based drivers to be independent contractors and enacted several labor policies related to app-based companies, including paid occupational safety training. The initiatives were certified to the state legislature but were not enacted. The campaign was cleared to gather a second round of signatures to get on the November 8, 2022 ballot. However, on June 14, 2022, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court disqualified the initiatives from the ballot ruling that the initiatives violated the state's 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."[4]
Flexibility and Benefits for Massachusetts Drivers, the campaign behind the initiatives, reported $17.8 million in contributions during the election cycle.[5]
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.[6][7]
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.[8] 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."[9]
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.[10]
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.[11]
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."[12]
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 2024 ballot:
- Signatures required (first round): 74,574 signatures
- Signatures required (second round): 12,429 signatures
- Deadline (first round): The deadline to submit the first round of signatures to the secretary of state was December 6, 2023. Signatures needed to be submitted to local registrars by November 22, 2023.
- Deadline (second round): The deadline to submit the second round of signatures was July 3, 2024.
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
- The initiative was filed in August 2023 by Brendan Joyce.[1]
- On September 6, 2023, all versions of the initiative were cleared for signature gathering.[1]
- On November 22, 2023, Politico reported that the campaign had filed signatures with local registrars.[13]
- On February 1, 2024, a lawsuit was filed against the initiative with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court arguing that the initiatives violated the state's requirement that the provisions of the initiative all be related.[14]
- On June 27, 2024, the state Supreme Court rejected the case and allowed the initiative to proceed with gathering sigantures.[15]
- The state legislature did not pass the initiative by the May 1 deadline. The campaign was cleared to gather a second round of signatures.
- On June 28, Uber and Lyft settled a lawsuit with the state regarding the status of app-based drivers. Under the settlement, app-based drivers would make a minimum wage of $32.50 per hour; be guaranteed paid sick leave; be given a stipend to buy into Massachusetts’ paid family and medical leave program; have access to a pooled health insurance benefit; and eligibility for occupational accident insurance. The ballot initiative campaign was ended after the settlement.[16]
See also
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Massachusetts Attorney General's Office, "List of petitions," accessed July 25, 2023
- ↑ Massachusetts Coalition for Independent Work, "Home," accessed January 26, 2024
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Massachusetts Campaign Finance, "Flexibility and Benefits for Massachusetts Drivers 2024," accessed January 29, 2024
- ↑ Commonwealth Magazine, "SJC throws out Uber-Lyft ballot question," June 14, 2022
- ↑ 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
- ↑ Politico, "Big day for ballot questions," November 22, 2023
- ↑ Aol, "Labor-backed group sues to block Massachusetts gig worker ballot proposal," February 1, 2024
- ↑ Reuters, "Massachusetts top court clears way for gig worker ballot measures to proceed," June 27, 2024
- ↑ PYMNTS, "Uber and Lyft Settle Massachusetts Lawsuit, End Ballot Initiative," June 28, 2024
 |
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 |
