Massachusetts Question 3, Unionization and Collective Bargaining for Transportation Network Drivers Initiative (2024)

Massachusetts Question 3
Election date November 5, 2024
Topic Labor and unions
Status a Approved
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

Massachusetts Question 3, the Unionization and Collective Bargaining for Transportation Network Drivers Initiative, was on the ballot in Massachusetts as an indirect initiated state statute on November 5, 2024. The ballot measure was approved.

A "yes" vote supported:  providing for unionizing and collective bargaining for transportation network drivers; requiring the state to oversee the negotiations between the parties and approve the negotiated recommendations on wages, benefits, and terms and conditions of work; and requiring collective bargaining agreements to be approved by at least a majority of riders who have completed at least 100 trips during the previous quarter.

A "no" vote opposed providing for unionizing and collective bargaining for transportation network drivers.

Election results

See also: Results for minimum wage and labor-related ballot measures, 2024

Massachusetts Question 3
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		1,771,770	54.08%
No		1,504,681	45.92%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What did Question 3 do?

See also: Text of measure

Question 3 provided transportation network drivers with the right to form unions for collective bargaining with transportation network companies, like Uber and Lyft. The transportation network companies are authorized to form multi-company associations to represent the companies in bargaining with associations of drivers. The initiative required the state to oversee the negotiations between the parties and approve the negotiated recommendations on wages, benefits, and terms and conditions of work.

The initiative also created a hearing process for the Massachusetts Employment Relations Board to process unfair work practice charges against transportation network companies. The board was authorized to award compensation to wronged parties if unfair work practices have been committed. Companies were authorized to appeal the board's decision to the state Appeal Court.

The law authorized a driver organization to be the exclusive bargaining representative for all drivers after it has collected signatures from at least 25% of active drivers. The initiative defined active drivers as drivers who have completed more than the median number of rides in the past six months. The board determines if the driver organization has collected the required number of signatures. If so, the designated driver organization has the exclusive right to represent drivers in negotiations with companies and collect voluntary membership dues. Any collective bargaining agreement must be approved by at least a majority of drivers who have completed at least 100 trips during the previous quarter and the Secretary of Labor. The agreement is in effect for the following three years.

Were transportation network drivers guaranteed any labor conditions?

In June 2024, Uber and Lyft settled a lawsuit with the state regarding the status of transportation network drivers. Under the settlement, drivers would make a minimum wage of $32.50 per hour before expenses; earn one hour of sick day pay for every 30 hours worked (up to 40 hours); 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.

Who supported and opposed Question 3?

See also: Support and Opposition

Yes on 3 led the campaign in support of Question 3. U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern (D), U.S. Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D), and Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell (D) endorsed the initiative. Roxana Rivera of SEIU 32BJ said, "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, so we can finally end the unacceptable wages and working conditions that Uber and Lyft drivers have been subjected to at the hands of tech companies."

Ballotpedia did not locate a campaign in opposition to the ballot measure.

Text of measure

Ballot question

The ballot question was as follows:

“

Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 1, 2024?

”

Ballot summary

The final ballot summary for Question 3 was as follows.

“

The proposed law would provide Transportation Network Drivers (“Drivers”) with the right to form unions (“Driver Organizations”) to collectively bargain with Transportation Network Companies (“Companies”)-which are companies that use a digital network to connect riders to drivers for pre-arranged transportation-to create negotiated recommendations concerning wages, benefits and terms and conditions of work. Drivers would not be required to engage in any union activities. Companies would be allowed to form multiCompany associations to represent them when negotiating with Driver Organizations. The state would supervise the labor activities permitted by the proposed law and would have responsibility for approving or disapproving the negotiated recommendations. The proposed law would define certain activities by a Company or a Driver Organization to be unfair work practices. The proposed law would establish a hearing process for the state Employment Relations Board (“Board”) to follow when a Company or Driver Organization is charged with an unfair work practice. The proposed law would permit the Board to take action, including awarding compensation to adversely affected Drivers, if it found that an unfair work practice had been committed. The proposed law would provide for an appeal of a Board decision to the state Appeals Court. This proposed law also would establish a procedure for determining which Drivers are Active Drivers, meaning that they completed more than the median number of rides in the previous six months. The proposed law would establish procedures for the Board to determine that a Driver Organization has signed authorizations from at least five percent of Active Drivers, entitling the Driver Organization to a list of Active Drivers; to designate a Driver Organization as the exclusive bargaining representative for all Drivers based on signed authorizations from at least twenty-five percent of Active Drivers; to resolve disputes over exclusive bargaining status, including through elections; and to decertify a Driver Organization from exclusive bargaining status. A Driver Organization that has been designated the exclusive bargaining representative would have the exclusive right to represent the Drivers and to receive voluntary membership dues deductions. Once the Board determined that a Driver Organization was the exclusive bargaining representative for all Drivers, the Companies would be required to bargain with that Driver Organization concerning wages, benefits and terms and conditions of work. Once the Driver Organization and Companies reached agreement on wages, benefits, and the terms and conditions of work, that agreement would be voted upon by all Drivers who has completed at least 100 trips the previous quarter. If approved by a majority of votes cast, the recommendations would be submitted to the state Secretary of Labor for approval and if approved, would be effective for three years. The proposed law would establish procedures for the mediation and arbitration if the Driver Organization and Companies failed to reach agreement within a certain period of time. An arbitrator would consider factors set forth in the proposed law, including whether the wages of Drivers would be enough so that Drivers would not need to rely upon any public benefits. The proposed law also sets out procedures for the Secretary of Labor’s review and approval of recommendations negotiated by a Driver Organization and the Companies and for judicial review of the Secretary’s decision. The proposed law states that neither its provisions, an agreement nor a determination by the Secretary would be able to lessen labor standards established by other laws. If there were any conflict between the proposed law and existing Massachusetts labor relations law, the proposed law would prevail. The Board would make rules and regulations as appropriate to effectuate the proposed law. The proposed law states that, if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.

”

Full text

The full text of the ballot measure is below:

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2024

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The secretary of state wrote the ballot language for this measure.

The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 11, and the FRE is 59. The word count for the ballot title is 24.

The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 17, and the FRE is 24. The word count for the ballot summary is 614.

Support

Yes on 3 led the campaign in support of Question 3. To view a full list of the campaign's endorsements, click here.

Supporters

Officials

• U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern (D)
• U.S. Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D)
• Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell (D)

Unions

• Service Employees International Union
• Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ

Organizations

• Center for American Progress
• Our Revolution
• Progressive Massachusetts

Arguments

• Roxana Rivera of SEIU 32BJ: "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, so we can finally end the unacceptable wages and working conditions that Uber and Lyft drivers have been subjected to at the hands of tech companies."
• Domingo Castillo, a driver and member of the campaign: "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. There was no consideration about the sacrifice we made to keep their service running. 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."
• Roxana Rivera United for Justice: "A YES vote will give Massachusetts rideshare drivers, who work for companies like Uber and Lyft, the option to join a union while also maintaining driver flexibility and independence. The option to join a union is guaranteed for most workers, but rideshare drivers currently don’t have that choice. Vote YES to allow rideshare drivers the option to choose a union.”

Opposition

Ballotpedia did not locate a campaign in opposition to the ballot measure.

Arguments

• Paul Diego Craney, spokesman for the Fiscal Alliance Foundation: "If this proposal passes in its current form, this question will not only eliminate the ability for many independent contractors to be their own boss, and raise prices for riders, but will also likely result in a lengthy legal battle for years to come due to the proposal’s poorly worded provision that preempts federal and state labor law. It would be a disaster not only for our state, but for the thousands of people who depend on the flexibility offered by these apps to help make ends meet."
• Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance Boston, MA: "Question 3 would RAISE THE PRICES FOR ALL RIDERS, funding union pockets, not drivers’ pockets. This law gives Politicians the right to set rules with NO accountability and creates a new radical labor category that is inconsistent with federal labor law. 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 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. This proposal is not fair to Drivers and allows just 2 ½ percent of drivers to force unionization and leaves many Drivers without a voice. Vote No on Question 3.”

Campaign finance

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recent scheduled reports that Ballotpedia has processed, which covered through November 15, 2024.

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Massachusetts ballot measures

Ballotpedia identified one committee registered in support of the initiative—United for Justice.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$7,276,313.49	$569,484.13	$7,845,797.62	$7,259,066.90	$7,828,551.03
Oppose	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Total	$7,276,313.49	$569,484.13	$7,845,797.62	$7,259,066.90	$7,828,551.03

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee supporting the ballot measure.

Committees in support of Question 3
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
United for Justice	$7,276,313.49	$569,484.13	$7,845,797.62	$7,259,066.90	$7,828,551.03
Total	$7,276,313.49	$569,484.13	$7,845,797.62	$7,259,066.90	$7,828,551.03

Donors

The following table shows the top donors to the committee supporting the ballot measure.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Service Employees International Union	$6,868,758.49	$94,969.57	$6,963,728.06
Local 32BJ	$312,500.00	$450,744.98	$763,244.98
International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers	$60,000.00	$0.00	$60,000.00
SEIU California State Council	$25,000.00	$0.00	$25,000.00
Seiu Mass State Council	$10,000.00	$13,161.00	$23,161.00

Polls

See also: 2024 ballot measure polls

Are you aware of a poll on this ballot measure that should be included below? You can share ballot measure polls, along with source links, with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Massachusetts Question 3, Unionization and Collective Bargaining for Transportation Network Drivers Initiative (2024)
Poll	Dates	Sample size	Margin of error	Support	Oppose	Undecided

Emerson College Polling/WHDH	10/24/2024-10/26/2024	1,000 RV	± 3.0%	57%	33%	10%
	Question: "Would you vote yes or no on Massachusetts Question 3, which would provide transportation network drivers the option to form unions to collectively bargain with transportation network companies regarding wages, benefits, and terms and conditions of work?"

University of Massachusetts Amherst/WCVB	10/03/2024-10/10/2024	700 RV	± 4.8%	58%	27%	15%
	Question: "Question 3 - would provide transportation network drivers (Uber, Lyft, etc.) the option to form unions to collectively bargain for wages, benefits, and working conditions with transportation network companies."

Note: LV is likely voters, RV is registered voters, and EV is eligible voters.

Media editorials

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

The following media editorial boards published an editorial supporting the ballot measure:

You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Opposition

The following media editorial boards published an editorial opposing the ballot measure:

• Sentinel & Enterprise Editorial Board: "Under current law, Uber and Lyft drivers in Massachusetts cannot readily form unions. Question 3 would change that. It would allow drivers across multiple companies to negotiate together for better pay, expanded benefits, and other protections that would then apply across the entire rideshare industry. But so-called sector-based bargaining is largely untested in the United States and likely would face serious legal challenges. Uber and Lyft drivers would also lose the independence they now enjoy, and be forced to join a union that they might not support."

Background

Uber and Lyft settlement with Massachusetts, 2024

In June 2024, Uber and Lyft settled a lawsuit with the state regarding the status of transportation network drivers. Under the settlement, drivers would make a minimum wage of $32.50 per hour; earn one hour of sick day pay for every 30 hours worked (up to 40 hours); 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. As part of the settlement, Uber and Lyft agreed to suspend a ballot initiative campaign that would have considered app-based drivers to be independent contractors and enact several labor policies related to app-based companies.

In a statement, Lyft, said, "More importantly, it is a major victory in a multiyear campaign by Bay State drivers to secure their right to remain independent, while gaining access to new benefits."

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell (D) said, "For years, these companies have underpaid their drivers and denied them basic benefits. Today’s agreement holds Uber and Lyft accountable, and provides their drivers, for the very first time in Massachusetts, guaranteed minimum pay, paid sick leave, occupational accident insurance, and health care stipends."

Massachusetts App-Based Drivers Initiatives (2022)

See also: Massachusetts App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative (2022) and Massachusetts App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative (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."

Flexibility and Benefits for Massachusetts Drivers, the campaign behind the initiatives, reported $17.8 million in contributions during the election cycle.

California Proposition 22 (2020)

See also: California Proposition 22, App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative (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.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Massachusetts

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 Roxana Rivera.
• On September 6, 2023, the initiative was cleared for signature gathering.
• On November 22, 2023, Politico reported that the campaign had filed signatures with local registrars.
• On January 3, 2024, the secretary of state reported that the campaign filed 83,788 valid signatures.
• In February 2024, the Fiscal Alliance Foundation filed a lawsuit against the initiative with the Supreme Judicial Court arguing that the initiative contains disparate topics and therefore should not be on the ballot.
• The state legislature did not pass the initiative by the May 1 deadline. The campaign was cleared to gather a second round of signatures.
• The campaign submitted 18,084 valid signatures for the second round by the deadline.
• On July 10, the secretary of state announced that the campaign had qualified for the ballot.

Sponsors of the measure hired Westfield Trustee Services, LLC, Sign2Vote and Inc. to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $1,335,539.42 was spent to collect the 87,003 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $15.35.

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Massachusetts

See below to learn more about current voter registration rules, identification requirements, and poll times in Massachusetts.

How to vote in Massachusetts

Poll times

In Massachusetts, most polling places are open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. However, municipalities may open their polls as early as 5:45 a.m. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote.

Registration

Check your voter registration status here.

To vote in Massachusetts, one must be a United States citizen, a resident of Massachusetts, and at least 18 years old on or before Election Day.

The deadline for registration is 10 days prior to the election. A voter can register online, by mail, or in person at any registration office or the Registry of Motor Vehicles. A form of identification is required to register. The following are acceptable forms of identification:

• Valid driver's license
• State-issued identification card
• Current utility bill
• Bank statement
• Paystub
• Government-issued check
• Any other government document displaying the voter's name and address

Automatic registration

Massachusetts automatically registers eligible individuals to vote through the Department of Motor Vehicles, division of medical assistance, health insurance connector authority, and other agencies that collect what state law defines as reliable citizenship information.

Online registration

See also: Online voter registration

Massachusetts has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.

Same-day registration

Massachusetts does not allow same-day voter registration.

Residency requirements

To register to vote in Massachusetts, you must be a resident of the state. State law does not specify a length of time for which you must have been a resident to be eligible.

Verification of citizenship

See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

Massachusetts does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration. An individual must attest that they are a U.S. citizen when registering to vote. According to the state's voter registration application, the penalty for an illegal registration is a "fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years or both."

All 49 states with voter registration systems require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections, under penalty of perjury or other punishment. Seven states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Wyoming — have laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration, whether in effect or not. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allows noncitizens to vote in some local elections. Noncitizens registering to vote in those elections must complete a voter registration application provided by the local jurisdiction and are not eligible to register as state or federal voters.

Verifying your registration

The Elections and Voting page, run by the Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth office, allows residents to check their voter registration status online.

Voter ID requirements

Massachusetts does not require voters to present identification (ID) while voting, in most cases.

However, voters will be asked to show ID in the following circumstances:

“

You are voting for the first time in Massachusetts in a federal election; You are an inactive voter; You are casting a provisional or challenged ballot; The poll worker has a reasonable suspicion that leads them to request identification.

”

The following list of accepted ID was current as of August 2024:

• A driver's license
• A state ID card
• A recent utility bill
• A rent receipt or lease.
• A copy of a voter registration affidavit
• A letter from a school dormitory or housing office
• Any other printed identification which contains your name and address

Click here for the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' page on accepted ID to ensure you have the most current information.

“

Acceptable identification must include your name and the address at which you are registered to vote. Examples of acceptable identification include: a driver's license, state-issued ID card, recent utility bill, rent receipt, lease, a copy of a voter registration affidavit, or any other printed identification which contains the voter's name and address.

”

See also

2024 measures

• 2024 ballot measures
• Labor and unions on the ballot
• 2024 petition deadlines

Massachusetts

• Massachusetts ballot measures
• Massachusetts initiative laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls
• Ballot measure signature costs

External links

• #23-35