BOSTON â A conservative pro-business group is challenging the constitutionality of a proposed ballot question that would authorize drivers for Uber, Lyft and other for-hire drivers to unionize and bargain collectively for higher wages and benefits.
The Fiscal Alliance Foundation filed the legal challenge with the Supreme Judicial Court last week, arguing that Attorney General Andrea Campbellâs office erred when it certified the referendum for the Nov. 5 elections after a legal review.
âIf allowed to move forward in its current form, this question would eliminate the ability for many independent contractors to be their own boss, raise prices for riders, and would likely result in a lengthy legal battle for years to come due to the proposalâs poorly worded provision that preempts federal and state labor law,â Fiscal Alliance spokesman Paul Craney said in a statement.
The group, which is affiliated with the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, argues that the ballot question violates a requirement in the state constitution that initiative petitions must contain only ârelated or mutually dependentâ subjects, among other claims.
The ballot initiative would ask voters to require drivers to be paid minimum wage, receive paid sick time, unemployment insurance, discrimination protection and collective bargaining rights.
Meanwhile, the SJC is also weighing a challenge from labor union leaders over the constitutionality of ballot questions that would enshrine Uber, Lyft and other for-hire drivers and delivery people as independent contractors in the state.
That referendum, filed in August by a group whose contributors include Uber, Lyft and DoorDash, would ask voters to allow the companies to classify drivers as independent contractors rather than employees entitled to benefits.
Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and other ride-hailing companies argue that their drivers prefer the flexibility of working as independent contractors, not employees. They cite surveys of drivers saying they prefer the flexibility of contractual work.
The plan, if approved, would set an earnings floor equal to 120% of the stateâs minimum wage for the drivers â $18 an hour in 2023 before tips. Drivers would also be eligible for health care stipends, injury insurance and paid sick time, the companies say.
But labor unions argue that the ballot question is a veiled attempt by the companies to skirt state taxes, labor laws, better wages and benefits.
This isnât the first time the stateâs highest court has considered a legal challenge over employment rights for ride-hailing drivers.
In 2022, a coalition backed by California-based tech giants Uber, Lyft and DoorDash filed a proposal for the November ballot asking voters to decide whether drivers for ride-hailing services such as Uber and Lyft should continue to be classified as independent contractors.
But the Supreme Judicial Court rejected the move, siding with opponents of the proposal. They filed a lawsuit arguing that it would violate a requirement in the state Constitution that initiative petitions must contain only ârelated or mutually dependentâ subjects.
Massachusetts has seen the number of ride-hailing trips soar from 39.7 million in 2021 to 60.6 million in 2022 â a more than 52% increase, according to state data.
There are more than 200,000 approved ride-hailing drivers in the state but itâs not clear if all of those authorized to drive are on the roadways.
Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at [email protected]
By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter
Source link
