ReportWire

Tag: Trade union

  • Money flowing to ballot questions ahead of election

    Money flowing to ballot questions ahead of election

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — Millions of dollars in contributions are continuing to flow to ballot committees behind five statewide referendums ahead of the election Nov. 5.

    Sunday was the deadline for groups raising money for and against the ballot questions to report their hauls from the latest reporting period.

    Fundraising on Question 2 saw the most activity in the most recent period, with groups backing the proposal to scrap the decades-old mandate requiring high school students to pass the MCAS exams to graduate spending more than $9.6 million to date, according to filings with the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance.

    A sizable chunk of funding reported by the Committee for High Standards Not High Stakes has been provided by the Massachusetts Teachers Association, the main proponent of the referendum.

    Much of the funding has come from in-kind contributions for signature gathering, research and other campaign related activities.

    Opponents of Question 2, organized under the Committee to Protect Our Kids’ Future, reported raising more than $2.1 million in the most recent fundraising period.

    Backers of Question 3, which would authorize Uber, Lyft and other ride-hailing drivers to unionize and bargain collectively for better wages and benefits, had raised more than $5.7 million for the campaign as of Sunday, according to the OCPF filings.

    Supporters of Question 1, which asks voters to approve a performance and financial audit of the state Legislature, reported collecting nearly $500,000 as of Sunday, according to the filings.

    The referendum was proposed by Auditor Diana DiZoglio, a Methuen Democrat and former state lawmaker whose efforts to audit the House and Senate have been blocked by legislative leaders who argue the move is unconstitutional. DiZoglio has chipped in more than $100,000 of her own money for the campaign, filings show.

    Meanwhile, backers of Question 5, which calls for paying tipped workers the state’s minimum wage of $15 per hour, raised more than $200,000, not including in-kind contributions from labor unions and others backing the effort, the filings show.

    Unlike contributions to individual candidates, donations to referendum campaigns are unrestricted and corporations often get involved, as do special interests, labor unions and others.

    The money is being mostly spent on campaign advertising, mailers and outreach in an attempt to sway voters ahead of the election.

    Overall figures for this election cycle are expected to rise with committees submitting other rounds of fundraising totals in coming months, and their final, year-end reports after the election.

    Ahead of the 2022 elections, committees behind ballot questions to set the “millionaires tax”, dental benefits, expand retail beer and wine sales, and repeal a state law authorizing state driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants raked in more than $67 million – the most expensive election cycles in recent years.

    In 2020, ballot questions to update the state’s “right to repair” law and authorize ranked-choice voting poured more than $60.7 million into their campaigns.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Question 3: Should ride-hailing drivers be allowed to unionize?

    Question 3: Should ride-hailing drivers be allowed to unionize?

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — Voters in November will get a chance to resolve a fight over unionizing Uber and Lyft workers with a proposal that calls for reshaping the employment status of ride-hailing drivers who work now as independent contractors.

    Question 3, which appears on the Nov. 5 ballot, would authorize ride-hailing drivers to form unions to collectively bargain with so-called transportation network companies for better wages, benefits, and improved terms and conditions of work.

    A yes vote would create an exemption to the state’s collective bargaining laws and set up a system allowing drivers unionize. A no vote would keep the status quo, where ride-hailing drivers are considered independent contractors with a limited wage and benefit guarantees.

    Backers of the measure say while pay and benefits for the job have increased under a settlement in June with the Attorney General’s Office – including a guaranteed $32.50 minimum wage and other new driver benefits, such as earned sick pay – they want the security of unionization.

    “We help our neighbors get to work and school and bring them home to their families, and we deserve the pay and treatment on the job that will let us support our families and keep a roof over our heads,” Betania Gonell, an Uber and Lyft driver from North Andover, said at a rally at the Statehouse last month.

    “We want a union to help us negotiate for better pay, working conditions and job protections, just like nurses, bus drivers and millions of other workers in Massachusetts.”

    Over the past year, supporters of the measure collected tens of thousands of signatures to put the question before voters in November and survived a legal challenge seeking to strike it from the ballot.

    Among those backing the changes are the Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ and International Association of Machinists, which formed a coalition with progressive and social justice groups earlier this year to push for its approval.

    The outcome of the ballot question could have far-reaching impacts. Massachusetts has seen the number of ride-hailing trips rise from 39.7 million in 2021 to 60.6 million in 2022 – a more than 52% increase, according to state data. There are more than 200,000 approved ride-hailing drivers in the state, but it is not clear if all of them are now working.

    Like most states, Massachusetts has wrestled for years with the issue of how to classify ride hailing drivers. Uber, Lyft and other companies have long argued that their drivers prefer the flexibility of working as independent contractors, not employees. They have cited surveys of drivers saying they prefer contractual work.

    In June, Uber and Lyft dropped plans for a separate ballot question to classify their drivers’ employment status after reaching a deal with the state Attorney General’s Office to boost wages and benefits. The companies also agreed to pay $175 million to the state to resolve the AG’s allegations that they violated the state’s wage and hour laws.

    The agreement requires the companies to pay drivers a minimum wage of $32.50 per hour. Drivers also receive expanded benefits, including paid sick leave and a stipend to buy into the Massachusetts paid family and medical leave program.

    The settlement stems from a lawsuit originally filed in July 2020 by then-Attorney General Maura Healey, who is now the state’s governor.

    But drivers who support Question 3 argue that the proposal would provide more job security and the ability to bargain collectively for better pay and benefits in the future.

    While there is no organized opposition to Question 3, critics argue the move could lead to higher prices for Uber and Lyft rides if the companies pass along the added labor costs to consumers.

    That includes the state’s Republican Party, which says approval of the referendum “threatens the flexibility and affordability” that make ride-hailing services so popular for drivers and those who use the services.

    “It would also set an unfairly low threshold for unionization votes, potentially violating federal labor laws,” MassGOP Chairwoman Amy Carnevale said in a recent statement. “With Massachusetts already being one of the most expensive states to live and do business in, adding more red tape and higher costs is the wrong approach.”

    The conservative Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, which also opposes Question 3, argues that its approval would not improve the situation for most ride-haling drivers because they will “have no control over leadership of the union and will pay significant dues without real representation.”

    Recent polls have shown a slim majority of voters support approval of Question 3, one of five questions before voters in the November elections.

    A report by Tufts University’s Center for State Policy Analysis found that Question 3, if approved, will likely face significant legal challenges, but it could give workers new power to bargain for better wages and benefits.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Elon Musk’s Battle with Swedish Unions Is Now Impacting Tesla’s Charging Stations

    Elon Musk’s Battle with Swedish Unions Is Now Impacting Tesla’s Charging Stations

    [ad_1]

    For the past several months, Tesla has been locked in a battle of wills with the labor unions of Sweden. The company’s refusal to ratify a collective bargaining agreement with a small number of workers associated with the Swedish union IF Metall has led to boycotts by other regional unions, turning what should have been a quickly resolved dispute into an ongoing disaster for the electric car company.

    Did Elon Musk Regret Buying Twitter? | Walter Isaacson Interview

    This week, yet another humiliation was visited upon the firm: An additional labor union has decided to take action against the car manufacturer, and this time the end result could be the stifling of Tesla charging stations throughout the country. The Swedish Union for Service and Communications Employees, or Seko, published a statement Wednesday, announcing it would be initiating a “sympathy” action against Tesla over its anti-union policies:

    “IF Metall’s fight is also our fight. By refusing to comply with the rules of the game here in Sweden, Tesla is trying to gain a competitive advantage by giving the workers worse wages and conditions than they would have with a collective agreement. It is of course completely unacceptable. The fight that IF Metall is now taking is important for the entire Swedish collective agreement model. That is why we have chosen to issue another sympathy notice and increase the pressure on Tesla.”

    The impact here could be bad for Tesla, as Seko, which does important electrical work throughout the country, has promised to halt all “planning, preparation, new connections, network expansion, service, maintenance and repairs regarding all of the car brand Tesla’s charging stations in Sweden.” Elektrek has noted that the move could stop the launch of all new Tesla Superchargers within the country.

    Over the past several months, unions throughout Sweden and other parts of Europe have banded together to protect Scandinavia’s labor model from Tesla’s attempted disruption. So-called “sympathy” actions or strikes are a method by which unions not directly connected to a particular conflict can express their support and put pressure on an offending company. As a result, Tesla’s headquarters in Sweden have been subjected to a number of actions. Dock workers, electricians, postal workers, and even garbage collectors have all abandoned the company’s offices, causing serious issues for the company.

    Tesla’s CEO, Elon Musk, has made it clear that he doesn’t like unions—which doesn’t make him particularly unique, as far as the billionaire-class goes. That said, Musk’s anti-union stance is particularly pronounced, even among his peers. He has repeatedly expressed his disdain for collective bargaining and, during one particularly inspired bout of rhetorical bullshit, said of organized labor: “I just don’t like anything which creates kind of a lords and peasants sort of thing”—which is an amazing statement coming from a guy whose cumulative wealth rivals that of any feudal lord in history.

    [ad_2]

    Lucas Ropek

    Source link