A court in Massachusetts ruled Tuesday that the proposed measure to vote on the position of concert drivers is in violation of state law and does not meet the conditions for voting this fall.
The measure, which was backed by companies such as Uber and Lyft, would classify concert drivers as independent performers rather than employees, a long-standing goal of the companies. The decision effectively ended a $ 17.8 million campaign by concert companies to support the initiative.
The vote contains two “substantially different political decisions, one of which is buried in obscure language,” in violation of the state constitution, which requires all parts of the vote to be linked, the Massachusetts Supreme Court said in a ruling.
The court challenged the provision that the drivers were “not employees or agents” of a concert company, as it appeared to be an attempt to protect Uber and Lyft from liability in the event of an accident or crime. This provision is not related to the rest of the proposal, which concerns the benefits that drivers would or would not receive as independent contractors, according to the seven-judge panel. The measure would give drivers some limited benefits, but exempts companies from having to pay them for full health benefits, leave or other employee benefits.
“Petitions that bury individual political decisions in obscure language raise fears that voters will be confused, misled and deprived of meaningful choices,” the court said.
Read more about Gig Economy
For years, concert companies and labor rights groups have debated how to classify drivers: Should they be employees with full labor protection and benefits? Or should they be independent contractors, accountable for their own costs and, as the companies claim, provide more freedom and flexibility to work the hours they want?
As it seemed unlikely that the federal government would resolve the issue, Uber and Lyft marched state-by-state to fix the employment status of their drivers.
The campaign by the concert companies to lock the work status of their drivers in Massachusetts was similar to the efforts in California two years ago. In 2020, companies successfully persuaded California voters to adopt Proposal 22, a voting measure that cemented the status of independent driver executor; it was later overturned by a judge. The following year, they tried to strike a deal in New York, and this year they struck a similar deal with lawmakers in Washington state, preventing drivers from being classified as employees.
But the defeat of companies in Massachusetts, a staunchly pro-labor and pro-union state, shows the limits of the strategy, said Terry Gerstein, a labor rights attorney at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Working Life Program.
“Directors need to pay attention to the reality that the march of concert companies to the future with deteriorating worker protection is not inevitable,” Ms Gerstein said.
Opponents of the Massachusetts vote welcomed the court’s ruling.
“Millions of drivers, passengers and taxpayers in Massachusetts can rest easy knowing that this unconstitutional proposal by Big Tech CEOs to manipulate Massachusetts law has been rejected by the Supreme Court,” said Wes McKennachet, who led Mass. Is Not for Sale, in e-mail. “The voting question was written not only as an attempt to reduce drivers’ rights, but would also jeopardize the rights of passengers and the public.
Uber and Lyft declined to comment, but the organization that manages the measure expressed disappointment and said it would have broad support in the fall.
“Obviously a majority of Massachusetts voters, as well as drivers for shared travel and delivery, supported and would have accepted the issue for a vote in law,” said Connor Yunitz, who leads the Massachusetts Coalition for Independent Affairs.
The group hopes the state legislature will still take action on drivers’ employment status before the end of the summer. “We hope that the legislator will stand with 80 percent of drivers who want flexibility and remain independent, while having access to new benefits,” wrote Mr. Unitz.
A survey of about 400 Massachusetts drivers paid for by concert companies this year found that 81 percent supported the vote. But critics say drivers have been faced with a false choice between flexibility and advantage when classifying them as employees could give them both.
“Companies have already spent millions trying to trick drivers and voters into accepting this deceptive offer,” said Steve Tolman, president of the AFL-CIO in Massachusetts.
The labor battle in Massachusetts began in 2020, when Attorney General Maura Healy sued Uber and Lyft, arguing that they misclassified their workers by treating them as independent contractors rather than employees. This claim is pending in court.
Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and Instacart responded with a vote measure that had a real chance of passing if it reached the electorate, if the California initiative was any indication.
But their plans began to fall apart when a group of labor activists filed a complaint in January, arguing that the vote should not be allowed because of the clause on companies’ liability for concerts.
On Tuesday, a Massachusetts judge’s ruling made it clear that Uber and Lyft, in trying to pass an ambitious and comprehensive law, went too far.
“Concert companies have written too long a voting initiative designed to confuse people in an attempt to avoid responsibility for everything from employer responsibilities to caring for passengers when accidents occur,” Ms Gerstein said.
Add Comment