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

The Massachusetts Unionization and Collective Bargaining for Transportation Network Drivers Initiative (#23-35) may appear on the ballot in Massachusetts as an indirect initiated state statute on November 5, 2024.

The initiative would provide for unionizing and collective bargaining for transportation network drivers.^[1][2]

Measure design

See also: Text of measure

The initiative would provide transportation network drivers with the right to form unions for collective bargaining with transportation network companies, like Uber and Lyft. The transportation network companies would be authorized to form multi-company associations to represent the companies in bargaining with associations of drivers. The initiative would require the state to oversee the negotiations between the parties and approve the negotiated recommendations on wages, benefits, and terms and conditions of work.^[1]

The initiative would also create a hearing process for the Massachusetts Employment Relations Board to process unfair work practice charges against transportation network companies. The board would be authorized to award compensation to wronged parties if unfair work practices have been committed. Companies would be authorized to appeal the board's decision to the state Appeal Court.^[1]

The law would authorize 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 would define active drivers as drivers who have completed more than the median number of rides in the past six months. The board would determine if the driver organization has collected the required number of signatures. If so, the designated driver organization would have the exclusive right to represent drivers in negotiations with companies and collect voluntary membership dues. Any collective bargaining agreement would have to be approved by at least a majority of riders who have completed at least 100 trips during the previous quarter and the Secretary of Labor. The agreement would be in effect for the following three years.^[1]

Text of measure

Full text

The full text of the ballot measure is below:^[1]

Support

Ballotpedia has not located a campaign in support of the ballot measure. You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Supporters

Unions

• Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ

Arguments

Opposition

Ballotpedia has not located a campaign in opposition to the ballot measure. You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Arguments

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

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Massachusetts ballot measures

Ballotpedia identified one committee registered in support of the initiative—United for Justice. It reported over $1 million in contributions. If you are aware of any committees, please email links to editor@ballotpedia.org.

 .sbtotaltable { width: 50%; } .sbtotaltable th { font-size:1.2em; } .sbtotaltable td { text-align:center; } .sbtotalheader { background-color: black !important; color:white !important; font-size:1.0em; font-weight:bold; } .sbtotaltotal { font-weight:bold; } 

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the ballot measure.^[3]

 .sbtotaltable { width: 50%; } .sbtotaltable th { font-size:1.2em; } .sbtotaltable td { text-align:center; } .sbtotalheader { background-color: black !important; color:white !important; font-size:1.0em; font-weight:bold; } .sbtotaltotal { font-weight:bold; } 

Donors

The following table shows the top donors to the committee registered in support of the ballot measure.^[3]

Background

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."^[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)

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.^[6][7]

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 statutesin 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 is 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.^[2]
• On September 6, 2023, the initiative was cleared for signature gathering.^[2]
• On November 22, 2023, Politico reported that the campaign had filed signatures with local registrars.^[8]
• On January 3, 2024, the secretary of state reported that the campaign filed 83,788 valid signatures.^[9]
• 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.^[10]
• The state legislature did not pass the initiative by the May 1 deadline. The campaign was cleared to gather a second round of signatures.

See also

External links

• #23-35

Footnotes