Uber is weighing whether to launch a formal opposition campaign to a ballot question this fall that would give rideshare drivers the right to unionize, a potential move that could see millions of dollars flow into the labor-centric fight, according to a source close to the company.
A potential opposition push against the ballot question would come after Uber and Lyft settled with Attorney General Andrea Campbell in a lawsuit that originally sought to classify drivers as employees rather than independent contractors.
The final deal struck in June did not settle the classification question but it did boost wages for drivers and end the two companies’ bid to put a question on the matter before voters in November.
But Uber has not yet decided if it will fully bow out of this election cycle and is debating a campaign against the rideshare driver unionization ballot question, according to the source close to the company.
The move could bring with it loads of money. The company previously shuttled over $2.4 million to the now defunct rideshare driver classification ballot question, according to state campaign finance records.
Uber said they are “discussing the proposal with drivers.”
“We aren’t aware of any other place in the world where half the workers are ineligible to vote for their representative and it only takes 12.5% support to win the election,” the company said in a statement to the Herald.
The proposed law would give rideshare drivers the right to collectively bargain with their companies over wages, benefits, and conditions of work, according to a summary prepared by Campbell’s office.
The ballot question seeks to establish a procedure to determine when drivers are “active,” or have completed more than the median number of rides in the previous six months, according to the summary.
A union would need to gather signed authorizations from 5% of “active drivers” to gain a list of other “active drivers” at companies like Uber and Lyft, the summary said.
Unions would then need signatures from at least 25% of “active drivers” in Massachusetts to make an attempt at becoming their exclusive bargaining representative, according to Campbell’s summary.
Opponents of the proposal argue that only half of the rideshare drivers in Massachusetts would meet the threshold laid out in the ballot question to be considered “active.” Critics say that means a small percentage of drivers would make unionization decisions for the larger group.
Supporters of the measure, including 32BJ SEIU and Campbell, argue unionization is necessary to fight back against subminimum wages, “unfair” deactivations, and “unsafe” working conditions.
32BJ SEIU Assistant to the President Roxana Rivera said the proposed law offers tens of thousands of rideshare drivers a “democratic process to bargain collectively for better standards.”
“To organize this extraordinarily isolated and vulnerable workforce, the ballot proposal lowers the threshold of workers necessary to trigger a union election to 25%, but the union would still only pass with a ‘yes’ vote from a majority of regular Uber and Lyft drivers in Massachusetts (casual workers would be excluded from a vote, as they are in all union elections),” Rivera said in a statement to the Herald.
That model, Rivera said, has been used in other industries where workers are “difficult to reach and easy to replace, and it has led to the formation of unions that have improved these workers’ lives immensely.”
Uber has argued in the past that the settlement with Campbell, which stems from a lawsuit first filed by then-Attorney General Maura Healey in 2020, is a boon for rideshare workers because it raises minimum pay to $32.50 per hour for time spent traveling to pick up riders and transporting them to their destination.
The deal required Uber to pay $148 million and Lyft to pay $27 million to resolve the multi-year lawsuit. The money was put aside to pay current and former drivers who were underpaid by the companies, according to Campbell’s office.
Drivers also received guaranteed sick leave, a paid stipend to buy into the state’s paid family and medical leave program, pooled health insurance benefits, and eligibility for occupational accident insurance paid by the companies for up to $1 million in coverage.
An internal survey of more than 2,500 active Massachusetts Uber drivers conducted by the company through their driver’s app from July through August found that 76% supported the agreement based on what they had learned about it so far.
About 82% of drivers said they were aware of the agreement Uber and Lyft had struck with Campbell’s office, according to the poll, a copy of which was shared with the Herald.
The hourly rates agreed to in the settlement took effect Thursday and Uber touted the deal in local media, a move that quickly drew the ire of Campbell.
“You might be seeing some of the ads from Uber’s media blitz trying to take credit for this, but let’s be clear: they’re paying because they have to, not because they want to,” Campbell said on social media. “My office took Uber and Lyft to court, held them accountable for exploiting drivers, and delivered an unprecedent(ed) package of benefits and protections. Residents of the Commonwealth deserve the whole story.”
Originally Published:
