Ride-hail groups go in different directions
Debate over employee, contractor status continues
Two ride-hailing driver coalition groups faced off in dueling press events Tuesday as the debate over drivers’ employment status heats up.
The industry-backed Massachusetts Coalition for Independent Work is on one side; the Coalition to Protect Workers’ Rights is on the other.
“We earn less, have fewer benefits, and fewer protections than any other workers,” Beth Griffith, an Uber driver and president of the Boston Independent Drivers Guild, said in a statement supporting workers’ rights. “Now these billiondollar companies want to pass a law that strips away our rights for good. Drivers are going to fight back.”
Both groups also released dueling surveys, with the workers’ coalition stating 50% of Massachusetts voters oppose the independent contractor bill. The Massachusetts Coalition for Independent Work found that 70% of voters supported it.
The question could appear on the ballot as early as next year.
The Coalition to Protect Workers’ Rights launched Tuesday, and argues that Big Tech is breaking the law for failing to abide by the state’s wage and hour laws. Attorney General Maura Healey sued Uber and Lyft last year, alleging these laws classify ride-hailing drivers as employees. A judge ruled in March that Healey’s lawsuit could go forward.
“The allegations in the complaint plausibly suggest that Uber and Lyft misclassify their drivers and, as a result, deprive some drivers of required minimum wages, overtime, and sick leave,” the Suffolk Superior Court judge’s memorandum states. That lawsuit is still ongoing.
The Massachusetts Coalition for Independent Work members argues that ridehailing drivers favor flexibility over all else, a theme hammered home throughout a Tuesday afternoon press event where drivers opposed an employment classification. “The flexibility is everything to me,” said driver Matthew Rose, who is able to spend time with his kids with his schedule.
Current Massachusetts law makes no mention of a reduction in flexible scheduling as it’s written. “They could live under all of the laws in Massachusetts and still provide flexible time,” said Massachusetts AFLCIO President Steve Tolman in a press conference.
The workers’ rights group fears that Massachusetts could follow in the footsteps of California, which passed Prop. 22, a Big Techbacked ballot measure to the tune of over $200 million, in November, that classified ride-hailing drivers as independent contractors rather than employees.
A similar bill in the state House would do just that, and would establish a “portable benefits framework” that would provide some of the benefits conferred upon employees in Massachusetts. It would also provide a financial account for the drivers to which companies would deposit an amount equal to 4% of the driver’s earnings each quarter for certain uses.
According to the Workers’ Rights website, the bill would deny benefits like minimum wage, paid sick time, unemployment insurance, the right to join a union, and sexual harassment and racial discrimination protections to drivers.