The measure, backed by companies such as Uber and Lyft, would have classified concert guides as independent contractors rather than employees, a long-term goal of companies. The decision effectively ended a $ 17.8 million campaign by concert companies in support of the initiative. The ballot paper contained two “substantially distinct policy decisions, one of which is buried in obscure language,” in violation of the state constitution, which requires all parts of a ballot paper to be linked, the Massachusetts Supreme Court said in a ruling. The court challenged a provision that said the drivers “were not employees or agents” of a concert company because it appeared to be an attempt to protect Uber and Lyft from liability in the event of an accident or crime. This provision had nothing to do with the rest of the proposal, which concerned 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 relieved companies of the need to pay them for full health care benefits, leave or other employee benefits. “Reports burying separate policy decisions in dark language reinforce concerns that voters will be confused, misled and deprived of a meaningful choice,” the court wrote.
Read more about Gig Economy
For years, concert companies and labor rights groups have been at loggerheads over how to classify drivers: Should they be employees, with full occupational protection and benefits? Or should they be independent contractors, responsible 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 settle the matter, Uber and Lyft embarked on a state-by-state process to lock down their drivers’ employment status. The campaign by the concert companies to lock in the working status of their drivers in Massachusetts was similar to an effort in California two years ago. In 2020, companies successfully persuaded California voters to pass Proposal 22, a ballot measure that secured the status of independent driver contractor. he was later overthrown by a judge. The following year, they tried to close a New York City employment contract, and this year they reached a similar agreement with lawmakers in Washington state, preventing drivers from being classified as employees. However, the defeat of companies in Massachusetts, a state that is strongly in favor of workers and unions, shows the limits of the strategy, said Terri Gerstein, a Harvard Law School Workers ‘and Workers’ Life’s employee rights lawyer. “Policy makers need to be aware of the fact that concert companies are moving towards a future with degraded employee protection,” Gerstein said. Opponents of the Massachusetts ballot welcomed the court ruling. “Millions of Massachusetts drivers, passengers and taxpayers can rest more easily knowing that this unconstitutional attempt by Big Tech executives to manipulate Massachusetts law has been overturned by the Supreme Court,” Wes McEushan wrote. sale. E-MAIL. “The ballot paper question was not only written as an attempt to reduce drivers’ rights, but would also endanger the rights of passengers and the public.” Uber and Lyft declined to comment, but the agency that led the measure expressed frustration and said it would have widespread support in the fall. “The vast majority of Massachusetts voters and rideshare and delivery drivers supported and would have passed this ballot,” said Conor Yunits, leader of the Massachusetts Independent Labor Coalition. The group hoped the state legislature would continue to take action on drivers’ jobs before the end of the summer. “We hope that the legislature will stand by 80 percent of drivers who want flexibility and remain independent contractors while having access to new benefits,” Yunits wrote. A survey of about 400 Massachusetts drivers this year, paid for by concert companies, found that 81 percent supported the ballot measure. However, critics argued that drivers were faced with the wrong choice between flexibility and benefits, when ranking as an employee could give them both. “Companies have already spent millions trying to trick drivers and voters into accepting this deceptive offer,” Steve Tolman, president of the AFL-CIO in Massachusetts, said in a statement. The Massachusetts labor struggle began in 2020, when Attorney General Maura Healey sued Uber and Lyft, claiming they had misclassified their employees, treating them as independent contractors rather than employees. This lawsuit is pending in court. Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and Instacart responded with the ballot measure, which was more likely to pass if it had reached voters, if the California initiative was any indication. But their plans began to fail when a group of labor activists filed a complaint in January, arguing that the ballot box measure should not be allowed to go ahead because of a clause related to the liability of concert companies. On Tuesday, the decision of the Massachusetts judges made it clear that Uber and Lyft, trying to pass an ambitious and sweeping law, had exceeded. “Concert companies have written a very large voting initiative designed to confuse people, in an effort to avoid responsibility for everything – from employer’s responsibilities to caring for passengers when accidents happen,” Gerstein said.
