A battle over the classification of app-based rideshare and supply drivers is gearing up for the second 12 months in a row after Attorney General Andrea Campbell gave her approval Wednesday to a number of variations of a query that will outline these employees as impartial contractors.
Clearing the primary main hurdle to look on the autumn 2024 poll represents an preliminary comeback for the Flexibility & Benefits for Massachusetts Drivers coalition, which noticed their proposal struck off the poll final 12 months by the state’s highest courtroom.
The coalition mentioned Massachusetts rideshare and supply drivers “are one step closer to having their independence protected while receiving access to historic new benefits.”
“We’re pleased that the Attorney General’s office has certified our ballot proposals to ensure drivers can maintain the flexibility to work when, how often, and for how long they want as independent contractors, while also accessing new benefits and protections,” coalition spokesperson Conor Yunits mentioned in an announcement.
But like different questions licensed by Attorney General Andrea Campbell Wednesday, opponents mentioned they wish to problem the proposal on the Supreme Judicial Court.
The Massachusetts Is Not For Sale coalition mentioned the proposed change to state legislation “would permanently misclassify all of their workers in the commonwealth who are currently entitled to the same rights and protections that almost all other workers are entitled to under Massachusetts law.”
“The ballot questions certified today represent sweeping changes to Massachusetts employment laws and the social safety net so many workers and their families count on. As we did in 2022, we are committed to challenging the certification of these Big Tech ballot questions at the Supreme Judicial Court,” the group mentioned in an announcement.
Supporters wish to specify that rideshare and supply drivers who settle for requests via an online-enabled software will not be “employees” and associated firms will not be “employers” for functions of Massachusetts legislation, an official abstract of model A of the query mentioned.
Another iteration of the query, model B, specifies different minimal compensation and advantages for rideshare and supply drivers. Supporters filed 9 completely different variations of the query.
A spokesperson for the proponents mentioned the group doesn’t intend to maneuver ahead all 9 variations of the poll query however didn’t have a right away reply as to which iteration the group deliberate to pursue.
Supreme Judicial Court justices threw an analogous query off the poll in June 2022 as a result of it handled too many issues in a single proposal for voters to contemplate on the poll field. A parallel lawsuit filed in opposition to Uber and Lyft by then-Attorney General Maura Healey asks the courts to categorise drivers as employers fairly than impartial contractors.
In an announcement final month, Yunits mentioned supporters “heard loud and clear that the SJC had concerns about relatedness.”
“We know that trial lawyers and labor will once again try to use legal loopholes to deny voters the chance to weigh in on this important issue,” he mentioned. “We have provided the attorney general’s office with a number of options for certification that should address these concerns and ensure that voters have an opportunity to make their voices heard.”
But opponents mentioned passing any model of the poll query licensed this 12 months would jeopardize wages and advantages protections of employees in Massachusetts past the app-based rideshare and supply house.
“Further, these petitions would allow the companies to dodge the employment-related taxes, assessments, and contributions that all other Massachusetts employers are required to pay and avoid their many legal obligations, as employers in the Commonwealth, to their workers who make their companies run,” the Massachusetts Is Not For Sale group mentioned.
Source: www.bostonherald.com”