Eager drivers worry bill may slow unionization push

BOSTON (SHNS) - App-based drivers who obtained the authority to unionize through a ballot law last year are opposing a bill that they say "masquerades as a data privacy measure" and blocks their ability to unionize until mid-2026.

"We have to call the legislation before us today what it is: an attempt by billion-dollar tech companies to undermine the will of Massachusetts voters, to undermine democracy and delay justice for thousands of workers who are ready to form a union," said Mike Decoco, a business representative for International Association of Machinists District 15.

Decoco spoke during a hearing of the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy, chaired by Sen. Michael Barrett and Rep. Mark Cusack. Cusack, the newly appointed House chair of the committee, filed the bill that Decoco and others railed against.

Cusack's bill, which he filed alongside Sen. John Cronin (H 3470 / S 2259), is a "technical fix... clarifying that it is an unfair work practice for a certified or recognized transportation network driver organization to refuse to provide information requested by a transportation network company that is relevant to the bargaining process," according to a summary created by the House.

It would also make driver records confidential, and delay the implementation of these new regulations — and therefore the voter-approved law — until no later than June 30, 2026.

"This bill masquerades as a data privacy measure, but don't be fooled. This bill is nothing more than a strategic diversion designed to kick the can down the road for over a year and block drivers from exercising the union rights they've already won at the ballot box," Decoco said.

Voters approved the unionization ballot question by a margin of 54% to 46%.

"Since the passage of Question 3 in November, thousands of drivers, as you heard today, have already signed union cards. Drivers are organizing each other in their communities, parking lots and online," said Autumn Weintraub, executive director of the App Drivers Union. "Every day that this process is delayed, drivers remain without a voice, without the ability to negotiate for safer working conditions for fair pay and basic dignity on the job. Drivers face harassment, unfair deactivations and less and less pay."

The ballot question campaign unfolded on a parallel track to a lawsuit carried out by the attorney general's office, which came to a landmark settlement last year. The settlement between Attorney General Andrea Campbell and Uber and Lyft, to settle labor law allegations against the companies, gave drivers access to new base pay and benefits.

The agreement required Uber and Lyft to pay drivers at least $32.50 per hour when they are en route to pick up passengers or actively transporting riders, allow drivers to accrue up to 40 hours per year of paid sick leave, offer cash stipends that drivers can use for health insurance plans, and obtain occupational accident insurance for drivers.

However, drivers testifying on Tuesday said even with the gains they won in the settlement, drivers are still struggling.

Dwayne Mitchell, a Roslindale resident and app-based driver since 2016, said some passengers these days are "guilt tipping" because "they know they're paying about twice what I get."

"Most people think we're making $33 an hour. Why should they feel bad about us? Truth is, we're making about $16. Half of that goes out the door, I pay 70 cents a mile to the IRS," Mitchell said. "Some jobs that I go on, like long distance, I lose money... We did our job to try to get a union in here, and we got the signatures on the union cards. We're ready to present them."

Cusack and Cronin didn't respond to requests for comment.