Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are my own and reflect my personal opinion as a Massachusetts driver.
As a long time driver in Massachusetts who gives more than the median number of rides, I urge all Massachusetts voters to vote No on Question 3. This proposal, while framed as a way to improve conditions for drivers, would actually harm the majority of us by skewing representation and limiting the flexibility that many of us value in this work.
Question 3 introduces the concept of “Active Drivers,” defining them as those who complete more than the median number of rides in a six-month period. This effectively sidelines part-time drivers, who would be excluded from key union decisions. By concentrating decision-making power among a smaller group of drivers, the proposal risks letting a vocal minority push their agenda while the rest of us—particularly those who drive less frequently—are left without a voice.
Even more concerning, if a Driver Organization gains support from just 25% of “Active Drivers”, which is already a smaller portion of all drivers, it becomes the exclusive bargaining representative for all drivers, whether or not they join the union. This forced representation takes away the individual control and freedom that many of us value, transforming a flexible job into something much more rigid and restrictive.
It’s crucial to remember that we are not employees. Many of us have been driving for years because of the flexibility and autonomy this job offers. We are independent contractors, and we entered this work with the understanding that we control when, where, and how we drive. We know we’re responsible for our own taxes, benefits, and work schedules. It’s a trade-off that’s worked for many of us, especially those who enjoy the freedom of this arrangement. Introducing a union, especially one that would represent all drivers regardless of their preferences, threatens to undermine this freedom by imposing new rules and constraints that might not reflect the needs of every driver.
Additionally, the recent settlement between rideshare companies and the Massachusetts Attorney General already provides key benefits and protections that address many of the concerns drivers have voiced. These include:
- A base pay of $32.50 per hour with yearly increases
- Paid sick leave and paid family medical leave, giving drivers the ability to take time off without financial loss
- A healthcare stipend to help with medical expenses
- On-the-job injury insurance, ensuring drivers are covered if an accident occurs while working
- Anti-discrimination protections and domestic violence leave, safeguarding drivers from unfair treatment and providing essential support in times of need
- Anti-retaliation protections, allowing drivers to raise concerns without fear of losing work
- An appeals process for drivers to contest unfair decisions
These gains demonstrate that we can achieve fair pay and important benefits without the need for an overarching union that could limit our flexibility. The current settlement already addresses key concerns, without creating the added complexity and control issues that come with unionizing.
By voting No on Question 3, we can protect the independence that comes with being an independent contractor. We have already seen that meaningful improvements are possible without forcing every driver under the control of a union, and without giving a small minority too much power over the rest of us. Let’s ensure that all drivers can retain control over how they work and how they shape their own future. Massachusetts voters, we urge you to vote No to protect the flexibility and fairness that benefits all of us.