Massachusetts struck a deal with Uber and Lyft for a minimum wage. Drivers say they are still in short supply

Michael Moya started driving for Uber and Lyft in 2019, back when he lived in Florida. He liked it for a while. It offered flexible hours, which was a big plus for the father of three. And the money was pretty good: He could easily make $300 for a six-hour shift.

He has moved to Massachusetts, and lately things are getting worse. Because of the drop in wages, to make $300, you now put in about 12 hours. He works “hard every day” just to make that kind of money. “I don’t have time to be with myself [my kids] because I have to put in more hours at work,” he said.

Paying Uber and Lyft drivers was supposed to improve after state attorney general Andrea Campbell signed a contract with the companies this summer requiring them to pay at least $32.50 when drivers are offered a ride until they drop someone off. The agreement also authorized the ability to obtain paid sick leave and to receive benefits for paid family leave and health insurance, and ordered the companies to pay $175 million to drivers to settle allegations of violating federal wage and hour laws.

What does not affect the settlement, is that drivers like Moya are employees or not, or legally they can be considered as independent contractors. That represents a major disappointment for some drivers who have been seeking labor status since 2020—including Campbell’s predecessor, Maura Healey. In fact, Healey filed a lawsuit in 2020 and sought a court ruling that the drivers were misclassified as independent contractors under existing state law.

“It was very disappointing,” said Kelly Cobb-Lemire, organizer of Massachusetts Drivers United. “It didn’t solve the separation, which was the crux of the case.”

Campbell’s office acknowledged that reaction. “We can understand, if we look at where we started with the case, there would be disappointment for some drivers that we could not achieve our original goal, but it was not achieved,” said Abigail Taylor, deputy attorney general of Massachusetts. “It has always been our goal to get drivers the best money we can get. If that wasn’t going to be an employee situation, it would be a very strong non-employee agreement and we feel like we got that.”

A Lyft spokesperson said in a statement that drivers already receive more money if their earnings fall below the new minimum. “As these benefits continue to roll in next year, we will let drivers know how to access them in the best way possible,” said the spokesperson.

An Uber spokesperson added that the company sent an email to all active Massachusetts drivers at the time of the agreement and posted the details on the company’s blog. “We’ve also sent emails to drivers as we get closer to the introduction of each benefit,” said an Uber spokesperson. “In total, there have been three emails sent to MA drivers so far.”

Even assuming that the minimum wage mandated by the attorney general is paid, drivers are not entitled to many important workplace benefits. “Almost all the rights and protections that people get at work are based on the employment relationship,” said Laura Padin, director of labor structures at the National Employment Law Project. Employee status includes overtime pay, access to unemployment insurance and workers’ comp, and the right to things like paid time off. That’s a big deal in Massachusetts, which has set a $15 minimum wage and mandated paid sick leave and paid family leave.

Instead, the settlement Campbell reached settles his office’s lawsuit over state law, avoids a court ruling that was expected to favor him and the drivers, and bars his office from pursuing the matter again in the future.

Now drivers are at odds over what’s next, including whether to support a ballot measure before state voters in November that Uber and Lyft have promised not to fight. If it passes, it will create the first of its kind to unionize rideshare drivers, but the drivers themselves fear that there will be a lack of democratic control in the unionization process and the possibility that Uber will try to use its power over. effort. All the while, the status of the employee remains an unresolved issue.

‘It’s progress, obviously’

If Campbell had gone to court, it was expected that he would have received a ruling in favor of the drivers as employees. That would be important to drivers even outside of Massachusetts. “Winning in the courts would send a message that the core of these companies is illegal,” said Padin.

But Campbell had been in corporate custody. They were pursuing five different measures on the November ballot that, if passed, would have consolidated their ability to treat drivers as independent contractors while giving drivers “fewer rights and benefits than employees,” Padin said. Companies have spent big on such efforts before; lost $200 million in a California ballot measure that ended up enrolling their workers in the state’s employment law. Campbell’s office thought the companies would spend a lot of money on the ballot in November. Had they been successful, their action would have nullified the effect of any court ruling that found the drivers to be employees under the previous state law. As part of the settlement, the companies agreed to give up all of their voting rights.

“We would have received a judgment in the court that would have said that the drivers are actually workers but no driver would have seen the benefit,” said Taylor, “because the voting campaign would have changed the law. For that reason, we felt it was important to get as many drivers as possible.” He added that what is secured in this area is “a package of benefits and protections that can be transferred anywhere in the country.”

“[The settlement] it’s an improvement, obviously,” Cobb-Lemire says, but leaves the question of the status of the job “in limbo.” Drivers cannot drive themselves because they are bound by arbitration clauses in their employment contracts that prevent them from suing the company for employment rights issues in court; no other government agencies can pursue this matter on their behalf except the attorney general.

And the small hourly wages Campbell earned won’t benefit many veteran full-time drivers. After driving for Lyft in Massachusetts for nearly two years, Ryan Francis knows how to “drive smart” and only accept rides that pay him enough to do the right mileage, meaning he earns more than the minimum wage. He thinks that the only people who will benefit from a lower rate are new drivers who accept any ride they are offered, no matter how bad the math is on their salary. Instead, Francis said, all drivers should refuse rides that do not result in proper compensation so that companies are forced to stop offering them.

The flexibility that attracts many drivers to Uber and Lyft doesn’t have to come outside of the work environment; many workers, from store clerks to nurses, choose hours that fit their schedules. “There are a lot of flexible workers,” said Padin.

On the other hand, the Spirit does not like to be placed in the title as a worker. But Campbell’s new low salary won’t help him, he says. He noted that he does not work by the hour, but by the mile; The new salary does not include any time spent driving to pick someone up or return a ride, or the cost of gas or car maintenance. Since moving in, he says, he’s found an hourly ride that costs $32.50 a time, no matter how far he travels. He says they want to be paid at least 70 percent of each fare he and the drivers organize.

‘We can’t hear you’

Shortly after announcing his deal with Uber and Lyft, Campbell endorsed Question 3, a ballot measure that would create a form of unionization for rideshare drivers without touching on the question of labor segregation. It is supported by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. The idea is to give workers a different legal avenue for unionization to “discuss collectively the issues they face every day working for their colleagues like Uber and Lyft,” said Roxana Rivera, SEIU Local 32BJ assistant president. SEIU has experience organizing workers to speak out outside of the traditional union model, such as corporate bargaining for nursing home workers and the Justice for Janitors campaign that brings together members across workplaces to pressure companies.

But Moya, who supports the idea of ​​the union, feels that he was never heard during the voting as he did with the agreement of the attorney general. “They also made this decision without consulting us,” he said. “We don’t hear.”

Cobb-Lemire is concerned that the ballot measure will favor Uber-backed unions and that it will not be democratic or transparent. If it passes, the union will have to organize a small section of drivers to represent them all and block any attempts by other unions.

Rivera responded that the goal is to “create a more democratic process,” and says SEIU will work to represent the drivers’ union. “We are willing to put resources and commitment into a very difficult industry,” he said.

Moya and Cobb-Mire fear that the Independent Drivers Guild, a partnership between Machinists and Uber that receives funding from the company and has used tactics in the past, will step in and become a designated union. If the union representative receives funds from the companies, Moya says, “What kind of rights and what kind of benefits will they really fight against. [for]?”

Rivera says SEIU is working with Machinists but not IDG. A SEIU communications representative pointed out that Question 3 expressly excludes corporate unions, which are defined as those created or controlled by one of the companies, including sponsorships. But he could not say whether IDG would be banned as details about Uber’s payments to the group are scarce.

Moya has faced IDG’s aggressive tactics, he says; one of their promoters first invited him to his What’s App group of drivers and then abruptly kicked him out after he suggested they turn off their apps and go on strike for several hours to protest the low pay they were getting, according to screenshots shared with Fast. Company. After that, he posted a photo of himself in the group and a voice message under it calling him, in Spanish, a “Dominican villain.” It made him feel targeted, especially considering the thousands of members of the group. He says: “If this happens before the real union, what will happen when these people get that power?”

Cobb-Lemire also opposes Question 3 because it leaves out many gig workers who aren’t rideshare drivers—for example, people who work for Instacart and DoorDash. “We want it to be all app-based drivers,” he said.

But even if they are frustrated by it, the drivers who oppose Question 3 expect it to pass because there are no unions or other groups that are officially campaigning against it. “We have to come to terms with it and fight better in our unity,” said Francis.

The best option, Cobb-Lemire says, is to continue to fight for state legislation that “includes workers’ rights for all drivers based on employment, including unionization.”