2021-09-14 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development
2021-09-14 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
I'm going to suggest um that we get started right at 10:30 um because I know that german Cutler and I are both here and uh some house members are here and a number of people who are ready to testify and there's a little bit we have to do with housekeeping before we get started. So I'm going uh chair Cutler, can we is that okay with you now madam Chair, thank you so much in that case,
I'm calling this hearing of the labor and workforce committee to order. I'm uh Senator Pat Jehlen and I'm joined by my co chair josh Cutler who is going to introduce the house members who are here and then we'll47 get started.
Good morning everyone. Thank you madam Chair uh good to see everyone. Um thank you to my house colleagues who have joined us. I uh just quickly scanning the teams here, I see Representative Jim Hawkins, Representative john Rogers and I believe Representative Tram Nguyen and I'm sure we have some other folks that will be joining us soon. So thank you, look forward to some great testimony and uh informative hearing joining back over to you, madam Chair. Thank you so much. So I'm going to just read instructions for everyone Holmes Welcome. Obviously we're going to hear bills today on independent contractors. Uh if you're testifying, you'll have three minutes to testify. If you're on multiple bills please give all your testimony at one time. Um We will hear the bills in numerical order. But state legislators and office holders out of turn please her to keep yourself on mute and if possible keep your camera turned off until you're speaking.109 You want to be respectful of everyone testifying and do not want any background noise interrupting them. There's a chat feature for those who are joining. Berkshire Connolly The committee staff will use it to people who signed up to testify. No. When they're coming up until let speakers know when they have one minute left members of the committee. If you want to ask a question through the chair or notify the chair namely me um that you'd like to test uh, to ask a question. Remember to contact Mark Martinez for my office and his contact information was previously sent to you by email, but he's also in the chat. Um if you did not sign up to testify but want to speak, please write your name, organization and bill number in the comment. And the staff will take note and let me know. Please remember that it is public and be respectful and we reserve the right to remove people from the hearing if they don't adhere to these rules that are destructive just letting you know also that the hearing is also being streamed online on the legislature's website and with that I think we'll start with our testimony. Um, let's see the first fill we're hearing ah is a pair190 of Bills House 1953 and Senate 12 24. We have a panel uh Michael vartabedian and David said tuba I believe.
Yeah. yes we are. Okay. David will be sharing my computer. So212 after done testifying, he'll sit in my seat and testify. Yeah. Okay,
MIKE VARTABEDIAN-MASS AFL-CIO-SB1224- Thank you. Good morning, Chairperson Jehlen, Chairperson Cutler and the members of the labour and workforce committee. My name is Mike Vartabedina and I'm the executive vice230 president of Massachusetts AFL-CIO and the assistant directing business representative for the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. The union organizing Uber and lift drivers across the state. Today, I want you to urge your support for groundbreaking pro-union legislation on behalf of these rideshare workers. S 1224 an act establishing collective bargaining rights for TNC drivers.
For decades, the machinist union has been the leading advocate for hiring vehicle drivers and five years ago, we helped rideshare drivers form the independent drivers guild, which advocates for over 275,000 drivers across the country. We have seen firsthand the power of collective274 action when it has and ensuring the independent drivers have a fair and equitable workplace. From fair wages to affordable benefits to deactivation recourse, we have been leading and winning fights for drivers thanks to our engaged community of members and activists that291 have put over a billion dollars in the pockets of drivers295 across the country, including requiring an in-app tipping option a $27 an hour, the minimum wage in New York and deactivation appeals process, compensation for sick and high-risk drivers, a ban on pool rides when308 the pandemic hit and reliable bathroom access at some of the nation's busiest airports.
Establishing collective bargaining power and a union for all workers, including rideshare drivers and gig economy workers is a legislative priority for the AFL-CIO for the machinist union, for the Massachusetts, independent drivers killed and for the thousands of rideshare drivers across Massachusetts who are working right now without the essential workplace freedoms every other worker in335 our state currently enjoys. As a union member, I can tell you collective bargaining rights transform the lives of working people across the country every single day. Through the power to negotiate over one's wages, working conditions and benefits, working people can have the choice to make their jobs safer, more sustainable and the power to win higher wages, better benefits and improved workplace standards that raise the bar for everyone.
Right now, collective bargaining rights for366 thousands of rideshare drivers in Massachusetts are under attack by big tech companies including Uber and Lyft. These multibillion dollar gig economy corporations have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into maximizing profit off driver's work while denying them basic protections like a minimum wage. For tens of thousands of Massachusetts citizens driving for390 Uber and Lyft is no longer a gig, it's not a side hustle, it's their full-time primary source of income that their family relies on to keep a roof over their heads and it's about time our state laws caught up with the realities of this new industry and started to serve the workforce, not Silicon valley bosses.
The freedom to negotiate for better wages, benefits and working conditions is a core dignity that is fundamental to our most basic understanding of fairness on the job. S 1224 would give rideshare workers a voice in their pay and working conditions and426 secure the most basic Labour rights for this essential workforce. The only way to stop driver exploitation is by giving drivers the power to negotiate equitable working conditions for themselves on behalf of thousands of union members, leaders, advocates and frontline rideshare drivers across Massachusetts, we urge you to support S 1224.
In California, big Tech rideshare companies spent a historic $200 million on proposition 22 and successfully overturned the groundbreaking protections rideshare drivers had just months earlier. These companies are coming after drivers in massachusetts using the same playbook they used against drivers in California. That is why we need our state to pass S 1224 and protect the rights of our rideshare drivers now. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Mhm. Thank you. And we481 have another member of this panel. Uh, Davidson
and then we can have questions from members. Okay, you are a new Day
Yeah, should I start? Yes. Okay.
DAVIS ATOUBA-DRIVER- SB1224- Hello, my name is Davis Atouba and I've been driving for both Uber and Lyft since June. I live in Lowell, Massachusetts. I'm a former US Marine and used to work for the United States Navy. I'm here today to urge your support for the passage of S 1224, the critical and needed act establishing collective bargaining rights for TNC drivers like tens of thousands of workers in our state. In the state where I live work in Massachusetts, my work as a driver was spurred by the pandemic.
My first experience serving as a rideshare driver was with Uber eats. I was a single parent just arrived here from my home state of New York and could not afford childcare because I was new to the state. So I didn't know anybody and I was starting to fresh in a brand new city and state so this was the only job I could do with my four-year-old in the back seat. It was a rather gut-wrenching experience leaving my little boy in the back seat of the car to God knows unknown neighbourhoods in the middle of the night to drop off food to strangers and situations that578 often felt unfamiliar and frightening. But I have no other choice between putting bread on the table and protecting my own child. But drivers need real changes to keep us safe and ensure we aren't left behind in the cold.
We need the same basic union rights as the workers have here. If I do a night shift, Uber and Lyft do provide no protections at this point against dropping the sort of the passengers or even prejudiced ones, you know? All right. For the record. I'm a black individual, okay? If a rider has prejudice, I have no protection against unfair negative reviews that can shut down my account. If my account is deactivated which it was by the way with Uber, I have no recourse or due process to appeal to the activation process and have access to my livelihood and Uber has deactivated made previously.
As I said, I'm biased and unfair and it's just circumstances going to one angry customer at a fast-food636 restaurant was upset that the restaurant didn't you know, I was upset at me expressing disgust at the way service was conducted. And remember I just come to Massachusetts at the time, the service comfortable in New York is totally different environment and obviously, I wasn't right because my child was in the car. So I try to talk to this lady and have her explain the circumstances so she could serve me fast enough for665 me to return to my child, put yourself in my shoes. So that's the circumstances and based on that alone. And given that I was a platinum holder with Uber with no complaints from customers by the way but with the testimony of about two or three, I was deactivated681 as if drivers have the right to collective bargaining.
The true voice on the job, single parents like me would be able to afford care for our kids, single parents at the time because I'm married. Now, just for the record, Uber and Lyft would invest in our safety and well being and give drivers the opportunity to ask for better for us and our families I hope you will pass this legislation and give us the rights and protections that we deserve. Thank you very much for your time. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Ladies and gentlemen and thank you714 for your testimony. I'm going to ask if there are members who have uh and I would like to720 ask
Madam chair. Yes, I I do have a question. Uh I may thank you
REP CUTLER- Thank you both gentlemen for testifying, I appreciate it greatly. Just a practical question I guess just given that there are multiple rideshare companies and sometimes drivers may be employees or working for both of them at one time, how would membership and embarking you be determined if someone is multiple working with multiple rideshare companies in your view or should it?
VARTABEDIAN- So this is sectoral bargaining. So anything that755 we work out with one company, the rest because it's going to be759 a regulated industry by the state. So it would be sectoral bargaining. So anything that we work out would stretch across any company that's a TNC network anyways, but for the purpose of organizing and collecting cards, I would say that they could do both. If somebody works for both companies, you could get a card signed authorization card signed uh by the same employee for both. Uber and Lyft and when you reach that maximum of employee or that minimum of employees at the minimum threshold, then they would behave to come to the table to bargain. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you. I see. We've been joined by vice-chair Walter Timilty from the Senate side and he has a question uh Madam Chair,
SEN TIMILTY- Thank you very much, Chair Jehlen, Chair Cutler, more of a statement. First of all, Mike, thank you very much for your work on this issue, I am proud to be a co-sponsor of it. I believe Rep Decker and Senator Lewis have done a terrific job. Obviously, I think it's something that everybody on this committee embraces the right to organize and unionize is a fundamental underpinning of our society. And obviously, this is a great step in the right direction. So thanks to the AFL-CIO for your efforts. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you, Senator. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks, chair Cutler and thank you. And I do.
SEN JEHLEN- I have a question also, which is for David, you said your full time driving for Uber and Lyft?
ATOUBA- Yes ma'am. I was full time now the vehicles are both grounded because the car that I drove here from New York to build legal 70,000 miles later today dealership and at the time everyone was working from home, well, there he goes, I went to pick it up one month later and it was, It was totally grounded. I drove it in but couldn't drive it out. So that is totally gone. Now I took a rental out and that rental had extortionate prices. They started out charging me about $267 a week, I think the ratings kept going out going893 up. It was through a flex drive and before I knew it, I was paying $437 a week. Okay.
Now, obviously, I'm a hustler because I worked every single time Massachusetts drivers when driving at the time. I needed to be familiar with Boston so I took advantage of the situation, plus I wanted to step into the market and get familiar with the city. Long story short, eventually,921 that capsized as well because recently in July, we had rain cats and dogs and at some point, I was transporting a customer at 2:00 in the morning and I happened to drive into a patch of water because she was giving me directions. She said do not use936 the GPS, I'm more familiar with where I'm going, I said fine, She led me straight into a puddle of water and that hybrid is 2019, handy Ionic there goes the engine and then the lift who rented951 me the vehicle through reflects drive said, well you can not drive, you can no longer drive with us until a year.
You know, you've given two accidents; the first time I was hit on store drive because I was not familiar with the store drive, those of you who are familiar with Boston, it's a snake in so many snaking roads here. It's just a horror show for people who are from out of state. So I got hit and that was the first incident. Second, this was considered, which I believe is an act of God but according to the disclaimer that I signed with insurance, Lyft says, you know, that's to two strikes, you're out around until next year. They said if you can drive your own vehicle, yes, you can keep working and making money.
So I'm caught between a rock and a hard place. Uber eats, deactivated my account and Lyft deactivated my account. So here I am a block of platinum on both grounds, you know, excellent customer ratings. Never had a bad rating and here I am caught between a rock and a hard place simply because they are not getting the money that they want. By the way, you've got to pay them first before you get paid because I used to work Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, that was Uber and Lyft. I had to give them their money, to take it out of the account for the rental then Friday, Saturday and Sunday were the days that I make my own money. So do the math.
You know if you're going to make $1200 a week, you give $437 for the rental plus you've got to gas up the car for about $250 a week, there goes what $775 or thereabouts, about $800 there goes 75% of your pay. And then what are you left with? You have mouths to feed, you have kids to take care of, you have got to pay for insurance because Uber and Lyft will not provide that. So needlessly, you're screwed because no matter how hard you work and I was a single parent at the time before getting married. Now the whole thing is just not very conducive for parents. So we're in this fight one team, one fight ladies and gentlemen so that single moms out there and my heart goes out to them, you know, single moms, single dads and whoever it is, those straight families for crying out loud. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
when child care. Okay, these whole things, excuse me. Just this time I I know that they have time. Yes, that's it. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Well wait a minute. That's why I was regurgitating. But you know, I speak from1130 the heart. I think that having unrehearsed
testimony is very helpful. So1142 I appreciate that. But I have a question for you based on my initial question that full time when you're working full time, how much of your time is engaged? How much of the time are you sort of on the clock to be paid? Um what do you have any idea? Well, when you're working full time it depends on the at the moment you turn that upon, The clerk begins to engage so it just depends on when you switch on the app, when you turn it off is the choice of the driver. So if Ok got it. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you ma'am for hearing me. Uh is there no other questions? I see that steve Tolman is next.
Is he here? I think he is. Yes, I am. Yes, I am adam chet okay, recognizing you hear you are trying to get my testimony up, not going uh Oh here it is, No, Okay, I'm going to have to do it the old fashioned way, you know how to put it on. It was right here.
No, I'm talking about the testimony was up. It's not coming up.
STEVEN TOLMAN- AFL-CIO- HB1953- SB1224- Okay, Madam Chair, very nice to see you. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the half a million members of Massachusetts AFL-CIO, I urge you to support House 1953 and Senate 1224, an act establishing collective bargaining rights for TNC drivers. As of this moment, these atbase workers, 300 plus thousand Massachusetts residents, more than 70% of whom are black and brown and1246 immigrants are wrongfully excluded from the protections of state and federal labour laws, including the right to organize former union and bargain collectively. While our federal government works to update our United States labour laws to protect these workers, Massachusetts can now act to restore these rights.
Madam Chair, for the last 18 months, frontline workers and atbase workers like drivers and delivery have helped to keep our economy going in several ways, we know the ways. Meanwhile, these essential workers are exploited by multibillion-dollar tech companies that they work for, they are paid less than the minimum wage, generally receive no benefits and are illegally excluded from1291 legal protections against injury, harassment, discrimination guaranteed by our state laws. To address the exploitation and mismanagement of these big tech companies, we need every tool available, including law enforcement, but throughout history, there is no more powerful force for securing better wages, benefits and working conditions than simply put collective1317 bargaining.
Madam Chair, unions built this nation and provide a path to the middle class for workers, the right to collectively bargain for better wages, demand safe working conditions and excellent health insurance and the ability to retire with dignity should be afforded to every worker, driver and delivery workers for multibillion-dollar tech companies deserve the right to organise, join a union and bargain together for fair wages and good benefits, just like any other working person in Massachusetts. While 1953 and 1224 make their way through the legislative process, I feel it's important to bring to your attention this issue in a broader1361 context.
Attorney General Healy is currently suing Uber and Lyft for misclassifying drivers and illegally denying Massachusetts workers basic rights under current Massachusetts law. It's fairly simple, you cannot be the world's largest taxi1372 company and classify all your drivers as unbenefited, independent contractors with no protections under state law, they are employees, we know the law does. Through this illegal misclassification, Big tech companies like Uber, Lyft, Doordash and Instacart shift the cost of running their business onto workers and public safety nets. Drivers get no health insurance, sick time, paid family medical leave, worker's compensation or contributions to Social Security, while every other employer in Massachusetts pays into all of these benefits.
You workers, these companies have saved hundreds of millions of dollars by not paying during the pandemic taxpayers had to foot the bill for their unemployment. These companies falsely claimed that they're denying workers basic rights is necessary to maintain flexibility. This is a false choice, do not be fooled. There are nothing companies providing flexibility and1434 basic benefits to low wage workers who take on this gruelling and often dangerous work. They deserve the protection of our laws. In response to Attorney General Healy's lawsuit, Uber and Lyft filed a ballot question to buy a new law exempting app-based drivers from fundamental rights and protections just like they did in California. Uber, Lyft, Instacart spent $225 million dollars, folks, that's a quarter of a billion dollars to mislead voters in California.
Now they're prepared to spend 100 million here in Massachusetts or more to avoid paying their workers and paying their taxes. These companies should follow the law, if they succeed, a dangerous precedent will be set paving the way for many types of jobs to become app-based jobs with no benefits, standards or civil rights protections. Our laws reflect the values in the legislature has passed the laws that protect workers from the ABC test to the minimum wage increases in the past six years to the strongest paid family medical leave in the nation, and most recently with all of your help, emergency paid sick leave so workers can recover successfully from Covid.
The Mass AFL-CIO also stands in opposition to Senate 1253, an act providing a safe harbour for contractors and services, which would weaken Massachusetts. Independent contractor law is designed to prevent employees who should by all measures be entitled to workforce benefits. Taken together with both House 1999, an act to relative to independent contractors. House 2007, an act relative to the definition of an independent contractor, they both got the ABC test which is in the proact, it's in the national legislation, the Proact. So we stand opposed to them as well as House 1999 and 2007. I'm going to wrap up because1584 I don't want to go over time, but as we look to the future and what it looks like for workers and working families in Massachusetts, we must add protections not subtract, especially for traditionally marginalized workers extending collective bargaining1598 rights to TNC drivers who are currently being illegally denied the rights that come with employment is one way to right this injustice.
It's fighting fire with fire, although we're not, we want them to be employees, we have to do something to give them the protections that they need while this company is violating the law. I urge you to release 1953 and 1224, an act establishing collective bargaining rights for TNC drivers. We thank you for your commitment to your public service and most importantly for your leadership. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
thank you for your testimony. I'm going to see if there are any questions for you.
Many members of the committee have questions for MR Tolman.
I think you left No questions in our minds. Thank you. Thank you, madam. Chair. Thank you MR Chairman. So our next panel on the same bills is Azizabad from the national Independent drivers guild and Alan Hatch from the mess. Independent drivers guild. These are in the same bills.
Okay,
There you go.
AZIZ BAH-MASS INDEPENDENT DRIVERS GUILD- HB1953-SB1224- Good morning, everyone. My name is Aziz Bakar, I have driven for Uber and Lyft for more than five years and I am the organizing director for the independent drivers guild,1688 the nation's largest rideshare advocacy organization representing Uber and Lyft drivers. All across the country, drivers of for-hire vehicles have been devastated by COVID-19 and to me, this pandemic destroyed our livelihood. It also exposed the power imbalance and lack of protection for rideshare workers that cannot continue. A fundamental change is needed. When the pandemic hit, rideshare drivers didn't just lose a paycheck, they lost the ability to pay for1725 their cause, insurance, rent and to buy food, no work and no protection means economic wins.
Drivers were not provided PPEs and lacked the ability to access healthcare. We weren't even sure if we could still pay or earn employment benefits. That means that during an already anxious time, drivers were in a constant state of anxiety and fear. Many drivers opt out of driving feeling it was unsafe, of those who did work actually some of them took the risk to workers. Those drivers reported a drastic decline in earnings. Drivers have struggled to pay their rent, mortgage and many sorts of health accessing food and drivers are still struggling to this day, pandemic, unemployment just ran out, tourism, nightlife and business travel have not made their full return.
The delta variant continues to loom, which means you know, we have a very uncertain future in this industry. Right now, drivers in Massachusetts have no right to basic pay, no overtime pay, no unemployment insurance, they have no protection from workplace violence or discrimination. They often are paid below the state minimum wage and they face arbitrary loss of their livelihood with no due process. If their account is deactivated or terminated from the app. Drivers need you to act now. So what can you do to help drivers and empower them in the future? You can act now bypassing their groundbreaking Senate Bill 1224 and empower Massachusetts drivers with the right to collectively bargain over their wage, working conditions, benefits like all of the workers in this state. Right now, the multinational big tech companies, hold all the power.
Uber and Lyft can hike their fees and cut pay whenever they want. They can take away our livelihood with a click of a button but you can empower Massachusetts drivers, which you can do1886 for sure to write by giving them the right to collectively bargain. We know that drivers coming together, you know, to have a voice in our own industry world would dramatically transform the lives of 200,000 rideshare drivers in our state. We have seen our industry disseminate, but we also see how we can come together stronger than ever before with the passage of this first national legislation. Senate Bill 1224 will markedly strengthen our communities.
Right now, Uber and Lyft can take a big cut off the fear possible and leave drivers with almost nothing but the right to bargain, we can negotiate a real contract that stops the freezing of right riders and drivers and keep more of each fair right here in our community. We also are seeking to amend the legislation to require Uber and Lyft to pay into the Massachusetts unemployment system. It's time to hold the companies accountable as we do with other industries. Right now, Uber and Lyft are aggressively pushing the state ballot initiative that will block drivers from unionizing. We saw it in California with the initiative passed and left drivers without a voice to negotiate over pay benefit working conditions, they don't have anything in California. We don't1983 want that to happen in our state.
We need a better way in Massachusetts. We need Senate Bill 1224. So the coronavirus pandemic has underscored the difference between workers represented by a union, which can forcefully push for benefits and security and workers who are on their own without bargaining rights. Unionizing workers with the bargaining agreement had better paid time, time off, better policies, benefits and personal protective equipment during the crisis because everyone needed that protection and companies didn't act at the time. Under federal labour law, until federal labour laws can be overhauled, the state must act to create new labour law that can put power in the hands of rideshare workers, not these multinational companies. Thank you for your time. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
and thank you. The other member of the panel is Alan Hatch from Massachusetts. Independent drivers guild. Yeah,
Okay.
And then we'll have questions.
Good morning. I guess it's safe to say morning. So
ALAN HATCH- DRIVER- SB1224- Hello everyone. My name is Alan Hatch. I've been a driver since 2015 and have worked for both Uber and Lyft. Today I join you to implore you to support the passage of 1224, the act establishing collective bargaining rights for TNC drivers. Drivers like me are being squeezed dry by the big tech companies and we urgently need you to pass 1224 granting us collective bargaining rights in a voice on the job like other workers in Massachusetts already have. When I2100 started driving, there was no training whatsoever, no explanation on how to use the app, deal with difficult customers or how to file our own taxes, nothing.
Drivers received very little support from Uber and Lyft. We pay for our own vehicles, our own gas, maintenance, repairs everything and then Uber and Lyft take a massive cut from our wages. The wages we are left with are simply not sustainable but if we had the right to negotiate over our wages,2135 working conditions and benefits, drivers could finally advocate for change2139 and when the life-changing raises, we deserve. This legislation would allow us to negotiate over the most essential issues within our industry, a process hundreds of thousands of unionized workers across our state in both the public and private sectors already are using.
Unfair deactivation and negative reviews are other critical issues for drivers and we currently have no resources against it. One negative review or comment is all it takes for us to lose a critical portion of our income. I was deactivated by Uber in 2017 and though I tried to appeal the process, I was never met with any real arbitration. I was simply ignored and could not make a living until the issue was resolved. With collective bargaining rights, drivers could push back when the activation is unwarranted and set up an appeal process that protects our jobs and our incomes. I urge you to please pass 1224 and help make our jobs fair and sustainable and for that,2214 I thank you for taking the time to hear me out. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you for your testimony. Are there are there questions from members of the committee?
If not,
JEHLEN- I actually have a question which is Mr. Bah mentioned that you don't make minimum wage and Mr. Hatch you mentioned how much of your payment goes to the companies. Could you clarify what it means that you don't make minimum wage? And Mr. Hatch could you say what portion of your fares goes to the company?
HATCH- Well, I'm uncertain exactly how much of2270 my fares go to the company but I do see a significant change from what I was able2277 to earn in 2015-16 opposed to now. Surge prices I used to make hundreds of dollars in a day now, I mean I still kind of do but it's a lot less. I don't see those big numbers anymore. So that's something I really don't know the full amount but I just know that the amount that is taken is pretty significant from what it used to be. It's no longer a 75% rule that we used to have on fares. It seems much less.
JEHLEN- If you can get back2312 to us with any information on that. And then another question that was raised was how much of the time that you have the app turned on are you actually driving and being paid?
HATC- So Lyft that allows me to stay on the app for no longer than 12 - 13 hours at a time. Often I could be sitting anywhere from like 15-30 minutes waiting depending on, I don't get paid for that though, I'm only paid for you know gig time when I have my passengers.
JEHLEN- So you don't have an estimate of how much of the time you're actually driving?
HATCH- No.
JEHLEN- Okay, those are pieces of information that would be helpful I think at least to me. So if you all can gather estimates from different people that would be helpful.
HATCH- Absolutely. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Again, thank you for2375 your testimony. And now we have another panel of Andrew Greenblatt from the national Independent drivers guild and Craig Hughes from the Grand Lodge of machinists. Thank you for your time. Yes,
thank you madam. Chair. Uh I guess I'll go first. Um uh
ANDREW GREENBLATT-SB1224- HB1953- INDEPENDENT DRIVERS GUILD- If you hold the questions, you just asked the drivers, I have some information for you from around the country as to what percentage of their time is paid and things like that. We're happy to address those things. First, I'll give my testimony. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Andrew Greenblatt and I'm the national policy director for the independent drivers guild and the executive director of IDG2426 Benefits Fund, a nonprofit that supports gig workers. Today, I'm here to testify in support of S 1224 and H 1953, an act establishing collective bargaining rights for TNC drivers.
This landmark bill2435 would, for the first time give network drivers in Massachusetts the right to organize and have an effective voice in shaping their work life,2442 including wages, benefits and protections against unfair labour practices. It would be a strong counterweight to the more than two dozen states, including California that have locked these workers out of collective bargaining. The proposed bill would have the state regulate this industry while giving Massachusetts TNC drivers a voice in their future for the very first time. It would do so by creating an industry council consisting of representatives from the app companies and unions2496 representing the drivers, which would propose sets of regulations for the state to adopt any regulations that would become binding on the entire industry operating within the state.
Drivers would choose which union represents them and then the industry council native those unions and the app companies would meet to negotiate proposed regulations concerning issues like setting fair wages and providing sweet benefits. By structuring the law in this way, with state regulations with an industry council, playing an advisory role, the law would allow these workers to have a voice without running afoul of the Sherman antitrust act, an NRA. Specifically, the bill would take advantage of the state immunity doctrine that allows states to regulate industries in ways the actors within the industry cannot do on2542 their own.
For example, states routinely set electric raids, licensing requirements for professions and safety standards for workplaces. We would also pose at a system of health insurance to this bill and I would gladly share with you what other states have posted2557 in that area. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Great thank you and then Mr Hughes and then we'll have questions. Mhm. Mhm.
CRAIG HUGHES- MACHINIST UNION- SB1224- Good morning, Madam Chair, Mr. Chair and the committee. My name is Craig Hughes, I'm a resident of Wilmington Massachusetts. I serve as a Grand Lodge representative for the Machinist union, representing thousands of transportation workers across our region.2582 Today, I join you to urge your support for our groundbreaking pro-union legislation on behalf of2588 the most vulnerable types of transportation workers today; rideshare workers. I am here to urge the support of this legislation and the right of every worker in this state and country to collectively bargain.
Our opportunity to win these2603 essential rights is only through the passage of S 1224, an act establishing collective bargaining rights for TNC drivers. To say the least, no workforce, no worker has ever been better off without the right to collectively bargain. Without it, workers, regardless of their employment status, have no say in the working conditions, pay or benefits. There's a reason why these workers are the ones who have taken historic widespread collective action in the fight for their rights and the latest push by rideshare drivers in the fight to collectively bargain is no exception. We appreciate every person, every organizer, every driver in the state who is fighting against companies like Uber and2642 Lyft to lift up drivers and win the rights they deserve.
While we aggressively fighting the big tech's proposition 22 clone ballot initiative and we wholeheartedly support Attorney General Healy's lawsuit, rideshare workers need relief right now in the form of collective bargaining in any union. What makes S 1224 so important is that allows for rideshare drivers2664 to organize at the state level and collectively bargain for fair pay and working conditions without waiting on the courts or another election cycle. Even after Attorney General Healy successfully wins a lawsuit, this legislation would still have essential merit because the rideshare drivers are not included in the National Labor Relations Act, their opportunity to enjoy the same rights as other workers in2687 our state is reliant on the passage of the standalone collective bargaining legislation.
Tens of thousands of your constituents have currently ventured into driving as a primary source of income during the pandemic, tens of thousands of rideshare drivers in our state right now, working in an industry where all the shots are called by corporate bosses in Silicon Valley, they are and have been essential workers and have had their lives put on the line to keep our communities running during this year of crisis. This is not a drill. Big tech companies have filed their initiative to block the rights of Massachusetts workers permanently. We cannot hesitate another minute2725 to give them the basic rights that so many other workers in our state enjoy so they can lift themselves out of poverty and have jobs that are safe and sustainable.
This is why union workers urge you to pass S 1224 today and help our unorganized brothers and sisters have the same rights we have that they too deserve. Thank you for your time.
and undefined undefined SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
undefined undefined undefined undefined thank you are there questions2750 from members of the committee,
JEHLEN- I guess Mr. Greenblatt, I would like you to say that you had information2758 about other states?
GREENBLATT- Yes, so you'd asked specific questions, you were hoping to get more information on what percentage of driver's time is typically2766 engaged time. And the second is what percentage commissions the companies take out of fares. First, let me say nobody but the companies have specific answers to those questions, they do not release that data. Lord knows, we have tried to get it. The closest that we've come is in New York City, they did a study where they forced companies to turn over a bunch of their data and found that a typical driver who has engaged anywhere from a third to a half the time they have their apps on. So you know, I would expect that to be similar in Massachusetts.
As for how much they taking a commission, the independent drivers guild has done their own research2812 where they've gotten passengers to send in their receipts and then we can compare it to what drivers get out of the trip and from there, what we found in his wild variability. The cheaper the fair, the more the driver team seems to get up to about 75%. So if you're taking a $10 or $15 ride, typically a driver gets about 75% of that. When the trips get longer, the companies take more. We've seen long trips from airports that will be over $100 and the companies will take more than half the wage. They don't have to disclose any of that to the passenger or the driver currently and we were only able to get that through our drives. undefined undefined
JEHLEN- Then I think you have said you could send us information about what other states are doing or have proposed?
GREENBLATT- Yes, so I've been working on this kind of legislation in several states, some of that legislation includes unemployment insurance, benefits. I would be happy to share the language of what that looks like in other states and could be adapted for Massachusetts. I'm also kind of the guy who's kind of a holder of thinking about how this relates to Sherman's if anyone has any questions about is there an antitrust problem here? I'd be happy to answer those questions as well. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Great, thank you so much. I don't see any other questions from people. So I'm going to thank you for your testimony and move to fill Gordon from the Mass Employment2906 Lawyers association
is mr Gordon here.
I don't see that.
Speaking to see a visa in the list,
he may not be here right now. So I'm going to go to Gabriel Camacho from the UFCW Local 1445.
GABRIEL CAMACHO- UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL 1445- HB1953- SB1224 Good morning, Chair Jehlen and Chair Cutler. My name is Gabriel Camacho, I am the political director for United Food and Commercial workers local 1445. I'm here today to testify on behalf of five UFC locals in Massachusetts in opposition to H 1953 and S 1224. These bills would severely limit bargaining rights for transportation, network company drivers and would misclassify them as independent contractors. We urge you to report both bills unfavourably out of committee. Collectively locals 1445, 1459, 328, 371 and 791 represent over 24,000 members in Massachusetts who work in health care, industrial laundries, meatpacking, food processing, retail such as Macy's, transportation such as Peapod and grocery store workers, such as stop and shop.
Allowing transportation network companies to misclassify drivers as independent contractors would undoubtedly guarantee that these workers do not get livable minimum wage,e overtime, pay workers compensation, unemployment disability insurance or access to protections regarding discrimination and sexual harassment. The transportation network companies will argue that drivers can receive benefits, but this is terribly misleading. The so-called benefits proposed in these bills are minuscule compared to the benefits workers would receive if they were properly classified as employees. The limited number of drivers who would qualify for the benefits would have to accept a near-impossible number of rides to reach the required threshold to even receive these benefits.
The bill completely overhauls the collective bargaining and organizing process.3048 Provisions within these bills would allow transportation network companies to create the Industry council, essentially removing traditional labour unions from the bargaining and organizing process. The bill would only allow unions to take part in bargaining and organizing processes if 10% of qualifying drivers, those who performed 120 requests in the last 90 days, vote for the Union to be their driver representatives. To support this bargaining model, the Industry Council would charge a 0.5% surcharge on every ride that would be allocated for drivers representatives to provide limited representation.
Such an overhaul of the bargaining and organizing process conflicts with the National Labor Relations Act and denies workers of Uber, Lyft and similar transportation companies, basic labour protections. The bill also will undo the Massachusetts ABC test 1990 that determines who is an employee and who is a contractor. The issue at hand is will Massachusetts allow the companies to blatantly disrespect and misuse workers on their platform. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you. Uh, I was a little confused. Go ahead. I'm sorry. I undefined undefined undefined undefined undefined undefined undefined undefined undefined undefined undefined undefined undefined was3138 confused as well. And it sounds like you had a question I was I was going to jump in as3146 well, but go ahead. Ok, Go ahead. Uh Well, madam mr Camacho. Thank you.
CUTLER- I just wanted to clarify because I was a little confused. Are you testifying against Senate 1224 to establish the bargaining rights for TNC drivers, correct?
CAMACHO- Yes.
CUTLER- Okay. I guess I'm confused because it seems counterintuitive.
CAMACHO- It does seem that way, however, in looking at the bill with a magnifying glass, you would see that we would only provide a limited amount of collective bargaining. The threshold to become organized is merely impossible to reach and not only, of the member of the union pay union dues, it would also be the customer or the client that would pay a surcharge for paying for the union.
CUTLER- So we have an industry though where there there is no collective bargaining right now and we will be giving them one we just heard a lot of Labor Leaders speaking in support of this including the head of the AFL-CIO representing you know workers all over the state. So I'm confused, I'm not trying to pick you, I'm just confused about why you think this is a bad thing?
CAMACHO- Well right now, our3227 position is the same position that Attorney General Maura Healey has that these drivers are employees and are entitled to all labour protections including organizing and collective bargaining rights as is under the law.
CUTLER- Do you think that it was3236 undermined that status?
CAMACHO- I think it would water down basic labour rights. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Okay, I'd love to hear Madam Chair and it's up to you because I love to hear responses to that from some of the previous testifies. If Madam Chair would permit that and I will submit this testimony in writing and it's signed3256 by five different uh UFCW local3258 press tenants. So I don't know if any of the previous um people who testified are prepared to respond to that or if you would like to both respond in writing or both. It seems to me I would have
so sex
VARTABEDIAN- Senator, I would be more than willing or Andrew would be more than willing to respond to some of those things or maybe a combination of both. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Who said that Mike Vartabedian from the machinist union. Okay well, I think unless there's an objection from members of the committee. I think I would like to thank you for what happened. So either3328 Mr Lipper-Garabedian and then Mr Greenblatt, if you have some remarks would be great. Um
VARTABEDIAN- First of all, I respectfully disagree3338 with brother Camacho, and so does the AFL-CIO Executive board that endorsed this, so I'm disappointed that another labour leader would come out against collective bargaining rights for workers that currently don't have something like that right now. Some of the things that were just said about not having limited collective bargaining power, we left a lot for collective bargaining and actually, you're in the process of adding UI to this bill, we were drafting up some language that we were3372 going to try to add to this bill, but we had left it for collective bargaining.
But some of the things that these employees have been deprived of because of their classification or because of their misclassification, what we would do is collectively bargain for those in the meantime, while those are being fought in a different arena, in the courts. So we're not proposing that we water down the ABC test here in Massachusetts, there is a reason why we stayed away from the subject of calling them employees or contractors, because this is strictly about collective bargaining and trying to get these workers immediate relief. In regards to a surcharge, a lot of these workers don't make a lot of money and some only work a few hours because they have to take care of their children and so3425 on, so the surcharge to the rider made more sense because3429 it doesn't take away from the workers that are already making less than3434 minimum wage.
There were some naysayers and I know that Camacho has been one of them that says that it creates a loyalty to the company, and I would argue that it creates no loyalty to the company. All of our unions have dues deduction from our paychecks and the company, so it takes the money from our paychecks, remitted to the union monthly because of the contract. This law would have the company take from the customers a 0.5% surcharge and remit it to the Union because of the law. It's not a favour, it's not something that the company would3474 have a choice. So saying that it would hurt the workers, it actually is designed3482 to help them, the workers, and I'm sure that Andrew has some more comments on this, but they need relief.
Now, these workers need relief. Now, they need a voice in the workplace, they have none of that right now. So I'm a little disappointed to hear that a fellow union and um leader is against collective bargaining rights.
CAMACHO- That is not what I said.
3519 GREENBLATT-3519 I3519 did want to just say that there are a few things that Mr. Camacho said were in this bill, and also some of the ratifications of this bill. This bill does not classify these workers as independent contractors, this bill is completely silent on that, and because of the way the bill has been set up what the bill is doing from a legal perspective, is having the state regulate this industry and then asking for workers to be involved in that regulation, it stays clear of the NLRA, it stays clear of Sherman, of classification issues, all of that. So, when Massachusetts wins its lawsuits, this bill in no way will restrict workers' rights to organize under the NLRA. Where we stand today, by the way, will then lead to a whole other round of lawsuits. Right?
Because the last legal counsel for the NLRB put out an advisory opinion saying that these gig workers could not organise under the MlR so while we may have a vision of what we would like to see 10, 15 years from now, in terms of these workers having all of their rights as employees being protected under the NLRA, being organized under the NLRA having full right to collectively bargain contracts, all of that is many lawsuits, many, many years away. These workers need really today and what this law has very smartly done is created a way for those workers to get the kind of power and protection they need now without in any way slowing down the process of3609 getting them all of the other rights that Mr. Camacho was talking about the meeting.
This bill does not hurt that, this bill gives a voice to those workers in that fight along3620 the way and then when those fights are one, those3622 workers will already be organized making the ability to form an NLRA union more likely. Hobbling those workers today does not help those workers tomorrow, helping those workers today helps those workers tomorrow.
JEHLEN- So I'm going to suggest that, I think there is a common interest in seeing representation for workers and I wonder if Mr. Camacho can send us sometimes what people say is I'm opposed to a bill when what they mean is I'm opposed to portions but in favour of the intent. So if you have suggestions like that, I would like to hear them from Mr. Camacho. It sounds like a longer conversation may be appropriate but that doesn't usually happen during a hearing I'd ask my co-chair what he thinks about that.
CUTLER- No, thank you, Madam Chair and thank you for indulging us. I think it was helpful to hear that back and forth. I do have some follow up questions but in the interest of moving the hearing ahead, I think maybe we can take those to3699 a future venue.
JEHLEN- I think that should happen kind of quickly because this is an issue that is in the public right now. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
We do mr Gordon has joined us from the mass employment lawyers, so I would like to hear from in and then I would like to know if there are other folks here who wanted to testify on these bills. So SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
yeah, thank you.
PHILIP GORDON- MASS EMPLOYMENT LAWYER ASSOCIATION- HB2001- Thank you, Madam Chair. Very briefly, I wanted to just express that the Mass Employment Lawyer Association and those of us who work in employment law, our opposition to the effort that's currently underway to loosen up the protections on the independent contractor bills to allow more people to be classified as independent contractors, basically to turn the end, to ensure its deeply problematic. We represent individuals or3772 employees and you3774 lose all the protections of all the state's employment laws and for3778 all sorts3780 of reasons, from the perspective of whether we have the protections of sexual harassment, discrimination, all the protections of our courts, whether, you know, workers compensation, withholding of taxes, all the stuff that we are all3792 accustomed to that, once people are classified as independent contractors, all that goes away, and that's a deep problem for3798 us. I just want to express our opposition to the bill, I think it's 2001. Thank you.
JEHLEN- Okay, so you're not expressing an opinion about 1224 and 1953? You're here to oppose the opposite kind of efforts?
GORDON- The effort to loosen the bills3816 to allow more individuals to be classified as independent contractors, that's what we oppose. It certainly dovetails a lot of levels to the conversation that people are having now, which is, you know, once people are employees and otherwise could they do they have collective bargaining rights. That's3832 a separate set of questions, which I don't have an opinion and I'm not a union lawyer and I don't profess to understand all the collective bargaining rights and I won't but I absolutely do have an opinion on the independent contractor building themselves and whether people should be classified as employees. I think it's a very, very dangerous road that's going down to loosen up the restrictions, to loosen up the protections that individuals have in the commonwealth as employees. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Okay, That's helpful. Like I was, Had you signed up on a different bill? So thank you for clarifying and for your testimony. Are there questions from members? JEHLEN- Well, I have a question; I am interested, is there no one from Uber or Lyft or Instacart is here to comment or to respond or express their opinion? I think that's really unfortunate if they have decided not to participate in the public process because it would have allowed us to have this kind of questions and dialogue.
GORDON- I am prepared if you have questions.
JEHLEN- But you're not here representing as I understand it Uber or Lyft or Instacart or the other entities that are proposing changes through a ballot question rather than through the legislative process. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
So, with that, I think we will thank you all and move on to House 1999 and House 2001, which some people have already commented on, but we have rich marlin and frank3939 Callaghan from the mass building trades Council.
No,
FRANCIS CALLAHAN- MASS BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL- HB1999- HB2001- SB1253- Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm here today to testify undefined undefined undefined undefined undefined undefined undefined undefined in opposition to the bills that were just mentioned relative to loosening the current requirements that are considered misclassification, it would just legalize an illegal practice right now. That's House bill 1999 and House Bill 2001 and Senate Bill 1253. We were actively involved in writing the current statute determining the status of an employee back in 2004 because we see the bad practices that go on out there. Massachusetts has a crystal clear three-part test, the ABC test and that's something we're always told by the business community that they want clarity.
These two bills in particular House Bill 1999 and House Bill 2001 look like a simple change. Change the word and to or, their changes, the presumption that the employees are in fact employees and could be misclassified as independent contractors. That provides crystal clear clarity and we believe that you're a worker if you're going to work, if you're, as we like to say, if your name's on the front of the paycheck instead of the back of the paycheck, you're considered a worker, and we think that's the case here. Senate Bill 1253 changes that safe harbour, which is if the worker pays the payroll tax and runs more than $30 an hour, that's just would legalize the scam that we had seen for many years and unfortunately, continue to see in the construction industry where the workers handed a bunch of paperwork, whether it's for workers compensation, payroll taxes or some sign off so that that employer can abuse them and not pay them the proper wages. Of course, the state loses on unemployment insurance taxes, payroll taxes, workers compensation premiums, Social Security payments and the like.
So we're firmly in opposition to those three bills. If I might, I would like to add the support of the state building trades for House Bill 1953 and Senate Bill 1224 to support collective bargaining as has been proposed by the machinist. I think it's analogous to the situation we have in the construction industry in 1935 when the Wagner Act, the National Labor Relations Act were adopted. It had special recognition for the nature of the construction industry to allow for pre higher agreements. It doesn't exist outside of any other industry and when it was amended further in 1947 with the Taft Hartley Act, clearly both of those dates predate the invention of the iPhone and the internet apps and did not anticipate the current situation with the gig economy.
I applaud the machinists and others for taking a very thoughtful approach to address the unique nature of the gig economy and to allow those workers to join a union for a different mechanism because even though I believe we're going to win the ballot question and the legislature will reject three bills that I just testified against, to maintain our misclassification statute, and even if those two things happen, which I believe will. And even if the National Labor Relations Board h and uses the trump era order uh prohibiting those workers from joining a union, they will have a right that they won't be able to exercise because it's a herculean task-organized worker in a good situation these days, but it's almost impossible to organize a scattered workforce like that.
Again, I applaud the machinists and others who were developing this mechanism that would allow them to unionize. So we're supportive of those two bills and I'll be happy to answer any4186 questions from the chair of the committee. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Great. And uh also on this panel is rich Marlin and then we'll have questions.
RICH MARLIN- MASS BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL- HB1999- HB2001-Thank you, Madam Chair. Senate 1999 and 2001, to put it in a different context for you for a second. You just got through your budget debate changing and to or would be like changing the shall to may in a budget amendment. That is sort of the significance of how undefined undefined undefined undefined it looks simple but I think you all have been through the fight of trying to make sure you've got a budget amendment and I'm sure you all want shall and not May. So we're hoping to not go back to may, which is what they attempt to do with this language.
The safe harbour is as president Callahan said, it's basically the entire construction industry would be considered, you know, a safe harbour for employers to exploit their workforce. So hopefully you will also reject that piece of legislation. That's all I have. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you. Okay. Mr Chairman or other members do you have? Yeah, I do have a question uh sort of following up and we talked about rich or either the gentleman.
CUTLER- I'm curious, if you think in any way, would collective bargaining rights for TNC drivers negatively impact their position as employees? You know, what would be position as employees as the issue that was raised previously. If you don't have any expertise on that, or you don't want to comment, fine, but I know you guys are pretty knowledgeable here,4275 so I'm curious to get your thoughts.
CALLAHAN- From my reading of the legislation, it would not impact the status of employees. If that was the4285 case, I would not be testifying in support of that bill here today. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Okay. Are there other questions?
Hey, thank you all for your testimony and seeing no further. I don't see anyone who has signed up for House 2007 or Senate 1229, although other people have commented on them and I see no one for Senate 11 81 or 12 53. So in that case, I don't see anyone else signed up. If there's anybody that wants to testify that's here, they can raise their hand4326 and I don't see anyone with their hand raised. And unless there are further questions or comments, I'm going to entertain a motion to adjourn.
If I saw one, I would entertain it. undefined undefined undefined undefined undefined undefined undefined undefined
So moved.
And yes, there was there. And is there a second?
It's like a second. And I want to thank the all of the people who came to testify today and the members of the committee and all in favor.
All right. High. All right. See you again soon. Thank you. Meeting in center.
© InstaTrac 2025