While Big Tech expands flexibility for favored, high-status employees, the initiative falsely claims that drivers can only maintain scheduling flexibility by surrendering all other worker rights.”

Right now, app-based workers can choose to work when they want, where they want and for however long they want. They can choose whether to accept a job or not. They enjoy unlimited upward earning potential and can decide to take time off whenever they want, for however long they want, without needing to ever ask a “boss.”

By contrast, coffee baristas or grocery store cashiers don’t get to choose the location they work at or how long their shifts are, nor are they in control of which orders they want to make. A Starbucks barista cannot walk across the street in the middle of her shift and start pouring cups at Dunkin Donuts. These employees instead earn a flat wage and have to get permission to take time off, and risk negative consequences if they take too much time off. This is what app-based workers would face if they were forced into traditional employment arrangements.

The companies would get away with paying sub-minimum wage because they only pay drivers for “engaged time.”

It allows them to use multiple apps at one time (doing a job on one app while waiting for a job on another one). Drivers also have the option to pick and choose what rides or deliveries they take. Currently, drivers are paid when they are performing a service. Otherwise drivers could log on to multiple apps and earn multiple wages for the same time, without actually giving any rides or making any deliveries. That wouldn’t make sense in any industry.

“The ballot language…would remove app-based workers from legal protections against workplace injuries.”

This insurance covers injuries suffered whenever the driver is online using an app-based platform. It’s one of the core provisions.

According to a study from the UC Berkeley Labor Study, under the proposed ballot measure drivers would be paid just $4.82 per hour.

Even other researchers in the UC system found “major shortcomings in the Berkeley study, which lead it to significantly understate the impact of the initiative on driver earnings.”

Like in California, opponents of the Massachusetts ballot question, which would protect driver independence and flexibility while creating historic new benefits, have continued to push false and misleading information about the legislation that are not only at odds with the facts, but don’t stand up to scrutiny when compared with the success of Prop 22 in California. In fact, 75% of California Drivers Say Prop 22 “increased my pay.”

The questionable statistics, pushed by the UC Berkeley Labor Center, are far from an independent look at rideshare data. According to CalMatters, “The Legislature created the UC labor center, supported by taxpayer dollars, at the behest of union leaders to supply studies and data promoting union membership.” Report author Michael Reich has spoken at labor rallies and has had his objectivity called into question because of his close ties to organized labor.

“They already tried this misleading propaganda in California and it was rightly dismissed by drivers and voters,” said Lydia Olson, who drives with Uber in California. “The best thing about rideshare driving is you can start and stop anytime you want. Who would keep driving if it didn’t make financial sense for them? The vast majority of drivers take steps to maximize their income like understanding when and where to drive, using multiple apps to choose the best jobs, putting themselves in places to get better rides and much more. This ‘study’ is nonsense from a special interest thinktank. I hope that Massachusetts voters will support what drivers REALLY want, which is the flexibility to earn an income in a way that makes sense for us, without interference from those who do not understand our industry and are seeking to destroy it and the livelihoods of tens of thousands of us who rely on it.”

The ballot question “Removes antidiscrimination protections for app-based workers. Ballot measure exempts Big Tech companies from the robust protections of Massachusetts Civil Rights Act.”

The legislation creates new legal protection from discrimination, prohibiting companies from discriminating on the basis of protected characteristics identified in Massachusetts employment law.

“Companies can continue arbitrary, unfair, discriminatory deactivations.”

The ballot initiative requires companies to provide opportunity for app-based drivers to appeal deactivation and prohibits deactivation for any reason not identified in the driver’s contract.

“Allows companies to cheat the state unemployment system of hundreds of millions… allows gig giants to free-ride on a system paid for by law-abiding Massachusetts businesses.”

State unemployment systems and criteria weren’t designed to meet the needs of a workforce that works entirely on demand, at the workers’ discretion, and is not fired or laid off.

The opposition glosses over these nuances. It would be challenging or impossible to identify which drivers are entitled to UI benefits. In an open marketplace like app-based work, where anyone with appropriate equipment and the ability to pass a background check can access work, an individual can only lose access to the earnings opportunity when they are deactivated. For gig workers, in the vast majority of cases, individuals are only deactivated when they have violated a platform’s community guidelines, e.g. committed fraud, a safety violation — activities that would generally preclude a worker from subsequently receiving UI benefits.

“No Social Security contributions from Uber/Big Tech. Gig giants seek special exemption from paying into Social Security. Workers denied basic dignity in retirement.”

Moreover, social security is a federal issue. Neither the proposed legislation nor any other state law would impact this issue.

“Less than 10% of app-based workers would qualify for the healthcare stipend. For the few workers that qualify, the benefit is about $68 per month, less than 20% of the cost of a Bronze level family plan.”

The reality is that the majority of drivers receive healthcare from other sources, often from a full-time job.

Additionally, the opposition’s framing here is again misleading: even in full-time employment, employers do not usually cover 100% of monthly premium contributions for employees.

Beyond that, the only state with similar legislation is California, where Prop 22 took effect almost one year ago. A September 2021 survey of 1,500 California drivers conducted by pollster EMC Research found that 88% believed Prop 22 had been good for them as a driver. 75% of California drivers reported that Prop 22 had “increased my pay” and 89% agreed Prop 22 “protects my freedom and flexibility.” (By contrast, less than one in five California drivers would prefer “a system without Prop 22 where drivers are employees, have set schedules, and receive all the benefits and protections of an employee” over the current system under Prop 22.) And 84 percent of California drivers said they would recommend other states pass laws that do the same things as Prop 22. 

According to state figures, 97% of Massachusetts residents currently have health insurance, such as through a job, a spouse/partner, or a plan purchased directly from an insurer or via a state program.  For the small minority of drivers who are not already part of this 97%, the ballot question offers a crucial new benefit. Specifically, drivers who work at least 25 hours a week would be entitled to a company-paid health care stipend worth at least 82% of the average Bronze plan premium on the state’s Health Connector; drivers who worked at least 15 hours would see a stipend for at least 41% of the premium. (See Section 5 of the ballot question)