Advocates cheer outcome as judges rule against cynical efforts by companies

Massachusetts – Massachusetts is not for sale coalition issued the following statements in response to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling against a controversial ballot question proposal backed by Big Tech. Organizations endorsing the Coalition’s work and a broad group of allies submitted multiple amicus briefs against the potential initiative and led the court appeal opposing Big Tech’s proposal.

“On behalf of the half-million Massachusetts AFL-CIO members in Massachusetts, we applaud the court’s ruling against this effort by out-of-state Big Tech CEOs to manipulate our laws in order to line their own pockets. As we have said from the start, this initiative was both unconstitutional and dangerous. We are proud to have done our part within a broad coalition of consumers, civil rights, labor, and other advocates who united to resist and oppose this cynical ballot initiative scheme. The companies have already spent millions trying to fool drivers and voters into accepting this deceitful proposal. We will continue fighting to protect and raise standards for all workers across the commonwealth and we are thankful to all of the workers, allies, elected leaders, and advocates who joined with us in fighting and defeating this misguided power grab by Big Tech,” said Steve Tolman, President of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO and chair of Massachusetts is not for sale coalition.

“Millions of Massachusetts drivers, passengers, and taxpayers can rest easier knowing that this unconstitutional bid by Big Tech CEOs to manipulate Massachusetts law has been struck down by the Supreme Judicial Court. The ballot question was written not only as an attempt to reduce the rights of drivers but also would have put the rights of passengers and the public at risk. The ballot question would have allowed these companies to avoid their most basic responsibilities to provide safe and reliable transportation service. We are excited to continue the work of our coalition to ensure that drivers, riders, and taxpayers are protected from the greed of Big Tech CEOs. We will remain vigilant and united against any further attempts by Big Tech to waterdown worker and consumer protections in Massachusetts or beyond. We are grateful for the court’s thoughtful and thorough analysis and agree with its findings,” said Wes McEnany, Campaign Director, Massachusetts is not for sale.

Additionally, in response to post-ruling statements by the companies, McEnany fired back, adding, “It’s laughable that these companies would falsely try to position themselves as advancing democracy while in the midst of attempting to spend tens of millions of dollars to buy a deceitful law that would do harm not just to our democracy and communities, but also to taxpayers, drivers, and passengers.”

“I applaud the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court justices for seeing through this facade created by Uber, Lyft, and other Big Tech companies that sought to decimate job protections and exploit low-income, BIPOC and immigrant workers. Every worker deserves fair wages and benefits and protection from discrimination in accordance with existing labor laws. We will continue to fight for the rights of all workers and ensure that employers are held to the highest standards of accountability,” said Fred Taylor, a union carpenter and Business Representative with Carpenters Local 336, civil rights leader in Worcester, and a plaintiff in the appeal against Big Tech’s ballot question.

“This is an enormous victory for drivers like me who only want the ability to work hard for fair wages. This ruling is a major step forward in our fight to be recognized as employees and be compensated fairly. We will continue to demand that Uber, Lyft, and other app-based companies be held accountable, adhere to our state’s strong labor laws and honor Massachusetts’ long-standing tradition of protecting workers,” said Martin El Kousa, Uber driver and lead plaintiff.

“As a workers’ rights advocate and as a plaintiff in this case who knew that this initiative was a bad idea for Massachusetts workers, consumers, and taxpayers, I am enthused by the court ruling and thankful to my fellow plaintiffs and coalition partners for standing together in strong opposition to this cynical power grab by the rider-share companies. Together, we were able to send the clear message that Massachusetts is not for sale and we are very glad that the judges have struck down this unconstitutional effort,” said Mike Vartebedian, Assistant Directing Business Representative of the International Association of Machinists District 15, a plaintiff on the appeal, and Executive Vice President of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO.

“The Massachusetts Independent Drivers Guild is proud to have stood in strong opposition to this ballot question proposal by Big Tech. We knew that this initiative was wrong for Massachusetts, wrong for drivers, and wrong for the public. We know that these companies can afford to treat workers better — and we will continue to fight alongside the many great allies, workers, elected leaders, and advocates who are a part of this coalition in order to ensure that drivers’ and passengers’ rights are not just protected, but are expanded,” said Cletus Awah, Rideshare Driver and member of the Massachusetts Independent Drivers Guild.

“We are proud to have represented a diverse coalition of challengers to this ballot question, including consumers, civil rights and union leaders, and those injured by Uber and Lyft. The Supreme Judicial Court draws a hard line against initiatives that attempt to mislead voters, as this one clearly did. We welcome the Courts’ instruction that where proponents of an initiative seeking to propose policies to the voters — and particularly ones that deprive the public, workers, and those injured of their rights — they must explain those policies clearly, rather than burying them in the obscure and murky language in the hope they go unnoticed,” said Pat Moore and Tom Bean, Counsel for plaintiffs, who helped deliver the arguments against the companies’ initiative.

“Uber, Lyft, and Doordash were dealt a significant blow today by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. The Court refused to allow them to buy a law whose dual intent was to evade responsibility for their workers and for consumers who may have claims against them. The companies frequently say that their business model is not compatible with their following the law — in this case, Massachusetts labor law which classifies their drivers as employees. What’s increasingly clear is that they don’t have a viable business model under any classification. It’s looking increasingly like a death spiral to me. The court had an easy decision today, and the residents of the Commonwealth also have an easy decision — don’t let these companies exploit the workers and consumers of our state” said Juliet Schor, Boston College professor, a plaintiff in the appeal against the companies’ initiative, and expert on the gig economy.

 

###

 

About Massachusetts is not for sale:

Twitter: @MassNotForSale | Facebook: @MassNotForSale | MassachusettsIsNotForSale.org

Massachusetts is not for sale is a growing alliance of drivers, delivery workers, consumer advocates, civil rights organizations, immigrant, faith, labor, community organizing, and racial and environmental justice groups who oppose the $18M+ campaign by Big Tech companies to undermine our law, as they recently did in California through Proposition 22, to avoid paying for unemployment insurance, workers compensation, the hourly minimum wage for all hours worked up to 40 in a week and overtime for hours beyond 40, employer-sponsored health insurance, earned sick time, and paid family and medical leave as required by Massachusetts law, shield themselves from liability to the public, and exempt themselves from Massachusetts civil rights and equal pay laws.