Question 3: Explaining the push to let rideshare drivers unionize

Uber and Lyft drivers can spend long days driving people to airports, business meetings, dinners, and back and forth from nights out. But no matter how many hours they spend on the platforms, legally, they are not considered employees — and currently can’t form a union.

Now, Massachusetts voters have to chose whether to provide them with a legal path to forming a union in Question 3.

What Question 3 would change for Massachusetts rideshare drivers

This ballot measure comes from how the U.S. defines certain things in employment law: Unions are typically organizations for employees of companies or governments, which let workers collectively bargain for pay, benefits and labor conditions.

But in Massachusetts, rideshare drivers are not considered employees of Uber, Lyft and similar companies. They’re classified as independent contractors, and under the National Labor Relations Act cannot for a union.

Drivers have made some strides this year.

Over the summer, Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s office announced a settlement with Uber and Lyft that gives drivers a hourly wage of $32.50 while there is a passenger in their car, health insurance subsidies, paid sick and family leave, workers’ comp insurance and more transparency on pay rates. But part of that settlement was an agreement to keep drivers classified as independent contractors — not employees — for at least five years.

Supporters of Question 3 say they want the measure to pass so that rideshare drivers have a legal path to unionizing. If the measure passes, drivers not automatically get union membership — they’ll have to go through the process of forming a union as workers in other industries do.

The argument in favor of a ‘yes’ vote on Question 3

Chiem Klot, a 40-year-old Uber driver from Worcester, said he regularly logs on for 12-hour days and now has arthritis. Over the years, he says he’s seen working conditions get worse.

“I’ve been waiting for a union for the longest time,” Klot said. “Uber has always underpaid me and many other drivers, causing us to overwork. … Me and many other drivers work early mornings, late nights. And we’re always constantly worried about being deactivated on an app that we rely on to support our family.”

Mike Vartabedian, cochair of the Yes on 3 campaign and directing business representative for the Machinist Union, said rideshare companies have reduced the share of fares drivers get to keep.

“When Uber, Lyft first came to town, they want to attract a lot of people to the business and a lot of drivers. And they used to give them 75-80% of the fare,” Vartabedian said. “They’re down to somewhere close to 20% of the fare right now. So it’s the company making billions dollars profit off the workers. And the company can afford to give some of that share of the fare back.”

Vartabedian said he does not believe unionizing will lead to higher fares for riders.

“They also have to remain competitive. I mean, there’s still taxi services and so on,” he said. “We don’t believe that it will increase the fares. It will provide a better work environment for the workers, a better environment for the customers. We believe overall it will the prices will remain stable and the workers will be better off.”

Why opponents are urging a ‘no’ vote on Question 3

There is no formal campaign opposing Question 3.

A spokesperson for Lyft said company officials have some concerns about specific language in the ballot measure, though they didn’t clarify what language. Uber did not respond to a request seeking comment.

The Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, a right-leaning nonprofit that wrote a short argument opposing Question 3 for a voter guide issued by the Massachusetts Secretary of State’s office, said that the ballot measure would “raise the prices for all riders, funding union pockets, not drivers’ pockets.”

“This law gives politicians the right to set rules with no accountability and creates a new radical labor category that is inconsistent with federal labor law,” members of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance wrote.