Estedys Novas says he drove for Uber Technologies Inc. for nearly seven years — even whereas he was shedding members of the family to COVID-19 — earlier than he was banned from the app completely in 2020 for causes he doesn’t perceive.
“Deactivated” and unable to get journey provides from the Uber
UBER,
app, Novas is now driving for Lyft Inc.
LYFT,
solely. That’s why for the previous couple of weeks, he and several other dozen drivers have rallied at Uber’s workplaces and on the statehouse for proposed laws in Massachusetts that may very well be the primary within the nation to provide ride-hailing drivers the suitable to collectively cut price.
“We need the ability to negotiate” issues like deactivations and higher pay, Novas instructed MarketWatch.
The Rideshare Drivers Justice Bill, launched in each the Massachusetts senate and meeting earlier this 12 months, goals to provide drivers improved pay and new advantages they don’t at the moment obtain as a result of Uber and Lyft think about them unbiased contractors. It additionally consists of making the businesses pay into the state’s unemployment-insurance system so drivers can get unemployment advantages when wanted.
It is only one invoice amongst a handful of others associated to gig work launched within the state throughout this legislative session. Another key piece of laws introduced in each chambers goals to implement present Massachusetts labor regulation, and says app-based drivers and couriers “are already entitled to the same presumptions of employment” and deserve minimal wage and different advantages like all employees who’re thought of staff within the state.
Still one other invoice proposes to impose a 5-cent-per-ride price to go towards a driver-disability fund, and to presumably restrict the variety of ride-hailing driver licenses allowed within the state in an effort to control driving requirements.
Related: A driver spent $180,000 to start out an Uber Black enterprise. Then the corporate deactivated his account.
If any of the payments cross by the summer time of 2024, they may set the stage for the subsequent entrance within the battle over gig-worker classification, which has gone on for years. Massachusetts has among the strongest labor legal guidelines within the nation, which is why gig corporations tried, and failed, to place a measure on the state poll final 12 months that will have ensured gig employees within the state stayed unbiased contractors, in line with one of many sponsors of the laws aiming to guard gig employees.
“You have to understand this is the battleground,” mentioned State Sen. Lydia Edwards, the writer of SD 2186, or the EPA (Establishing Protections and Accountability) Act. “There’s a reason why Uber and Lyft are targeting Massachusetts, and it’s to weaken the laws here. They know if they can win here, they can win anywhere.”
Spokespeople for a coalition that represents Uber, Lyft and different gig corporations within the state mentioned the coalition opposes a lot of the laws, citing the businesses’ often-stated place that almost all drivers need “flexibility.”
‘Workers’ rights are non-negotiable’
Edwards’s invoice, which is backed by the AFL-CIO, Teamsters and the United Food and Commercial Workers, “makes sure that our laws are clear: that these workers are employees of Uber and Lyft,” she instructed MarketWatch.
Meanwhile, as a result of the Rideshare Drivers Justice Bill doesn’t name for drivers to be categorized as staff, a few unions have formally opposed it. But State Sen. Jason Lewis, who launched the senate model of the invoice, instructed MarketWatch that about 30,000 ride-hailing drivers in his state “are completely at the mercy of rideshare companies.”
“It is unlikely, if not impossible, for these workers to organize under existing federal law,” Lewis mentioned. “Because they don’t have that path, we need this law.”
Lewis added of his invoice, often known as SD 1162: “I think there’s a misunderstanding today about whether it has any bearing at all on misclassification, and I’m saying it does not.”
The Teamsters oppose the invoice by Lewis, and so does the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. The AFL-CIO, which helped draft the EPA Act, has not taken a place on Lewis’s invoice.
“Instead of inventing new laws that compromise the legal rights of employees, government officials need to enforce the ones that we already have on the books,” Thomas Mari, the president of Teamsters Local 25, mentioned in a press release earlier this 12 months. “Workers’ rights are non-negotiable — there is no ‘third way’ on this issue.”
Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ and the International Association of Machinists, by way of the Massachusetts Independent Drivers Guild, are pushing for the laws.
“As the courts continue to consider various issues with regard to regulations on the emerging industry, the Rideshare Drivers Justice Bill would immediately improve drivers’ standard of living and secure a process for them to organize,” the unions mentioned in a joint assertion this week.
But Veena Dubal, a regulation professor and gig-work knowledgeable who’s at the moment a fellow at Stanford University, identified that there’s a pending lawsuit introduced by Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey, a Democrat who was then the state’s lawyer normal, in opposition to Uber and Lyft over driver misclassification.
“My question to lawmakers and unions is: Why would you be willing to concede on behalf of a subordinated minority workforce while there is a lawsuit making its way through the courts?” Dubal mentioned. She referred to as the invoice that will grant drivers collective-bargaining energy however not worker standing “compromise legislation … that is a less-evil version of Prop. 22.”
Uber and Lyft have been advocating a “third way,” like Proposition 22, the poll measure they launched and acquired handed in California that provides drivers a assured wage primarily based on engaged time, and a few advantages they didn’t have earlier than. (Prop. 22 was later struck down by a choose; a ruling on gig corporations’ attraction of that call is predicted any day now.) Uber, Lyft and different gig corporations tried to place an analogous measure on the poll in Massachusetts, however a court docket threw it out final 12 months.
Uber and Lyft oppose the Rideshare Drivers Justice Bill; their imaginative and prescient of a 3rd method doesn’t embrace the suitable to unionize. When reached for remark concerning the laws, each corporations referred MarketWatch to the Massachusetts Coalition for Independent Work.
Evan White, a spokesperson for the coalition, mentioned the payments “claim to represent the voices of rideshare and delivery drivers but it’s obvious those measures do not reflect the clearly stated needs and wishes of the vast majority of drivers across Massachusetts.” White mentioned most drivers within the state need to stay unbiased contractors, however that the laws’s proposals, even once they don’t explicitly name for drivers to be staff, are extra in line with giving drivers worker standing.
“We are opposed to any legislation that would strip flexibility away from drivers,” added Conor Yunits, one other spokesperson for the coalition.
‘We want to have a voice’
Francisco “Julin” Asencio mentioned he drove for Uber for 4 years earlier than his account was deactivated about three months in the past, when the corporate instructed him he was getting kicked off the app as a result of it acquired a buyer criticism that he was driving below the affect, an allegation he denies. “This is my job,” he mentioned. “I’m not going to drink on the job.”
So he drives just for Lyft now, and mentioned he’s two months behind on his lease and automobile funds. “On Lyft, you can drive a lot of hours but not make money,” mentioned Asencio.
Like Novas, who was additionally deactivated due to unknown buyer complaints, Asencio mentioned he believes the laws that will give drivers the suitable to collectively cut price may assist: “We want to have a voice,” he mentioned.
Carlos Soares, a board member with Massachusetts Drivers United and a driver for about six years, mentioned he has learn elements of each the Rideshare Drivers Justice Bill and the EPA Act. He desires the suitable to collectively cut price, he mentioned, as a result of drivers are thought of unbiased contractors however have little management over their working circumstances.
“The only control we have is when you turn the app on and turn it off,” Soares mentioned, including that he has been deactivated a few instances as properly.
As for the EPA Act, the invoice that will reinforce that drivers needs to be handled as staff below the regulation, he mentioned he agrees with some elements of it however thinks some drivers are uncomfortable with being thought of staff as a result of they assume it could have an effect on the pliability of their schedules.
“When Uber and Lyft were trying to pass that bill here last year, they told drivers if you become employees you’re not going to have flexibility; you’re going to be on a schedule,” Soares mentioned. “But that’s not true. You can be an employee and still have flexibility.”
The union backing the Rideshare Drivers Justice Bill additionally helps the EPA Act.
“The bill backed by the AFL-CIO in Massachusetts demonstrates the labor organization’s continued leadership in holding the app-based rideshare industry accountable,” mentioned Roxana Rivera, the director of 32BJ SEIU in Massachusetts. “We are proud to support it as we also work hard to pass the Rideshare Drivers Justice bill.”
Source web site: www.marketwatch.com
