On gig economy ballot question, both sides are brawl-in
Early dust-ups are clear sign of the bruising battle to come
THERE WILL BE plenty of time for battling over the substance of the looming ballot question on gig workers. For now, the two sides are getting warmed up by hurling charges and countercharges at each other over process issues and legalisms, an early sign of just how intense the fight is likely to get.
Looking to replicate a ballot question victory in California last November, bankrolled with more than $200 million in spending, gig economy companies led by Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and Instacart have set their sights on Massachusetts, where they hope to pass a similar question that would legally define gig workers as independent contractors, not traditional employees. A coalition of labor groups has formed to fight the question.
What’s clear already is that this will be a no-holds-barred brawl.
Earlier this month, opponents of the ballot effort fired off a complaint to the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance charging that backers violated campaign finance rules by raising and spending money on their effort before formally establishing and registering a campaign committee with the state. Backers said the complaint leveled “false claims” based on “willful misunderstanding of Massachusetts campaign finance laws.”
The skirmishes have the feel of the old Mad magazine feature “Spy vs. Spy,” in which dueling operatives engaged in a back and forth of comical moves trying to trip each other up.
In their latest move, opponents are now hoping to kill the whole thing right out of the gate: They’ve asked Attorney General Maura Healey to rule that the question is not eligible to appear on next year’s statewide ballot because it violates a provision of the state constitution that bans questions with elements that are not sufficiently related to each other. They say a provision of the ballot question that would protect tech companies from liability exposure is too unrelated to its main focus on worker classification. Proponents say the complaint doesn’t “hold up to scrutiny.”
Three years ago, the Supreme Judicial Court knocked a proposed new tax on high-earners off the ballot because the justices said it failed the “relatedness” requirement.
Before any potential litigation could ensue on the gig economy question, it’s up to Healey to initially certify that a question is suitable for the ballot. As it happens, she is also suing Uber and Lyft, alleging that they have been improperly classifying their drivers in Massachusetts as independent contractors rather than employees.
“Uber and Lyft have built their billion-dollar businesses while denying their drivers basic employee protections and benefits for years,” Healey said in announcing her lawsuit against them last July. “This business model is unfair and exploitative.”
In an example of the unusual dual role AGs can find themselves in, Healey the outspoken advocate on the issue now has to play ref when it comes to making a critical call in the unfolding battle.