Drivers tell Joint Commission: don't delay Question 3 implementation over new data bill

The Joint Commission on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy heard emotional public testimony urging lawmakers not to delay implementation of Question 3, the November ballot measure that gives rideshare drivers a path to unionize, while the panel considered H.3470/S.2259, legislation titled an act "protecting transportation network driver data privacy and integrity."

Drivers, union leaders and labor scholars told the commission the proposed bill would act as a delay tactic that could keep drivers from advancing their organizing work.

Autumn Weintraub, executive director of the App Drivers Union, said, "Every day that this process is delayed, drivers remain without a voice, without the ability to negotiate for safer working conditions, for fair pay, and basic dignity on the job." She urged the committee to reject H.3470 and S.2259 so drivers could proceed with card submission and certification under Question 3.

Why it matters: supporters of Question 3 say the law is the vehicle for organizing roughly the Commonwealth’s rideshare workforce and that months-long or year-long delays would negate the voter-approved timeline and momentum. Opponents of H.3470/S.2259 argue the bill is unnecessary because privacy and data protections are already in place through existing settlements and agency processes.

Supporters of Question 3 described concrete harms drivers face now. Jim Clot, an Uber driver who said he has driven nine years, described rising expenses and safety risks and warned that delays would send a message that voter-approved rights can be obstructed. Michael DeCoco, business representative for IAM District 15, testified the bill "masquerades as a data privacy measure" but in practice would "kick the can down the road for over a year and block drivers from exercising the union rights they've already won at the ballot box."

Labor and legal experts also spoke against the bill. Ben Sachs, a labor law professor at Harvard Law School, said Question 3 already provided a functional framework for organizing the Commonwealth’s drivers and that additional legislation was unnecessary and likely to create delay. Alfred Gordon O'Connell, a labor attorney, said parts of the bill duplicate existing privacy protections (he referenced state statutory protections cited in testimony) and that the Department of Labor Relations (DLR) was preparing draft regulations to manage data and card certification.

Union and advocacy groups emphasized that thousands of drivers have signed union cards and are ready to proceed. Harris Grama, executive director of the SEIU Massachusetts State Council, said the bill's primary function would be to delay implementation and noted the Attorney General settlement and Question 3 itself include data protections.

Committee process: several witnesses asked the commission not to advance H.3470/S.2259 and to allow the DLR's regulatory work to proceed; the DLR advisory council was reported in testimony to be reviewing draft regulations imminently. No formal action or vote on H.3470/S.2259 occurred during the hearing.

The hearing also included personal testimony from multiple rideshare drivers describing deactivations, alleged safety threats and financial strain; Dwayne Mitchell and Bryson Polanco described low net earnings after expenses and the precarious nature of platform work. Those personal accounts were presented as justification for quick implementation of the union-recognition process established by Question 3.

Looking ahead: witnesses said the committee faces a choice between delaying a voter-approved process or allowing the DLR to finish rulemaking and begin card certification. The commission did not announce a timetable for action on H.3470/S.2259 during the session.