It’s been a minute since we checked in on efforts to unionize rideshare drivers across the U.S. At that time, California had taken a few passes on making this happen, first in 2019 with an SEIU-lobbied law that claimed to improve drivers’ working conditions but caused independent contractor layoffs. Then in 2025, Gov. Gavin Newsom gave 800,000 rideshare drivers a path to unionize with further news likely pending.
Now, the Massachusetts Department of Labor Relations has one-upped California by certifying the so-called “App Drivers union.” This co-creation of SEIU and the Machinists has been kicking around since Fall 2024 when a bill passed allowing gig drivers to organize. This week, SEIU President April Verrett was on hand to celebrate Big Labor laying claim to 70,000 workers after card-checking “at least 25% of active drivers.”
What next for these “unionized” gig drivers? It’s looking grim. Here’s why.
Classification hasn’t changed
Rideshare drivers remain independent contractors who don’t have NLRA protections and can’t organize under federal law. They will, however, be living under a union constitution, which will negate their freedoms and flexibilities associated with being independent contractors. The same fate will apply to California rideshare drivers if they move forward on the organizing path.
“Sectoral bargaining” strikes again
The App Drivers Union will now claim to fight for wage increases and other working conditions for all Massachusetts drivers, but there will be no recourse for disappointing results. Furthermore, these drivers cannot go directly to Uber or Lyft to ask for wage increases.
As Littler attorney Alex MacDonald told journalist and Fight for Freelancers co-founder Kim Kavin, “No, there is no way to opt out. Once the union is certified, it is the exclusive bargaining representative of every driver–even the ones who couldn’t vote.”
So, how many drivers did vote to unionize?
As mentioned above, the union collected signature cards from one-fourth of the state’s “active drivers,” but as MacDonald pointed out, “The term ‘active driver’ is misleading. It includes only drivers who have completed at least the median number of rides in the last six months. In other words, it includes only half of all drivers.” He added, “The other half don’t count. Their signatures are unnecessary, and they never vote. They basically have no voice.”
Doing the math, the union only had to gather cards from one-eighth, or roughly 12.5%, of all gig drivers statewide. The other drivers are stuck with this deal, whether they answered the repeated phone calls and text messages from the union or not.
We’ve seen this before
In California, an SEIU-lobbied bill raised fast food wages to $20 per hour in Apr. 2024. The bill also created the Fast Food Workers Union, for the purpose of sectoral bargaining. This was an illusory union invented as a shortcut for Big Labor, which hadn’t succeeded at unionizing these workers by traditional means. That bill also created a Fast Food Council to engage in sectoral bargaining, although that council reportedly stopped meeting a year ago and currently has no chairperson.
Is there a contract yet for that union?
Nope, but the industry experienced higher labor costs overnight, and one Wendy’s franchisee found himself $20,000 over budget on a two-week payroll. That’s obviously not great for workers’ job security.
That’s not all on the rideshare front
Lobbying is underway in Illinois for similar legislation and unionization, and in Minnesota, efforts continue despite how Democratic Gov. Tim Walz vetoed a bill that would have raised rideshare drivers’ hourly wages to unsustainable levels. In doing so, Walz expressed concern that the law “could make Minnesota one of the most expensive states in the country for rideshare.”
Those increased costs would cause consumers to pull away from rideshares, which of course would hurt drivers’ pocketbooks. However, this won’t stop Big Labor from continuing to push for further “wins” in rideshare and other industries.
Alex MacDonald was not subtle in telling Kim Kavin, “They aren’t going to stop with rideshare. This system will come to other sectors.”
FAQs
What is sectoral bargaining?
Sectoral bargaining is a mechanism by which a union purports to negotiate for all workers in an industry or sector, not just those at a specific employer. Workers are covered by the resulting contract regardless of whether they voted for the union.
How is this different from traditional unionization?
Under the NLRA, a union must win a majority vote among workers at a specific employer to gain bargaining rights. The Massachusetts rideshare model required signatures from just 25% of “active drivers” statewide, with no majority vote and no employer-level organizing. The U.S. has experimented with sector-wide wage-setting before, under the National Industrial Recovery Act in the 1930s and wartime wage boards in the 1940s, but Congress dismantled both.
If sectoral bargaining failed before, why is it back now?
Unions can’t achieve sector-wide coverage under the NLRA, and decades of declining union density have made traditional organizing less viable. So, labor shifted their strategy to convincing state lawmakers to do their bidding. Rather than trying to change federal law, as previous attempts required, today’s activists are working state by state and framing sector-wide schemes as worker protection. Massachusetts and California are the most recent results of that strategy.
