Connect with us

Massachusetts

Six things to know about the state’s deal with Uber and Lyft – The Boston Globe

Published

on

Six things to know about the state’s deal with Uber and Lyft – The Boston Globe


Drivers gained a lot, but still won’t have many rights guaranteed for traditional employees

Under the agreement, the drivers will earn at least $32.50 an hour and get annual raises, health insurance, paid sick time, medical leave, and occupational accident insurance. Many will be entitled to restitution pay, and there is now an official appeals process for drivers who have been deactivated.

But they won’t have access to unemployment benefits and traditional workers’ compensation insurance. If drivers have legal claims, they will still have to file individual arbitration claims with the attorney general’s office instead of filing lawsuits in court.

Advertisement

Drivers are also responsible for gas, car maintenance, and insurance, and aren’t paid for the estimated 25 percent of the time when they’re between passengers, meaning their actual earnings are far lower than $32.50.

“Once you do the math and consider the expenses, I doubt they would be paid much more, if anything, above minimum wage,” said Shannon Liss-Riordan, a labor lawyer who has represented numerous gig drivers and founding member of the Massachusetts Is Not for Sale coalition that advocates for driver employee status. “This allows Uber and Lyft to continue shifting the cost of running a business to their low-wage workers, and this agreement does absolutely nothing to rectify that.”

Uber and Lyft did not respond to questions about concerns with the agreement.

Uber and Lyft drivers protest their classification as independent contractors in Boston in April 2020.
Blake Nissen/The Boston Globe

Some labor advocates are disappointed that drivers will still be independent contractors

Due to the control companies have over drivers’ job duties, wages, and customers, gig drivers should be classified as employees under Massachusetts state law, labor advocates say, which is why the attorney general took the companies to court in the first place. And the trial was the state’s best chance to show this.

Advertisement

Without a judge ruling that drivers are employees, it will be more difficult for other states to try to establish this, worker advocates note, and independent contractor business models will continue to proliferate.

“You’re creating a separate system of public regulation for two companies,” said David Weil, a labor economist at Brandeis University and former head of the wage and hour division in President Obama’s Labor Department who served as the lead expert for the state in the trial. “And that is what they’ve done all over the country. They carve out different rules that they get to live by. … Because if you could get away with this, and you could not have to make people your employees, who can resist that?”

Liss-Riordan said she is concerned about the many unanswered questions still out there.

“The attorney general was the only body who was capable of getting a ruling in court that they were breaking the law, and the attorney general has thrown away that opportunity,” she said. “There’s a lot of room in here for [Uber and Lyft] to do a lot of mischief.”

Advertisement

Uber and Lyft are still saving a lot of money

Because the drivers still won’t be employees, the companies aren’t required to contribute payroll taxes. According to a recent state auditor’s report, if Uber and Lyft drivers were classified as employees, their earnings would have generated estimated payments of more than $266 million into state unemployment insurance, workers’ comp, and paid family and medical leave funds between 2013 and 2023.

Campbell’s office said the $32.50 wage floor for drivers is meant to offset the lack of payroll taxes being paid into state programs for employees.

Drivers will still be responsible for their own income taxes.

Consumers are concerned about fares rising

Other cities that have raised wages for gig workers have seen mixed results.

Advertisement

Seattle set a minimum pay for delivery apps drivers earlier this year, but later looked to amend the measure after it pushed up prices for consumers and hurt participating restaurants.

After wages for New York City drivers went up in 2019, fares did go up, but they also increased in Chicago, where driver pay hadn’t been raised, according to a study by James A. Parrott, director of economic and fiscal policies at the Center for New York City Affairs at The New School.

“It’s hard to imagine that there would be any price effect from [the Massachusetts deal] unless the companies use it as an occasion to say that, because we’re now paying better than we used to, we’re going to raise the fares,” Parrott said.

And driver wages may not actually go up that much. Driver Charles Clemons said he already averages $25 to $35 an hour ferrying people around in his minivan. If there is a fare increase, he said, passengers will likely be willing to absorb the shock.

“They already charge the customers a little more when it rains,” Clemons said. “It’s still cheaper than a taxi cab, and the availability is there.”

Advertisement

Still, consumers are concerned.

Bram Shapiro of Brookline takes an Uber or Lyft to the airport or to get home after a night out because they’re more affordable than taxis. But he wonders if that will last. “It feels like an inevitability for consumers to take the hit,” he said.

Many drivers are excited

The settlement is a huge win for drivers, many of whom rely on the flexibility ride-hailing platforms provide to make money whenever they want — a luxury the companies threatened would disappear if drivers became employees.

But it seems doubtful that the companies would do away with this flexibility because it’s an intrinsic part of their business model, Weil said: “Flexibility is essential for them. … It’s not a gift to the drivers. It’s part of the profit model.”

Advertisement
Many drivers pick up fares for both Uber and Lyft. Lane Turner/Globe Staff/file

Awet Teame, a Brookline-based driver, said she balances driving full time for Lyft with her artistic pursuits in acting and comedy. Before she joined the platform, it was difficult to accept production gigs or attend classes while reporting to a second job with strict hours. Now she makes between $1,000 and $1,500 a week on her own time.

Extending employment to Lyft workers would’ve “felt like turning them into taxi drivers,” Teame said. “Who doesn’t like being their own manager? That’s just a load off your back.”

But some drivers are concerned

In New York City, a similar wage rule led Uber to lock drivers out of its app during periods of low demand, reducing some drivers’ revenue by up to 50 percent.

Leonel De Andrade, a driver from Brockton, said the settlement is proof that the corporations “were stealing something for us.” But becoming an employee would have been even better — with more stability and protections in the long term.

Advertisement

“We need a guarantee that this situation — these protections — will remain for us,” he said.


Katie Johnston can be reached at katie.johnston@globe.com. Follow her @ktkjohnston. Diti Kohli can be reached at diti.kohli@globe.com. Follow her @ditikohli_.





Source link

Advertisement

Massachusetts

ICE agents are staking out local courthouses. As they’ve roamed the halls, Mass. court arrests tripled

Published

on

ICE agents are staking out local courthouses. As they’ve roamed the halls, Mass. court arrests tripled


Immigration enforcement agents have become a common fixture around courthouses in Massachusetts this year — plainclothes officers idle outside in black cars, chat with clerks and monitor hearings to find people to arrest.

While lawyers say U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement has long apprehended immigrants at courthouses, the numbers have ballooned under the second Trump administration.

In the past, “You didn’t have a sense that immigration was always in the building. Now it’s like that’s the first thing you think about,” said public defender Antonio Vincenty.

The increased presence is not only in federal courts, but also at dozens of district courthouses in the state. Vincenty handles cases in East Boston, Chelsea and downtown Boston, and said he has had three clients arrested in court this year.

Advertisement

“We want those that commit crimes to be punished. I don’t think any criminal lawyer feels differently,” Vincenty said. “But we want the system to work. We want the system to live up to its rules — to treat people with fairness, to treat people with justice and due process.”

Courthouse arrests in Massachusetts have surged nearly three-fold over Trump’s first nine months in office, according to ICE data compiled by the Deportation Data Project at the University of California Berkeley School of Law.

A WBUR analysis of the data found 386 arrests at 46 courts across the state — including 147 at the federal courthouse in Boston — from January through mid-October. That’s up from 131 over the same period last year under the Biden administration.

And the latest data is almost certainly an undercount. In East Boston, for instance, ICE recorded only six courthouse arrests, while lawyers and immigration advocates report having seen far more.

Suffolk County District Attorney Kevin Hayden said ICE activity has impacted hundreds of cases prosecuted by his office — noting instances in which defendants got detained during proceedings, as well as times when victims and witnesses were afraid to cooperate because of agents’ presence.

Advertisement

“The ultimate concern is that it has a chilling effect on our ability to deliver public safety for victims and witnesses of crime,” Hayden said.

He acknowledged ICE has legal authority to operate in courts here, but, “Do I wish they would stay out of our courthouses?” he said. “Absolutely.”

“Do I wish they would stay out of our courthouses? … Absolutely.”

Suffolk County District Attorney Kevin Hayden

Assistance for ICE in East Boston

Advertisement

With immigration enforcement mounting, the Massachusetts Trial Court released a policy in May on how court staff are to interact with ICE. Court officers must provide public information to agents when asked — as that information is available to the public — but they can’t initiate communication with ICE.

According to the court rules, agents can enter court lockups to take people into custody, but court staff cannot assist in, nor impede ICE arrests. That was put to the test on the afternoon of Nov. 21 in East Boston — in an alley behind the district court — after Alejandro Orrego Agudelo’s arraignment.

Video taken by an immigration advocate in East Boston and shared with WBUR showed Orrego on the ground — shirtless, barefoot and shackled. Orrego cried out for help as two agents in black hoodies and blue jeans struggled to control him.

A crowd began to form, and a court officer in a white shirt and court badge helped the agents subdue the 27-year-old. At one point, the officer helped shove him into the back of a black SUV.

A woman in the crowd shouted: “Where are you taking him? He was released in court.”

Advertisement

One of the agents responded: “He needs to go to immigration court.”

Sandy Wright, a volunteer with the LUCE Immigrant Justice Network of Massachusetts, was off camera, challenging the second court officer: “Who do you work for? Are you Trial Court? I thought you’re not supposed to be cooperating with ICE.”

In the video, a second court officer stood before the crowd with her hand up, signaling the crowd to stop, and made a phone call: “This is East Boston district court, we need assistance from Boston Police Department. We have ICE here collecting somebody and we have a large crowd.”

Nine Boston police officers arrived on the scene that day. The police report said Orrego was “violently resisting the agent.” The video showed him struggling, with his hands and feet cuffed.

Orrego was in court facing charges that included assault and battery on a police officer and resisting arrest, as well as malicious destruction of property and disturbing the peace. He’d been arrested that morning after a neighbor called police to report an altercation with him. A communication with court officials shared with WBUR says ICE had a “detainer” to take him into custody.

Advertisement

But the incident represented a violation of the Massachusetts Trial Court’s policy not to help in an ICE arrest, according to Trial Court spokeswoman Jennifer Donahue.

She said in a statement, “Measures are being taken to address this violation.”

Donahue said the East Boston incident prompted the Court’s security leadership to meet with court officers across the state to reinforce its policy to neither help nor impede ICE arrests. She would not say if anyone has been disciplined for the violation.

The Executive Office of the Trial Court declined requests to interview Chief Justice of the Trial Court Heidi Brieger, who oversees all departments, and Trial Court Administrator Thomas Ambrosino.

East Boston District Courthouse. (Jesse Costa/WBUR)

Some scoff at measures that limit collaboration between court staff and ICE.

Advertisement

Retired ICE agent Albert Orlowski worked in immigration enforcement for more than two decades. He questioned how court officers could stand by while federal agents struggle to apprehend someone who’s resisting.

“Law enforcement agencies should cooperate with each other,” Orlowski said. “Assisting another officer — that’s called professional courtesy.”

The rationale for courthouse arrests is clear, Orlowski explained: It’s an obvious place to find people facing criminal charges, and it’s safer than most locations, as suspects typically have had to pass through metal detectors.

“It’s so much easier to arrest somebody from a courthouse — when they’re in a controlled environment — than it is to arrest somebody out on the street,” Orlowski said.

Spokespeople for Boston-area ICE and the Department of Homeland Security in Washington D.C. did not respond to requests for comment.

Advertisement

Evading ICE at courthouses

In a separate incident at East Boston District Court in late November, an 18-year-old high school student appeared for a summons. WBUR is referring to him by his middle name, Josué, as he fears retaliation by ICE.

Josué said the judge first heard the cases of non-Latinos, then called matters involving Latinos, all of whom spoke Spanish and required an interpreter. That’s when ICE agents showed up.

Local advocates outside the courthouse that day said ICE arrested at least two people during the proceedings. Josué said as he waited for his case to be called, he could hear the commotion and it was clear people were being grabbed as they left the court. He said he was afraid the agents would arrest him.

Advertisement

“For sure,” he said in Spanish. “But thank God, no.”

Josué said he’s undocumented and has been in the U.S. since he was 15.

When he walked out of the courthouse, Josué said the agents were distracted detaining someone else, and he managed to get into a car waiting around the block. Now he’s trying to keep his head down — he wants to finish high school, and not think too much about getting sent back to Honduras.

“God willing, that won’t happen,” he said.

ICE reported the highest number of Massachusetts district court arrests in Lynn, Woburn, Framingham and Waltham. At the Waltham District Court, west of Boston, an auto repair shop has a front row seat on the action.

Advertisement

Manuel Arias owns the shop across from the courthouse. He recounted seeing at least a dozen ICE arrests over the last few months as people left in cars or on foot. Arias said his staff filmed a number of the arrests, but they’ve become so commonplace that the mechanics stopped taking video.

“The way people have been grabbed has been savage,” Arias said in Spanish. Often, multiple agents grabbed a single person, he said.

In one case, a man bolted from the courthouse, he recalled, then ran across a busy intersection and got away.

Video from Arias, reviewed by WBUR, showed an agent giving chase, then giving up after the man jumps over a guardrail.

Advertisement

Calls for more restrictions on ICE activity in courthouses

In front of the Waltham courthouse steps, there are signs taped to lampposts: “ICE took our neighbor from this spot.”

“Unfortunately our courthouse has become an ICE trap,” said Jonathan Paz, founder of a group called Fuerza Community Defense Network, which monitors ICE activity in the city.

The group’s volunteers have witnessed dozens of ICE arrests in Waltham, Paz said. And in his view, the court system is bolstering the work of agents.

“Why [are] our taxpayer dollars, here in Massachusetts, being used to facilitate and better carry out these arrests in our courthouse?” Paz said.

Advertisement

“It’s remarkable to see just how complicit this whole system is.”

A poster from the Fuerza Community Defense Network on a telephone outside of Waltham District Court warning people of the potential presence of ICE at the courthouse. (Jesse Costa/WBUR)
A poster from the Fuerza Community Defense Network on a telephone outside of Waltham District Court warning people of the potential presence of ICE at the courthouse. (Jesse Costa/WBUR)

This week, the 32-year-old Waltham resident announced he’s running for Congress. He’s among those calling on the state to put more limits on ICE activity at courthouses.

Paz said he’s waiting for the Trial Court — or the Legislature, or the governor or the attorney general — to keep ICE from interfering with people’s legal proceedings. They can’t stop agents from being on court property, but they can take steps to help people have their day in court without fear of being arrested.

ICE’s policy on courthouse arrests dictates that agents must observe local laws. Some states require agents to present judicial warrants; Massachusetts requires only a form known as a detainer, signed by an ICE officer.

State Sen. Lydia Edwards, of East Boston, co-chairs the Legislature’s judiciary committee. She said she’s in contact with court officials about the spate of ICE arrests, and is considering whether to propose rules requiring agents to present a warrant signed by a judge. A similar initiative was recently enacted in Illinois, as well as in Connecticut.

“While we require a civil detainer, I think it’s worth us talking to the courts about what it means to require a judicial warrant,” Edwards said.

Advertisement

Edwards said any solution — even a state law — should have buy-in from court officials if it’s going to be properly implemented.

Another suggestion, she said, is to broaden access to remote hearings. Not having to go to a courthouse means ICE can’t arrest you there.

“I would love nothing more than for our courts to be a welcoming, safe place for justice, regardless of your immigration status,” she said. “That’s what I want.”

WBUR’s Patrick Madden contributed to this story.





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Massachusetts

Haverhill man charged in deadly wrong-way crash on Route 128 in Danvers

Published

on

Haverhill man charged in deadly wrong-way crash on Route 128 in Danvers


A Massachusetts man is facing charges after a wrong-way crash that killed a New Hampshire resident last week.

The crash happened around 9:49 p.m. Friday on Route 128 in Danvers. A Hyundai Elantra was traveling in the wrong direction when it hit a Nissan Sentra on the southbound side of the highway.

A passenger of the Sentra, identified as 58-year-old David Mackey of Sandown, New Hampshire, was pronounced dead at the scene.

The Elantra’s driver, 42-year-old Jerry Andujar Bodden of Haverhill, is charged with motor vehicle homicide by reckless operation and improper operation of a vehicle, the Essex County District Attorney’s Office said, adding that prosecutors intend to bring more charges for allegedly operating under the influence of alcohol.

Advertisement

Bodden pleaded not guilty at an arraignment Monday in Salem District Court, according to prosecutors.

Judge Randy Chapman ordered Bodden held on $50,000 bail. Conditions include a monitored bar on alcohol consumption, GPS monitoring and home confinement with the exceptions of work, legal and medical appointments, prosecutors said. He is also prohibited from driving while the case is ongoing.

Bodden is due back in court Jan. 21, according to the district attorney’s office.

The highway was shut down for several hours for the investigation but has since reopened.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Massachusetts

Driver Finds Bullet Lodged In Vehicle After Alleged Road Rage Shooting On Massachusetts Highway, “My Life Could Have Been Taken.”

Published

on

Driver Finds Bullet Lodged In Vehicle After Alleged Road Rage Shooting On Massachusetts Highway, “My Life Could Have Been Taken.”


Updated on: December 15, 2025

A Massachusetts man says he narrowly escaped death after an alleged road rage shooting on I-495 and is now speaking publicly in hopes of generating new leads for investigators.

Steven Burns was driving home from work on Nov. 4, coming through Marlboro, when he noticed a white truck tailgating him on the highway.

Advertisement

Bullet lodged in vehicle after alleged road rage shooting on I-495 in Marlboro, Massachusetts/CBS Boston

“It wasn’t until after I pulled over and actually saw that there was a bullet lodged in my B-frame that I said, ‘wow,’” Burns said. “My life could have been taken in an instant over something as dumb as road rage.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending