Minnesota rideshare drivers push for bill that would create a pathway to unionize
Rideshare drivers are asking the Minnesota Legislature to allow them to unionize, months after new protections and pay requirements brokered last year took effect in December.
Supporters touted the provisions of that law as the strongest in the nation and it represented a deal that kept Uber and Lyft from pumping the brakes on service in the state. They had threatened to do so in the wake of a separate local Minneapolis ordinance, which the statute overrides.
But now drivers hope state lawmakers shift gears and allow them to collectively bargain directly with the rideshare companies for pay and benefits in the future.
They are classified as independent contractors, not employees, which means they do not have the right to unionize under current federal and state law. This proposal would create an exception, supporters said Tuesday. It would not change their status to employees and also wouldn't impact other independent contractors in the state.
"Being able to have a union would mean we could have a voice to stand up for fair pay and benefits and have a say in our workplace," Abdi Haybe, a rideshare driver, told reporters during a news conference.
Uber in a statement noted that Minnesota's law provides some of the highest pay standards in the country. Under the law, drivers are paid a minimum rate of $1.28 per mile and $0.31 per minute, which DFL leaders last year said amounted to a 20% pay increase.
The law also requires the rideshare companies to contract with a driver advocacy organization to help with deactivation appeals and outreach about drivers' rights. Uber works with the Confederation of Somali Community to fulfill that requirement.
"Over the last few years, drivers, rideshare companies, and legislators worked collaboratively on addressing what drivers themselves established as their own priorities. It is not constructive to have late-to-the-game parties show up to risk what's been achieved to advance their own interests," an Uber spokesperson said.
Lyft did not respond to requests for comment on the proposal.
The legislation is still in the process of drafting, but its authors say it will resemble the framework in Massachusetts, the first state to allow rideshare drivers to unionize after voters there last fall approved a ballot measure.
"Those policies did pass, and I think we all stand behind it. They're very good for our drivers," said bill author Sen. Zaynab Mohamed, DFL-Minneapolis, of the law that just took effect late last year. "But moving forward, what does it look like 5 to 10 years from now? Are these folks going to come every year and ask for [legislators] to do a pay increase or are we giving them the power to be able to negotiate with the companies?"
Its future this year in the Legislature, though, is uncertain. Last year, Democrats along party lines approved the deal in the final hours of session when they controlled both chambers. Now, the Legislature is divided — Democrats have a majority in the Senate and Republicans have a one-seat advantage in the state House that could be tied after a special election next month.
The make-up of the capitol will force both parties to pass bipartisan priorities before the session ends.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Chart: Hundreds of gigawatts of clean energy at risk with GOP bill
See more from Canary Media's "Chart of the week' column. Amid rising power bills and surging energy demand, Republicans in Congress are set to undermine the country's primary source of new electricity — clean energy. The 'Big Beautiful Bill' passed in May by House Republicans and now being considered by the Senate would rapidly phase out key clean-energy tax credits, casting uncertainty over more than 600 gigawatts' worth of solar, battery, and wind projects slated to come online in 2028 or later, according to new analysis from research firm Cleanview. To be fair, the 600-GW figure is based on what's currently in the interconnection queue, and a good number of those projects won't get built regardless of the fate of the tax credits. (Projects often drop out of the queue for all kinds of reasons.) But if the bill kneecaps even a fraction of what's anticipated, it will have serious consequences for the U.S. energy system. For context, the entirety of the U.S. had a generating capacity of around 1,200 gigawatts at the end of 2023. The current version of the legislation would rapidly phase out federal tax credits that encourage clean energy development. As it stands, developers would be eligible for the tax credit only if their projects begin construction within 60 days of the bill's passage and if they come online before the end of 2028. That puts the 318 GW worth of projects planned to be completed in 2029 and later at explicit risk of losing their tax-credit eligibility. It also jeopardizes 2028 projects that either can't break ground with just two months' notice or which might hit snags that push their completion into 2029. That doesn't necessarily mean those projects would be cancelled, but it would scramble their economics, which were calculated under an entirely different set of policy assumptions. It's near certain that some would fall through. Many more would be delayed as developers hash out new financial terms — read: higher power prices that will be passed onto consumers. A slowdown in clean energy construction is the exact opposite of what the moment demands. These days, when a new energy project is built in the U.S., more than nine times out of 10 it is a solar, battery, or wind installation. That's not an exaggeration. In 2024, solar, batteries, and wind made up 93% of new energy resources. The year before that, it was 94%. Meanwhile, construction of new large-scale fossil-gas power plants is constrained by turbine shortages that are unlikely to ease in the near term. At the same time, electricity demand is surging and expected to climb even higher in coming years as the development of AI sets off a race to construct power-hungry data centers. If congressional Republicans pass a bill that stifles solar, batteries, and wind, study after study predicts the same outcome: higher energy bills — and more planet-warming emissions.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Why these college students are wary of the GOP megabill
Why these college students are wary of the GOP megabill Congressional Republicans are proposing big changes to college financial aid programs. One vocal group of students is pushing back. Show Caption Hide Caption Senators grill Education Secretary Linda McMahon over proposed cuts Education Secretary Linda McMahon testified to Congress over proposed budget cuts. WASHINGTON – Emi Glass had one thing on her mind when she was applying to college: cost. Footing the bill for a degree was never a foregone conclusion for her, growing up in a single-parent household in Kettering, Ohio. In between shifts at the local Dairy Queen, she poured hundreds of hours into applications for a wide range of schools and scholarships. She worried about where she would go, and more importantly, if she'd be able to pay for it. Those worries vanished when she was accepted to Yale University. The Ivy League school in Connecticut offers some of the most generous financial aid in the country to lower-income students. Between federal grants, outside scholarships and financial aid directly from Yale, going to college suddenly seemed affordable. 'I'm living out a dream that once felt unattainable for me,' said Glass, now 21, standing outside the U.S. Capitol on June 12. She came to Washington with a group of other college students, many from similar financial circumstances, to bring attention to the financial aid implications of President Donald Trump's so-called 'Big, Beautiful Bill' for low-income students. 'For students like me, financial aid isn't just helpful,' said another student, Jackson Howe, 21, a rising senior at West Virginia University. 'It's essential.' The students were in the nation's capital to lobby congressional Republicans to oppose new taxes on university endowments and changes to federal student loan programs. As part of the GOP's efforts to get Trump's major domestic policy bill across the finish line this summer, lawmakers are considering a slew of reforms to funding for higher education. One aggressive legislative package, which already passed the U.S. House of Representatives, would significantly curb eligibility for Pell Grants (federal subsidies that help low-income people pay for college) and fine schools for leaving students with debt. Read more about the House bill: Republicans propose massive overhaul of student loans, Pell Grants The other package, which was published by a U.S. Senate committee on June 10, takes a more measured approach. Still, it would make big changes, including cutting the number of student debt repayment plans to just two (which the House bill also suggests) and imposing new caps on borrowing. Read more about the Senate bill: Major student loan changes just came one step closer to becoming law Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana, chair of the Senate committee overseeing education, said his chamber's bill would save taxpayers at least $300 billion and make higher education more affordable. 'We need to fix our broken higher education system,' he said in a statement. 'While Biden and Democrats unfairly attempted to shift student debt onto taxpayers that chose not to go to college, Republicans are taking on the root causes of the student debt crisis to lower the cost of tuition and improve Americans' access to opportunities that set them up for success.' The Senate package includes several provisions with bipartisan support. One measure, which would yank financial aid funding from certain college programs that provide a poor return on investment, has been pushed for years by a former high-ranking official in the Obama administration. Some Democrats also agree with a provision that would expand Pell Grants to weekslong training programs in fields like welding and cosmetology, even though consumer protection advocates warn that doing so without the right guardrails could lead to fraud. Endowment taxlooms Among the chief concerns for the students rallying outside the Capitol on June 12 were new taxes on university endowments. Those penalties, which would primarily hurt some of the richest schools in the country, could force institutions like Yale to pay upwards of $700 million a year to the government. Read more: With a war on Harvard raging, religious colleges get big tax break in Trump spending bill Republicans such as Missouri Rep. Jason Smith, who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee, say the provision would hold 'woke, elite universities that operate more like major corporations and other tax-exempt entities accountable, ensuring they can no longer abuse generous benefits provided through the tax code.' Cayla Waddington, 18, a rising sophomore at Yale, worries the tax could force schools like hers to pull back on their financial aid commitments, which can be supported in part by endowment funds. 'I pay next to nothing for my Yale education, thanks to their endowment,' she said. 'There are thousands of us across the country who share the same story.' Zachary Schermele is an education reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach him by email at zschermele@ Follow him on X at @ZachSchermele and Bluesky at @
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Obama Isn't Going to Save You
For those who are paying attention and care at all about human decency, the Trump administration's political chaos and social instability is a challenge that's making some well-meaning people say some strange things. One of the strangest can be attributed to Obama derangement syndrome. O.D.S. sounds sensible enough. Barack Obama was a popular president. His approval rating was a solid 59 percent when he left office. That was just a little off from his high of 69 percent in 2009. YouGov data from this year ranks him as the second-most-popular politician, after Jimmy Carter. More important than how much people still like Obama, is that a lot of people felt really good about themselves when he was president. Nostalgia is a heck of a drug. Compared with Joe Biden and President Trump, Obama looks healthy. His speech at the Democratic National Convention last year showed that he still has the juice. And the moment feels important. Trump took the country into dangerous territory this week. He attempted to take control of the California National Guard and has deployed a Marine battalion to rein in protesting Angelenos. Meanwhile, a line of tanks will soon fête the president in his Army birthday parade, a galling display of authoritarian theater. This week the writer Mark Leibovich leveled up dinner party and social media murmurs about Obama's whereabouts with an essay asking why the former president has been missing in action. The question speaks to an accepted truth: The Democratic Party lacks leadership. Senator Chris Murphy, Senator Cory Booker and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez offer glimmers of a charismatic party head waiting in the wings. But Obama is the complete package with a track record. That idea has enough common-sense appeal to feel right. Unfortunately, it is absolute madness. I don't know which Obama some of my peers remember, but the ex-president was fairly consistent. He governed as a moderate who, at one time, would have been recognizable as a Reaganite. Only in the rightward drift of today's Overton window does Obama's presidency seem radically leftist. As the Democratic Party's leader, he chastised those on the left, threw in the occasional respectability politics about young Black men and sagging pants and gave us an imperfect but critical stop on the road to universal health care. He was a decent president of historical import, but he was still very much a product of his times. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
