After winning big in California, gig companies take their worker classification fight to Massachusetts
. . . alternative sources :
. . . the (pdf) text of the proposal :
. . . an analysis from UC Berkeley Labor Center:
I find interesting the incredible level of double-speak. For instance the commitment of 120% of minimum wage that sounds like a wage increase even though it isn't. Similarly, the health care contribution is worded in a way that almost no one will qualify. It is like the author made a list of worker protections, and then created a list of bullet points that sound like improvements even though they aren't. It makes it very difficult to even know what is being voted for.