Union-Backed Boston Ordinance Would Require Drivers in Driverless Waymos

Unionized drivers and politicians say regulation is needed to stop autonomous vehicles from replacing jobs.

As driverless Waymo service rolls out to new cities across the U.S., Boston is trying to pump the brakes on autonomous vehicles.

This past Thursday, at-large City Councilors Erin Murphy and Henry Santana unveiled a proposed ordinance that would prohibit commercial autonomous vehicle operations in the city until a new advisory committee comprised of city officials and labor union representatives completed a study of the technology's impacts on traffic and employment.

Following that study's completion, this advisory committee—which would have to include representatives from the App Drivers Union, the Greater Boston Labor Council, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and the local United Food and Commercial Workers union—would recommend to the mayor whether autonomous vehicles should be allowed to operate at all in the city.

The mayor would then be empowered to create permitting requirements for commercial autonomous vehicle companies. Any such permit would have to require that autonomous vehicles be staffed with a "human safety operator."

The sponsors and supporters of the proposed ordinance say it is necessary to protect the jobs of drivers threatened by the new technology.

"Waymo is steamrolling into cities throughout our country without concern for workers or residents. They're doing this because they want to make trillions of dollars by eliminating jobs," said Tom Mari, President of Teamsters Local 25, one of the unions pushing for the regulations.

Santana told Boston.com that the ordinance is intended to protect jobs from a "robotaxi takeover." He said at a city council hearing held Thursday on autonomous vehicles that he'd seen and heard the concerns of labor unions and that he'd work to "make sure the future of Boston transportation is equitable and filled with working people at the center."

Following that Thursday hearing, labor unions held a rally outside City Hall, decrying autonomous vehicles' potential impact on jobs and traffic.

Massachusetts law currently does not allow for autonomous vehicle operations.

In June, state lawmakers introduced two identical bills that would allow for driverless vehicles to operate in the state. The bills would require autonomous vehicles to be registered with the state and meet certain safety performance standards.

They would also require that vehicles weighing 10,000 pounds or more be staffed with a human driver, but smaller autonomous vehicles would be expressly allowed to operate without one. And the bills would also preempt localities from prohibiting autonomous vehicles or even regulating them.

Waymo is currently in the beginning stages of a potential Boston rollout. Its human-driven cars are currently mapping city streets and collecting data.

The company follows this stage with autonomous test trips with a human safety operator and without customers. This is then followed by driverless rides for employees and, finally, driverless rides for customers.

Waymo currently offers driverless rides to customers in Austin, Atlanta, San Francisco, Phoenix, and Los Angeles.

Most states and localities' regulatory concerns regarding Waymo have focused on the company's safety impacts. The company claims that its service is already making streets safer.

Journalist Timothy Lee, who writes the Understanding AI Substack, also reports that Waymo vehicles get in fewer accidents than human drivers.

Boston appears unique in focusing its regulatory proposals almost entirely on Waymo's impact on protecting the jobs of unionized drivers.

The Teamsters union—which has been vocally pushing Boston officials to "pump the brakes" on autonomous vehicles—has pushed similar protectionist legislation requiring autonomous cars and trucks to have human drivers in states across the country.

In June, a Teamster-endorsed bill requiring autonomous vehicles to be staffed with a human driver passed the California Assembly.

One can understand why unionized drivers would object to autonomous vehicles and their potential for replacing human drivers. It's not obvious why riders who stand to benefit from safer, cheaper, autonomous taxi services would care about their protectionist cause.