The driverless cars and robo-taxis on their way to Cambridge and surrounding communities are a threat to working people, labor leaders said at a Thursday meeting of the Cambridge City Council’s Transportation and Public Utilities Committee.
Ride-share drivers and disability advocates also spoke about the arrival of the technology, even as Waymo’s driverless robo-taxis – not yet legal in Massachusetts – prowled the streets in mapping and test modes.
No vote was taken on the issue at the hearing, and committee co-chair councillor Tim Flaherty said he expects another hearing on the issue.
“I don’t think there’s a specific ask at this meeting, other than to pay particular attention to Waymo at the moment,” he said. “If there is maybe an attempt to have a testing or pilot program in the city of Cambridge, it’s very appropriate that we come before this group and have a more in-depth scrutiny of that.”
Brooke McKenna, commissioner of the Department of Transportation, opened the hearing with a presentation on the state of autonomous vehicles.
“Massachusetts is taking a very slow and cautious approach on self-driving cars, and fully driverless cars are not allowed to operate on Massachusetts roads as of now, so there’s no regulatory framework, no laws that would allow this to happen,” she said, adding that that Waymo vehicles seen around Cambridge have a safety driver – though the driver may be remote rather than inside the vehicle.
The state has allowed testing with a trained driver since 2016, and updated its guidelines in 2026 to create a statewide permitting system, McKenna said. Four bills on autonomous vehicles were sent to study this session, meaning they will not move forward until they are refiled after January.
Waymo first tested in Greater Boston for six weeks beginning May 19, 2025. The company operates commercially in eight metro areas, with about 4,000 vehicles and 500,000 paid rides a week, according to the city’s presentation.
Labor United Against Waymo
Darlene Lombos, the president of the Greater Boston Labor Council, spoke on behalf of a Labor United Against Waymo, arguing the technology is a threat to working people.
While Waymo said its vehicles cause 73 percent fewer injury-causing crashes than human drivers, Lombos cited an instance in Atlanta when a Waymo drove through an active crime scene, and incidents in Denver and California in which several drove through construction zones. In July, Waymo recalled 3,900 cars that were at risk of doing the same, according to Reuters.
“When it comes to robo-taxis and driverless cars in Massachusetts, we are urging city and state leaders to take the time to understand this technology that other cities and states across the country did not do,” Lombos said.
“Protect working people”
Bridget Quinn, legislative director for Teamsters Joint Council 10, said the labor group is “not opposed to technological advances,” but shared a concern that what Waymo and its competitors are “trying to do is eliminate jobs.”
“We really want to protect working people and the good-paying union jobs that they have,” Quinn said. Despite being asked by multiple public officials about job loss, Waymo officials have “skirted the answer.”
“There’s been murmurings that it’ll create some jobs, but what jobs are they? How much do they pay? Do they come with benefits? And what will these jobs be? And will you be training workers? Their answer is really no answer,” she said.
Autumn Weintraub, executive director of the App Drivers Union, which represents about 70,000 drivers of Lyfts and Ubers in Massachusetts, said driverless cars would hurt local businesses such as car repair shops and gas stations when drivers lose income. She added that the union is negotiating what she described as the first ride-share driver contract in the country.
“We can’t rush headfirst into experimental technology that presents an answer to a problem that doesn’t exist,” she said.
Congestion and surveillance
Though the cars aren’t allowed to operate in Massachusetts yet, McKenna warned that state or federal rules could override local control, as happened when ride-share companies such as Lyft and Uber arrived. “It’s unlikely that we can do anything to stop preemption, but it just means it’s all the more important that we try to have our say in developing those regulations,” she said.
If people own their own autonomous vehicles, “deadhead miles” – when an empty car circles until it is needed – could make congestion significantly worse, McKenna said.
Weintraub also raised concerns about surveillance, saying Waymo’s cameras could give federal immigration authorities a way to track people in a city that limits police cooperation with ICE.
According to a poll by the by App Drivers Union, Weintraub’s organization, 75 percent of Massachusetts voters still oppose driverless taxis.
Drivers have fears
Abdazi Samantor, a Cambridge resident who drove a taxi for nine years before driving for Uber for 11, shared with the council his fears of being forced to start over again.
“It feels like every time I adjust to a new reality, another technology comes along and threatens my livelihood,” he said.
Mike Ortiz, a waste driver and member of Teamsters Local 25, said automation will not stop with ride-share. He said delivery, freight, sanitation and paratransit jobs would be next.
“This isn’t about innovation or failure to embrace technology,” Ortiz said. “This is about who gets food on their tables and roofs over their heads. Who gets to survive? I’ve been a professional expert driver for 20 years. This is all I ever known. I poured everything into my career to provide for my family.”
Pluses for people with disabilities
Rachel Tanenhaus, Cambridge’s ADA coordinator, who is blind, offered a more mixed view. She said the technology could be a “game changer” for blind people and people with intellectual disabilities, and described years of discrimination by human drivers against her service dog.
But she said that, as far as she knows, Waymo does not operate a wheelchair-accessible vehicle anywhere in the country. At its peak, Cambridge had 257 taxis, she said, and only eight of them were wheelchair accessible.
Tanenhaus also raised concerns about passengers in driverless cars being dropped off in the wrong place with no human to call for help, and said the people whose jobs are at risk are disproportionately people of color and immigrants.
“I am not coming out strongly in favor of or against [Waymo], I have very strong arguments on both sides,” she said. “But because the disability perspective is often not part of the lens that things are looked through, I feel like I really appreciate the opportunity to say something.”
Hesitancy and anticipation
Councillors were also split.
Councillor Patty Nolan said she is open to the technology eventually, but that the city is “so not anywhere near” ready, citing her concerns with Waymo’s surveillance capabilities, road safety, emissions and job loss.
“Irresponsible moving ahead is not something we should ever tolerate,” Nolan said.
Councillor Cathie Zusy took a more optimistic view, saying she has been convinced by MIT mobility researchers that shared autonomous vehicles are the future.
“I’m telling you this is that we’re actually much closer to this reality than you’re suggesting,” she said. “There are obstacles. There are concerns about snow. There’s still concerns about potholes. But it’s amazing how quickly the technologists are solving the problems.”
The committee voted to adjourn 3-0, with two members absent.
