Dear Chair Feeney, Chair Murphy, and Members of the Joint Committee on Financial Services,
Thank you for holding today’s hearing. My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the Policy Director of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy group fighting for a Massachusetts that is more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic.
Progressive Massachusetts is opposed to Big Tech’s anti-worker, anti-consumer Ballot Initiative (H.4375/H.4376), An Act defining and regulating the contract-based relationship between network companies and app-based drivers.
Massachusetts has very clear standards for determining independent contractor standards (the “ABC test”), and gig economy companies like Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and Instacart have been in flagrant violation of them.
As a reminder, those three parts are (1) that the work is done without the direction and control of the employer, (2) that the work is performed outside the usual course of the employer’s business, and (3) that the work is done by someone who has their own, independent business or trade doing that kind of work. None of these apply to gig economy work. For example, there would be no Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, or Instacart without their drivers; the claim that their companies are merely an app is a clear fallacy intended to evade the law.
Knowing that they are in violation of the law, these companies want to change it, rather than adhere to it. They are planning to spend possibly hundreds of millions of dollars to ensure that the law does not apply to them and that they, themselves, can rewrite it in order to bolster their own profits and power over workers.
These ballot questions would deny app-based gig workers a living wage, benefits, legal rights, and anti-discrimination protections. They also effectively take away consumers’ and the public’s right to take legal action against the companies in the event of an accident, and will disincentivize the companies from doing everything they can to ensure that riders are safe when they avail these services.
These companies spent over $200 million to pass a similar ballot question in California called Proposition 22 with devastating impacts for workers and communities.
The impact of these laws extends beyond just the gig economy sector itself. The ability to define away terms like “employee” and “independent contractor” sets a dangerous precedent, enabling companies across sectors to gut labor rights. Will we see restaurants claiming that the “restaurant” is only the physical building and physical infrastructure, relegating all employees to independent contractor status? Or hospitals claiming that the “hospital” is just the brick-and-mortar building, rather than the doctors, nurses, aides, and other health care workers that make it run? The list goes on.
That is not the future we want to live in, and we hope it is not one you want to live in either.
Progressive Massachusetts stands in solidarity with the Boston area Starbucks baristas who are joining together and standing up for their right as workers to form a union.
Our founding belief is that we all do better when we all do better. Labor unions serve as powerful embodiments of that ethos, providing workers with a greater voice and greater economic security through collective agency.
We call upon Starbucks management to accept their workers’ decision to unionize and to refrain from union-busting tactics that pressure workers to vote No. Starbucks has gained a reputation as a socially responsible company, and we ask management to live up to their professed ethos and treat workers asking for a union with respect and dignity, not coercion and retaliation.
On January 25th, local Democratic town committees in Dedham, Norwood, Westwood, and Walpole joined to present “Labor 2022” an event designed to bring attention to the needs of our allies in the labor movement.
An inspiring keynote address from Massachusetts AFL-CIO president Steven Tolman was followed by a panel discussion between Dedham DTC Chair Mark Reilly and labor leaders Max German (AFL-CIO), Gabriel Camacho (UFCW), FayeRuth Fisher (SEIU), and Paul McClory (MTA). The panelists presented several key steps where progressives could take action.
1) Of key importance is the defeat of the so-called gig worker ballot initiative. This ballot question seeks to define Lyft, Uber, Instacart, and Door Dash employees as “contractors” rather than traditional employees. This would deny these low wage, front line workers OSHA protection and unemployment insurance. It would also authorize a sub-minimum wage for these workers, and would eliminate most anti-discrimination protections for workers. The initiative would also indemnify tech companies from litigation if the drivers are in an accident (for more information see here and here). The key components of this initiative are in violation of Massachusetts labor laws, and the initiative is already the subject of a lawsuit by Attorney General Maura Healey.
The initiative has gained enough signatures to be turned over to the Legislature who have to either take no action, or enact a legislative “solution” that addresses the issues raised by the initiative. Of note, Lyft made the single largest campaign donation ($14.4 million) to the Massachusetts legislature in support of the imitative. If the legislature takes no action, then the well-heeled supporters must obtain an additional 13,374 petition signatures to put the initiative on the November ballot.
Please urge your state Reps and Senators to take no action on this egregious initiative. After that we must work to prevent the initiative from garnering the additional signatures it needs.If the measure ends up on the ballot, we must work to defeat it. Tell your friends and family that if this initiative fails, Uber, Lyft, etc. will still be there for them (albeit with unhappy rich shareholders). Also let them know that the crumbs being offered to workers as part of the initiative (a base wage, and a healthcare stipend) are not offered to all workers and are far from sufficient. Counter corporate lies with truth
2) It is important that we keep up our efforts to enact the Fair Share Amendment. Check out here to see how you can get involved.
3) Several bills pending in the statehouse also deserve our support. These bills are due to be reported out of committee for floor votes (or killed) on February 2. Immediate action is needed.
S1179/H1959, An Act to Prevent Wage Theft and Promote Employer Accountability. Contact your state Reps and Senators and urge support.
S69/H3710, An Act Facilitating the Unionization of the Cannabis Workforce. Contact your local legislators and urge support. Also, contact Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz and Rep Daniel Donahue, committee chairs overseeing the movement of this bill to the floor and urge them to report this bill out of committee.
Chairwoman Jehlen, Chairman Cutler, and members of the Joint Labor and Workforce Development Committee:
My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the chair of the Issues Committee of Progressive Massachusetts. Progressive Massachusetts is a statewide grassroots advocacy organization that fights for social and economic justice.
Good-paying jobs with fair working conditions are a central part of our organization’s shared prosperity agenda. As such, Progressive Massachusetts would like to go on the record in support of S.1185/H.3843 (An Act relative to dignity at work), known as the Dignity At Work Act.
Everyone deserves a safe and respectful workplace, and that means one that is free of inappropriate and harmful behaviors like bullying.
Massachusetts labor law currently provides no protections against workplace bullying unless such bullying is targeted at an individual because of their race, sex, or other protected identity. This excludes far too many cases, and even when individuals sue because of identity-based harassment and discrimination, courts can choose to deny them redress out of a disagreement on the motivation for the mistreatment, not the existence of the mistreatment itself.
Better training and model policies are good so far as they go, and that is not far. Accountability is what will change behavior. The Dignity At Work Act will offer that.
Countries like Australia, Denmark, Finland, France, the Netherlands, Norway, Serbia, and Sweden–as well as various provinces in Canada–have enacted protections against workplace bullying. It’s time for Massachusetts to join them.
Chairwoman Jehlen, Chairman Brodeur, and members of the Joint Labor and Workforce Development Committee:
My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the chair of the Issues Committee of Progressive Massachusetts. Progressive Massachusetts is a statewide grassroots advocacy organization that fights for social and economic justice.
Good-paying jobs with fair working conditions are a central part of our organization’s shared prosperity agenda. As such, Progressive Massachusetts would like to go on the record in support of S.1072 (An Act addressing workplace bullying, mobbing and harassment), known as the Healthy Workplace Bill.
Everyone deserves a safe and respectful workplace, and that means one that is free of inappropriate and harmful behaviors like bullying.
Massachusetts labor law currently provides no protections against workplace bullying unless such bullying is targeted at an individual because of their race, sex, or other protected identity. This excludes far too many cases, and even when individuals sue because of identity-based harassment and discrimination, courts can choose to deny them redress out of a disagreement on the motivation for the mistreatment, not the existence of the mistreatment itself.
Better training is good so far as it goes, and that is not far. Accountability is what will change behavior. The Healthy Workplace Act will offer that.
Countries like Australia, Denmark, Finland, France, the Netherlands, Norway, Serbia, and Sweden–as well as various provinces in Canada–have enacted protections against workplace bullying. [1] It’s time for Massaachusetts to join them.
Chairwoman Jehlen, Chairman Brodeur, and members of the Joint Labor and Workforce Development Committee:
My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the chair of the Issues Committee of Progressive Massachusetts. Progressive Massachusetts is a statewide grassroots advocacy organization that fights for shared prosperity, racial and social justice, good government and strong democracy, and sustainable infrastructure and environmental protection.
Central to our agenda of shared prosperity is good-paying jobs with fair working conditions. As such, Progressive Massachusetts would like to go on the record in support of H.1609/S.092 (An Act Updating Overtime Protections to Protect the Commonwealth’s Middle Class Workers) and H.1617/S.1082 (An Act Requiring One Fair Wage).
The US remains the only country in the industrialized world without a limit to the number of work-hours per week. One partial solution to this has been to guarantee workers time and ½ pay for overtime work. If they are forced to work more hours, they should be duly compensated.
However, this rule has only applied to wage workers, leaving out the many salaried workers in the service industry who often have to work overtime.
The Obama Administration had sought to change this, crafting federal regulations to allow some salaried workers to get over time. But Republican attorney generals around the country are trying to block this pending regulation in the courts, and the Trump administration is fighting to roll it back.
However, as with many issues, Massachusetts can and should lead. H.1609/S.1092 would do this by updating the salary threshold below which executive,administrative, and professional employees, such as low-level managers at retail stores and fast food chains, are guaranteed overtime pay when they work long hours. Moreover, it would align Massachusetts’s overtime law more closely to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, removing exemptions, such as those for restaurants, hotels, hospitals, and non-profit colleges that leave out too many.
H.1609/S.1092 would phase in the threshold for time and ½ overtime pay to kick in to $64,000 over several years, updating it each year thereafter to reflect wage growth and keep it in line with twice the minimum wage. According to MIT, $64,000 aligns with a living wage for families consisting of one parent and one child or two parents (one working full-time and one working part-time) and one child–a sensible standard. [1]
However, the lack of overtime pay is not the only problem facing workers in the service industry. The tiered wage system in the restaurant industry, by which workers are reliant on tips for a full wage, exacerbates gender and racial inequities and leaves too many workers struggling to get by.
The tipped minimum wage in Massachusetts stands at a mere $4.35. In 2023, when the recently passed minimum wage increase takes full effect, it will stand at only $6.75. This is not a living wage.
Although employers are supposed to guarantee that workers get the full minimum wage with tips, this has never been common practice, and wage theft is rampant in the industry. The tiered wage system allows this to happen.
Moreover, sexual harassment remains widespread in the restaurant industry. [2] As our country is slowly but surely starting to grapple with the problem of sexual harassment and sexual assault across industries, we must face up to the fact that unequal wage systems create the breeding ground for such inappropriate and predatory behaviors.
Massachusetts is both one of the wealthiest and one of the most unequal states in this country. Reporting out H.1609/S.092 (An Act Updating Overtime Protections to Protect the Commonwealth’s Middle Class Workers) and H.1617/S.1082 (An Act Requiring One Fair Wage) favorably will take us one step further in ensuring that our Commonwealth’s prosperity is shared by all.
In January of 2017, Progressive Massachusetts unveiled our legislative agenda for the 190th legislative session — 17 items for 2017 (and 2018). As we near the end of the year — and the start of the next legislative session, it’s the perfect time to take stock of how the various bills fared.
Clear Victories
Reproductive Rights
The ACCESS bill, which updates MA’s contraceptive coverage equity law to require insurance carriers to provide all contraceptive methods without a copay, passed overwhelmingly in the Legislature and was signed by the Governor.
Democracy
Massachusetts became the 13th state to adopt Automatic Voter Registration. In this reform pioneered by Oregon in 2015, eligible voters who interface with select government agencies (here, the RMV or MassHealth) are automatically registered to vote unless they decline. With more than 700,000 eligible citizens in MA unregistered, AVR will increase the accuracy, security, and comprehensiveness of voter rolls.
The bill also enrolls Massachusetts in Electronic Registration Information Center, a coalition of states founded by the Pew Research Center that enable states to synchronize their voter rolls. ERIC has increased the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the voter rolls in participating states.
[Note: The original bill included smaller social services government agencies as well. The final bill allows for their later inclusion but focuses on the two largest sources of possible new registrants.]
Steps Forward
Criminal Justice Reform
The comprehensive criminal justice reform bill passed by the Legislature in April incorporated some elements from our priority bills (Read our write-up here):
Eliminating most mandatory minimums for retail drug selling and drug paraphernalia and limiting mandatory minimums in school zones to cases involving guns or minors. [Note: PM and advocates had sought the elimination of all mandatory minimums. The bill, however, left in place mandatory minimums for Class A drugs (like heroin), expanded this definition to include opioids like fentanyl and carfentanil, and created a new mandatory minimum for assaulting a police officer, an overused charge wielded as a threat against protesters.]
Raising the felony-larceny threshold from $250 to $1,200 [Note: PM and other advocates had sought $1,500.]
Reducing fines and fees [Note: PM and other advocates wanted probation and parole fees fully eliminated.]
Establishing a process for expunging records, especially for juveniles convicted of minor offenses
There is still work to be done–from raising the age of criminal majority to severely curtailing (or outright abolishing) solitary confinement. That said, the bill, despite its shortcomings, was a step in the right direction.
Fight for $15
At the start of the session, we supported legislation to raise the minimum wage from $11 to to $15 by 2021, raise the tipped minimum wage from $3.75 to $15.75 by 2025, and require the minimum wage to increase with inflation starting in 2022.
The Raise Up Massachusetts coalition’s ballot initiative was slightly more modest in its ambition, extending the full phase-in date one year (due to a later start) and raising the minimum wage for tipped employees to only $9 (60% of the minimum wage) by 2022.
What passed in the ultimate “Grand Bargain,” an effort of the Legislature and the Governor to avoid three ballot initiatives ($15 minimum wage, paid family and medical leave, sales tax reduction) was more modest still. It raised the minimum wage to $15 by 2023, raised the tipped minimum wage to only $6.75, and dropped indexing. Unfortunately, the Legislature included a further concession to the business lobby, agreeing to phase-out time-and-a-half on Sundays and holidays. Although the bill is a net win for workers in Massachusetts, it’s possible that, due to the phase-out of time-and-a-half, some workers will be left worse off.
Paid Family and Medical Leave
The version of paid family and medical leave passed in the aforementioned “Grand Bargain” was less robust than the original legislation and the ballot initiative text, but still more robust than the programs that exist in other states.
Senate Victory, House Opposition
Several of our priority bills succeeded, or made partial progress, in the Senate, only to flounder in the House amidst fierce opposition from the conservative House leadership.
Fully Funding Our Schools
Massachusetts’s 25-year-old education funding formula is short-changing our schools $1-2 billion per year due to outdated assumptions about the costs of health care, special education, ELL (English Language Learners) education, and closing racial and economic achievement gaps.
The 2015 Foundation Budget Review Commission recommended a path forward for fixing it. The Senate unanimously adopted a bill to implement them. The House, however, insisted on leaving English Language Learners, Black and Brown students, and poor students (not mutually exclusive categories) behind.
Protecting Our Immigrant Friends and Neighbors
Despite Massachusetts’s liberal reputation, our Legislature has been historically hostile to strengthening protections for our immigrant community.
The Senate included four provisions from the Safe Communities Act, a bill that our members fought strongly for, in its FY 2019 budget: (1) a prohibition on police inquiries about immigration status, a prohibition on certain collaboration agreements between local law enforcement and ICE, (3) a guarantee of basic due process protections, and (4) a prohibition on participation in a Muslim registry. The amendment was a win-win for both rights and safety, but House Leadership opposed its inclusion in the final budget.
Bold Action on Climate Change
Many elements from our priority environmental legislation were incorporated in the Senate’s impressive omnibus bill:
Building on the Global Warming Solutions Act by setting intermediate emissions targets for 2030 and 2040
Establishing a 3% annual increase in the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to accelerate our commitment to renewable energy
Prohibiting a “pipeline tax” on energy consumers
Instructing the governor’s office to develop carbon pricing for the transportation sector by the end of 2020, for commercial buildings and industrial processes by 2021, and for residential buildings by the end of 2022 (not as strong as a revenue-positive carbon pricing scheme, but still in the right direction)
However, the House proved a roadblock yet again. The ultimate compromise energy legislation included only a 2% increase from 2020 to 2030, after which it would fall back to the current 1%. This would take us to only 56% renewable energy by 2050 instead of 100%.
Loss…But a Battle Not Over
Revenue & Reinvestment
Progressive Mass members played a major role in the signature collection for the Fair Share amendment (or “millionaires tax”), which would have created a 4% surtax on income above $1 million (inflation-adjusted) to fund education and transportation investment.
As a citizen-originated ballot initiative for a constitutional amendment, the Fair Share amendment had to receive the support of at least 25% of the Legislature in two constitutional conventions. It secured well more than double this amount, but the Supreme Judicial Court struck it from the ballot this June.
Inaction
Medicare for All
Although the Senate took modest steps in the direction of single payer, passing legislation to create a public option (a MassHealth buy-in) and require a study of whether a single payer system would save money relative to the current system, the House took no such action.
Housing Production
Although the Senate passed a comprehensive zoning reform bill to increase housing production in the suburbs last session, no such action was taken in either house this session.
Debt/tuition-free Higher Education
The cost of higher education has grown a lot in Massachusetts, and the Legislature continues to punt.
In Conclusion: We won some, we lost some, and we’ll keep on fighting.
Election Day is just four weeks away. That’s right: 28 days.
Ballot Question Endorsements: YES-YES-YES
Massachusetts voters will see three questions on the ballot when they go to vote in four weeks. Progressive Massachusetts is recommending that you vote YES-YES-YES.
Progressive Massachusetts has been a part of the Freedom for All Massachusetts coalition since the legislative push the session before last, but before taking a position on Questions 1 and 2, we polled our members–the ultimate decision-makers in our organization. Our members overwhelmingly voted to say Yes on 1 and Yes on 2 as well.
Here’s why:
Why Yes on 1: In Massachusetts, there is no law and no limit governing the number of patients that can be assigned to a nurse at one time (aside from the Intensive Care Unit). Overworked nurses and understaffed hospitals lead to more complications, readmissions, and errors. Nurses aren’t able to thrive at their work, and patients aren’t able to get the care they deserve. Everyone deserves high-quality working conditions, and everyone deserves the best health care our state can offer.
Why Yes on 2: On the local, state, and federal level, we see time and time again how the outsize role of money in politics distorts democracy. A Yes on Question 2 would send a powerful statement to elected officials and to other states that Massachusetts voters want to see real action on campaign finance reform.
Why Yes on 3: Because everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. Because every young person deserves a chance to succeed in school and prepare for their future — including young people who are transgender. Because we are better than fear, bigotry, and transphobia. To name a few.
Some More Endorsements: Senator Elizabeth Warren & AG Maura Healey
Our members overwhelmingly voted to endorse Elizabeth Warren and Maura Healey for re-election.
Why Elizabeth Warren? Let’s turn it over to our members?
“Elizabeth Warren has been a champion in Washington for all in a very dark and scary time in U.S politics. Her voice, her actions and her persistence are needed now more than ever.”
“MA voters should know that Senator Warren has our back.”
“Senator Warren is a leader for government of the people, by the people and for the people. She stands up to wealthy corporations (who are not people) and the oligarchs who are continuing to strangle democracy in the United States.”
And why Maura Healey?
“Absolutely the people’s attorney… She is a great watchdog for the people and a great bull dog against President Trump and his policies.”
“Maura Healey has been in the forefront of the resistance to the Trump administrating since the first day.”
“Among the leaders in holding pharmaceutical manufacturers accountable for the opioid crisis.”
We agree!
One more DA Endorsement: John Bradley, Plymouth County
As countless stories from right here in Massachusetts and around the country have shown, a District Attorney has a lot of power. Too often, DAs have used that power in favor of mass incarceration and the attendant racial and economic disparities. From overcharging to lobbying against criminal justice reform, DAs have proven themselves to be an obstacle.
We’ve been working with the Justice for Massachusetts coalition to elect progressive DAs–and then hold them accountable. JFM endorsed John Bradley for Plymouth County DA, and our members voted to do so as well.
John is committed to:
Abolishing cash bail
Taking illegally possessed firearms off the streets
Shifting strategy for dealing with drug addiction to medical-based solutions rather than criminalization
Meeting regularly with community leaders and instituting accountability checks
Increasing data transparency from the DA’s office to the community
John’s experience as a career prosecutor for over 30 years in Plymouth and Worcester Counties, as well as in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, equips him to implement progressive change to restore ethics, compassion, and common sense to the important public safety work of the DA’s Office.
What a Yes Would Do: Question 1 would limit the number of patients that can be assigned to each registered nurse in Massachusetts hospitals and certain other health care facilities. The maximum number of patients would vary by type of unit and level of care (see the breakdown here). The enforcement of the measure would be suspended during a public health emergency as declared by the state or nationally.
Have Other States Done This?: California is currently the only state to have implemented fixed nurse-to-patient ratios. Doomsday scenarios have not come to pass, job satisfaction among nurses has gone up, and readmissions have gone down. You can read more here:
Michelle Tellez, “Work Satisfaction among California Nurses: A Longitudinal Analysis,” Nursing Economics 30, no. 2 (March – April 2012): 73-81, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22558724.
Matthew McHugh, et al, “Hospitals With Higher Nurse Staffing Had Lower Odds Of Readmissions Penalties Than Hospitals With Lower Staffing,” Health Affairs 32, no. 10 (October 2013): 1740-1747, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4315496/.
Why You Should Vote Yes: In Massachusetts, there is no law and no limit governing the number of patients that can be assigned to a nurse at one time (aside from the Intensive Care Unit). Overworked nurses and understaffed hospitals lead to more complications, readmissions, and errors. Nurses aren’t able to thrive at their work, and patients aren’t able to get the care they deserve. More time with your nurse means better care for you.
Who is Supporting Q1: A wide coalition of labor groups, community groups, and progressive elected officials — See the full list here. The No on Question 1 campaign is being funded by mega-rich hospital executives (read more here). Which side are you on?
Question 2: Advisory Commission for Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Regarding Corporate Personhood and Political Spending Initiative
Recommendation: Vote YES.
What a Yes Would Do: Question 2 would create a 15-member citizens commission tasked with proposing amendments to the US Constitution, specifically regarding overturning Citizens United and defining inalienable constitutional rights as belonging to individual living human beings, not artificial entities or collections of human beings. The commission would create reports onpolitical and election spending in Massachusetts; the legal ability of the state government to regulate corporations; and proposals for federal constitutional amendments and actions recommended for advancing the proposed amendments. Read the full text here.
Who Would Sit on the Commission?: Any citizen residing in Massachusetts would be eligible to serve, and the commissioners would be unpaid. The commissioners would be appointed by the Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Speaker of the House, and Senate President (each of whom would appoint 3 members).
When Would It Take Effect?: The measure would take effect on January 1, 2019, and the commission’s first report would be due on December 31, 2019.
Why You Should Vote Yes: On the local, state, and federal level, we see time and time again how the outsize role of money in politics distorts democracy. A Yes on Question 2 would send a powerful statement to elected officials and to other states that Massachusetts voters want to see real action on campaign finance reform.
Who is Suporting Q2: See a list of endorsing individuals and organizations here.
What a Yes Would Do: A “yes” vote on Question 3 supports upholding the landmark 2016 bill that that prohibits discrimination based on gender identity in public places. The law requires access to areas segregated based on gender—such as bathrooms and locker rooms—to be allowed according to an individual’s self-identified gender identity. In short, the law is about the right of trans people to exist in public space.
Why Is This Even on the Ballot?: Reactionaries in this state collected enough signatures to do so because they want to take our state backwards. This is the first time in decades that Massachusetts has had a citizens veto referendum on the ballot. What that means is that when you enter the ballot box, you–the voter–should act as though you are the governor being presented with this bill. A yes is a vote to sign it. A no is a vote to veto it.
Why You Should Vote Yes: Because everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. Because every young person deserves a chance to succeed in school and prepare for their future — including young people who are transgender. Because we are better than fear, bigotry, and transphobia. To name a few.
How You Can Help: Find volunteer opportunities on the Freedom for All Massachusetts website here.
About Our Process
Progressive Massachusetts has been a part of the Freedom for All Massachusetts coalition since the legislative push the session before last, but before taking a position on Questions 1 and 2, we polled our members–the ultimate decision-makers in our organization. Our members overwhelmingly voted to say Yes on 1 and Yes on 2 as well.
Summer is a season of action and a season of joy. So as the summer approaches, we need to double down on the work of passing our bold policy agenda, as well as celebrate the successes we’ve had.
Raise Up Signature Collection: Ramping Up & Wrapping Up
As a key part of the Raise Up Massachusetts coalition, we’ve been collecting signatures around the state to get a $15 minimum wage and paid family and medical leave on the ballot this November.
Over the past month, we’ve collected more than 5,000. Give yourself a hand!
This week, the MA Senate is moving to take up S.2545, An Act to Promote a Clean Energy Future. Although this is a bold piece of climate policy, several critical policies are missing: solar access for all, reforms to push back against pipeline expansion, community empowerment, and a comprehensive plan to combat climate change.
Action: Please call your Senator and Chairwoman Karen Spilka, Karen.Spilka@masenate.gov, 617-722-1640 in support of the following amendments:
Amendments 41 (Eldridge), 42 (Eldridge),and 43 (Chang-Diaz), which would ensure all communities can access solar energy
Amendment 22 (Cyr), which would empower communities and give new tools to promote renewable energy
Amendment 44 (Pacheco), which would set binding climate targets for 2030 and 2040
Amendments 6 (Jehlen) and 60 (Hinds), which would push back on pipeline expansion
Safe Communities: The Clock Is Ticking
Right now, the Massachusetts legislature is negotiating the state budget for the next year, and key protections for immigrants hang in the balance. Approved by the Senate, these protections (detailed below) now have to make it through the budget Conference Committee.
If you are worried about the Trump administration’s draconian immigration policies, 3 phone calls this week are almost certainly the most impactful thing you can do this week to blunt the effects of these policies in our state:
Bar police from asking about people’s immigration status unless required by law
End 287(g) contracts that deputize state and local law enforcement as ICE agents
Require that immigrants be notified of their due-process rights
Ensure that Massachusetts does not contribute to any registry based on religion, ethnicity, citizenship or other protected categories
Wednesday, 6/20: Summer is a Time for Celebration
Join Progressive Mass members and allies in Newton on Wednesday night, June 20th, for drinks and light appetizers, and to toast our three award winners.
Representative Mary Keefe of Worcester: Lead House sponsor of the comprehensive Criminal Justice Reform bill, signed into law this year
Jonathan Cohn of Boston: Our resident policy and political expert, leading the Issues Committee and the Elections and Endorsements Committee
Rev. Jim Mitulski of Needham: A Progressive Needham leader and tireless advocate for human rights and dignity
Thanks to a group of generous donors, all Summer Soiree contributions up to $7,000 to Progressive Mass will be matched. Your generosity helps us provide staff, office space, organizing software and services, and drive progressive initiatives in multiple coalitions.
