Teen Workers Need the Full Minimum Wage

By Margaret Heitz, Progressive Lexington

I grabbed a great seat for Tuesday’s State House hearing on the minimum wage. I wanted a seat with a good view of the folks testifying. Rachael Collins and her colleagues from the Restaurant Opportunities Center United slid into seats next to me. By noon, Gardner Auditorium was filled to capacity . 

The SEIU 1199 organizer sitting to my left shared good information with me. His personal story itself was a testimony to the value of a strong bedrock minimum wage. His parents were teens when he was born, which judging by his salt and pepper hair might have been in the late seventies. In his childhood, they supported themselves through minimum wage work.

He also told me about a conversation he had with a hardware store owner. The owner said that at a $15/hr minimum wage, he would hire only adults, no teens. Presumably, in his view, teens are not mature enough take the responsibility of work. If that’s the sentiment of most employers, it could be bad news for teens. On the other hand, employers should take to heart their responsibility to hold a teen employee accountable as they would an older one.

I remember a good friend telling me that her teenage son, who wouldn’t pick up a wet towel in the bathroom let alone keep his room neat or remember to take out the trash, was a completely different person at his job at a CVS store. He was consistently on time and on task at the store. She gave the store manager and the paycheck credit for the new man she saw in her son.

Teens, especially in lower income levels, have financial obligations to themselves and their families that they might not have had years ago. They need and deserve the full minimum wage to start off their work career.

Regrettably, I had to leave the hearing early. The panels of speakers in support of the badly needed wage increase were extraordinary. It’s clear to me and to just about all the people in the auditorium that the time to raise the wage to $15/hr for workers has come—regardless of their age.

Do MA Dems Stand for Women’s Rights in the Workplace Or Not?

The 190th legislative session has been off to a slow start on Beacon Hill. Beyond the pay raise, and the budget process, the Legislature has not been doing much in the way of, well, legislating.

One small bit of progress was the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which passed the House unanimously last month. The bill requires employers to provide “reasonable accommodation” for pregnant women and nursing mothers (such as more frequent breaks, less strenuous duties, and the ability to sit down on the job) provided that they don’t cause “significant difficulty or expense.”This new bill is not as strong as the one introduced last session—which Speaker DeLeo and others in the Democratic leadership, doing the bidding of powerful business interests, blocked. Like much progressive legislation, the bill died in committee. The 2017 bill resulted from negotiations between women’s advocacy group MotherWoman and the Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM). And although it was watered down to get AIM on board, the bill was nonetheless a positive development for women across the Commonwealth.

But because of the House’s standard lack of transparency, it was almost watered down even further.

As the Globe reported on Thursday, the powerful Ways & Means Committee quietly changed one word in the bill in committee before it went to a vote:

But it emerged from the House Committee on Ways and Means for a full vote on the floor with the word “knowingly” added at the beginning of that sentence. The language passed in the House without anyone noticing the change, and now the bill awaits a vote in the Senate.

It’s an addition that advocates for these pregnant worker protections say creates a serious new layer of what a worker would have to prove if she felt there was discrimination in her denial of a job. To prove an employer acted “knowingly” requires direct evidence that the employer knew the applicant was pregnant and denied them a job because of it — a much higher standard of proof.

Neither sponsors of the bill nor key advocates, who helped negotiate the legislation, were notified. AIM claimed to have not been behind the change–though it was clearly done in their interest.

Beacon Hill, How About a Raise for Massachusetts Workers, Too?

A new legislative session in the Legislature typically kicks off with a string of votes setting the rules for the following two years.

But this year, before taking up the rules (or even finalizing offices and committee assignments), the House and Senate voted to raise the salaries and stipends for ranking legislative officers (such as Senate President Stan Rosenberg and House Speaker Robert DeLeo, among others), state constitutional officers (Governor Charlie Baker, AG Maura Healey, etc.), and judges.

And then the Thursday before last, both chambers easily overrode Governor Baker’s veto, with dissent coming from Republicans, a handful of conservative Democrats, and a trio of progressive Democrats (Jon Hecht of Watertown, Denise Provost of Somerville, and Mike Connolly of Cambridge).

Let’s be clear: paying public servants well is important to good governance.

If such offices are not well-compensated, then only those who are already well-off will be interested in running or serving.

And sufficient compensation can also reduce the need for legislators to have jobs on the side, a Pandora’s box of ethics conflicts.

Nonetheless, given the details and the context of the pay raise, it should be no surprise that it has rubbed many progressive voters the wrong way.

Process

First of all, the bill was rushed through at the start of the session without the deliberation and public input that a democratic process necessitates. The numbers in the bill did not come out of thin air—they stem from a 2014 Advisory Commission. But the report has sat largely dormant since then. A report is no substitute for public hearings and debate.

Priorities

But, more importantly, the whole episode reflects poorly on the Legislature’s priorities.

Although some Democratic legislators have spoken out against Governor Baker’s recent $98 million 9C cuts, they have acquiesced to a framework of austerity year after year for the state budget, averse to raising new revenue and content to underinvest in our public infrastructure, from transit and schools.

Funding the pay raise will require either new revenue or new cuts, and Beacon Hill always seems to prefer the latter.

Moreover, despite Democrats’ overwhelmingly large veto-proof majorities in both houses, Leadership (as well as many in the rank-and-file) has adopted a chummy and non-confrontational relationship with Governor Baker. They rarely send bills to his desk that they expect him to veto. This one is a notable profile in courage…for legislator raises. 

It is true that during budget season, Democrats will override line item vetoes (particularly on earmarks), but, overall, the Legislature is advancing a bold and comprehensive progressive agenda—in rhetoric or action–regardless of the affable Governor’s disposition.

A Challenge

The pay raise now is a done deal. We do not subscribe to a conservative frame of starving the beast and drowning governments in bathtubs. But there’s a reason why their actions feel out of touch.

So here’s a challenge to those on Beacon Hill:

If you are willing to override Governor Baker’s veto to give yourselves a raise, then do the same to give workers across the Commonwealth a raise by passing a $15 minimum wage.

If you are willing to override Governor Baker’s veto to give yourselves greater stipends, then do so as well to guarantee workers across the state a necessary benefit like paid family and medical leave.

And if you are willing to override Governor Baker’s veto to invest more in yourselves, then do so to invest in the Commonwealth.