Trump Wants to Gut Labor Law. Here’s How to Keep Workers Protected in MA.

Trump’s pro-oligarchy, anti-democracy pals who wrote Project 2025 were clear: they want to destroy the National Labor Relations Act, which is the foundational law passed during the New Deal to protect private sector workers’ rights to unionize.

Trump and his cabinet officials are hard at work at implementing their promised rollback of labor laws, leaving working people poorer and less safe.

Here in Massachusetts, we can make sure that—no matter what happens at the federal level— workers are protected in Massachusetts. That’s why we’re supporting legislation from the Massachusetts AFL-CIO, known as the Protect Labor Act, that would ensure that these labor protections exist in MA no matter what.

These protections include a presumption of employee status to ensure workers have access to wage, hour, and benefits protections; a ban on captive audience meetings; protections from anti-union “right to work” laws; and more.

Can you email your state legislators in support of protecting labor rights in MA?

MA Can and Must Do More to Protect and Expand Workers’ Rights

Tuesday, July 15, 2025

Chair Oliveira, Chair McMurtry, and Members of the Joint committee on Labor and Workforce Development:

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the Policy Director of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy group with chapters across the state committed to fighting for an equitable, just, democratic, and sustainable Commonwealth.

We urge you to give a favorable report to S.1311/H.2078: An Act uplifting families and securing the right to strike for certain public employees and S.1327/H.2086: An Act protecting labor and abolishing barriers to organizing rights. These bills would protect and expand rights for workers in the Commonwealth.

Unions and working-class people are under attack from the federal government, as President Donald Trump and his oligarchic pals in Big Tech and Big Finance seek to unravel decades of labor, civil rights, consumer, and environmental protections to enrich themselves further.  

Massachusetts should voice a loud and clear NO to that agenda and do that by strengthening and protecting the rights we have in this state.

First, a word on strengthening. The right to strike is a critical labor right that ensures that workplace negotiations happen in good faith. But this right is not sufficiently protected or respected in Massachusetts because public sector workers lack that right.

To be clear, banning strikes does not mean that strikes do not happen. We have seen many such examples across the Commonwealth in recent years. The ban means unreasonable penalties and fines, not the lack of strikes. A right to strike, by contrast, treats a strike as what it should be: an available tool for workers to use if negotiations occur in bad faith and a mechanism for structuring the timeline of negotiations to encourage both parties to come to an agreement. The current situation tips the scales against workers; restoring this right would create a level playing field.

Moreover, current law is worse than just penalizing strikes. Current law penalizes even talking about strikes, a gross violation of the First Amendment. This legislation would end that.

But, as noted earlier, as we expand labor rights, we also need to ensure that the rights that exist are protected. The Protect LABOR Act would ensure that labor protections continue to exist in Massachusetts even if Trump and his corporate buddies eliminate them at the federal level.

Trump and his Cabinet of Project 2025 authors has made clear that they want to eviscerate the National Labor Relations Act, under which private sector labor rights are established. Decades of labor protections could disappear if they succeed.

This bill offers a necessary bulwark against that by ensuring measures like Department of Labor Relations certification of pre-existing federally recognized unions; a presumption of employee status to ensure all workers, regardless of industry, have guaranteed access to wage, hour, and benefits protections; a ban on captive audience meetings; protection right anti-union “right to work” laws; and more.

Massachusetts has had a great track record of strengthening labor rights, especially when they are under attack federally. Let’s continue that legacy.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

MA Needs Strong Protections against Facial Surveillance

Tuesday, July 15, 2025

Chair Edwards, Chair Day, and Members of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary:

I am submitting testimony today on behalf of Progressive Massachusetts. We are a statewide, member-based grassroots advocacy group fighting for a Massachusetts that is more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic.

We are appreciative of the work that the Legislature did back in 2020 in passing police accountability legislation. But there is more work to be done, including stronger regulations around the use of facial recognition technology. In that light, we urge you to give a favorable report to H.1946 and S.1053: An Act to implement the recommendations of the special commission on facial recognition technology.

After passing limited regulations for facial recognition technology in 2020 (due to opposition to stronger regulations from Governor Baker), the Legislature created a special commission to study and recommend a regulatory framework. That commission, made up of diverse stakeholders, met, held hearings, and researched and discussed the issue. And that commission—including the AGO, the State Police, the NAACP, the ACLU, and CPCS (among others)—agreed on a set of recommendations, reflected in this bill.

From past debates, I expect that you are familiar with the myriad problems posed by facial surveillance, with regard to both use (e.g., its track record of inaccuracy, especially in distinguishing between Black and Brown individuals—and the dangers that poses) and its susceptibility to abuse (e.g., the ease with which officers could take advantage of data for personal reasons having no relation to public safety). 

The provision of this bill help to address those problems by doing the following:

  • Requiring a warrant in order for police to conduct a facial recognition search—a necessary guardrail to protect privacy rights
  • Centralizing the use of facial recognition at the State Police in order to curb the potential for misuse, abuse, and wrongful arrests
  • Ensuring due process protections around the use of facial recognition technology in court cases
  • Prohibiting mass surveillance and emotion analysis in order to forestall the dystopian futures already happening in places like Russia and China

We urge you to give a favorable report to H.1946 and S.1053. When the Legislature creates a commission to do the hard work of studying an issue, and that commission puts forth reasoned recommendations, it should be incumbent upon the Legislature to advance them.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts