Every Worker Deserves a Living Wage.

Time for $20

Tuesday, September 26, 2023

Chair Jehlen, Chair Cusack, and Members of the Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development:

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the policy director at Progressive Massachusetts. We are a statewide, multi-issue, grassroots membership organization focused on fighting for policy that would make our Commonwealth more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic. 

We urge you to give a favorable report to H.1925: An Act relative to the minimum wage, S.1200: An Act relative to raising the minimum wage closer to a living wage in the Commonwealth, and S.1188 / H.1872: An Act requiring one fair wage.

Raising the Minimum Wage (S.1200/H.1925)

In 2018, Massachusetts set an example for other states and the country by passing a $15 minimum wage. As of January 2023, the full increase has now taken effect, but $15 has lost significant purchasing power due to the rising cost of food, utilities, rent, and other basic necessities. Indeed, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, today’s minimum wage would need to be more than $18 to have the same purchasing power as $15 in July 2018. 

The $15 minimum wage, while an improvement, is also not a living wage. According to the MIT Living Wage Calculator, a living wage for a single adult with no children would be $21.35 per hour. When children enter the picture, that threshold for meeting basic needs gets higher and higher. Moreover, if the minimum wage did rise in step with productivity growth since 1968, it would have met this standard for a living wage. 

It’s time to raise the minimum wage again. These bills would raise the minimum wage to $20 per hour and index it to inflation, so that the value does not erode over time. Moreover, these bills correct a glaring omission from the last minimum wage increase: the exclusion of municipal workers. Paraprofessionals and cafeteria workers in some municipalities are still not receiving a minimum wage (let alone a living wage), and we should not be allowing such carveouts. All workers deserve a living wage, and this increase would move us in the right direction.

One Fair Wage (S.1188/H.1872)

The existence of subminimum wages for certain industries, particularly ones where workers are disproportionately women and people of color, is a part of a longstanding history of discrimination and economic exploitation.

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 food service industry. The tiered wage system allows this to happen. We need greater enforcement of wage theft laws, but we need to change the systems that make such wage theft more prevalent.

Moreover, it is well-documented that sexual harassment remains widespread in the restaurant industry. As our country is continuing 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.

Workers across Massachusetts deserve better and are demanding better, and we urge you to listen and to swiftly report out these bills favorably.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Legislators Should Support Labor at the State House Too.

Wednesday, September 20, 2023

Chair Collins, Chair Cabral, and Members of the Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight:

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 H.3069/S.2014: An Act relative to collective bargaining rights for legislative employees.

This bill would give State House employees the right to organize a union for the purpose of negotiating their wages, benefits, and working conditions—a right held by almost all other workers in the commonwealth.

State House staffers do so much work to keep the Legislature running. They are the reason that today’s hearing will go smoothly. They will be the ones collating submitted testimony for you to read later and taking notes for your colleagues who could not attend. They are case workers, responding to countless constituent services requests and directing people to the right agencies to address their problems. They are schedulers, policy analysts, strategy partners, networkers, meeting-attenders, and so much more.

Despite all these things that they are, one thing that they are not is adequately compensated.

When State House staff are not provided fair wages, safe and healthy work conditions, or a seat at the table, we lose talent and limit who can even consider entering public service in the first place. When we don’t have all of the diverse voices of the Commonwealth at the table, we miss vital perspectives in crafting policy.

We are very appreciative of all the recent pro-labor reforms that this Legislature has passed over the past few years and your commitment in your own districts to show solidarity with workers fighting for better pay, better benefits, and a better voice at the workplace. We ask you to show that same solidarity here and support the rights of your staff.

Thank you again for your time and for holding this hearing, and we again ask for a swift favorable report for H.3069 and S.2014.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Let’s Show that We Cherish Public Higher Ed

Higher Ed for All logo

Monday, September 18, 2023

Chair Comerford, Chair Rogers, and Members of the Joint Committee on Higher Education:

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the Policy Director at Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy group fighting for a more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic commonwealth. 

We urge you to give a favorable report to H.1260/S.816: An Act committing to higher education the resources to insure a strong and healthy public higher education system (the “Cherish Act”) and H.1265 / S.823: An Act relative to debt-free public higher education (“Debt-Free Future”).

Our public colleges and universities are essential vehicles for economic mobility of our commonwealth’s residents and economic vitality of the commonwealth itself. Studies have shown that college graduates are more likely to be healthier, earn significantly more on average, and are less likely to face job loss during an economic recession, and graduates of our public colleges and universities are more likely to stay in Massachusetts to live and work, contributing to our commonwealth and common wealth.

However, our state has been disinvesting from public higher education for the last two decades, with funding for public higher education still below its (inflation-adjusted) value in 2001. [1] When the state reduces funding to public colleges and universities, the result is higher tuition and fees, and a growing debt burden faced by students and families.

When the state reduces funding to public colleges and universities, the result is higher tuition and fees, and a growing debt burden faced by students and families. The published in-state tuition and fees increase at public 4-year institutions in MA increased 135 percent from 2001 to 2021 after adjusting for inflation, and for two-year institutions, 81 percent, but real Median Household Income in Massachusetts only increased by 8 percent. [2] Just between 2009 and 2021, the average student debt rose 52% for four-year graduates and 62% for community college graduates. [3] When we close off opportunities for our students, we are all worse off. 

No student should be saddled with years of debt because of attending one of our state’s public colleges and universities. As our state has so often been a leader in higher education, we should take this opportunity and be a leader in debt-free public higher education with both the Debt-Free Future bill and the Cherish Act.

The Cherish Act takes a comprehensive approach to strengthening our public higher education system. In addition to addressing the barrier that high tuition and fees—as well as living costs—can pose for students, the bill would increase investments in student support services to ensure positive learning environment and improve student retention, and it would institute fair and adequate minimum funding levels for public higher education.

The burden of disinvestment in public higher education has not just been borne by students; it has also been borne by faculty and staff, who have seen weakened job security and workplace benefits as institutions embrace strategies of privatization and “adjunctification.” The Cherish Act would ensure that ensure that adjunct faculty and part-time staff are eligible for state health care and retirement benefits, and it would establish a Commission on Wage Equity and Working Conditions to recommend changes aimed at eliminating pay inequities based on gender, race, and job category.

Finally, the COVID crisis and the climate crisis both show clearly how much the built environment matters to human and environmental health. That’s why the bill creates a commission to evaluate the health, safety, and energy efficiency of public college and university buildings, develop a set of standards, and recommend a plan to bring all buildings into compliance with this standard by 2035. Our colleges and universities have such a key role to play in addressing climate change, and this bill shows how.

Last year, voters showed that they believed it was time for the rich to pay their fair share so that we can invest in our public education systems and public infrastructure. The support is there among the public to recommitting to the ideal of higher education for all. Let’s make it happen.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

[1] https://massbudget.org/2020/08/10/bruised-budgets-a-higher-education-funding-history-lesson-for-an-antiracist-future-2/

[2] https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/

[3] https://www.hildrethinstitute.org/rising-barriers-shrinking-aid

Let’s Continue Expanding Voting Access

I voted stickers

Wednesday, September 13, 2023

Chair Keenan, Chair Ryan, and Members of the Joint Committee on Election Laws:

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the Policy Director at Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy group fighting for a more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic commonwealth. 

We urge you to give a favorable report to the following bills:

  • H.724/S.428: An Act relative to voting rights restoration
  • S.410: An Act making voting administrative changes to create equitable systemic solutions (Voting ACCESS bill)
  • H.688: An Act establishing same day registration of voters
  • H.707: An Act decoupling the municipal census from voter registration

H.724/S.428: Voting Rights Restoration

Felony disenfranchisement in Massachusetts is a recent phenomenon. Indeed, although we often think of the history of voting rights in the US as one of ever-forward motion, Massachusetts stands as an outlier. In the late 1990s, after incarcerated individuals in MCI-Norfolk started organizing for better conditions, Republican Governor Bill Cellucci and the MA Legislature responded with retaliation: a multi-step process of disenfranchisement. In 2000, Massachusetts voters approved a constitutional amendment to prohibit people incarcerated for felonies in state prison from voting in state elections; the subsequent year, Cellucci signed a law to extend this prohibition to federal and municipal elections. Our commonwealth did something rare in recent history: it took away the right to vote from a category of people who were formerly enfranchised. 

In 2022, the Massachusetts Legislature took an important step forward when passing the VOTES Act by including language creating protections for jail-based voting for those who still maintain the right to vote, but we must build on that momentum by ending remaining disenfranchisement, as these bills would. 

Felony disenfranchisement compounds the systemic racism of the criminal legal system. Approximately 8,000 residents of the Commonwealth are disenfranchised due to a felony conviction, more than 50% of them are Black or Latinx. 

Felony disenfranchisement laws disenfranchise more voters than those directly affected. Whenever someone loses the right to vote even temporarily, they are likely to mistakenly think that they have lost it permanently. We must eliminate archaic laws that create voter suppression and voter confusion. 

Felony disenfranchisement exacerbates the humanitarian crisis in our prisons and jails. Even Trump’s DOJ pointed out that Massachusetts correctional facilities are engaging in torture, and a lack of political voice puts individuals at risk for abuse. 

Moreover, studies have often shown that fostering ties to the outside world is central to reducing recidivism. Civic engagement provides just that, and we should welcome it. 

S.410, H.688, and H.707: Strengthening Voting Access 

With regard to the comprehensive Voting ACCESS bill (S.410), we would like to underscore the importance of Election Day Registration. In Massachusetts elections, an unnecessary and arbitrary 20-day registration cutoff disenfranchises more than 100,000 voters from participating in our elections. Given that the average American moves more than 11 times over the course of their lives, moving near Election Day could lead to disenfranchisement under the current system. Likewise, given the stress of work, family, and myriad other commitments, many voters may first start to learn about an election after the registration window has already passed. Indeed, this is the period when media coverage of elections—and thus voter information—is the strongest. But when voters seek to update their registration or register anew, they are shut out of the process.

When there are errors in voters’ registration, they are typically asked to fill out a provisional ballot. Provisional ballots are cumbersome for election workers and leave voters feeling as though their votes didn’t count. And our first experiences at the polls–indeed, all of our experiences at the polls–have an impact on our voting habits throughout our lives.

Our neighboring states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Connecticut have already realized the problems with such a cutoff and adopted Election Day Registration (EDR). Maine has had EDR since the 1970s, and New Hampshire since the 1990s. EDR creates more positive experiences at the polls and, indeed, higher turnout, with studies showing an increase in turnout of approximately 5 percent.

Moreover, if we want to create positive experiences at the polls, we should also delink the municipal census from the inactive voter list. Removing voters from the active voter list for failing to fill out a form is unnecessarily punitive, and it creates unnecessary work for both voters and poll workers.

We have appreciated the recent steps forward in democracy passed in recent sessions, such as automatic voter registration, vote-by-mail, and expanded early voting, and we hope that you will continue this forward motion.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

PM Joins Coalition of 20 Organizations Calling for Elimination of Fines and Fees in the Juvenile Justice System

This week, Progressive Mass joined a coalition of 20 organizations from the Massachusetts Coalition for Juvenile Justice Reform in a letter to the Joint Committee on the Judiciary in support of legislation to eliminate fines and fees in the juvenile justice system.

As the joint letter notes, “By eliminating the remaining eight fines and fees imposed on juveniles, it will firmly root the juvenile court process on conditions based on the developmentally appropriate needs of youth and not on their financial status.”

You can view the full letter here.

A “Yes in My Backyard” Call from Newton

Dense neighborhood

From Bill Humphrey, Progressive Newton

Thank you to Chairman Arciero, Chairwoman Edwards, and other esteemed members of the Committee for hosting a hearing and collecting written testimony. I am submitting testimony on behalf of Progressive Newton (which I chair) and in my individual capacity as a Newton City Councilor in support of The Yes in My Backyard Bill (HB1379/SB858). Progressive Newton supports affordable, high-quality housing in safe, walkable, and vibrant neighborhoods and supports affirmatively furthering fair housing to ensure everyone has equal access to housing.

Specifically I wish to offer insights into two provisions of this legislation that have already essentially been adopted in Newton. The first concerns Accessory Dwelling Units and the second concerns Inclusionary Zoning.

The City of Newton in 2022 adopted local zoning changes to make it much easier to build Accessory Dwelling Units, and this new system is similar to that proposed statewide by The Yes in My Backyard Bill (HB1379/SB858). These smaller, separated units of housing on existing lots, usually primarily occupied by a Single-Family Home, not only add to our overall housing stock without much wider impact, but they also specifically help families find proximate housing for elder relatives and adult children (including those with disabilities) or help “big house” elder owner-occupants find a bit of extra rental income to be able to stay in their homes longer or to be able to afford historic preservation (especially if the unit is a traditional carriage house). These ADUs have not always been easy to build or set up under local rules, and this has discouraged them from being created. This legislation will help correct this on a consistent basis across the Commonwealth. It will allow more multi-generational families to live together, enable new incomes for owner-occupants of older homes, and facilitate additional units of new housing across Massachusetts with a smaller effect on existing neighborhoods than some larger development projects that sometimes generate more controversy.

The City of Newton has also already adopted ambitious but fair and rational Inclusionary Zoning targets, which promote the creation of more affordable units than ever before in market-rate projects but without economically discouraging overall production of housing in a substantial way. The Yes in My Backyard Bill (HB1379/SB858) establishes a reasonable compromise at a state level, by proposing that “The Department of Housing and Community Development shall be responsible for developing guidelines to ensure that municipalities do not adopt inclusionary zoning ordinances or bylaws that [unduly] constrain the production of housing in that community.”

Many other provisions in the legislation are also things presently being explored as potential local changes in Newton, but these two points are steps Newton has already taken, and they have been widely supported.

City Councilor Bill Humphrey

Newton MA 02468

Passing the Prison Moratorium and Ending Life without Parole Go Hand in Hand

Prison

Massachusetts Judiciary Joint Committee

Testimony for S.1979/H.1795 and An Act to Reduce Mass Incarceration, (S.1045 / H.1821),

Caroline Bays, Watertown Massachusetts

Dear Chairs Eldridge and Day,

Thank you for hearing my testimony today on S.1979 / H.1795, an act that would establish a five-year moratorium on building new prisons. 

I am usually before you as a Watertown city councilor or as a board member on behalf of Progressive Massachusetts. But today I  am here on behalf of my dear friend who has spent the last 16 of his 35 years in prison. 

Six years ago, I had a life-changing event when I was asked to visit this young man who was experiencing a mental health crisis. As a result, I have seen up close how dysfunctional, counter-productive, and destructive prisons are to the human beings who live within those walls. 

Prisons no longer even pay lip service to rehabilitation; they are designed purely for punishment. They no longer try to help people get back on their feet and become productive members of our society. The stories I have heard–the danger, harm, cruelty, and viciousness he has experienced are destructive not just to him but to our society and who we are as a state. 

Prisons as they are currently structured do not make us safer–they make us less safe. And we are harming the most vulnerable members of our society–people who need help. We are putting people who are mentally ill in prison; we are putting people who are addicted to drugs in prison; we are putting people who are experiencing dire poverty in prison. 

Since when did we decide that it was morally right to treat those who need our help as criminals and deny them the support and treatment they need? Whom does it help? This is cruel to those impacted and actually decreases our safety. 

In addition I also ask you to support An Act to Reduce Mass Incarceration (S.1045 / H.1821). These bills go hand in hand because ending life without parole and the imprisonment of people who committed crimes when they were teenagers not only counters everything we know about human development, it unnecessarily imprisons people who are perfectly safe to release back into the community. In addition these sentences are disproportionately imposed on people of color.  Please pass these necessary next steps in order to create a more just and equitable society.

I urge you to help us look for solutions that will benefit everyone–the incarcerated people and the general public. We have an opportunity to truly change how our society manages public safety. The creation of prisons has not only failed to end crime, by disconnecting people from their families, education, jobs and societal support, mass incarceration has actually been responsible for an increase in criminal infractions. Let’s be the state that shows how to end this cycle of incarceration and create solutions that really do lead to healing – of individuals and our community.  Thank you for your time.

Time to Leave Fossil Fuels in the Ground

Renewable future

Wednesday, July 26, 2023

Chair Barrett and Members of the Senate Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy:  

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

We urge you to give a favorable report to S.2135/H.3237 (Gomez, Williams, & Ramos): An Act establishing a moratorium on new gas system expansion.

This summer has been an ongoing series of warning signs of the need to take bold and comprehensive action on climate change. Earlier this month, from July 3 to July 6, we experienced the four hottest days on record globally. We have seen extreme flooding hit neighboring states as well as our own, and the same for the dystopian impacts of raging wildfires in Canada.

This should serve as a wake-up call that our response to climate change, despite recent progress, is not enough. We have known for many years now that the majority of fossil fuels must be left in the ground if we are to have even a chance of staying within safe boundaries of global warming.

The state has a commendable goal of achieving net zero emissions by 2050, but we will not be able to reach that if we continue to expand fossil fuel infrastructure in the Commonwealth.

These bills would establish a moratorium on new gas system expansion. The moratorium, which would last at least through 2026, would create time to work out a plan for what a just transition looks like and would prevent us from rushing into new infrastructure that, if we are to meet our own goals, cannot and will not be used.

Pipelines are built to be used, and we should avoid creating the lock-in effect for unsustainable fuels that are harmful to human and environmental health.

We need to say farewell to fossil fuels and give our full embrace to the suite of policies needed for an equitable and ecologically resilient future.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Let’s Support Open Government with Transparency and Hybrid Meeting Access.

Hybrid-Meeting-Access

Wednesday, July 26, 2023

Chair Collins, Chair Cabral, and Members of the Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight:

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 H.3040 / S.2024: An Act to Modernize Participation in Public Meetings (Rep. Garlick & Sen. Lewis) and S.2064: An Act extending the public records law to the Governor and the Legislature (Sen. Rausch).

Modern Open Meeting Access for All

Since early 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Legislature has suspended provisions of the Open Meeting Law to enable public bodies to carry out their responsibilities remotely, with virtual access and participation by the public. As in-person gatherings were able to safely restart, many public bodies have shifted toward hybrid meetings, enabling both in-person and remote attendance by both officials and the public.

Such hybrid meetings have been a boon to public participation. Remote access has removed obstacles facing working people, parents of young children, other caregivers, people with disabilities, people with limited transportation, among many other populations who may not be able to travel to a city or town hall or spend hours waiting for their time to speak. Yet retaining a robust in-person component recognizes the value of in-person discussion and deliberation to democracy and ensures that unreliable Internet access, common in rural and low-income urban areas, is not a barrier to participating in our democracy.

Although the Legislature recently extended the option for hybrid meetings until 2025, we should not be relying on piecemeal extensions but instead reform Open Meeting Law for twenty-first-century democracy and technology. H.3040/S.2024 provides a path for doing so, recognizing both the importance of open government and the needs cities and towns face in making that a reality.

Expanding Public Records Law

In the 2016 public record reform law, the Legislature created a commission to explore whether to expand the public records law to the Legislature and the Governor’s office, but that commission ended up yielding no formal report. Massachusetts remains the only state in the US where both the executive and legislative branch of state government claim full exemption from public records law. The same governing bodies that require cities and towns to adhere to strict Open Meeting Law rules exempt themselves from even a basic level of transparency. 

As other state governments understand, making executive records like calendars, emails and texts, visitor logs, and call logs accessible is key to accountability: when such documents are fully kept secret, the public is left in the dark about whom the Governor is meeting and why, and what they are prioritizing. 

The difficulty in obtaining information from the Massachusetts Legislature not only makes our state an outlier but also stifles the democratic process. The majority of states make committee votes electronically available, including states like California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, and Oregon. And states like Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, and Oregon make committee testimony fully available to the public.

The most moneyed interests are those who benefit from closed, hierarchical systems because they will always be able to work their way behind closed doors—whereas the public and researchers are rarely so lucky.  Openness helps foster social trust: open government should be viewed as part and parcel of the work of civics education that has bipartisan support in the State House.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts