Testimony: Our Minimum Wage is Not a Living Wage

Monday, November 17, 2025

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

I am submitting testimony on behalf of Progressive Massachusetts. PM is 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 S.1349/H.2107: An Act relative to raising the minimum wage closer to a living wage in the commonwealth. 

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 had 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 almost $20 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 $28.88 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.

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Cohn 

Policy Director 

Progressive Massachusetts 

Testimony: State House Staff Deserve the Right to Form a Union

Tuesday, October 28, 2025 

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

I am submitting testimony on behalf of Progressive Massachusetts. PM is 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 S.1343/H.2093: 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.2093 and S.1343.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

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

Testimony: Why the Wait on Taking Action against Misclassification?

uber Lyft

Testimony submitted from Progressive Needham member Bill Okerman on March 23, 2024

Dear Members of the Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions:

I write to you regarding the initiative petitions that were the subject of your hearing on March 19. I have for quite some time been closely following, and to a certain extent involved in (for example, I served as an advisor to a group of drivers called the Boston Independent Drivers Guild for a couple of years beginning in early 2020), this multifaceted controversy involving the legal rights and responsibilities of these so-called “app-based” tech companies operating here in the Commonwealth. 

The March 19 hearing covered a lot of ground, but with the various possibilities for “resolving” this situation looming, there are still a number of important but unanswered questions that really need to be answered to understand how we got to this point here in Massachusetts and to determine what should be done to address it.

For example:

1. Why did the Legislature enact legislation in 2016 to regulate Uber and Lyft, https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2016/Chapter187, despite having been informed by the then-Senate Chair of the Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development that these companies were misclassifying their drivers as “independent contractors” in clear violation of the Commonwealth’s “independent contractor law,” General Laws Chapter 149, Section 148B, https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXI/Chapter149/Section148B?

See the remarks of Senator Dan Wolf at https://malegislature.gov/Events/Sessions/Detail/2453/Video1 [beginning at 1:38:30 and ending at 1:42:52].

2. Why, despite a clear statutory mandate, not to mention Senator Wolf’s very public 2016 plea, did it take so long for the attorney general to take action against Uber and Lyft for misclassifying their drivers as “independent contractors”?

Uber began operating in Massachusetts in 2011 and Lyft in 2013. Section 148B was initially enacted in 1990 and last amended in 2004, long before these companies began operating here (or anywhere). And yet the AG did not file her lawsuit against Uber and Lyft until July 14, 2020.

3. Why does the AG’s lawsuit against Uber and Lyft merely seek a “declaratory judgment” when there is nothing in the relevant statutory language that requires the AG to obtain a declaratory judgment to enforce the Commonwealth’s wage and hour laws, including Section 148B?

General Laws Chapter 149, Section 27C, https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXI/Chapter149/Section27C, clearly mandates that the AG either (a) initiate a criminal proceeding, or (b) issue a written warning or a civil citation. There is no mention in Section 27C, or anywhere else in the General Laws, of the need for the AG to obtain a declaratory judgment. In March of 2023, the AG fined a “gig economy” company named GoPuff $6.2 million for misclassifying their drivers, https://www.mass.gov/news/ags-office-issues-62-million-in-citations-against-national-delivery-service-company-over-employee-misclassification-violations. Why did the AG decide to issue civil citations against GoPuff but did not do so against Uber and Lyft? And why has the AG never taken any action against companies like DoorDash, Grubhub, and Instacart for misclassifying their delivery workers? All of these companies are doing pretty much the same thing regarding the misclassification of their drivers/delivery workers.

4. Why is the AG’s lawsuit against Uber and Lyft taking so long?

When California’s AB5, which uses the same so-called “ABC test” as Section 148B, went into effect on January 1, 2020, California immediately sued Uber and Lyft for being in violation. On August 10, 2020, a California trial court ordered Uber and Lyft to reclassify their workers from independent contractors to employees. That order was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal on October 22, 2020, see, e.g., https://www.terplaw.com/blog/court-of-appeal-affirms-order-requiring-uber-to-treat-its-california-drivers-as-employees. Proposition 22 was enacted in the November election. The Massachusetts AG’s lawsuit was filed on July 14, 2020, and it is now scheduled to go to trial in May, nearly four years later! In the meantime, Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Grubhub, and Instacart have continued to violate Massachusetts employment law with impunity.

These are just a handful of the questions that need to be asked and answered here. There are many more, which I would be happy to discuss with the committee.

I don’t envy you your task in dealing with this regrettable state of affairs, but the bottom line here is that the challenge that the Legislature is now confronted with is ultimately a problem of its own making, due to its long-running failure to ensure the effective enforcement of laws that the Legislature has enacted over the last 150 years to protect workers in the Commonwealth.

Say No to Uber and Lyft’s Power Grab

Tuesday, March 19, 2024

Chair Friedman, Chair Peisch, and Members of the Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions:

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 would like to submit testimony to go on record in opposition to

  • Initiative Petition No. 23-25, H4256, An Act defining and regulating the relationship between network companies and app-based drivers for purposes of the General and Special Laws,
  • Initiative Petition No. 23-29, H4257, An Act establishing that app-based drivers are not employees, and network companies are not employers, for certain purposes of the General Laws,
  • Initiative Petition No. 23-30, H4258, An Act defining and regulating the relationship between network companies and app-based drivers for certain purposes of the General Laws,
  • Initiative Petition No. 23-31, H4259, An Act establishing that app-based drivers are not employees, and network companies are not employers, for certain purposes of the General Laws,
  • Initiative Petition No. 23-32, H4260 An Act Establishing that App-Based Drivers Are Not Employees, and Network Companies Are Not Employers, for Certain Purposes of the General Laws.

Massachusetts has very clear standards for determining independent contractor standards (the “ABC test”), and Big Tech companies like Uber and Lyft 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 and Lyft 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. Indeed, they have already spent $6.6 million, most of that on signature collection for the five different versions they are putting forth. They apparently have the money to go all-out for this question but not, as they would have you believe, enough to do right by their workers.

These measures would deny app-based gig workers a living wage, benefits, legal rights, and anti-discrimination protections. 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.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Why the UAW Strike Matters

UAW strike

By Enid Eckstein, JP Progressives

On September 14, United Automobile Workers took to the picket lines to begin their “Stand Up Strike.” The first week, workers struck a number of strategic profitable plants at the “Big 3” automakers: Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis. Over the next few weeks, the strike expanded to parts suppliers and other assembly plants. The idea is to increase pressure gradually and keep the companies guessing what is next. On September 21, Massachusetts Stellantis workers at the Mansfield facility joined the strike. Over 30,000 workers are now on the picket lines in 22 states. President Biden made history when he joined the UAW line in suburban Detroit, demonstrating his support to the striking workers.

It is not just our strike, it is a strike for social justice”, Shawn Fain, UAW President

During the 2007-2008 recession, the automakers were in trouble and facing bankruptcy. The Obama administration and the automakers pushed for major concessions. The UAW leadership agreed, and workers were forced to weaken pensions and retiree health benefits, give up cost of living adjustments, cut overtime pay, and agree to a multi-tier pay structure and temporary workers. Those hired after 2007 would be paid significantly less, and not receive the same pensions. As the employers hired more workers and began recovery, there were workers working side by side with radically different pay rates for performing the same work. One worker would receive $ 32/hour and another $19 for the same job. It would take a worker 8 years to reach the top of the scale, and many never make it since they are considered temporary workers, making even less an hour.  

In March 2023, UAW members voted in a historic direct election for the officers of their union, following a long fight for a more democratic union. A new leadership, led by Shawn Fain, took charge and immediately began to educate, organize, and mobilize workers in a contract campaign. Key demands for this contract campaign include the end of the temporary workers classification and the end of the multi-tier system. The workers want everything they gave up to be restored and to receive a significant pay increase to make up for the years of concessions. Union members sacrificed and lost income for the last 16 years while the companies made billions.

This is also a strike about the future of the auto industry and its transition to electric vehicles. The union is demanding job security—the right to strike over plant closings and for Electric Vehicle workers to be bought under the union’s three master agreements. As UAW President Shawn Fain says, this is about a “just transition”: ensuring that the transition to a green economy is one that lifts up workers, not leaves them behind. The union has also fought for a reduced work week. It was during the 1930s that the UAW won the five-day work week. Yes, the folks “that brought you the weekend” are once again fighting for a shorter work week.

A recent Gallup poll found that 75% of the public supports the UAW strike. Just as the Writers Guild and AFTRA/SAG strike were about more than wages, this strike is a strike against corporate greed and high CEO pay, and it is an effort to restore the American dream for auto workers. This is a fight for the future of American manufacturing workers.

The companies and CEOs raked in billions while the workers lost out

All three companies have been extremely profitable. In the first 6 months of this year, they took in $21 billion. Estimates are they made $32 billion in profits due to the concessions, yet workers lost 19% of their wages during the same period. Car prices rose by 35% over the last four years, so the companies are doing well as are the CEOs. Mary Barra, CEO of General Motors, was paid $28.9 million last year. The CEOs of Stellantis and Ford each $24.8 Million and $21.0 million respectively. According to UAW President Shawn Fain, “a worker would have to work 400 years to equal a year of CEO pay.”

What you can do!

The Mansfield Stellantis Facility (550 Forbes Road) is a small facility, and the 60-some workers need your help and support. They maintain a 24-hour active picket line. So far, many unions have joined the picket line, providing needed bodies and moral support. Senators Warren and Markey have also joined the line. Special shout-out to State Senator Paul Feeney who has walked the line many nights and is working to build other support.

The picket line is lively since the company is moving supplies and trucks in and out.

Organize a group of friends or members of your chapter to take a trip to Mansfield. Talk to the workers on the picket line. They are very friendly and appreciative of support. Make a sign telling them who you are and why you are there. Bring coffee and other refreshments.

A recent Labor Notes story also encourages people to call the Big 3 CEOs at 318-300-1249 and leave a message telling the CEO’s to settle. Let people know you support the members of the UAW in their fight against corporate greed.

Say No to Big Tech’s Anti-Labor Agenda

Last year, Big Tech companies like Uber and Lyft were getting millions of dollars together for a ballot initiative that would have undercut the rights of their drivers and set a dangerous precedent for workers nationally.

Fortunately, their 2022 ballot initiative — which would have permanently enshrined the misclassification of their drivers as “independent contractors” and denied them basic workplace protections — was knocked off the ballot by a court case. But Uber and Lyft are back at it, collecting signatures to get on the ballot next year.

Their bill — H.1848: An Act establishing rights and obligations of transportation network drivers and transportation network companies — mirrors their ballot initiative effort.

These companies have been fighting for years against providing fair pay and adequate benefits to their drivers, and this bill would entrench a system of low pay and lack of recourse for workplace mistreatment. Massachusetts has a history of strong labor laws, and it’s one we should continue.

Can you write to the Joint Labor & Workforce Committee to encourage them to reject this dangerous bill?


Email the Committee
Write your own testimony
 

Drivers are Workers, and It’s as Easy as A-B-C

Tuesday, October 10, 2023

Chair Jehlen, Chair Cutler, 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. 

I am writing today in opposition to H.1848, An Act establishing rights and obligations of transportation network drivers and transportation network companies. 

Massachusetts has very clear standards for determining independent contractor standards (the “ABC test”), and Big Tech companies like Uber and Lyft 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 and Lyft 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.

This bill would deny app-based gig workers a living wage, benefits, legal rights, and anti-discrimination protections. 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.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Today at the MA State House: Raise the Age & Raise the Wage

This afternoon, Committees in the MA Legislature will be holding hearings on bills to bring the minimum wage closer to a living wage and to create better outcomes for youth in our criminal legal system.

Here’s what both are about — and, importantly, how you can help.

Time to Raise the Minimum Wage

From 2013 to 2018, Raise Up Massachusetts, a coalition of faith, labor, and community groups, worked to bring the statewide minimum wage closer to a living wage, and given the stagnation of the federal minimum wage, our $15 is something to be proud of. But it’s still not a living wage.

And given the rising costs of health care, housing, child care, and basic goods, it doesn’t stretch as far as it did in June of 2018.

That’s why Raise Up organizing to raise the minimum wage again.

New legislation, filed earlier this year by Sen. Jason Lewis and Reps. Tram Nguyen and Dan Donahue (H.1925/S.1200) would raise the minimum wage to $20 and index it to inflation so that it doesn’t lose value over time. And it would include municipal employees, who were left out of the last minimum wage increase.

Can you urge the Joint Committee on Labor & Workforce Development to advance these bills?

Time to Raise the Age

In 2018, Massachusetts passed a comprehensive criminal legal reform bill, but we have much more to do if we want to make our criminal justice system more just.

One of those things: keeping 18 to 20-year-olds in the juvenile system.

H.1710 and S.942: An Act to promote public safety and better outcomes for young adults would do just that.

When young adults are kept in the juvenile system, they are able to have better access to school and rehabilitative programming. Research has shown that similar adolescents have a 34 percent lower recidivism rate when in the juvenile system than in the adult system.

We know that such reforms work: a decade ago, Massachusetts raised the age of juvenile court to keep 17-year-olds out of the adult system, which has led to better outcomes for youth and for public safety.

Our criminal legal system disproportionately harms communities of color in Massachusetts. Only 25% of Massachusetts’ young adult population is Black or Latino, but 70% of young adults incarcerated in state prisons and 57% of young adults in county jails are people of color. Our criminal legal system is limiting young people’s access to opportunities, exacerbating economic inequities.

Can you urge the Joint Committee on the Judiciary to advance these bills?