Beacon Hill Roll Call records local senators and representatives’ votes on roll calls from the week of June 18-22.
RAISE MINIMUM WAGE, FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE AND SALES TAX HOLIDAY (H 4640) — House 119-24, Senate 30-8, approved and sent to Gov. Charlie Baker a bill that would hike the minimum wage from $11 to $15 over five years; increase the wage for tipped workers from $3.75 to $6.75 over five years; phase out over five years extra pay for employees who work on Sundays and holidays; institute a permanent sales tax holiday on a weekend every August; and establish a $1 billion family and medical leave program funded by a payroll tax paid for by both employers and employees.
Dubbed the “Grand Bargain Bill” by its supporters, the compromise bill is in response to the likely successful effort by the Raise Up Massachusetts coalition to get the minimum wage and paid leave questions on the November ballot; and the likely success of the Retailers Association of Massachusetts (RAM) to get a question on the ballot to reduce the sales tax from 6.25 percent to 5 percent.
Raise Up Massachusetts has agreed not to bring its family and medical question to the ballot while RAM has agreed to drop its effort to reduce the sales tax to 5 percent. The fate of the minimum wage ballot question is undetermined. The version passed by the Legislature differs from the ballot question version in several ways. The legislative version gives the raise to $15 over five years rather than the four years on the ballot version; does not include tying the minimum wage to inflation; and includes phasing out extra pay for employees who work on Sundays and holidays.
RAM President Jon Hurst had mixed feelings about the compromise but ultimately embraced it. “The compromise legislation passed today contains very costly initiatives that will negatively impact the thousands of small business owners and their employees that RAM represents,” said Hurst. “The retail marketplace has never been more competitive, and the margins have never been smaller. The new payroll mandates passed today will significantly increase costs, resulting in businesses being less competitive, forcing some doors to close and good jobs to be lost. This is not rhetoric, but reality. At the same time, the results would be far worse had these measures gone to the ballot, and the Legislature deserves credit for bringing the parties together to bring a balanced resolution.”
Meanwhile, critics of the compromise say that RAM was able to extract compromises from Raise Up by using the sales tax cut as a bargaining chip. The Supreme Judicial Court had just ruled that a proposed ballot question imposing an additional 4 percent income tax on taxpayers’ earnings of more than $1 million cannot go on the November 2018 ballot. Supporters of that measure saw millions of tax dollars lost as a result of the decision and said that reducing the sales tax would cause a fiscal crisis and require cutbacks of many programs.
“This bill empowers workers, recognizes the needs of business owners, and ensures that Massachusetts residents will no longer have to choose between caring for a sick relative or losing their job,” said Rep. Paul Brodeur, D-Melrose. “It is the result of months of negotiations and demonstrates that regardless of what happens in Washington, here in Massachusetts we focus on cooperation and compromise.”
“This deal represents a series of compromises made in the best interest of the commonwealth,” said Rep. Joseph Wagner, D-Chicopee. “By reaching a thoughtful balance, this package will protect Massachusetts workers while promoting a competitive environment for our local businesses.”
(A “Yes” vote is for the bill. A “No” vote is against it).
Rep. Stephen Kulik, Yes
Rep. Paul Mark, Yes
Rep. Susannah Whipps, Yes
Sen. Adam Hinds, Yes
ALLOW AMENDMENTS REDUCING THE MEALS TAX AND SALES TAX (H 4640) — House 116-34 and 115-35, upheld the ruling of Acting Speaker Paul Donato that amendments reducing the meals tax and sales tax from 6.25 percent to 5 percent are beyond the scope of Grand Bargain Bill and will not be allowed on the House floor for debate and a vote.
Supporters of the ruling said the ruling is correct because both amendments introduce a new subject that is not already part of the bill and bypass the legislative process.
Opponents of the ruling said the bill deals with taxes and the amendments are appropriate because they also deal with taxes. They noted that on the sales tax reduction amendment, the bill specifically creates a sales tax holiday which clearly is directly related to an amendment to reduce the sales tax.
(A “Yes” vote is for the ruling of the chair. A “No” vote is against it. The first vote is on allowing debate on the meals tax reduction. The second vote is for allowing it on the sales tax reduction).
Rep. Stephen Kulik, Yes/Yes
Rep. Paul Mark Yes/Yes,
Rep. Susannah Whipps, Yes/Yes
LOWER WAGE FOR YOUNG TEENS (H 4640) — House 35-116, rejected an amendment allowing employers to pay workers under 18 years the $11 minimum wage instead of hiking it to $15 over five years.
Amendment supporters said the hike would discourage employers from hiring inexperienced teens under 18 to train. They said the amendment would give businesses more flexibility to hire those teens.
Amendment opponents said these teens should get equal pay for equal work.
(A “Yes” vote is for the amendment. A “No” vote is against it.)
Rep. Stephen Kulik, No
Rep. Paul Mark, No
Rep. Susannah Whipps, Yes
HEALTH CARE CHANGES (H 4617) — House 117-32, approved a complicated 130-page bill imposing assessments of $247.5 million on health insurers and $90 million on the largest hospitals. The funds would be used for grants to community hospitals. The measure also hikes fees for doctors, nurses and other medical professionals who pay the state to obtain their state license. Other provisions create new requirements for transparency in health plan network and benefit design and costs; protect consumers from surprise bills; require disclosures related to out of network billing and facility fees; and establish standards for telemedicine, that allows doctors and patients to communicate remotely rather than at the doctor’s office.
The Senate has approved a different version of the bill and a conference committee will try to work out a compromise version.
(A “Yes” vote is for the bill. A “No” vote is against it).
Rep. Stephen Kulik, Yes
Rep. Paul Mark, Yes
Rep. Susannah Whipps, Yes
WAGE THEFT (S 2327) — Senate 38-0, approved and sent to the House a bill to prevent wage theft by employers who, according to the bill’s supporters, steal $700 million of wages annually in Massachusetts from about 350,000 workers.
Wage theft includes paying below the minimum wage, neglecting to pay overtime and paying workers in cash to avoid paying taxes. Key provisions of the proposal make companies that contract with a subcontractor that withholds wages liable for those wages and empower the attorney general to issue a stop work order to employers committing wage theft and impose a penalty of up to $25,000.
“This bill returns workers’ hard-earned wages to them when they have been illegally underpaid or had their wages outright stolen by disreputable employers,” said Sen. Eric Lesser, D-Longmeadow. “If an employer knew or should have known that workers were being denied their wages, this bill will provide recourse to the employee and penalize the employer.”
“Wage theft remains a major problem in Massachusetts, especially for the most vulnerable workers, like immigrants and low-income families,” said the bill’s sponsor Sen. Jason Lewis, D-Winchester. “This legislation will help prevent and deter wage theft, ensure a level playing field for all employers, and protect the rights of working families.”
Although no one voted against the bill, some say said the bill unfairly punishes unknowing contractors for the illegal actions of their subcontractors. They said it is unfair and anti-business to require companies to police the payroll of their subcontractors.
(A “Yes” vote is for the bill.)
Sen. Adam Hinds, Yes
ELIMINATE CALL FOR CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION (S 2555) — Senate 23-15, approved a change to a bill that calls upon Congress to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to establish that corporations do not have the same constitutional rights as human beings and that corporations’ campaign contributions and expenditures may be regulated.
The bill was filed in response to the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission. In that decision, the court ruled that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting corporations, unions and individuals from donating unlimited funds to Super Political Action Committees (PACs) that do not donate directly to candidates or political parties.
A two-thirds vote in favor of the amendment in the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House would send the proposal to the 50 states and the amendment would become part of the Constitution if at least three-fourths (38) of the states ratify it.
The bill also provides that if Congress does not propose this constitutional amendment within six months of the passage of this bill, then the Bay State calls for a limited Constitutional Convention for the exclusive purpose of proposing the amendment. Congress is required to call the convention If at least two-thirds (34) of the states ask for it. The state Senate’s 23-15 vote would strike the provision.
Supporters of the change said there is no basis in law or precedent to limit the topic of a convention. They argued that a convention could result in a free-for-all in which many constitutional amendments are proposed.
Opponents of the change said they believe the convention can be limited to just one amendment. They argued that the constitution must be amended, and that Massachusetts should take the bold step of joining the call for a convention if Congress itself will not propose an amendment.
(A “Yes” vote is for striking the convention provision and therefore against calling for a convention. A “No” vote is against striking it and therefore favors the convention.)
Sen. Adam Hinds, No