Republicans like to talk a lot about business. Charlie Baker says he’s a businessman, and he has business guys talk at his rallies about how bad taxes and regulation are and how they’re killing business. Just about every Republican candidate running for office in MA has something in his or her bio about what an awesome business whiz he or she is. But gosh, look a little deeper, and you start to understand the real reason why Republicans don’t like government regulation.
Because it makes it harder to cheat.
As today’s Globe reports, Joseph DiStasio, a “small businessman” touted by Charlie Baker as someone whose business was killed by the mean ol’ Patrick administration turns out to have been fined by the Attorney General’s office for serious wage law violations and sued by his former partner for “siphon[ing] company funds to purchase luxury items and to cover personal expenses.” According to a claim filed by American Express, DiStasio racked up about $40,000 in personal charges just before he filed for bankruptcy. Here’s the bit about the wage law violations:
Last month, Coakley’s Fair Labor Division issued a citation against Able Tree Service, alleging that it cheated its workers out of more than $268,000 in wages between July 2007 and December 2008. During that time, the office found, the company had intentionally paid its 68 employees less than the legally mandated wage rate for work removing more than 2,000 trees for the cities of Newton and Braintree and the town of Southborough. The DiStasios, who are appealing the case, were ordered to pay the lost wages and were slapped with a $97,500 fine.
Read the whole story.
Astoundingly, even after being advised of this, Baker campaign spokeswoman Amy Goodrich declared that Team Baker is “happy to provide a platform for him.” She wouldn’t say whether they knew in advance about DiStasio’s embarrassing problems. (IMHO, they almost certainly did not, otherwise they never would have put him up – my guess is that the campaign just got caught with its pants down. Someone in the vetting department needs to be fired.)
You know, like Ms. Goodrich, I’m happy to have the Baker campaign providing a platform for fine fellows like Mr. DiStasio. Because I want Deval Patrick to win in November.
There’s a lot of stuff about the guy’s lifestyle (which doesn’t look way overboard for a multi-millionaire) and the big thing I object to is the AmEx JUST BEFORE the filing. THAT is dishonest, even if common in this situation.
<
p>But what was the basis of the suit?
<
p>It READS like a prevailling wage dispute ftom the scant details. Like they claimed it was separate jobs, and the towns said one, triggering the higher wage? Or did he not pay minimum, or misrepresent hours, or what? It makes a difference, imo.
But why would it make a difference whether this is a prevailing wage or minimum wage dispute? Either way, it appears (though being appealed) that this guy broke the law. If he’s so concerned about government regulations, then he should be aware of the regulations he needs to follow.
<
p>Plus, as David notes, there’s this:
<
p>Isn’t this exactly the sort of activity that Republicans harped about when they enacted the “Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005”? Of course, Republicans misleadingly suggested that this sort of thing happened all the time in bankruptcy, when in fact health care emergencies are to blame for most personal bankruptcy claims.
<
p>But when somebody actually does abuse the system, as DiStasio did, doesn’t you think that Republicans should share in the outrage? Apparently not Charlie Baker doesn’t think so.
Sorry for the poor grammar in the last sentence. It should read: “Apparently Charlie Baker doesn’t think so.”
That said – this is my question.
<
p>There are disputes about what triggers prevailing wage all the time. If a contractor does three jobs, but the town sends one check – is that below threshhold? I am aware of one contractor who billed a town seperately for sixteen paving jobs and insisted on 16 checks for that reason. Took him weeks to get paid, but he and the town (a small rural one) both benefitted. In their mutual opinion.
<
p>Minimum wage or hours, however, are clear cut and a violation there is dishonesty. Which is why I doubt that was the issue, as I don’t see how that could be appealed. But Phillips doesn’t say.
<
p>Just like the overall lifestyle can be criticized, but only that AmEx is actually dishonest.
and I understand that you, PP, think that DiStasio’s running up the credit card bills before declaring bankruptcy is dishonest. If only Charlie Baker felt the same way.
<
p>But I’m still not seeing your distinction here on the prevailing wage issue. Whether it was a mix-up with checks or a minimum wage violations, it was still enough of a violation of the Commonwealth’s laws that the AG fined him substantially for it.
<
p>The broader point is — don’t you think the Baker team could have gotten someone a little more reputable to do their “poor, poor, businessman!” schtick? Even more broadly — how many ideological “small businessman” out there are just like DiStasio, talking a “poor me, blame the government!” game when they should be pointing the finger at themselves for their woes?
“how many ideological “small businessman” out there are just like DiStasio, talking a “poor me, blame the government!” game when they should be pointing the finger at themselves for their woes?”
<
p>Accountability for thee, but not for me.
Getting up at a political event and saying you can’t do business because of the state when you’re spending company funds lavishly on cars, vacations and homes is dishonest.
<
p>Doing that while allowing owed property taxes to accumulate to $50,000 is dishonest.
<
p>Campaigning on fiscal responsibility and trying to drum up support with a man that clearly can not spend within his means and is looking to be bailed out, is stupid.
<
p>The guy is NOT a multi-millionaire. He’s filed for bankruptcy. So his lifestyle was waaaaaaay overboard.
<
p>Wage rates are posted. They are a condition of the contract. If he does not agree with the rates he is free to not bid state work. That the AG said he “intentionally” paid the wrong rate is no small thing. How often do you see the AG issue a fine as high as $97,000?
Did he get demoted with the Hudak stuff?
<
p>Second, Amy Goodrich when asked about the exact rules and regulations that were of issue. No idea. Good stuff as always from team Baker.
I think David’s right that someone in Team Baker got caught with their pants down on this one, and now they don’t want to admit they made a mistake.
<
p>With all the vast amounts of money Baker has spent on staffing to this point, you’d think Team Baker would run a tighter ship. Millions of dollars doesn’t go as far as it used to, I guess.
seldom works the way it’s supposed to, it seems- filmmaker Michael Moore is better at it than most of these politicians.
Like MassLiberal over on the right hand side of the page, I was immediately remided of the “Joe the Plumber” fiasco.
A nice bit of journalism by the Globe.