For the last eleven months, I’ve been honored to work with my colleagues in the House of Representatives, members of the labor community, employers and working families throughout the Commonwealth to develop a bill that raises the minimum wage in Massachusetts to the highest level in the country. I’m proud to say that later this afternoon, we will introduce a bill that does just that—raises the minimum wage to $10.50 by 2016, increases the wage for tipped workers, and expands the Earned Income Tax Credit, which together provide much needed help to nearly 500,000 working families throughout the Commonwealth. Within a few weeks this bill will be debated on the House floor, and I’m confident that it will pass with broad support.
We’ve come a long way in the last year, and have succeeded in fundamentally changing the dialog around increasing the minimum wage. Reaching this point was not easy—writing legislation that affects tens of thousands of people rarely is—but I’m proud to be a part of the team that produced this legislation. All of the time and energy will make a difference for the single mom working two jobs who currently must choose between food for her family or paying the electric bill; for the dad who is losing precious sleep wondering how to provide for his growing family; and for the teenager working a part-time job whose paychecks are going straight to the college fund.
Together we comprise the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, anchored by the fundamental belief that every citizen should enjoy the opportunity to succeed and build a better life. This bill takes an important first step in restoring the promise of the Commonwealth, and not just by raising the minimum wage. The legislation also:
- Increases the Earned Income Tax Credit from 15 to 20 percent, which will put more money into the pockets of Massachusetts’ lowest wage workers, thereby making it easier to escape the clutches of poverty;
- Increases the tipped minimum wage for restaurant workers for the first time since 1999;
- Increases the statute of limitations for minimum wage, overtime and record keeping violations to three years, giving both the workers and the Attorney General’s office more time to file and investigate wage and hour compliance violations; and,
- Restores overtime pay for hospitality and farm workers.
If you’ve been involved in this conversation to date—and thankfully, thousands of you have—you’ll probably notice that the current bill lacks an indexing provision, which has been an important topic for many advocates of the minimum wage increase. Let me be clear: indexing the minimum wage to account for future rises in the cost of living would have many positive benefits, and is included in the Senate’s version of the bill. However, my central objective in leading this legislation was to ensure that we achieve as many positive changes for working class families as possible, while also developing a bill that would actually pass in the House. After months of conversations, it was clear to me that a bill with indexing would face opposition and put other important provisions of the bill at risk.
However, this is just the beginning of a larger conversation about the struggles that low-wage workers and working class families in the Commonwealth face each and every day. There are other critical issues that we need to address in the coming weeks and months, including unemployment insurance and paid sick leave. But raising the minimum wage is the critical first step. With the changes to our economy over the past 30 years – outsourcing, globalization, and the declining bargaining power between workers and employers – middle and working-class families have found it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. Our economy has evolved, and we’ve struggled to keep pace.
Today marks the first step towards reestablishing the ladder to the middle class that has been slipping out of reach for too many for far too long. But I know we need to do more. Raising the minimum wage to $10.50—or even $11—provides a crucial first step but alone is not enough. Our work is just beginning, but by passing this bill, we are taking a very significant step towards putting money in the hands of hard-working men and women.
No one working full-time should live in poverty, forced to choose between necessities. In the coming weeks, I hope you’ll join the conversation about restoring the true promise of the Commonwealth, where every individual is provided with an equal opportunity to work hard, play by the rules, and build a better life for their family.
Tom
State Rep. Tom Conroy (D-Wayland) is House Chairman of the Committee on Labor and Workforce Development.
Inquiring minds will want to know if changes to the Unemployment Insurance system are no longer part of the bill. (While I’m at it, they will also want to know whether the tipped minimum wage increases to $3.75 per hour, per Speaker DeLeo’s remarks last week).
I agree with HesterPrynne, your support on this campaign is welcomed. And I agree with her questions.
Raise Up has been fighting for tipped wages to get to 60% of the minimum wage. The Senate bill gets it to 50%. Currently Massachusetts is near the bottom in the nation, remarkably. Some details would be very welcomed.
If the tipped wage goes to $3.75 an hour instead of 50% or 60% of the regular minimum wage, the ROC’s numbers suggest that the average MA worker will be making below the proposed minimum of $10.50, even with tips. Although employers are supposed to make up the difference in such cases, they often don’t and enforcement is expensive. Why not make it explicit by going higher than $3.75?
I would encourage any member of the House opposed to indexing the minimum wage to inflation to please come on BMG and explain to us why they hold that position.
In his speech to the Chamber, the Speaker said, (paraphrase), they WON’T index in order to give Businesses predictability about their costs.
Is this the load of hogwash that is passing for perfume at the State House? Because, it’s exactly backwards.
When you don’t index, the wage will, once again, go thru this cycle of losing value and needing to be ratcheted up, dramatically, every several years. An unpredictable LARGE jump, at an undetermined time, is MUCH more disruptive to a business’s ability to plan than regular, incremental increases.
If the Legislature won’t index the minimum wage because the business lobby wants to hang on to cheap labor for as long as possible before having to increase, at least let’s be frank about it.
Setting up the working poor for the same tired political game… that’s not a Win.
a bill increasing the minimum wage without indexing future increases to inflation – it remains on the ballot, correct?
If the ballot question passes is the indexing law?
If a min wage bill, without indexing, is signed into law, I think that it effectively takes the question off the ballot.
One wrinkle is that there is ANOTHER round of signature collection required to move the ballot forward — much smaller than last time, but an organizational / mobilization hurdle none the less.
As you said below, “indexing is THE thing.” If a bill passes without it, why couldn’t the ballot question go forward? An important component of the ballot question would not be law.
…But I think that it’s also about the appetite of the organizational decision makers that have pushed the ballot. It costs a lot of money and time and effort to run a ballot campaign.
So, while maybe you’re right and it COULD go forward, one important question is whether there’ll be enough organizational muscle (including $) to support that.
But I am definitely not an expert, just giving you what my understanding of the pic is. What’s your read?
but the sick leave initiative is going forward, so there’s already one ballot campaign. I don’t know how much more it costs to run two, especially when a lot of volunteers, voters, etc., for sick leave will be drawn in by the much more intuitive MW issue.
I’m not part of those decisions, but my personal inclination is that it’s worth it. The purchasing power of the MW is eroded significantly between legislative increases, and as you said, the battle would have to be fought again, and again, and again. Then there’s the tipped wage issue.
… raising the minimum wage isn’t a bold move. That already happens regularly. INDEXING is the bold move. It’s what gets people out of their house to volunteer b/c it’s the progressive change that will actually *change* things, not just temporarily fix a low wage problem for a couple years.
So I do agree with you, personally. I want to see Indexing (and stronger tipped wage), one way or another.
The ballot question will go through as long as Raise Up wants it to go through. If any “deal” is offered to Raise Up they aren’t obligated to pass it; they can simply say no thanks and proceed to the ballot question.
So even if a bill were put through that wasn’t to Raise Up’s liking, Raise Up’s bill would go forward and take precedence.
The state legislature could, of course, pass a new bill overriding the ballot question after its passed… but only after, and I doubt that would happen because of the blow back.
/.
Unless the legislature adopts the ballot question word-for-word it remains up to the ballot question petitioners as to whether or not any legislation passed is “good enough” for them to pull the question.
MassBudget’s done a bunch of research on the minimum wage (e.g. #s of workers affected by different proposals, analysis of the minimum wage’s real value over time, description of how the tipped minimum wage works). It’s all organized together on this landing page: http://www.massbudget.org/min_wage.php
10 states plus DC index the minimum wage. If it’s not indexed, we are just going to have to do this again in 7 years.
Activists did NOT mobilize only to get a minimum wage hike. That would have come eventually anyway. The real change-maker is indexing. It takes the politics out of the question and makes sure that the working poor has a wage that doesn’t erode inexorably every single day.
Raising the wage by itself is literally the least the Legislature could do.
Leadership on this issue would include indexing and a real increase, tied to the minimum, for tipped workers.
I don’t want to do this again in 7 years. And we shouldn’t have to do this again in 7 years. We should fix this, and do it right.
No damaging cuts to UI claimants.
Index it.
Tipped wages at 60%.
The voters want an indexed minimum wage.
What is the obstacle? Politics and the Speaker? Business lobby and politics?
Unacceptable!
I am proud to be a constituent of Tom. I have heard him many times speak from the heart about the plight of the less fortunate among us, and his efforts to improve their lives. I strongly support his candidacy for State Treasurer, and hope that all of you do as well.
Specifically I trust his judgement about what bill can and cannot pass the House to be enacted into law. Not only is Tom’s heart in the right place on this, he is also a very skilled legislator, who has made tremendous accomplishments in the House.
Like harmonywho, I would also like to know exactly what the obstacle is to passing a bill with indexing, and like ryepower12 I hope that legislators who oppose indexing will have the courage to defend their positions here. I strongly support indexing and a higher minimum on tipped wages.
If you went to the State House today to watch the Labor and Workforce Development Committee release the bill that Representative Conroy described, you would have been disappointed.
Yesterday was “Joint Rule 10” Day, the day on which all Committees were to have finished their work on their bills. In order for a Committee to act after the Joint Rule 10 deadline has passed, both the Senate and House have to agree to extend the time. Today the Senate declined to agree to extend the time, so the Committee could not take action.
Looks like hardball. More here.
and what’s next?
Thank you HP
I am uncommitted for statewide races, and I do not have any leanings for Treasurer so far.
But this Minimum Wage issue is really not playing well for Rep. Conroy (Or any other candidate for re-election or statewide office who is making apologies for the House proposal as far as we know it [no bill yet!]).
Sen. B Finegold’s chamber passed a really strong minimum wage bill — including indexing and a strong tipped wage at 50% of an $11 minimum.
And here’s Rep Conroy’s Committee wanting to release a bill without indexing — THE change that we need and paltry increases for tipped workers.
Putting out “the best bill we thought could pass” isn’t exactly bold, inspiring leadership.
Your move, Deb Goldberg. Impress me.
Yes, two of them happen to be legislators, but the Treasurer plays no role in enacting or implementing this law. If Goldberg were to come out and say she supports a higher wage plus indexing I don’t think it will mean much.
and principles. Not about the office itself.
Sure, you can ask candidates anything you want I guess. Maybe the appropriate question for Goldberg is how much Stop & Shop pays its employees.
if it doesn’t matter to you.
Twitter definitely let me know something big happened, but I don’t really understand.
here’s my understanding.
The Senate already passed two separate bills on minimum wage and unemployment insurance. The House was all set to unveil its bill yesterday. Trouble is that Wednesday, the day before yesterday, was the bienneial deadline to get bills out of committee. Rep. Conroy needed the House and the Senate to vote an extension to bring the bill out after that deadline. The House voted for the extension, but the Senate instead referred the question to its rules committee. Rep. Conroy could not unveil his bill.
One reason I’ve seen given is that, if the House passes something different from the Senate and a compromise is worked out in conference committee, any Senator can demand full debate on the new bill. Some Senators, at least, don’t want that and would, ahem, like the House to pass the same bill(s) the Senate already has passed. There may be all sorts of other reasons.
So, in short, unless an agreement is reached and the Senate votes sometime fairly soon to extend the House’s time, there may not be a minimum wage or UI bill coming out of the legislature this session. But that would surprise me.
It sounds to me as though somebody in the Senate has decided that no (House) bill is better than the summary offered in this thread-starter. I interpret that to mean that the Senate agrees with some of us here that the ballot initiative is better than the bill Mr. Conroy (and others ) contemplates.
I think this is good news. I look forward to voting for an indexed hike in the minimum wage, unencumbered by draconian changes to unemployment insurance, and I look forward to that referendum becoming law.
Why didn’t the Rep. Conroy and the House leadership bring out their bill 24 hours earlier when they wouldn’t have needed the Senate’s consent?
Persoanlly, I’m pretty happy to go to the ballot on this but I don’t understand this from the leadership’s point of view.
I don’t see any legislative malpractice at all.
I see, instead, a reasonably creative solution to the problem presented by an overly powerful Speaker of the House who hurts ALL residents by blocking needed changes supported by a large majority of Massachusetts Democrats.
As this process is playing out, nobody has to go on the record with the observation that Mr. DeLeo’s new clothes are, well, not there. Nobody has to risk the consequences of opposing him. Everybody (even Mr. DeLeo himself) can claim to be working harmoniously to make the world a better place for everybody.
I generally don’t like governance by referendum. I think prop 2 1/2 has done enormous, lasting, and difficult to repair damage to Massachusetts. At the same time, I think that the dysfunction and flagrant corruption of the past decade or more have made passage this referendum crucial.
The Massachusetts House of Representatives is very broken. It is, essentially, dysfunctional. The fundamental fabric of our society is unraveling around us, primarily because of under-funding, and the only answer our legislature can offer is collecting even more state revenue from our most desperately poor.
No, I don’t think this was legislative malpractice. I think this demonstrates the extremes to which Democrats who genuinely care about working-class people must go in order to make even the smallest improvement in the lives of our most needy.