On Friday, June 3rd and Saturday, June 4th, delegates will gather virtually and at the DCU Center in Worcester to endorse candidates for statewide office, including Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary, Attorney General, Treasurer, and Auditor, ahead of the Democratic Primary this September.
I have a question for those attending and especially for those Democrats who set up this event:
There are maintenance workers, various trades, food vendors, parking lot attendants; an army of workers in sight and behind the scenes that made this all possible. Are we, as Democrats, making sure that all these working class individuals are being paid at least $25 an hour, getting sufficient breaks, and any other considerations that we, as Democrats, deem essential to all workers?
If not, why not?
No, we are not, and I don’t think that expectation is realistic. I don’t even make $25 as a park ranger. We would not contract with a venue that engages in unfair labor practices, but you can also count on the fingers of one hand with room to spare the venues that can handle this, and even then not all of them submit RFPs. No organization can be expected to micromanage all of that. Our job as a party is to advance public policies and elect politicians to improve their lot overall.
It’s not “realistic” because we do not want it to be. “Unfair” is a subjective term. Many of the candidates I’ve worked with make sure that their pamphlets and other print materials are produced in union shops and their swag is union made in the USA. Pulling off a $25 per hour would not be difficult. Our party could simply tell the venue to increase salaries for that event and bill us for it – or tell the workers to submit a claim, with proper documentation and we will supplement their wages for the two days. The fact that you are being treated unfairly as a park ranger does not defend treating others unfairly.
Our job as a party is to out our money where our mouth is.
I recall when I was working at a grocery store the height of the pandemic and was getting a whole $2 an hour bonus and “free coffee” for exposing myself to a deadly virus, while many of you got to work from home or got increased unemployment benefits that added up to more than I was making….. I’d see the lawn signs “Thank You Essential Workers”! …and think to myself “Yeah, thanks…I’d prefer you PAY ME more. Your “thanks” and gratitude don’t pay the rent.”
I don’t feel unfairly treated as a park ranger at all and is in fact the most I’ve ever made, but I don’t expect venue staff to be paid more than one. I would oppose spending more party money as it is not a good use of our resources and puts the convention itself more out of reach for some potential delegates. Our policy has been to be generous about subsidizing registrations to ameliorate that, but then even more would have to be spent to keep that up. I’d rather spend party money electing candidates and buying advertising. The job of the party is not to play by the rules we wish we had, but to change the rules to benefit everyone, which is ultimately more bang for buck anyway. I don’t think even the AFL-CIO plays by your rules. There are plenty of people inside the party who are very pro-worker and surely they would have complained by now if this were at all a real or legitimate concern. Do you really in your personal life only patronize businesses that live up to your lofty standards, or go around handing out additional money (aside from contexts where tipping is customary)? If our union allies start making these arguments maybe I’ll listen, but meanwhile I’ll treat this as concern trolling.
You made the statement that since you do not make $25 as a park ranger, you do not expect a foodservice employee at the convention to make $25 an hour. Where in Massachusetts can one support ones self, much less a family on less than $25 an hour?
You do not see it as a good use of our money? I beg to differ. When those employees see their paycheck and word spreads, the public relations it “buys” will far outweigh the money spent.
If the AFL-CIO and the Massachusetts State Party want to be all talk and no action, that is their choice. And when union membership continues to fall and Democrats in Massachusetts continue to lose seats in office…well, that’s playing by your rules, eh?
I’d say the results prove otherwise.
I don’t know where you got $25. I’d be happy to make that of course, but the platform calls for a $15 minimum. I do think a park ranger should make more than a foodservice employee. Our advocacy IS our action! Also, Dems have gained seats in MA in recent years, thank you very much.
More proof that the State Party is not pro labor.
Why?
More skilled, more education required, more valuable to society as a whole
If the state party is not pro-labor then the unions didn’t get the memo. I know of no party, union, other organization, or elected official advocating for $25 and I still say that is both politically and economically unrealistic.
how are parks more valuable to society than food?
And Democrats continue to wonder why they lose the non-college educated vote in the USA….
I really wish you would find a different drum to beat.
Are ANY Republicans advocating a $25/hr minimum wage?
Are ANY Republicans offering positions that are more pro-labor than even our most “moderate” figures like Joe Manchin?
The motivations that drive the “non-college educated vote” towards today’s GOP have nothing whatsoever to do with minimum wage, working conditions, or access to higher education.
Are any Republicans advocating a $25 minimum wage? Nope. Republicans are proud “free market” capitalists – same as many Democrats, it appears.
You might want to read this latest “concern trolling” Democrats must reach across the diploma divide
Having lost the white working class decades ago, Democrats now see erosion in their support among Hispanic and even Black voters without college degrees. It’s a mortifying turn of events for a party that historically has defined its mission as standing up for working families.
If Democrats don’t find a way to do better among the two-thirds of registered voters who don’t graduate from college, even superhuman efforts to “mobilize the base” won’t save them.
…
Workers who live paycheck to paycheck don’t think the party establishment listens to them or sympathizes with their travails and aspirations. Instead, Democrats in Washington seem more attentive to the priorities of a rarified class of progressive activists, political operatives and interest groups, supported by like-minded donors, foundations, academics and media organs.
You’ve cited a piece from The Hill — a bastion of concern-trolling.
Markedly absent from The Hill is any material addressing the actual problem — wealth concentration.
To the extent that the Democratic Party fails to listen to or sympathize with workers who live paycheck to paycheck, today’s GOP is even more unresponsive.
The most effective solution to the suffering of workers who live paycheck to paycheck is to return their share of the wealth generated by this economy — so that they no longer have to live pay check to pay check.
I agree that the Democratic Party has failed to address our crisis in wealth concentration. The fact remains that this wealth concentration was explicitly and intentionally CAUSED by the GOP.
Any person who turns to the GOP because the Democrats are “not listening” or not sympathetic to them is jumping from the frying pan into the fire — and bringing the rest of us with them.
We MUST tax extreme wealth. We MUST change the fundamental mechanism we use to distribute wealth. The GOP will not ever do that.
I agree that the Democratic Party has not yet done enough. I agree that the Democratic Party needs to do more.
You changed the question. Food is a basic need of course, but we’re talking about food service vs. park ranger. The guy who handed me my hot dog and rang up my (already overpriced) bill at convention does not need any advanced skills or specialized knowledge to perform that task. A ranger is usually college-educated in a relevant field, gives tours and talks, conducts research, and sometimes creates content for media or exhibits.
Your point about losing votes would be more convincing if there were ANY organized effort to make happen what you are advocating. You seem to be a lone voice on this.
I agree that “concern trolling” is the most apt characterization of this comment.
As night follows day, it starts with a absurd premise and concludes — when pressed — with yet another repetition of the tired and weary non sequitur “Democrats continue to wonder why they lose the non-college educated vote in the USA”.
Hmm, sorry to hear that. And it just confirms why Democrats continue to lose the non-college educated vote. Democrats mock them as unskilled, uneducated, and unworthy of a middle class life….Democrats offer them “college’ as the magic tool to fix all that…and should the college degree fail to produce the wages that were anticipated, Democrats want taxpayers to foot the bill of a failed education promise.
“If you want a living wage, get a college degree” is a fascinating way to spin “I acknowledge your current job needs to be done, but I think whomever does that job deserves to be in poverty”. Oh, and vote for me!
We have consistently said that nobody who works full time should live in poverty. What you haven’t explained is how your logic leads to non-college folks voting Republican. Again, when the unions get on board with your agenda I’ll pay more attention.
I’m not sure who “we” are in your statement, but it cannot apply to the state Democratic Party. Many of our poor are working in essential jobs and the only option the Party offers is “go to college”.
Why do suspect Democrats have lost the white working class decades ago, Democrats now see erosion in support among Hispanic and even Black voters without college degrees.
According to some on BMG, it is because any white voter without a college education tends to be a bigoted misogynist.
Your last sentence does seem to apply to way too many. Democratic officials consistently state their belief that nobody should live in poverty who works full time, and just stop with the inaccurate trope that the only solution we offer is college.
According to most recent polls, Biden’s support amount Hispanic voters is under 30% with 60% disapproval. Is it accurate to assume that Hispanics tend to be bigoted and misogynistic?
It is accurate to state that ANY voter — including Hispanics — who chooses to support today’s GOP is statistically more likely to be willfully ignorant, bigoted, and misogynistic.
Your attempt to pair “Hispanic” with these shortcomings is itself bigoted.
Hmm, so in the space of one year.. Biden’s 55% approval rating from Hispanic dives to a 60% disapproval rating as Hispanics suddenly embrace bigotry and misogyny. Imagine that….
Utterly irrelevant.
I invite you to show that Mr. Trump (or any other candidate) enjoys an increase in approval corresponding to the decrease in Mr. Biden’s approval rating.
Your comment illustrates the perniciously misleading impact of “approval” ratings — they do NOT measure choices.
Your last paragraph is an absolute and egregious lie. NOBODY said that. You’re LYING. You repeat this lie over and over.
I stand by my characterization of this line of your commentary as “concern trolling”.
Interesting comment given what was posted three posts up from here…
I have no clue what you’re referring to.