SALEM — Local youth recently completed a five-week pilot employment program in which they gained hands-on experience working at a variety of city departments.
By Michael McHugh | Staff Writer
Source link
Tag: employee relations
-
Beverly officials call in mediator for stalled contract talks
BEVERLY — The School Committee is requesting a mediator join stalled contract negotiations with the Beverly Teachers Association.
The mediator would be a neutral third-party assigned by the Massachusetts Department of Labor, School Committee President Rachael Abell said in a prepared statement Wednesday.
The move comes nine months after negotiations began. While the School Committee and the union are close on tentative agreements for issues like personal days and supply reimbursement, that’s not the case for wage increases and paid parental leave.
“While we know the BTA members share our desire to reach an agreement, it is difficult to make progress without meaningful responses to the School Committee’s proposals and with continued uncompromising demands from the BTA,” Abell said in the statement.
“Members of the School Committee believe this lack of progress on issues our educators identified as critical elements, especially well-deserved wage increases, will benefit from the experience of the DLR resources.”
The School Committee has “made good faith and strong proposals and counter proposals,” Abell said.
“This does not mean we will not continue to negotiate and engage in the conversations and collaborative work with our educators, just that we recognize the frustration in the present meeting format is not moving us closer to resolution,” she said.
BTA Co-President Julia Brotherton said the union is disappointed in the committee’s decision to bring in a mediator and wants to continue to meet them at the table as they are “making slow progress,” she told The Salem News.
“It is true that we’re sticking to our positions on wages and salaries,” Brotherton said. “We especially feel that a living wage for paraprofessionals is a moral issue the School Committee has to address.”
This is the first time the School Committee has requested a mediator in Brotherton’s time on the BTA, she said.
Beverly teachers have been working-to-rule since last week. This means they arrive and leave work at the exact times their current contract calls for (and not stay for after-school or extracurricular duties) as a way to protest the lack of a new contract. The teachers planned to implement the tactic at one or two schools each day until a contract agreement was reached.
On Oct. 4, teachers across the district stood outside of their schools before classes began with signs demanding a new contract.
The School Committee presented the BTA with its most recent wage increase proposal in August. Under that proposal, each teacher at the top step of the salary scale would receive a raise of nearly $14,000 over the next three years while all other educators would see an increase of 4% to 12.1% during that time.
The BTA is requesting more lower-paid positions be moved into higher-paid columns, the hourly curriculum rate be increased to at least $50 per hour and that a teacher with a master’s degree earning the maximum salary make no less than $105,000, among other requests.
The union is also calling for 12 weeks of paid parental leave that is completely funded by the district.
The lack of paid-parental leave for public school teachers in Massachusetts has been an increasingly hot-button issue since 2018. That year, the state passed the Paid Family Medical Leave Act that excluded coverage for municipal employees, including teachers.
The School Committee’s current proposal would allow educators 12 weeks of paid parental leave with two of those weeks funded by the district. The other 10 weeks would be covered by an educator’s accumulated leave and/or a proposed parental leave bank.
Contact Caroline Enos at CEnos@northofboston.com
By Caroline Enos | Staff Writer
Source link -
Question 5: Should tipped workers be paid minimum wage?
BOSTON — A union-backed proposal to pay tipped workers the state’s minimum wage goes before voters in November, but critics say its passage would hurt Main Street bars and restaurants and drive up consumer costs.
Question 5 asks voters to decide if the state should require bars, restaurants, hotels and other hospitality venues to pay tipped workers the state’s wage floor of $15 per hour, in addition to gratuities.
The plan calls for phasing out the tipped wage for workers over five years, allowing workers to earn up to $15 per hour and keep their tips. It would also allow restaurants to “pool” tips and distribute them equally among all workers, such as cooks, dishwashers and others who don’t interact with customers.
Supporters of phasing out the tipped-wage law — which includes labor organizations and worker advocacy groups — say it would improve wages for underpaid workers who are struggling to survive with the state’s high cost of living.
Saru Jayaraman, president of pro-Question 5 group One Fair Wage, said its passage would ensure that tipped workers “finally receive fair wages, giving them the financial stability they need to support themselves and their families.”
“Since the pandemic, restaurant workers have left the industry in droves. Many of them are tired of barely scraping by on poverty wages and tips that are unpredictable at best,” Jayaraman said. “It’s time we end the injustice of the subminimum wage and create an industry that truly values and compensates its workers with dignity.”
But critics, like the Massachusetts Restaurant Association and “No on 5” Committee to Protect Tips, argue the plan would increase costs for bars and restaurants that already operate on narrow margins, and lead to higher prices for consumers.
“This would put a massive increase on the costs of small businesses at a time when they are still recovering from COVID,” said Chris Keohan, a spokesman for the “No on 5” opposition group. “This would increase the costs of the average restaurant by about $300,000 a year.”
He said the increased labor costs would push some bars and restaurants out of business or accelerate the shift away from full-service establishments, as employers hire less staff and move to automated operations like McDonald’s and Dunkin’s new self-serve kiosks.
Municipal leaders representing communities including Newburyport, Methuen, Haverhill and Gardner also oppose the proposal, arguing it would devastate Main Street restaurants that are still recovering from the economic effects of the pandemic.
Massachusetts law requires workers to be paid at least $15 an hour — under the “grand bargain” package the Legislature brokered to avert a proposal to cut the state’s sales tax and other proposals. But the 2018 law also allows bars and restaurants to pay tipped workers $6.75 per hour.
The state is home to some 50,000 waiters and waitresses, 20,000 bartenders, and 5,000 manicurists and pedicurists, according to the latest labor data.
If Question 5 is approved, Massachusetts would be the first state in decades to eliminate its tipped minimum wage, which observers say makes it hard to know how the transition will play out in the post-pandemic economy.
The closest example is the District of Columbia, which is two years into a five-year phase-out of its tipped wage, the report noted. Some Washington, D.C., restaurants have set-service fees — ranging from 3% to 20% — to offset the higher labor costs. Critics point to data showing some restaurants have closed in the law’s wake.
A recent report by Tufts University’s Center for State Policy Analysis said restaurants and other tip-dependent businesses will face higher costs from having to cover the full minimum wage, and will likely compensate for that with a mix of price increases, new fees, reduced hiring, and potentially lower profits.
But phasing out the state’s tipped wage will translate into higher pay for most service employees who currently depend on the extra money, according to the report.
In June, the state Supreme Judicial Court tossed out a challenge by restaurant groups alleging the proposal violates a requirement in the state Constitution that initiative petitions must contain only ‘related or mutually dependent’ subjects.
The justices unanimously concluded that Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s office correctly certified the question for the November ballot.
The Massachusetts Restaurant Association and Committee to Protect Tips filed a complaint with the state Ballot Law Commission alleging that backers of the ballot question submitted “fraudulent” signatures from people who aren’t registered to vote, among other claims.
But the groups withdrew their objections at the last minute, citing a lack of time to conduct a thorough review and make their arguments before the panel.
Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.
By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter
Source link -
Question 3: Should ride-hailing drivers be allowed to unionize?
BOSTON — Voters in November will get a chance to resolve a fight over unionizing Uber and Lyft workers with a proposal that calls for reshaping the employment status of ride-hailing drivers who work now as independent contractors.
Question 3, which appears on the Nov. 5 ballot, would authorize ride-hailing drivers to form unions to collectively bargain with so-called transportation network companies for better wages, benefits, and improved terms and conditions of work.
A yes vote would create an exemption to the state’s collective bargaining laws and set up a system allowing drivers unionize. A no vote would keep the status quo, where ride-hailing drivers are considered independent contractors with a limited wage and benefit guarantees.
Backers of the measure say while pay and benefits for the job have increased under a settlement in June with the Attorney General’s Office – including a guaranteed $32.50 minimum wage and other new driver benefits, such as earned sick pay – they want the security of unionization.
“We help our neighbors get to work and school and bring them home to their families, and we deserve the pay and treatment on the job that will let us support our families and keep a roof over our heads,” Betania Gonell, an Uber and Lyft driver from North Andover, said at a rally at the Statehouse last month.
“We want a union to help us negotiate for better pay, working conditions and job protections, just like nurses, bus drivers and millions of other workers in Massachusetts.”
Over the past year, supporters of the measure collected tens of thousands of signatures to put the question before voters in November and survived a legal challenge seeking to strike it from the ballot.
Among those backing the changes are the Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ and International Association of Machinists, which formed a coalition with progressive and social justice groups earlier this year to push for its approval.
The outcome of the ballot question could have far-reaching impacts. Massachusetts has seen the number of ride-hailing trips rise from 39.7 million in 2021 to 60.6 million in 2022 – a more than 52% increase, according to state data. There are more than 200,000 approved ride-hailing drivers in the state, but it is not clear if all of them are now working.
Like most states, Massachusetts has wrestled for years with the issue of how to classify ride hailing drivers. Uber, Lyft and other companies have long argued that their drivers prefer the flexibility of working as independent contractors, not employees. They have cited surveys of drivers saying they prefer contractual work.
In June, Uber and Lyft dropped plans for a separate ballot question to classify their drivers’ employment status after reaching a deal with the state Attorney General’s Office to boost wages and benefits. The companies also agreed to pay $175 million to the state to resolve the AG’s allegations that they violated the state’s wage and hour laws.
The agreement requires the companies to pay drivers a minimum wage of $32.50 per hour. Drivers also receive expanded benefits, including paid sick leave and a stipend to buy into the Massachusetts paid family and medical leave program.
The settlement stems from a lawsuit originally filed in July 2020 by then-Attorney General Maura Healey, who is now the state’s governor.
But drivers who support Question 3 argue that the proposal would provide more job security and the ability to bargain collectively for better pay and benefits in the future.
While there is no organized opposition to Question 3, critics argue the move could lead to higher prices for Uber and Lyft rides if the companies pass along the added labor costs to consumers.
That includes the state’s Republican Party, which says approval of the referendum “threatens the flexibility and affordability” that make ride-hailing services so popular for drivers and those who use the services.
“It would also set an unfairly low threshold for unionization votes, potentially violating federal labor laws,” MassGOP Chairwoman Amy Carnevale said in a recent statement. “With Massachusetts already being one of the most expensive states to live and do business in, adding more red tape and higher costs is the wrong approach.”
The conservative Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, which also opposes Question 3, argues that its approval would not improve the situation for most ride-haling drivers because they will “have no control over leadership of the union and will pay significant dues without real representation.”
Recent polls have shown a slim majority of voters support approval of Question 3, one of five questions before voters in the November elections.
A report by Tufts University’s Center for State Policy Analysis found that Question 3, if approved, will likely face significant legal challenges, but it could give workers new power to bargain for better wages and benefits.
Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.
By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter
Source link -
Supporters rally for teachers as contract talks continue
BEVERLY — Nearly 200 people rallied in support of Beverly teachers Thursday outside Beverly High School. Inside the school, negotiations on a new contract remained apart.
School Committee President Rachael Abell said Friday that the Beverly Teachers Association proposed a compensation package that represents a $4.3 million increase over the most recent proposal by the committee.
In a post on the district’s website, Abell said the School Committee will take time to assess the financial impact of the proposal and will provide an update to the community “as soon as possible.” The next negotiating session is scheduled for Oct. 3.
The Beverly Teachers Association and the School Committee have been negotiating a new contract since February. Thursday marked the 11th time the two sides have met, the first since school began Sept. 4.
Teachers’ previous three-year contract expired Aug. 31, but they are continuing to work under terms of that prior deal.
The latest negotiation was preceded by a rally outside the high school, where teachers and supporters, including several children, wore red T-shirts saying “I love Beverly teachers” and holding signs such as “Safe Schools Now” and “Living Wage Now.”
Parent Matt Davidson, who has three children in the schools, told the crowd that teachers are leaving Beverly because of a lack of support and low pay.
“They are overworked, they are underpaid with case loads that are too large,” Davidson said. “It is not working. It is not working.”
Davidson also said students on individualized education plans are not getting all of the help they need due to a lack of resources.
“This is not fault of the teachers, but a clear lack of support for them,” he said.
Another parent, Travis Shultz, said he and his wife have three children in the Beverly public schools but decided to send another of their children to private school because the city is “continually investing less in our kids than the average of the state.”
“Part of why we moved to Beverly I thought was because of the excellence of the schools here,” Shultz said. “But then after seeing how little we were investing in our kids and our teachers I was embarrassed.”
Parent Kim Blyth said the fact that negotiations continue to drag on is “embarrassing.”
“These delays are not just bureaucratic hurdles. They are unfair and unjust,” Blyth said. “Our educators work tirelessly, often going above and beyond to ensure our children receive the quality education they deserve.”
According to the update posted by Abell, the union’s proposed compensation package equates to an 8% increase per year for the next three years. She said that represents an approximately $4.3 million increase beyond the district’s most recent offer.
The School Committee has proposed an immediate salary increase of between 4% and 12.1%, followed by 4% and 3.5% cost-of-living increases in the next two years. According to Abell, 61% of teachers would make more than $90,000 per year under that proposal.
“Our goal remains to provide our students a high-quality education that fits within our city’s fiscal means,” Abell said.
Beverly Teachers Association President Julia Brotherton said the two sides are “getting pretty close” on the raises for the first year of the contract. But, she added, “the problem is that 4% and 3.5% will never get us anywhere near parity with neighboring districts (like Salem and Danvers).”
“We need the School Committee to return to the mayor and find a way to give our paraprofessionals a living wage and a competitive salary for our teachers,” Brotherton said.
Mayor Mike Cahill has said that the $5.6 million budget increase for the schools this year is “very possibly the largest one-year increased city investment in our schools in Beverly history.”
Apart from salary, Brotherton the two sides are “getting close” on issues such as personal days and the creation of a health and safety committee.
“I feel like we’re making good progress,” she said.
By Paul Leighton | Staff Writer
Source link