18

Page 18 THE MALDEN ADVOCATE – Friday, June 14, 2019 personal information they have collected from an employee, it is only logical that they should be held liable for any damage or injury that results.” THE HOUSE AND SENATE. Beacon Hill Roll Call records local representatives’ and senators' votes on roll calls from the week of June 3-7. ALLOW UNIONS TO CHARGE NON-UNION MEMBERS FOR SOME COSTS (H 3854) House 155-1, approved and sent to the Senate a bill that would allow unions to charge non-members for the cost of some services and representation. The bill was filed as a response to a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that public employees cannot be forced to pay fees or dues to a union to which he or she does not belong. Freedom of speech advocates hailed the decision while labor advocates said it was an unjust attack on unions. "Today the Massachusetts House of Representatives stood up for workers," said Massachusetts AFL-CIO President Steven Tolman. "They stood up for workers and against the right-wing special interests that forced their anti-union views across the country through the misguided and political Janus Supreme Court ruling." “The union bosses just got the green light to harass and intimidate state workers who are not enrolled in a union,” said Paul Craney, spokesman for the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance. “They can flex their muscle as much as they want, to the detriment of our state workers, and Massachusetts can thank the 155 House lawmakers who voted for it.” "This legislation is just one important step in the fight against anti-worker attacks," said Peter MacKinnon, president of SEIU Local 509. "Even now, the labor movement is facing new legal threats designed to make their way through the courts to drain our resources and weaken our collective power. Our members, our legislators and our communities must stand united against those that attempt to divide us." “While I wasn’t opposed to the overall bill, I truly believe that personal privacy is a fundamental human right,” said Rep. Shawn Dooley (R-Norfolk), the only member who voted against the bill. “And for the Legislature to create a law that takes away that right from a citizen is simply wrong. All I was asking is that the employee be given a choice if they wanted to share their private, personal information with the union. Maybe it is only a couple of people, but isn’t our duty to protect their privacy rights over the wants and desires of a trade organization? Obviously, I’m alone in this thinking, but I feel this is an extremely slippery slope and sets a dangerous precedent.” (A “Yes” vote is for the bill. A "No" vote is against it.) Rep. Joseph McGonagle Yes PERSONAL INFO (H 3854) House 31-125, rejected an amendment that would eliminate the requirement that employees give the union their home address, home and cell phone number and personal email address. The amendment would leave in place the requirement that the employee provide his or her work telephone number and work email address. Amendment supporters said that requiring personal information is an invasion of the employee’s privacy. They noted that unions have enough ways to contact new employees without using personal information. “It is more than reasonable to expect that unions, who will be representing individuals in their work interest, should contact those prospective members at their place of work,” said Dooley the sponsor of the amendment. “This amendment would ensure that unions, whose reputation has not always been sterling, cannot use unnecessarily coercive or harassing tactics to impose on someone’s privacy at their home or on their cell phone in order to pressure them into union membership.” Amendment opponents said laws have to keep up with the times. They noted that today’s communication is done via cell phone and personal email address, not home address and landline phone. (Please read carefully what a "Yes" and a "No" vote mean. On this roll call, the vote can easily be misinterpreted. A “Yes” vote is against requiring that employees give the union their home address, home and cell phone number and personal email address. A “No” vote is for requiring it.) Rep. Joseph McGonagle No BREACH OF INFO (H 3854) House 28-128, rejected an amendment that would require unions to provide the state with a bond with sufficient surety to provide credit monitoring and identity theft protection services to all union members in the event of a data breach. The amendment also would hold the union liable for any damage or injury that results from the disclosure of any employee contact information to a third party. “Seemingly weekly we read news of yet another large-scale data breach of individuals' personal data,” said Rep. Dooley. “It is reasonable to assume that a union with whom we entrust such personal information to, shall take the necessary steps to prevent and secure against identity theft. If they violate this law and illegally share the Amendment opponents said credit monitoring and identity theft protection services would already be provided to each employee under a law passed last year that applies to not just union workers, but to all workers. (A “Yes” vote is for the amendment. A “No” vote is against it.) Rep. Joseph McGonagle No EMPLOYER MUST GIVE EMPLOYEE THE OPTION TO OPT OUT (H 3854) House 27-129, rejected an amendment that would require an employer to meet with a newly hired employee and inform the employee he or she has the option not to join the union. “It is entirely possible, if not likely, that a new employee may not be aware that under [the Supreme Court decision] they have the right to choose not to join a union and to pay union dues,” said Dooley. “However, asking an employee who may not even be aware of that right to decline when sitting across the table from a union representative does not give that employee the ability to make that decision free from all pressure or coercion. It is right and fair that an employer should provide their employees with all information pertaining to their rights, and the ability to choose to opt out while not being pressured by a union rep.” Amendment opponents offered no arguments during the debate. Despite repeated requests by Beacon Hill Roll Call for a comment from three representatives who voted against the amendment, none of them responded including Rep. Tackey Chan (D-Quincy), Dan Ryan (D-Charlestown) and Bud Williams (D-Springfield). Chan, Ryan and Williams are very familiar with the bill since they filed their own versions of it months ago. Their versions were eventually consolidated into this new version that was being debated on the House floor. (A “Yes” vote is for the amendment. A “No” vote is against it.) Rep. Joseph McGonagle No BAN HAND-HELD CELL PHONES (S 2216) Senate 40-0, approved a bill that would prohibit drivers from using a hand-held cellphone or other electronic device to make a call or access social media. The measure allows drivers to use only a handsfree phone but allows him or her to perform a single tap or swipe to activate or deactivate the hands-free mode feature. Use of a hand-held phone would be permitted in emergencies including if emergency service is necessary for the safety of the operator, a passenger or a pedestrian; and if police intervention is necessary due to a motor vehicle being operated in a manner that poses a threat to the safety of travelers on the roadway or to pedestrians. Violators would be fined $100 for a first offense,$250 for a second offense and $500 for a third offense and subsequent offenses. A third offense would count as a surchargeable offense that could lead to higher insurance rates for the violator. Supporters said that the bill would save lives and prevent accidents. They noted that the measure does not ban cellphone use but simply requires the use of handsfree ones. They pointed to accidents, deaths and injuries involving handheld cell phones. Although no one voted against the bill, some opponents say that the restriction is another example of government intrusion into people's cars and lives. Others note that there are already laws on the books prohibiting driving while distracted and that the bill is a bonanza for insurance companies which will collect millions of dollars in surcharges. “Studies on the effectiveness of hands-free vs. handheld cellphone operation of a motor vehicle are inconclusive at best,” said Rep. Peter Durant (R-Spencer), one of the two members who voted against a similar measure when it was up for a vote in the House a few weeks ago. “The real culprit in distracted driving is texting, which was already banned in 2010 but are still at staggeringly high levels. This bill doesn’t solve the problem of distracted driving and we could have used the money spent in this bill to provide better public awareness of the dangers and consequences of texting and driving.” “After fifteen years of filing and tirelessly pushing legislation to ban such dangerous behavior, Beacon Hill is finally ready to end the tragedies occurring on our roadways,” said Sen. Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford). The chief proponent of the bill in the Senate. “Today, the Senate again passed a strong bill to save lives. We can never truly understand the pain suffered by the families of distracted driving victims, but we certainly owe it to them to put this on the governor’s desk ASAP.” The House has approved a different version of the bill and a conference committee will work out the differences. (A “Yes” vote is for the bill.) Sen. Sal DiDomenico Yes $200 MILLION IN CHAPTER 90 FUNDING FOR LOCAL ROADS (H 69) Senate 40-0, approved and Gov. Charlie Baker signed into law a bill authorizing $200 million in onetime funding for the maintenance and repair of local roads and bridges in cities and towns across the state. The package is a bond bill under which the funding would be borrowed by the state through the sale of bonds. Other provisions include $200 million for rail improvements and $1.5 billion in bonding to allow for Tues. June 4 No House session federal interstate repairs to advance. According to officials, 80 percent of the $1.5 billion would be reimbursed by the federal government. Supporters said the $200 million would help cities and towns keep their roads and bridges safe and allow many vital municipal road projects to move forward. “Chapter 90 funding provides cities and towns with critical resources to carry out important projects like highway construction and road paving to improve local infrastructure in communities across Massachusetts,” said Gov. Baker. “We thank the Legislature for working with our administration to pass this bill and continue our support for local officials this construction season.” No one voted against the bill but there are some legislators and city and town officials who say the $200 million that has been given for the past few years is insufficient. The Massachusetts Municipal Association [MMA] has been seeking for several years to increase the amount to $300 million. “The MMA’s long-term goal is to work with the governor and Legislature on a shared strategy to increase Chapter 90 funding and provide a multi-year framework, so that cities and towns can improve the quality of our roadways and save taxpayer dollars,” said MMA Executive Director Geoff Beckwith. Transportation House chairman Bill Straus (D-Mattapoisett) said the current $200 million is sufficient when combined with other state programs to help cities’ and towns’ infrastructure, including $50 million for small bridge repairs. (A "Yes" vote is for the bill.) Sen. Sal DiDomenico Yes HOW LONG WAS LAST WEEK'S SESSION? Beacon Hill Roll Call tracks the length of time that the House and Senate were in session each week. Many legislators say that legislative sessions are only one aspect of the Legislature's job and that a lot of important work is done outside of the House and Senate chambers. They note that their jobs also involve committee work, research, constituent work and other matters that are important to their districts. Critics say that the Legislature does not meet regularly or long enough to debate and vote in public view on the thousands of pieces of legislation that have been filed. They note that the infrequency and brief length of sessions are misguided and lead to irresponsible late-night sessions and a mad rush to act on dozens of bills in the days immediately preceding the end of an annual session. During the week of June 3-7, the House met for a total of six hours and 12 minutes while the Senate met for a total of three hours and 33 minutes Mon. June 3 House 11:01 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. Senate 11:09 a.m. to 11:17 a.m. No Senate session No Senate session Wed. June 5 House 11:03 a.m. to 4:07 p.m. Thurs. June 6 House 11:02 a.m. to 11:56 a.m. Senate 11:05 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Fri. June 7 No House session No Senate session Bob Katzen welcomes feedback at bob@beaconhillrollcall.com.

19 Publizr Home