Page 8 THE EVERETT ADVOCATE – FRiDAy, NOVEmbER 1, 2024 QUESTIONS | FROM PAGE 1 A NO VOTE would make no change in the law relative to the State Auditor’s authority. QUESTION 2: Elimination of MCAS as High School Graduation Requirement Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 1, 2024? SUMMARY: The proposed law would eliminate the requirement that a student pass the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) tests (or other statewide or district-wide assessments) in mathematics, science and technology, and English in order to receive a high school diploma. Instead, in order for a student to receive a high school diploma, the proposed law would require the student to complete coursework certified by the student’s district as demonstrating mastery of the competencies contained in the state academic standards in mathematics, science and technology, and English, as well as any additional areas determined by the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education. WHAT YOUR VOTE WILL DO A YES VOTE would eliminate the requirement that students pass the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) in order to graduate from high school but still require students to complete coursework that meets state standards. A NO VOTE would make no change in the law relative to the requirement that a student pass the MCAS in order to graduate from high school. QUESTION 3: Unionization for Transportation Network SUMMARY: The proposed law would provide Transportation Network Drivers (“Drivers”) with the right to form unions (“Driver Organizations”) to collectively bargain with Transportation Network Companies (“Companies”) – which are companies that use a digital network to connect riders to drivers for pre-arranged transportation – to create negotiated recommendations concerning wages, benefits and terms and conditions of work. Drivers would not be required to engage in any union activities. Companies would be allowed to form multi-Company associations to represent them when negotiating with Driver Organizations. The state would supervise the labor activities permitted by the proposed law and would have responsibility for approving or disapproving the negotiated recommendations. The proposed law would define certain activities by a Company or a Driver Organization to be unfair work practices. The proposed law would establish a hearing process for the state Employment Relations Board (“Board”) to follow when a Company or Driver Organization is charged with an unfair work practice. The proposed law would permit the Board to take action, including awarding compensation to adversely affected Drivers, if it found that an unfair work practice had been committed. The proposed law would provide for an appeal of a Board decision to the state Appeals Court. The proposed law also would establish a procedure for determining which Drivers are Active Drivers, meaning that they completed more than the median number of rides in the previous six months. The proposed law would establish procedures for the Board to determine that a Driver Organization has signed authorizations from at least five percent of Active Drivers, entitling the Driver Organization to a list of Active Drivers; to designate a Driver Organization as the exclusive bargaining representative for all Drivers based on signed authorizations from at least 25 percent of Active Drivers; to resolve disputes over exclusive bargaining status, including through elections; and to decertify a Driver Organization from exclusive QUESTIONS | SEE PAGE 16
9 Publizr Home