Page 14 THE REVERE ADVOCATE - Friday, July 5, 2019 Beacon Hill Roll Call By Bob Katzen THE HOUSE AND SENATE. Beacon Hill Roll Call records local senators’ votes on four roll calls from the week of June 2428. There were no roll calls in the House last week. SUBSCRIBE TO MASSTERLIST - IT’S FREE! Join more than 17,000 other people from movers and shakers to political junkies and interested citizens who start their morning with a copy of MASSterList! MASSterList is a daily ensemble of news and commentary about the Legislature, Politics, Media and Judiciary of Massachusetts drawn from major news organizations as well as specialized publications selected by widely acclaimed and highly experienced editor Jay Fitzgerald. Jay introduces each article in his own clever and never-boring, inimitable way. Go to: www.massterlist. com/subscribe. Type in your email address and in 15 seconds you will be signed up for a free subscription. ALLOW UNIONS TO CHARGE NON-UNION MEMBERS FOR SOME COSTS (S 2273) Senate 38-1, approved a bill that would allow public sector unions to charge non-members for the cost of some services and representation. The bill was fi led 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 we protect the right of unions to be able to make the case for membership to new hires, and to be compensated for representation they off er,” said Sen. Pat Jehlen (DSomerville). “Unions have benefi ted all of us. They helped build the middle class, and they are now our main protection against its erosion. This bill is an important step in the fight against the rising tide of inequality, and it will safeguard the support that unions have provided for generations to workers across the commonwealth.” “The Boston Globe’s editorial on the Janus fi x was spot on,” said Rep. Ryan Fattman (R-Webster), the only senator who voted against the bill. “I agreed with the underlying legislation, however as the Boston Globe pointed out, the Senate had the opportunity to protect private information including the personal cell phone, email, and birth dates of the employee and their family members who chose not to be part of a union. We failed to do so. I believe if you choose to opt out of union membership your personal and private information should be exactly that: personal and private. These employees should not be compelled to turn over that private information to anyone. It is because of this privacy concern that I voted no.” “I urge my colleagues to reject all the amendments that would undermine the principles set forth in this underlying bill and adopt a bill that will, again, ensure workers can come together, can organize together, can work together,” said Sen. Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton), during Senate debate on the fl oor. “[And] to have a voice that will help each and every one of us as citizens of this commonwealth and, at the end of the day, help to continue to improve the economy in a way that is more equitable for all people.” “Legislators today voted against amendments that sought to educate workers on their rights regarding union membership, to give employees control over their private and personal information, and to protect that personal information once it is in the hands of union bosses,” said Paul Craney, spokesman for the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance. “One thing is absolutely clear—this legislation has nothing to do with protecting employees. It is entirely about protecting union bosses and advancing their power over the workers. The legitimate concerns over protecting people’s right to privacy were completely swept under the rug by lawmakers beholden to union bosses. We urge the governor to veto the bill when it lands on his desk.” The House has approved a diff erent version of the bill and a conference committee will likely work out a compromise version. (A “Yes” vote is for the bill. A “No” vote is against it.) Sen. Joseph Boncore Yes PERSONAL INFO (S 2273) Senate 6-32, 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. 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.) Sen. Joseph Boncore No KEEP PERSONAL INFO PRIVATE (S 2273) Senate 7-31, rejected an amendment requiring that unions keep the personal information of an employee confi dential. Amendment supporters said this is a simple amendment that ensures privacy and guarantees that the union will not sell the employee’s information. Amendment opponents said this is a problem in search of a solution and that this information is already kept confi dential. (A “Yes” vote is for the amendment. A “No” vote is against it.) Sen. Joseph Boncore No EMPLOYEE NOT REQUIRED TO MEET WITH THE UNION (S 2271) Senate 5-33, rejected an amendment providing that no newly-hired employee be required to meet with the union. Amendment supporters said the bill ensures that the union has the ability to meet with new hires. They said it is vague on whether the new employee can decide not to go the meeting. They noted that this amendment clarifi es that the employee can opt out of the meeting. Amendment opponents said the amendment is unnecessary because nothing in the bill requires an employee to meet with a union or prohibits the employee from choosing not to go to the meeting. (A “Yes” vote is for the amendment. A “No” vote is against it Sen. Joseph Boncore No 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 th /e 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 fi led. 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 2428, the House met for a total of four hours and fi ve minutes while the Senate met for a total of six hours and 56 minutes. Monday, June 24 House 11:05 a.m. to 11:25 a.m. Senate 11:20 a.m. to 12:33 p.m. Tuesday, June 25 No House session No Senate session Wednesday, June 26 No House session No Senate session Thursday, June 27 House 11:06 a.m. to 2:51 p.m. Senate 11:12 a.m. to 4:55 p.m. Friday, June 28 No House session No Senate session Bob Katzen welcomes feedback at bob@beaconhillrollcall.com
15 Publizr Home