16

Page 16 THE REVERE ADVOCATE–Friday, September 27 , 2019 boring, inimitable way. Go to: www.massterlist.com/ Beacon Hill Roll Call By Bob Katzen THE HOUSE AND SENATE. Beacon Hill Roll Call records the votes of local senators and representatives from the week of September 16-20, 2019. 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 neversubscribe Type in your email address and in 15 seconds you will be signed up for a free subscription. With no strings attached. ALLOW UNIONS TO CHARGE NON-UNION MEMBERS FOR SOME COSTS (H 3854) House 154-1, Senate 39-1, successfully overrode Gov. Charlie Baker’s veto of a bill that would allow unions to charge non-members for the cost of some services and representation. The measure would also give unions several new rights including access to state workers’ personal contact information with their home addresses, home and cell phone numbers and personal email addresses. The new law will take effect in 90 days. The bill was filed as a response to a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees case 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. “I refuse to sign legislation that compels state and municipal government to turn over the cell phone numbers of private citizens, who happen to be government employees, without their permission, to private organizations,” said Baker said in his veto message to the Legislature. “Today the state Legislature made a strong statement that unions are in the public interest and will remain a strong force for economic fairness in Massachusetts,” said AFL-CIO President Steve Tolman. “The overwhelming bipartisan votes to override Gov. Baker’s veto by the House and Senate this week demonstrate that unions are not a partisan issue in Massachusetts. This new law represents the most comprehensive response to the Janus ruling of any state in the country by ensuring that unions will have the tools necessary to effectively communicate with their members while protecting their personal contact information from outside interests.” “My rationale is very simple,” said Rep. Shawn Dooley (R-Norfolk), one of two legislators who voted to sustain the governor’s veto. “I believe an individual’s privacy rights trumps any organization’s wants–no matter who or what that organization is or represents. I tried to amend the legislation which would allow a person to elect not to release their personal information, home address, home phone and personal email if they so choose. Unfortunately, this amendment failed primarily on party lines. I honestly do not understand why the unions are so insistent on having the information of a person who does not want to join the union.” “Despite the best efforts of the governor and two bold lawmakers, the Legislature continues to insist upon a law that blatantly violates the privacy rights of state workers that opt not to enroll in a union,” said Paul Craney, spokesman for the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance. “When this legislation becomes law, it will find itself in the courts and most likely be overturned by an impartial judge. Speaker DeLeo demonstrated that he puts the desires of union bosses ahead of the rights of hard-working state workers. DeLeo runs the House like a dictatorship, squashing any reform efforts or transparency.” (A «Yes» vote is for the bill. A «No» vote is against it.) Rep. Bob DeLeo Rep. RoseLee Vincent Sen. Joseph Boncore 4076) House 156-0, approved and sent to the Senate a bill requiring the state’s Office of Travel and Tourism and Department of Transportation to develop and implement a Women’s Rights History Trail program which will designate properties and sites that are historically associated with the struggle for women’s rights and women’s suffrage. The program is designed to promote education and awareness of the struggle for women’s rights in the Bay State. The passage of this bill coincides with preparations for the yearlong centennial celebration of the passage of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution granting women full voting rights. “This is a wonderful opportunity to recognize the many notable women who have influenced Massachusetts in important and lasting ways as we prepare for the 100th anniversary of women’s suffrage,” said the bill’s co-sponsor Rep. Carolyn Dykema (D-Holliston) … “The establishment of a trail will allow us to all hear and appreciate the powerful stories of strong women that will expand our understanding of history and shape our expectations for the future.” “The creation of a women’s rights history trail in our commonwealth is an opportunity to rightfully credit and celebrate the many women who played a pivotal role in our Yes Yes Yes WOMEN’S HISTORY TRAIL (H state’s history, our nation’s democracy and the fight for women’s suffrage, and to inspire future generations of young women and men alike,” said Rep. Hannah Kane (DShrewsbury), a co-sponsor of the measure. “A boost for our commonwealth’s tourism industry, the trail provides municipalities across the Bay State with a valuable new mechanism to draw visitors and proudly highlight their connection to historical women, sites and properties.” (A “Yes” vote is for the bill.) Rep. Bob DeLeo Yes Rep. RoseLee Vincent Didn’t Vote BAN TOXIC FLAME RETARDANTS (S 2338) Senate 38-0, approved and sent to the House bill that would ban 11 toxic flame retardants from children’s products, bedding, carpeting and residential upholstered furniture sold or manufactured in Massachusetts, except for inventory already manufactured prior to August 31, 2020. Another provision requires the Department of Environmental Protection to review, at least every three years, chemical flame retardants used in these type of products and include them on the list of prohibited chemical flame retardants that are documented to pose a health risk. Violators would be fined up to $1,000 for a first offense, and up to $5,000 for a second and subsequent offense. Motor vehicles, watercraft, aircraft, all-terrain vehicles, off-highway motorcycles and electronic devices are exempt from this law as are any previously owned products that contain a retardant. The House and Senate approved the bill at the end of last year’s 2018 legislative session, but Gov. Baker did not sign it. “Massachusetts can be a leader in this area, but the specifics of the bill that emerged during the last hours of the legislative session limit its potential effectiveness,” Baker wrote to legislators. “A deliberative process involving all stakeholders and an implementation schedule that takes into account the realities of manufacturing and distribution practices are key components to any legislation. I look forward to working with the bill sponsors and stakeholders on a revised form of this legislation in the [2019] session.” Supporters say that since 1975, manufacturers have added chemical flame retardants to a wide array of household items including products with polyurethane foam, such as sofas, car seats, strollers and nap mats. They are also incorporated into electronic products and building insulation. They argue that the retardants, while well-intentioned, do more harm than good and have been linked to an increased risk of cancer, fertility problems, neurological disorders and other major health concerns. They note that firefightBEACON | SEE PAGE 19

17 Publizr Home