EAST BOSTON, a vibrant hub echoing with the footsteps of immigrants, stands as a living testament to the American Dream. Often compared to Ellis Island in its significance as an immigrant gateway, Eastie’s diverse tapestry has included Irish, Jewish, Latin, and now North African communities, each bringing their own unique cultural richness.

At the heart of this community lie small businesses, including many immigrant-owned restaurants, all striving to forge a connection between their native homes and their new American journey. These enterprises embody the American Dream, reminiscent of stories like that of Gabriela Mistral, a poet-diplomat and educator from Chile and the first Latin American Nobel Prize laureate in literature, or Maria Elena Salinas, a renowned journalist from Mexico who served as the long-time co-anchor for Univision’s national newscast. Each serves as a reminder of the rich contributions that immigrants make to our society.

However, there’s an incongruity in our laws that undermines this narrative of inclusivity and opportunity. Currently, Massachusetts law requires citizenship as a prerequisite for obtaining a liquor license. This archaic exclusion stands in stark contrast to our state’s progressive steps, such as providing driver’s licenses to immigrants regardless of their status.

This law runs counter to everything we have championed in the spirit of the American Dream. It unfairly hinders hardworking individuals who have saved diligently to enhance their businesses but are barred from accessing a resource pivotal for their success. It’s not just about selling alcohol; it’s about providing a complete cultural and social experience that many ethnic restaurants and pubs strive for.

The economic impact of a liquor license on a local restaurant cannot be overstated. It can often be the difference between a thriving business and one that struggles to survive. Recognizing this, Boston is actively seeking to issue nearly 250 new licenses, predominantly in immigrant communities and communities of color, understanding the substantial positive impact this would have on local economies and cultural richness.

That is why we are sponsoring legislation to remove US citizenship as a requirement for a liquor license. This is more than just a legislative change; it’s a step toward a more equitable, fair, and inclusive Massachusetts. By removing this unnecessary exclusion, we open doors to greater economic opportunities and cultural enrichment for all communities.

We hope the Legislature will do what is right and let go of this unnecessary prohibition. With this step toward rectifying an exclusionary law that no longer serves our state’s interests or values, we can embrace the diverse entrepreneurial spirit that has always been a cornerstone of American progress.

Lydia Edwards is a state senator from East Boston. Patrick O’Connor is a state senator from Weymouth.

The post Citizenship requirement for liquor licenses is archaic appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

OUR COMMONWEALTH IS a national leader in innovative technologies as well as workers’ rights. We have managed to grow economically without sacrificing worker rights to safety, reasonable pay, discrimination free workplaces and the right to organize.

Indeed, we stand on the shoulders of workers that stood up to big corporations. Be it the mill workers of Lowell in the 19th century, the domestic workers of today, or Starbucks workers organizing, our state leans towards justice and inclusion for workers.  

We currently face another threat to our laws and protections for workers. Multinational technology conglomerates, much like the titans of industry before them, are doing everything they can to water down workers’ rights with the false promise of more innovation and jobs.

That’s why we have proposed legislation to protect workers in Massachusetts from being exploited by transportation network companies, or TNCs, such as Uber and Lyft, and delivery network companies, or DNCs, such as Instacart.

What we propose is pretty simple: follow the hard fought for laws of the Commonwealth, like every other business.

Those rules are clear and require drivers be protected and paid like they are employees—because they are. Drivers are entitled to at least minimum wage and overtime, reimbursement for gas mileage, and, just like every other company with employees, these corporations should provide workers compensation and pay into the state unemployment insurance fund.

The state should not be in the business of subsidizing a business model that misclassifies workers. That is in fact what has been occurring, perhaps most evident by the unemployment insurance bill the state picked up on behalf of TNC/DNC companies during the pandemic. Because the companies have been misclassifying drivers, these workers also do not currently have the same worker protections from discrimination and abuse.

Uber, whose market capitalization was $110 billion as of this week, can certainly afford to pay what the small bodega, family-owned restaurant, or tiny nonprofit has to pay its workers. Yet, these companies are doing everything they can to skirt Massachusetts employment law. Who does this hurt the most? The low-wage drivers, many of whom are immigrants, people of color, and individuals lured by the false choice that asks them to forgo their worker rights in exchange for flexibility. 

To be clear, following the law and classifying these workers as employees does not mean that drivers forfeit making their own schedule. Our state and federal laws do not prevent employees from having flexible schedules, although these companies certainly would like to scare drivers into thinking so.

That’s how they won a ballot measure in California, a campaign on which they spent more than $200 million. These corporations are also being disingenuous when they claim that treating their drivers like employees will prevent them from being able to operate in Massachusetts.

Our bill also recognizes that consumers need protections as well. Therefore, it requires transparent, itemized charges, including surge charges. We will also require that these big corporations stand in the same line as other corporations and have their new rates, fees, and charges approved. Right now, consumers/riders are at the whim of large corporations when it comes to price gouging and protections. Our bill would change that.  

These are not impossible standards. Most are already the current laws of Massachusetts. Every other company that chooses to do business here has to follow our laws, which include a minimum wage and the worker protections that come with the presumption of employee status.

These transportation and delivery network companies have the opportunity to restore public trust, be good corporate citizens, and follow the rules. We welcome the opportunity to work together to achieve the rights and benefits that Massachusetts drivers and workers are entitled to.

If not, we have a decision to make as a Commonwealth. Are we are going to honor our legacy of balancing worker and consumer rights with innovation and growth, or are we going to be the generation that let big corporations drive over our rights?

Andy Vargas is a Democratic state representative from Haverhill. Lydia Edwards is a Democratic state senator from East Boston.

The post It’s time to protect gig workers and consumers appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

LAST NOVEMBER, on the day after Thanksgiving, yet another Black man was wrongfully arrested due to racially biased face surveillance. Randall Reid was detained on his way to dinner with his mother after Louisiana law enforcement agents got a warrant based on a false facial recognition match. He spent a week in jail. 

Mr. Reid is not the first innocent person to be arrested based on a failed facial recognition match. In late February, Wired magazine published details of another case—Alonzo Sawyer, a 50-year-old Black man arrested for a crime allegedly committed by someone decades his junior.

We don’t know how many people in total have been wrongfully arrested due to police misuse of facial recognition technology, but a disturbing pattern has emerged. In every known case, the people wrongfully arrested were Black men. One of those men—Robert Williams—considers himself lucky, even though he was handcuffed and hauled away by police in front of his wife and young girls, and locked up for 30 hours. As a Black man, he knows the consequences of a false match could have been deadly. 

As Massachusetts state senators, we are resolved to make sure this never happens in our state. Thankfully, a special state legislative commission has carefully studied the issues surrounding this technology and delivered a thorough report about how to fix the problem—with recommendations endorsed by law enforcement, civil rights advocates, and academic experts. Now it’s up to lawmakers. We should follow the commission’s roadmap and adopt their recommendations without delay. 

Facial recognition technology is dangerous when it works and when it doesn’t. Study after study—and the real-life experiences of several people who never should have been arrested—show that this technology exhibits racial and gender-based biases. One study found that some leading face recognition algorithms were up to 100 times more likely to misidentify Black and Asian people than white men.  

Recognizing the dangers of this technology, Massachusetts lawmakers began to regulate government use of facial recognition technology in 2020, and established the commission to examine whether additional civil rights protections were needed to appropriately safeguard police use of this powerful technology. Last year, after more than a year of study and deliberation, the Special Commission to Evaluate Government Use of Facial Recognition Technology in the Commonwealth—which included lawmakers, police officers, prosecutors, civil rights advocates, and more—concluded that Massachusetts does need tighter regulation.  

The commission’s recommendations include centralizing all police use of facial recognition technology at the Massachusetts State Police, requiring a warrant for facial recognition searches, limiting searches to felony investigations, instituting clear due process protections, and prohibiting dragnet surveillance. It is rare to see the attorney general’s office, the State Police, NAACP, ACLU, Massachusetts Bar Association, and public defender’s office lining up together, but that’s exactly what this commission achieved with its compromise recommendations. We enthusiastically support them, as well, and we are grateful to our colleague Sen. Creem for filing legislation to implement them and for her continued leadership on this critical civil rights issue. 

After all, as senators of color, we represent communities that stand to gain the most from these recommendations becoming law. Our communities deserve safety, both from violence and from wrongful targeting by police.

We believe the police should make use of new technologies if they can help solve serious crimes, and we also believe technologies like face surveillance will cause serious harm to Bay Staters if the Legislature doesn’t step in to impose comprehensive civil rights protections. That’s why we are proud to cosponsor Sen. Creem’s bill to codify the commission’s recommendations. We look forward to working with our colleagues to pass it early this session.  

Today, Massachusetts state law doesn’t do enough to ensure that the wrongful deprivation of liberty suffered by Mr. Reid, Mr. Sawyer, and Mr. Williams doesn’t happen here. But legislation that would create necessary checks and balances is awaiting our vote, and we urge our colleagues to support it.

Three years ago, our Commonwealth started the good work of putting democratic guardrails around police use of this powerful but imperfect technology. Now, it’s time to get the job done. 

Lydia Edwards is a state senator from East Boston. Adam Gomez is state senator from Springfield. Liz Miranda is a state senator from Roxbury. 

The post Time to enact new rules for use of facial recognition software appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

EVERY DAY, hardworking Massachusetts residents face a difficult dilemma: pay for transportation to get to work or afford basic necessities. This is an unfair and unnecessary burden on those who contribute to the economic prosperity of the state.

On this International Workers Day, it’s time to take action and make public transportation affordable for our workers with a low-income fare at the MBTA. Unfortunately, Massachusetts has been trending in the opposite direction. For years, the cost of riding the MBTA has increased at a much faster rate than the cost of driving, and recent reports suggest that driving in Boston may actually be cheaper than taking public transit. The Massachusetts Legislature can reverse this trend by passing legislation that establishes a permanent low-income fare program and ensures funding for a low-income fare in the Commonwealth’s FY24 Budget.

Consider Yinchun Liang, a homecare worker who relies on the MBTA to travel from Charlestown to Chinatown every day for work, groceries, bilingual services, and community events. Despite working hard to support her family of three on a single income, Yinchun, like many other Massachusetts families, struggles to make ends meet due to the rising cost of living and stagnant wages. For families like Yinchun’s, who rely on public transit every day, affording the $90 monthly MBTA pass on top of other expenses can be overwhelming. A low-income fare is necessary to ease that burden and ensure that hardworking individuals like Yinchun can access the transportation they need to succeed.

Accessible and affordable transportation is crucial for ensuring equal access to opportunities and resources. Today, many individuals and families contribute a significant portion of their income to funding public transportation. While a rider among the top 20 percent of income earners in Massachusetts will spend less than 1 percent of their monthly income on a LinkPass, a rider with income at the federal poverty level will pay over eight times more of their monthly income toward the same service.

Meanwhile, essential workers, many of whom are women and people of color, rely heavily on the MBTA to meet their daily needs and access job opportunities. Recent data showing women and people of color make up a larger than ever share of riders underscores the importance of equitable and accessible transportation options. By providing affordable transportation, we can reduce the financial burden on vulnerable populations and improve access to essential services like healthcare, education, and employment.

According to MBTA findings, more than 60,000 commuters could benefit from a reduced-fare program for people making 200 percent of the federal poverty level or less. These are hardworking individuals – including our essential workers and workers of color – and families who simply want to get to work at a fair and affordable cost, and in a reasonable amount of time. Studies show that, when offered a reduced-fare option, low-income transit users not only take upwards of 30 percent more trips, but they take these trips to health care and social services. A reduced-fare program would save each low-income rider about $500 annually, for a total of more than $30 million put back into the pockets of low-income residents each year.

Low-income fare legislation has a history of strong support among voters and legislators in Massachusetts. Now, with Gov. Maura Healey’s proposed funding of $5 million to the MBTA to fund a pilot study of the best approach to rolling out low-income fares, the Massachusetts Legislature must pass it through the FY24 budget along with passing legislation to ensure that low-income fares become a permanent and essential part of our public transportation system.

By doing so, we can ensure that all workers can afford to get where they need to go without the worry of not being able to afford other life necessities. Let’s stand together for transit affordability and a future where hardworking individuals like Yinchun Liang can access the transportation they need to thrive.

Lydia Edwards is a state senator from East Boston.

The post Fare debate: Give low-income riders a break appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

WHY ARE REPUBLICANS so desperate to ram through a Supreme Court nomination that will impact Americans’ lives for decades?

They’re scared that come November 3 they will lose. That despite their attempts to subvert democracy through false attacks on mail-in voting, felony disenfranchisement of 5.2 million people, and reduction of available voting locations, Americans will reject their unpopular policies and hateful rhetoric.

President Trump and his far-right allies have taken extremism to a level this country has never experienced. We are more polarized than ever before. Instead of taking steps toward bringing us together, Trump and his allies are digging in and driving us further apart. Senate Republicans seem motivated to quickly jam through the illegitimate nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, but when millions of workers and families remain unemployed or can’t make rent because of the pandemic, action to provide them relief is nowhere to be found.

And so Republicans, having already packed the federal judiciary at all levels with right-wing judges, are now attempting to pack the Supreme Court with a right-wing majority that will outlast their viability at the ballot box. They want to steal your input on who will issue rulings on affordable healthcare, LGBTQ rights, reproductive rights, environmental protections, and more.

It’s clear where Judge  Barrett stands on these issues. Her record and statements indicate she would vote to deport Dreamers, to strip LGBTQ couples of their ability to marry, to deny Americans with pre-existing conditions accessible healthcare, to deprive people of the right to make decisions about their own bodies, and to dismantle protections for vulnerable environmental justice communities like East Boston.

But our fight to stop President Trump’s nomination isn’t just about how a Justice Barrett would harm Americans’ life, liberty, and happiness. It’s about a process that should prioritize democratic norms over political expediency and that respects people’s preferences rather than attempting to undermine them.

In 2016, Sen. Mitch McConnell stalled President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, claiming that an upcoming election meant “the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.” Republicans’ hypocrisy is proof that we must do more to protect the Supreme Court from partisan aims. Expanding the court and abolishing the filibuster will strengthen our judiciary, not weaken it.

McConnell is ignoring the precedent that he set. Instead, he now argues that Republican control of the Senate and White House implies a mandate to fill the empty seat.

What better reflects Americans’ preferences: the way they voted in the past or the way they’re voting in the present, right now? The majority of Americans believe the winner of the 2020 election should be the one to appoint the next Supreme Court justice.

The only reason for Republicans to rush an appointment is an expectation that they will not be able to once Americans make their voices heard. And given that votes have begun to be cast and counted, this suggests Republicans know they have already lost the mandate they outwardly claim to have.

We promise to fight for the people of Massachusetts. We will continue fighting against injustices in Boston and across our Commonwealth. We will fight to stop Judge Barrett’s immoral nomination. But if Republicans succeed in packing the court with Judge Barrett, Democrats shouldn’t rest until we abolish the filibuster and add justices to the Supreme Court to re-establish majority rule.

Adding justices is a corrective action Republicans will force Democrats to take should they violate established norms and pursue their own party’s political interests at the expense of democracy. Crocodile tears that expanding the court is anti-democratic are simply attempts to deflect attention from the egregious attempts to skirt due process and forsake justice in Barrett’s nomination.

Restoring balance to a court that has been manipulated through the hypocrisy of McConnell and the Republican Party would validate its integrity. Stopping Republican efforts to circumvent democracy would create a court that safeguards the rights of the people on whose behalf it interprets the law.

Republicans can still respect the American people. They can honor Justice Ruth Ginsburg’s dying wish that she “will not be replaced until a new president is installed.” But if Republicans abrogate their civic duty through this sham process, we cannot and will not stand by.

Edward Markey is the junior US senator for Massachusetts and Lydia Edwards is a Boston city councilor representing District 1.

Markey’s opponent, Republican Kevin O’Connor, adopted a different stance on court packing in an earlier op-ed.

The post If Barrett is confirmed, we’re for packing the court appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

THE PANDEMIC will have a lasting effect on our society that we can only begin to imagine. With over 150,000 Americans dead and counting, the psychological toll will be felt for a long time. But some of the pain that will likely come once the pandemic ends is avoidable. When Gov. Charlie Baker lifts the state of emergency and housing courts open back up, advocates and housing experts are expecting a tsunami of evictions to be filed. These evictions will have a long-term impact on our housing market, on our communities, and, most importantly, on the people who are evicted.

The numbers don’t lie. In Massachusetts, you are more likely to be evicted if you are a person of color especially if you are a black woman. According to an ACLU report from January, black renters in Massachusetts are 2.4 times more likely to have an eviction filed against them than white renters despite making up only 11 percent of the state’s renters. A more recent report from MIT and City Life/Vida Urbana shows that 70 percent of market rate evictions filed in Boston take place in Census tracts that are majority minority, despite the fact that these areas only make up about half of the city’s rental market.

Under current law, eviction records are public from the time they are filed, regardless of whether the case is with or without merit, and are permanently available regardless of the outcome of the case. These records, which can be misleading and have errors, are used as a “landlord screening tool” which can make it difficult for people to get a new apartment. Rebounding from an eviction is hard enough. Try finding housing, in an area with documented massive discrimination, with already existing pay and wealth gaps that places the average net worth of black Bostonians at $8.

Undocumented immigrants will also be heavily impacted. Tens of thousands of undocumented workers in Massachusetts lost their job due to the pandemic. Our undocumented neighbors were unable to receive state unemployment benefits or a federal stimulus check. Many have been forced to choose between paying rent or putting food on their family’s table. Adding to the stress of losing their jobs and worrying about rent, my office received reports of landlords illegally threatening to call immigration authorities on their tenants if rent wasn’t paid. If protections aren’t put in place, we will see mass evictions in our undocumented communties that could have major effects on our workforce and leave thousands of families with no place to live.

The housing issues highlighted by the pandemic aren’t new. Many of these issues have been raised by advocates for years. The solutions to the problems aren’t new either. There are a number of ways at both the state and local level that we can protect the most vulnerable once the pandemic ends and provide more housing opportunities for everyone moving forward.

The HOMES Act would allow eviction records to be sealed. This means close to 1 million people get a second chance. The act would protect children by preventing them from being named as defendants  in eviction cases, require accuracy from consumer reporting agencies and encourage people to pay judgments by allowing their records to be sealed within 14 days of paying off their judgment. Most importantly to those that will be evicted in this pandemic it will provide a lifeline and an end to the stigma because their records will be sealed.

Beyond the HOMES Act, we can do more to prevent eviction and provide housing stability. We can provide tenants with a right to counsel during eviction proceedings and give tenants the right of first refusal to purchase a unit or building if the current owner wants to sell.

A transfer fee on real estate transactions over $2 million could provide Boston with $168 million annually to help provide affordable housing. In Boston we’re also working on closing loopholes in the city’s condo conversion ordinance to expand the protections provided by the law. The state should also extend the eviction and foreclosure moratorium for a full year after the state of emergency ends as proposed by Representatives Mike Connolly and Kevin Honan.

All of these solutions were proposed before the pandemic and could help thousands of people either stay in their homes or find a new one. Unfortunately, so far we have demonstrated that as a state we are either unwilling or unable to implement any of these solutions. Preventing the upcoming housing crisis isn’t impossible. The pandemic was largely out of our control. How we respond to it isn’t. We can and must do better.

Lydia Edwards is a Boston city councilor.

The post Preventing evictions, promoting housing stability appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

FOR THE TIME BEING, the COVID-19 epidemic in Massachusetts has begun to wind down. However, even if we keep the virus under control, it has already has set in motion many drastic and longer lasting changes in our housing markets. One of the outcomes could well be a significant decline in real estate values, an increase in foreclosures and speculative purchases, and the displacement of thousands of residents from their homes.

That is why we are working with state Rep. Dan Cullinane and state Sen. Brendan Crighton to enact the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA) so we can provide a way for tenants and non-profits to purchase their apartments, preserve long-term affordability, and prevent massive displacement.

The COVID epidemic will roil the housing markets in Massachusetts. Tens of thousands of college students may not be returning to campus in the fall. Thousands of apartments in buildings owned by investors that were previously rented out to students or on Airbnb are now vacant. More than a million residents of the Commonwealth have filed for unemployment. Some of the businesses they worked for will not open back up once the economy reopens. Thousands of tenants may be driven out of their homes once the eviction and foreclosure moratorium ends.

Real estate speculators, institutional investors, and flippers will descend on the housing market, purchase troubled buildings and likely hold units off the market waiting for an anticipated upswing. Heroic efforts have been made by the Commonwealth and municipal governments to deal with the effects of the epidemic. However, no program has been proposed so far to deal with the longer-term crisis that will hit the housing market. The TOPA legislation can help address this coming crisis.

TOPA will allow tenants of small, medium, and large multifamily properties to match a bona fide offer to purchase the property where they live and provide the tenants with a reasonable period of time to secure the financing to acquire the property, taking it out of the real estate speculation system.

TOPA will support tenants of all income levels who need and want the security of a decent affordable home and are committed to the neighborhood where they live. TOPA, combined with available public funding from local and state government, can preserve existing rental housing and make it more affordable.

The TOPA bills are enabling legislation. That means that cities and towns could pass an ordinance putting the tenant right to purchase into effect without having to petition the Legislature for permission to implement TOPA. They are revenue neutral and will not require any new taxes. Cities and towns that do not want to enact TOPA in their community won’t do so.

TOPA imposes no hardships on landlords seeking to sell their property. TOPA is a market-driven strategy for preserving affordable rental housing. TOPA has timeframes for performance by tenants and their partners/assignees that are typical of a normal real estate market in which properties are purchased with a combination of cash equity and debt. Indeed, we already have similar laws on the books for subsidized housing and for manufactured housing communities, and those laws have worked well for years. Washington, DC, has also had a version of TOPA on the books for decades and used it to successfully preserve at least 1,400 homes between 2003 and 2013.

We appreciate that the Commonwealth has enacted a strong moratorium on evictions and foreclosures in order to keep people in their homes during the COVID quarantine. But what actions can we take now to address the long-term housing crisis?

We need to emerge from the pandemic with an approach to housing that prioritizes human needs over speculative profit. We know that the housing market in the Commonwealth was not working before the pandemic. Now the pandemic has further exposed what is wrong with the current system. We cannot return to business as usual. Now is the time to exercise the political will to seek longer-term solutions and expand strategies that we know work, like the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase legislation.

Lydia Edwards is a Boston city councilor. Joseph Kriesberg is president and CEO of the Massachusetts Association of Community Development Corporations. Richard Giordano is director of policy and community planning at Fenway Community Development Corporation. John Lloyd is executive director of the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative.

The post Tenant purchase legislation could stave off displacement appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

EAST BOSTON is a community that is used to having to defend itself against environmental injustices. In the 1960s, Massport’s expansion of Logan Airport led the Maverick Street Mothers to block the road with baby carriages. In the following decades, the neighborhood’s activism led Massport to build parks that are among the best in the city. Although the neighborhood has gone through a lot of change, it’s still at its heart a working-class, immigrant community that is proud of its activist history. Today the neighborhood again finds itself again on the defensive. This time, Eastie has to contend with Eversource and a proposed electric substation on the banks of the Chelsea Creek across the street from a park and playground, homes, and a jet fuel storage facility.

Eversource has said publicly that the rapid development of housing in East Boston has led to growing demand for electricity in the area which requires a new $60-plus million substation. But the company hasn’t made its analysis publicly available. Ratepayers that would pay for the project through fees in their monthly electric bills are expected to take them at their word. The Union of Concerned Scientists has countered this argument by providing data from the operator of the New England power grid showing increased efficiency in new buildings and appliances has caused demand to plateau, even as development continues.

At the same time Eversource argues the need for the proposal is being driven by residential development, the utility is making a separate argument to state regulators. The site is located in a designated port area, which, according to state rules and regulations, should only have buildings that are directly tied to maritime activities or industries. Eversource in its state filings is arguing that it should be allowed to build the substation in the designated port area because it will provide electricity to nearby marine-related businesses.

Eversource needs to give a straight answer to the question of who this substation is really being built for. The first thing Eversource should be required to prove is that a substation is necessary and who needs it.

The Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act requires the state to consider the environmental impacts of its actions, including any permits it issues. Environmental justice policies have been put in place to protect vulnerable communities like East Boston that deal with more than their fair share of environmental burdens. Most recently, the city of Boston has enacted its own Wetlands Protection Ordinance. Under the new law, anyone applying for a permit must prove that their proposal “will not have an unacceptable significant or cumulative adverse effect” on “the health, safety, and welfare of the public.”

This is the second burden of proof that Eversource must meet as it moves forward with its proposal. Up to this point, the company has not only failed to do so, it hasn’t shown any interest in trying. During a recent Energy Facilities Siting Board meeting at East Boston High School, one of the few review hearings to actually take place in the neighborhood, Eversource representatives answered nearly every question by telling community members to review the company’s filings with the state.

Eversource also needs to explain why two substations are needed less than a half-mile from each other.  Massport has approved the construction of a smaller substation on airport land. Eversource and Massport could potentially partner to place all of the electrical distribution upgrades the company says are needed there instead of the Eagle Hill neighborhood.

Combining the two projects could allow for Eversource to put the substation in a location that is secure, away from homes and playgrounds, and doesn’t flood. Eversource has refused to seriously look at this potential alternative. Until it does, it can’t say that it has proven that the current proposal is the best possible solution to the energy needs of the area.

Finally, Eversource needs to prove it can be trusted.  One way of building trust is through a transparent and accessible process. Here again Eversource has failed East Boston. From the time it first proposed the substation in 2015, Eversource has excluded a majority of the East Boston residents from the conversation. Over half of East Boston households speak Spanish at home. By law, the approval process for this facility is required to ensure participation from residents of limited English proficiency. However, Eversource on multiple occasions failed to provide adequate interpreting services or properly translated documents.

This process is complicated and involves regulatory language that’s difficult to understand for native English speakers. By neglecting required language access efforts, Eversource has made it nearly impossible for non-English speakers to participate. In order to prove to the community that the substation won’t have unacceptable effects on their health and safety, Eversource has to engage with the community as a whole, especially the neighborhood’s non-English speaking population.

On Friday, the Boston City Council will hold a hearing to discuss the proposal. The hearing will be an opportunity for Eversource to make its case to the community. Finally, Everource can answer all of the unanswered questions the community has about the need for the substation, whether any alternative energy source facilities could be built instead, and whether the proposed facility is in the best location.  Eversource can bring all the evidence and answer the questions.

The hearing is only the next step in the lengthy process. The proposal is still being reviewed by the state’s Department of Environmental Protection and a March hearing of the Energy Facilities Siting Board was postponed due to the coronavirus outbreak. G  At the city level, the Boston Conservation Commission is still reviewing Eversource’s application for a permit under the Wetlands Protection Ordinance.

Eversource has thus far failed to prove that East Boston needs a substation and that its location and design won’t cause injury. Unless Eversource can prove that the community needs a substation and that the substation as proposed is the best solution for the neighborhood’s energy needs, no agency or elected official should approve Eversource’s proposal.

Lydia Edwards is the Boston city councilor for District 1.

The post Eastie needs straight answers from Eversource appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

MORE THAN 10,000 student workers at Boston’s largest universities drive tens of millions of dollars to their employers. They teach classes, perform groundbreaking research, and help win lucrative federal grants. You would think their employers would protect their valuable employees. 

 You’d be wrong. 

These multi-billion dollar universities do not treat these employees with the respect they deserve, even refusing to face them last month when the Boston City Council held a hearing on the plight of student workers. Harvard, Boston University, Boston College, and Northeastern were invited to testify and defend their treatment of the workers. Not a single one showed up.  

But hundreds of their workers did. 

Student workers not only provide invaluable services to their universities, but also are a critical part of our economy. They shop in our grocery stores, pay taxes, advance critical research, and create an ecosystem that attracts major employers looking for new talent. Their work not only upholds Boston universities’ reputations as elite institutions of higher education, but also helps brings in nearly 1.5 billion dollars in grants that fuel the universities and the local economy. 

The nature of graduate student work is often isolating and done in close consultation with faculty and professors who have enormous control and power over their work, grades, and future careers. The universities are notoriously bad at handling cases of harassment and discrimination against student workers. The severe power imbalance often makes student workers fearful of retaliation if they report mistreatment.  

Current processes are handled by employees of the universities, which pose inherent conflicts of interest, rather than a fair, neutral process that survivors can trust. That is why student workers need a process for reporting and resolving harassment and discrimination complaints, independent from their university’s administration. The City Council heard this clearly as women, people of color, and LGBT workers testified about their experiences on campus. 

 Additionally, student workers face inadequate pay and healthcare, and no access to affordable childcare, which prompted them to join forces across universities and speak out. When I learned of the conditions facing this workforce, I called for a hearing at City Hall. 

This isn’t just a matter for student workers or the City Council. This is Boston’s fight. Our educational institutions are supposed to be good community partners. That is why they have non-profit status. But that means treating our communities and workers with respect. It means recognizing employees as human beings worthy of a living wage, health care, and protections against harassment and discrimination. When wages stay low, tuition goes up, expansion is constant, and payments in lieu of taxes go unpaid, where is the accountability to any party beyond university trustees? 

To the universities’ relief — and to our consternation — it appears President Trump may come to their rescue. Trump has appointed individuals to the National Labor Relations Board who do not respect graduate student workers as worthy of worker protections and are planning to strip graduate student workers of their right to collectively bargain. The same president has gone after Title IX protections university leaders are urging students to rely upon, personally harassed women, and persecutes immigrant populations. Is this really the person, and the values, that Boston’s universities want to align with?  

Rather than hiding behind Trump, the presidents of BC, BU, Harvard, and Northeastern should do what is right. They should come to the table and negotiate fair contracts with their student workforces that offer a living wage, healthcare, and protections from harassment and discrimination. 

These are basic demands, and how student workers are treated in our city is a reflection not just on the individual universities, but on our values as a community. BC, BU, Harvard, and Northeastern need to do better.  

Boston City Councilor Lydia Edwards represents District One and previously worked as a public interest attorney, focusing on labor issues such as fighting for access to unemployment insurance and fair treatment for domestic workers.

The post Boston’s academic giants treat student workers poorly appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

Marlisa Thompson was happy when FSS — an airline contractor that does work for JetBlue, Lufthansa, and British Airways — hired her in 2014 as a security guard at Logan Airport. “I was just so excited, because, wow, if you get in at the airport, that’s a plus,” she said.  

 But her excitement soon dwindled. She was on her feet for shifts as long as 9 hours with no breaks. Her pay was often short, with paychecks regularly listing her as having worked fewer hours than she actually did. Fed up, Marlisa quit at FSS and found a job elsewhere. 

 In 2017, Marlisa was looking for work again, and decided to give FSS another shot after hearing that working conditions had improved. But soon, she began experiencing the same problems as before—long, exhausting shifts without breaks, and missing hours on her paychecks.  

Instead of quitting this time, Marlisa took action. She started writing down her hours and keeping track of every time she didn’t get her break. She went to the FSS office at the airport and demanded the pay she was owed. Management told her to put it in writing and they would take care of it, so she did.  

To this day, Marlisa says she has never seen any of that money. “The managers always tell me: ‘Oh Marlisa, you’re the best guard. Don’t leave.’ Okay, if I’m your best guard then you need to pay me what I’m owed. Why do I have to come to the office every pay period and talk to a manager about my missing pay?” 

In January 2019, Marlisa filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Attorney General, detailing the dozens of times she’d worked nine-plus hour shifts without breaks, multiple times she had been paid less than the Massachusetts minimum wage, and some hours that FSS had just never paid her for at all. In addition to needing her pay in order to keep her household running, Marlisa is helping put one of her children through college while helping another of her children care for a new baby. She and her family need every dollar that she has worked so hard for. 

She is far from the only one. Currently, there are 17 wage theft claims against FSS pending at the AG’s office, and a Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) audit documented more than 1,000 wage violations by the contractor in 2017. These reports only chronicle the experiences of the workers who have come forward—it’s impossible to know if there were more employees who were too afraid of retaliation to file a complaint, or who decided to just find a new job and try to put this one behind them like Marlisa did in 2014. 

Boston isn’t the only place where FSS workers have experienced wage and hour violations. Nationwide, the airline contractor has been a defendant in several suits and has been ordered or agreed to pay over $1 million in wage theft settlements, resolutions and fines since 2006.  

Yet, Massport executives seem to have absolved themselves of responsibility when it comes to this contractor. The agency’s own operating agreement with contractors states that “the operator shall observe and obey…all applicable federal, state and municipal laws [and] regulations.” Yet, the consequences for failing to uphold their side of this deal seem to be nonexistent for FSS. 

Multiple studies have shown that wage theft is largely an issue for the working poor, especially women, minorities, non-U.S. citizens and non-union workers, meaning the very people who can’t afford to lose even a dollar of pay are the ones getting short-changed. A 2017 study by the Economic Policy Institute found that the wage and hour violations U.S. workers face add up to billions of dollars lost every year, and a 2016 report by Community Labor United examines the depth of the problem in Massachusetts. 

This is a problem that goes beyond the people facing wage theft. It hurts local economies by pushing families below the poverty line and forcing them to rely on public assistance. By these practices, FSS is not only hurting our airport workers, it’s hurting Boston. 

Part of the reason why women are more vulnerable to wage theft is because they dominate low-wage jobs, according to the National Women’s Law Center. Nationwide, women make up two– thirds of workers in jobs that typically pay less than $11.50 per hour. In Massachusetts, 19.9 percent of women have low-wage jobs, compared to 10.1 percent of men, making a working woman in our state two times more likely to have a low-wage job than a working man. In addition to paying less, these jobs also tend to be the ones with less security and steadiness—the kind where a manager can change a worker’s schedule at whim, as FSS managers have also done, or skimp on her pay. 

When people talk about the gender pay gap, they’re often talking about white-collar women making less than their male counterparts for the same jobs. Any practice that perpetuates gender inequality is wrong, and we must end it once and for all. But as elected officials representing mostly working-class, immigrant, communities of color, women like Marlisa are who we think about when we talk about wage inequality. These are the people with the least amount of power in our society, the ones who are disenfranchised not just as women but also as people of color, immigrants, low-wage workers, or all of those things at once. These are the women who are too afraid to share their stories publicly because they can’t afford to lose their jobs—indeed, many of Marlisa’s co-workers are too scared to speak publicly. 

These are often the women who we, as a society, forget about when we work to make change. As women’s month comes to a close, let’s recall we need to fight for dignity, respect and safety alongside the women employed by FSS. Logan Airport is a key part of our local economy, and Massport has a responsibility to demand that all companies that want to do business here need to follow the law and benefit our communities. They need to hold all contractors accountable to our city, our communities, and workers like Marlisa who keep airport passengers safe each and every day. Contractors like FSS should follow the law or get out of Logan. 

Boston City Councilor Lydia Edwards represents District One, comprising East Boston, Charlestown and the North End. 

The post As Women’s Month ends, let’s stop wage theft at Logan Airport appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.