2021-06-23 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on Public Service

2021-06-23 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on Public Service

SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


[STEVEN SMALLEY (MOSES):] [HB2572] [HB2574] [SB1665] [SB1666] Thank you Chair Gordon and Chair Brady uh and the rest of the members of the Public Service Committee. Uh My name is Stephen Smalley and I'm the Legislative Director for the Massachusetts Organization of State Engineers and Scientists. Uh I'm here supporting bills H2572, H2574, S1665 and 1666 filed by Rep Kapono and Senator Collins. MOSES represents 3300 scientists and engineers across 30 different state agencies for180 the Commonwealth. Over 300 of our members work for the MWRA. H2574 and S1666 removes the restrictions on prohibiting arbitration areas of promotion and assignments for the employees at the MWRA.

These workers should be afforded the same opportunities that all state employees enjoy, the right to complete to compete for promotional opportunities in a transit question the selection process without the provisions, management can hire hire without consideration of the educational background or experience of the candidates. Uh We believe that the MWRA has the responsibility to assure that their employees have the experience and knowledge that they need to perform their jobs. Coinciding with that H2572 and S1665 would prevent the MWRA from terminating employees without just cause under the current law, employees can be terminated and terminated arbitrarily.

These bills will require management to provide substantial evidence that the employees that fall in the manage determination just as just as they are other state agencies. We believe that just cause standards of discipline is inherent right for all state employees. Uh these two bills specifically were voted out of committee favorably last session and lastly, I just want to make sure that we are in support also S2444, an act relative to public employees income protection filed by Senator DiZoglio. This would enable the automatic implementation for salary increase for United State workers. That is equal to the most recent wage increase for the General Court, as well as legislative staff, which would be about 6% for the first as state revenues continue to increase, we feel that this is just the right um to to go along with what the increases would be consistent with the raises, uh, for household incomes across Massachusetts and happy to take any questions.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


[BRADY:] All right. I do have a question. Mr Smalley in regards to people getting fired without just cause how many is it common has it been common practice and do you have a list of numbers of how many times this has happened?

[SMALLEY:] I don't off the top of my head, but I'm sure we could get those numbers for you and get them to the committee.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


[CJ O'DONNELL (MSCA):] [HB2724] [SB1733] I'm here to testify on behalf of the House Bill 2724 Senate Bill 1733 which are the acts um to ensure fair, high public higher education workplaces. In particular, Section 1 deals with a revision to Chapter 150(e). As you know, Chapter 150(e) was created to set up a funding process for collective statewide collective bargaining agreements. Chapter 150 (e) has been used to uh not fund higher ed uh and and statewide collected by an agreements because the governor sort of seems to interfere along the way. So we've had issues going back401 to weld solution swift um Deval Patrick, current governor.404

One of the issues is that they are required to submit a funding request to the Legislature in the past, they refused to do so, meaning that although they set parameters in advance of bargaining and then have an opportunity to submit the funding request, which they refused to do, and they still have an opportunity to veto the funding requests. The funding bill after it's been passed by the Legislature, the governor has three steps to sort of interfere with the actual funding process preemptively before bargaining before the funding435 request is submitted to the Legislature, and then after the fact when the Legislature passes the bill and it's vetoed. So Section 1 would require that the employer submit a funding request directly to the Legislature.

Um The governor still has an opportunity to veto bills once they've passed. Um, so we're in favor of section 1 of the, of the bill. Section 3. Section 2 doesn't really deal with my unit. I'm sorry. I represent 4000 faculty librarians at the 9th state Massachusetts State Universities. So Section 3 also deals with change in health insurance, media coverage for going the waiting period, the six473 month waiting period, which we support. And the last thing I just want to touch on is section I think it is section uh sorry, section 4, which deals with the tuition waiver. So back in the486 mid 1980s when the tuition waiver was instituted, um by the490 board of regions. At the time, the tuition,= we've recovered about 90% of actual496 tuition and fees. Total student costs, it now covers maybe 15%. =

So the benefit has been diminished over the time Because of how the state universities have a tuition and fees set up where fees are now 90% of the cost as opposed to tuition formally being 90% of the costs. So we're looking for a statutory change in uh to affect that since um the border higher education, not the Legislature has control over tuition at the state Universities. Sorry for the quickness of that. I'm willing to take any questions if you have any.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


[MAX PAGE (MTA):] [HB2724] [SB1733] [HB2616] Good afternoon. I'm Max Page. I'm the vice president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association, which represents 115,000 public school and college educators, including 18,000 in our public colleges and universities. So, first, I want to thank you those of you, including Chair Brady and Vice Chair Higgins who co sponsored the Cherish Act in the MTA's bill to reinvest in public higher education. In fact, most of you did support that and we are very pleased to say that we now have a majority of the legislature, both Senate and the House who have endorsed this key bill for re-investing in public higher education. So thank you all. I just wanted to note that because that was something that just happened and those who have not yet signed on, including Vice chair Finegold and Chair, Gordon we'd love to sit down with you.

We think that everyone who believes in racial and economic justice will want to support a bill to provide debt-free, public higher education, high quality public higher education to everyone in the commonwealth. So we look forward to passing this really landmark bill in the coming coming year. I'm here to speak specifically about an additional, um, piece of our legislative agenda. H2724 S1733 an act to ensure fair public higher education, workplaces and I'll build on what my colleague C. J. O'Donnell spoke about. Um, there are several elements in this bill I just want to emphasize today Um, two in657 particular. Um, first, you know, right as we speak, the governor is sharing what we all know that revenues are coming in a much higher pace than expected.

And yet his668 proposals for state workers after a year when they performed heroically to maintain state services including at our public colleges and universities remains deeply disrespectful. He can do this in part because we have an incredibly complicated Byzantine system of collective bargaining for public higher education, which gives the Governor three bites at the Apple. Um As C. J. Referred to, we ask that you change the system to align much more with other states so that once the parties reach agreement UMass and its unions, the Board of Higher Education and its and its unions that those agreements go directly to you, the legislature to fund of course you have the right to reject them.

And the governor would retain his right toor her right to veto those that funding bill, but to allow the governor to set the parameters, then refuse to accept the negotiated agreement and send them to you and then also have the power to veto the Legislature's funding. It's really preposterous, and it is something that has to change. The second point I want to emphasize is what you all well know as legislators and for your staffs as well, is that we want to fix the 60-day waiting period for new state employees to receive health insurance. Um, once upon a time deep, deep back in the 20th century, it might have made sense for a delay in that you have to employ a new employee feels out of health insurance form, sends it over.

It has to be then transcribed or entered into some system understood maybe there might be needed to have been a delay, But now it's a click of a mouse. There's no reason that someone who begins a job working for a public college university, for example, on September 1st should have zero health insurance until November 1st, 60 days. That makes no sense at all. It applies to you. It applies to all your staff members and I know you have heard about the problems783 with that, so we please ask that you fix that problem. And finally, um, MTA would also like to be recorded as being in support of House 2616 an act to restore collective bargaining for teachers and other school employees.

Um, the bill would restore collective bargaining rights to the employees and school districts that have been impacted by Desi's top down punitive accountability system, which unjustly punishes our neediest school district. It is to our mind unconscionable that the way that the Desi thinks that the way to help out school districts that are suffering from poverty, years of poverty and under under lack of support should be that821 the answer to that is to deny collective bargaining for its employees. So we ask that you also, we support our brothers and sisters in the American Federation of Teachers who are also speaking on behalf of House 2616. Thank you very very much for your time and I'm glad to answer any838 questions.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


[GORDON:] With respect to H2616 Mr Page uh do you know how many school districts in fact did exercise their option and affect collective bargaining?

[PAGE:] I don't have off head and I'm glad to get that for you.

[GORDON:] All right. i appreciate that.

[PAGE:] So the, the, the persistence of it. The fact that it is there as kind of a cudgel to hold over over employees is one of the problems that we think should be solved.

[GORDON:] Yeah. Okay. I appreciate that. I also want to know um, the practice of it. I also want to respond to you with respect to your statement in this platform about a bill that's not before us and about co-sponsorship. And I caution you, it may be that some of us, for example, me have a son who is in a public university who would directly benefit from this bill. And so I don't think it's892 appropriate from the point of view of conflict894 to be that out front, um, in an advocacy point of view for that. And so there may be more to it than meets the eye. I just don't think it's appropriate for me to be co sponsoring something that, that my family would benefit from like that. So I appreciate your sentiment, but perhaps not the forum.

[PAGE:] Great. Maybe we can find other ways to show to find support in common ground on this.

[GORDON:] We may have. I mean, it may not be my support. It just may be the forum. Thank you very much. That's all I have.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


[LISA HELLER (RMCCC):] [SB1733] [HB2724] Um, so hello everyone. I'm a full time tenured faculty member at Cape Cod Community College. I'm also an active at large member of the local chapter of RM triple C Union and I wanted to speak on behalf of Senate 1733 and House 2724 19F provisions 19F. Um When I983 was at my job interview at Cape Cod Community College 17 years ago, I vividly remember being told by HR that the college had a free tuition benefit and I was very excited to learn about that. And it was actually one of the factors that influenced my decision in taking the job. It's not that I wouldn't have taken the job without it, but it definitely influenced me in a positive way because I thought this is a great opportunity for a free tuition benefit for myself and my dependence and my spouse.1010

Um I was excited because my husband was still trying to finish his bachelor's degree and was enrolling in Framingham state. Um so I was obviously disappointed to learn later that this tuition benefit did not include fees and because the state has not adequately funded state tuition at the same level, schools have been increasing their fees, it really meant that I got a 30% discount. In the meantime, my husband has had to put his master's degree aside as I pursue and finish my PhD program.1040 And at this point I am now over 1200 $120,000 in debt as I complete my PhD entirely self funded and I'm looking forward to even more tuition bills as my daughters both1053 become of college age, leaving us with a bill of probably over $100,000 in addition to what I currently owe.

1060 So1060 um, when we are able to legitimately provide free tuition to our students, I think it's only fair. Um, I am a faculty who believes fiercely in the mission of public higher education and yet as tuition skyrockets on our meager salaries, we are unable to provide our own Children the benefits of the schools that were so proud of. And so I would really love it if you were able to fix this broken system and at least give us parody with those people who work at private institutions. I have many colleagues who are able to provide free tuition to their students when they teach your private institution. So thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on behalf of these bills.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


[JIM DURKIN (AFSCME):] [HB2572] [HB2574] [SB1665] [SB1666] [SB2444] [HB1678] [HB2746] Thank you Mr Chairman members of the committee for the record. Jim Durkin, Legislative director for AFSCME Council 93 here to seek your support for three pieces of legislation and opposition to one additional bill. I'll start with two filed in both branches that would strike provisions in the MWRA enabling legislation, legislation that strips union workers is a basic collective bargaining rights afforded to every other public sector union worker and the commonwealth. Those are House Bill 2572 2574 Senate 1665 and 1666. Uh The bills would eliminate provisions in the enabling legislation that provide management with unfair rights on discipline procedures and the assignment and promotional workers.

Specifically, 2572 and 1665 would eliminate a provision that allows the MWRA to discipline or even fire a worker without sufficient cause. In 2574 and 1666 would require the authority simply to collectively bargain with our union to establish a fair system of assigning and promoting workers. Once again, important to note, these bills do not give these1202 workers any special rights. They simply provide them with the same rights afforded to every other unionized public employee in the state. Under the current law, the authority can arbitrarily impose any discipline action they want on any worker, regardless of the alleged offense decisions left entirely to the women management. And you'd like to think management doesn't abuse that, right. But unfortunately, that's not always the case.

There's been a number of instances over the years were unfair. Unbalanced punishments have been handed down to our members. In some instances, it's extreme. In other instances, workers who commit the same offense and have identical performance records are subjected to vastly different actions. Uh, so this legislation would end the unfair practice by requiring the authority to apply a justic and to discipline uh, basic common things, common sense things warn the employee of probable action, conduct an investigation and present evidence, apply work rules consistently and impose discipline appropriate to the offense. Once again, not1262 special rights. Everybody's got them with these workers.

Uh, identical legislation received a favorable recommendation from the committee in the last session. And since1272 there's no cost involved that went directly to rules, Uh, the other two bills quickly,1276 2574 and 1666 would repeal a section of the law that prevents our union from negotiating the process for assigning and promoting workers. Uh, they simply require management to negotiate with the Union. It does not require management to agree to anything other than a fair negotiation process. Moving on to Senator Bill 2444. We're also asking for your support on that in the interest of time. I know some of my colleagues going to testify in detail about that. Uh, I will just say though, I think it's fair to say that all the unions1311 that are here in support of this bill today would prefer to be accomplishing the objectives set forth in the bill at the bargaining table with the baker administration.

But over the past six months it's become increasingly clear from the insulting wage officers we offers we've received that you the members of the Legislature represent our best and perhaps only hope to secure decent wage increases for our members that reflect what they've done and the1335 personal sacrifices they made during the pandemic and beyond. Look, we got more than 6500 direct care workers in the state human services system alone. Men and women who provide skilled, compassionate care and facilities and group homes. Over the past1349 15 months, while most people have had the luxury of sheltering safely in the confines of their homes, these men and women reported faithfully to work every single day, and they paid a heavy price for their service.

According to the administration's own internal figures, released publicly at our urging more than 900 people working in these facilities alone or infected with the virus. With many unknowingly bringing the virus home to their families. Those that managed to stay healthy were forced, literally forced To fill the1378 void left by their sick1380 co workers prior to the pandemic. These workers were already suffering from a long standing staff shortage, but during the darkest days of the pandemic, they were being mandated to work 2-3 double shifts a week wearing the same dirty mask and wearing constantly that they had become part of this daily grim death toll.1400 Yet the governor's proposal to recognize this courage and sacrifices a wage increase of 0% for the first year of the contract and a 2% increase for the subsequent two years.

It'd be insulting even during difficult times But given the recent influx of federal aid, strong revenue numbers that are shattered benchmarks, there's no way to sugarcoat this. The offer from Governor Baker is shameful and disgusting and we hope you'll agree and act favorably on this legislation. Finally, Mr Chairman, I'd like to I need to express our unions strong opposition to Senate Bill 1678 and House Bill 2746 both identical bills that seek to meet the long standing practice of funding collective bargaining contracts and give UMass on the border. Higher read the unchecked ability to stop paying negotiated pay raises to union workers that were previously approved and funded by the Legislature simply because they claim you, the Legislature didn't give them enough money to1462 give them everything they want.

Currently, once a contract, the agreement is signed by both parties Governor submits funding and the Legislature votes to approve the first year of the contract with an appropriation from a reserve fund established for new contracts and the two years two and three are subsequently built into general appropriations. But under this bill, if hiring executives don't think you provided them with sufficient funding and we all know that's happened before, they'll be allowed to stop paying rank1494 and file workers. They negotiated pay increases, force the union back to the table to reopen negotiations and ultimately force wage concessions and of course put the blame all on you, the Legislature. Meanwhile, they continue to collect their high salaries and schedule pay increases without any interruption.

So as such, uh we respectfully urge you to reject these1516 bills. I thank you for allowing me ample time to touch on all these and I'll do my best answer any questions you may have.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


[PAUL JAKES (PFFM):] [HB2674] [HB2676] [HB2677] [SB1700] Good afternoon Champion Brady, Chairman Gordon, members of the committee and staff for the record my name is Paul Jakes Legislative agent for the Professional Firefighters of Massachusetts. Joined here today by Craig Hardy, also legislative agent for the Professional Firefighters Massachusetts. We have submitted written testimony so we'll keep it brief. We just wanted to go on the record in support of the following bills, House Bill 2674, House Bill 2676, House Bill 2677 And Senate Bill 1700. As we said, we have submitted written testimony. These bills have been filed, and refiled for a while and come before you and we just ask that they be reported favorably from committee. Thank you.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


[CHRIS GINNSALVES:] Hi, good afternoon. We actually are testifying today as a panel and we have Thomas McKeever president of SEIU Local 888 as well as uh two of my other coworkers. So I could turn1677 it over to Tom.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


[THOMAS MCKEEVER (SEIU):] [HB2739] [SB1745] So if I may give a brief introduction Chairman Brady and uh Chairman Gordon thank you for uh for the ability to give testimony today. I'd like to thank the distinguished distinguished members of the Public Service Committee. We are giving testimony today on behalf of a House Bill 2739 and Senate Bill 1745. This is legislation legislation relative to collective bargaining rights for employees of the Committee of Public Council Service. And this passage of this bill would create an environment of fairness uh from an organizational standpoint, a voice for public defenders and certainty and cost savings to their departments.

1741 Um1741 uh The Committee of Public Council Service CPCS defenders from the office secretary to the attorney at Superior Court have been left behind due to the emission of their founding law in Chapter 211D Mass General Law. They were never given the the option of former union. All other state employees have the right to organize. Why should they be denied this benefit? Uh CPCS employees are already employees of the commonwealth. They have state GIC health care and pension benefits. This bill only seeks to grant CPCS employees the right the former union for the purposes of collective bargaining. If passed, the CPCS employees could then decide through their state democratic process whether or not they want to form a union to be clear. This bill will not create new state employees.

Public defenders in other states, including Vermont, New Hampshire have the right to organize and may have formed unions to collectively bargain. The process of bargaining is a collaborative one. Labor and management work together to try to solve problems to reach agreements within the parameters and1814 resources that are available. Moreover, as frontline workers, employees often have good ideas about improvements or changes that could be made in the workplace that would provide more efficient and effective use of taxpayer resources. Currently, there is no structure to bring these ideas forward through the collective bargaining CPCS employees will have a voice that will benefit the agency and run the Commonwealth and uh, well, partition uh, participated in the common wealth in the long run, um, if someone works hard and plays by the rules, they should be able to advance in their careers.

This is not the case for CPCS, there are no steps or grades at CPCS Employees salaries, um, uh, forgive me and benefits are dependent on the will of the committee and the budget climate. State employees at CPCS would have the path to better, better themselves and their jobs. The result of this lack of certainty is an employee at CPCS may work for 10 years without a raise, faced with the pressures of the family, college loans and the cost of housing many defenders leave CPCS for public defense, uh, for public defender jobs or other states or go to private sector where they can plan for their future and are paid wages. They reflect the value of the work that they do. The lack1907 of fairness, uncertainty and CPCS has led to high turnover of the attorneys that started in 2010, at least 25% have already left the agency for jobs in other states or private sector.

The loss of representation is at least $500,000 in investment in training and salaries and staff who are no longer on the job at this time if I may introduce the panel that we have set for before you today, they will be able to give a better uh, description of their1941 current roles, duties and responsibilities and why they are deserving of collective bargaining within their agency Chris.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


[REBECCA DIMARIAM:] Um, Good afternoon representatives. My name is Rebecca DiMariam. Um, I'm a trial attorney at the Boston Children and Family Law division of the state uh, public defender's office. I'm also working as a legal training attorney at the Castle Training Unit. I've been at CPCS for close to eight years right now. I'm also a member of the Mass defenders union, uh, that employees have organized on their own and I'm currently the Suffolk County rep on the executive board. And while this union, organized by employees themselves functions as a union space for employees to come together and address workplace issues, we have not been voluntarily voluntarily recognized by2006 CPCS and have no recognized authority.

And I'm here to ask that you all seriously consider changing that fact by supporting the bills before you today allowing CPCS employees the right to unionize. Um I work in the family defender unit and as a defender in the state. I see clients of color disproportionately affected by both the criminal and child welfare um agencies and policies. This engineers them in what we know to be the new2045 Jim Crow and jane Crow of our time and as indigent folks that cannot pay for representation. They become our clients. We represent them. And I want I want to make that point, um, to also make it clear to you that as you consider this bill that you understand that it's also a racial justice issue by the very nature of who we work for who we represent.

We are the first line of defense for people most affected by systemic racism and our clients deserve to be represented as zealously and as fiercely as possible. We also deserve the right to2089 unionize so that we can continue to do the work that we do do it well, but not to exhaustion. So by ensuring we have enough attorneys taking cases, we can do that by ensuring that we resource our attorneys so that they can manage their2108 cases. We can do that and also by valuing the clients enough. Our clients that are marginalized people of color to then put value in their defense representatives. Right now, I see amazing colleagues, mentors. Um they put in 110% on all of their cases in each case, but they have no control as to the number of cases they work on no certainty as to any cost of living adjustment and it's contributed um quite horribly to the very stark attrition rate in my department.

Um, I am actually one of three people left from my entering class of 2013. And what I noticed right now is that we as an institution are losing so many bright and dedicated attorneys. I'm really sad at the fact that our clients will benefit from the years of experience, the training, the, the investment already put into attorneys that have this expertise and they are just leaving our work. They're leaving this field. What we're asking for you right now is not outside the realm of possibility. It's not extravagant. We all love our work. We love working with the community with our clients. And most importantly, we want to do this work for as long as we can. Um, we just want to make sure we can pay our rent, pay our mortgages and feel safe and secure enough to continue to do that work.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
[BROOKE MOUY (SPDD):] [HB2739] [SB1745] Good afternoon. Um my name is Brooke Mouy and I've been working as an administrative assistant for nine years at the Springfield Public Defender Division of CPCS. I live and work in Springfield. Um and as working with CPCS Administrative Assistant is a core to representing our clients. Some of what I do is process new cases as2257 they come in. I close out the2259 old cases and I'm the first voice that they hear during incredibly stressful time. Our agency is doing an incredibly important job that many people in the commonwealth will never interact with. But due to those involved in the criminal justice system, CPCS can be a lifeline. We help people find resources who otherwise were struggling due to discrimination, substance abuse, trauma.

Many of our clients are targeted because of the color of their skin, their homelessness or their mental health and we are here to help them tell their stories. All the staff at CPCS are dedicated to their clients and want to continue to do this vital community defense work working at CPCS is what is part of what has inspired me to go to law school. I have been accepted to the Massachusetts School of Law and we'll2306 be starting August 16th. I'm going to law school so that clients of color can see more people uh, that look like them on the other side so that when they also know it's possible. I'm excited to continue to use my voice to help our clients. This is also a part of what, why it is so important to have a union. We help our clients voices be heard but CPCS employees right now, we don't have a voice.

A union means that the workers get a voice in the decisions that impact their lives. This bill would give us the rights and unique to unionize. This is about workers rights. This is about sending a clear message that you support workers in the commonwealth and that you value the community's public defenders surf. This is about valuing CPCS employees, all of whom provide zealous advocacy. Um that is quality from start to finish. Please support the bills House 2739 and Senate 1745 and I'd like to thank you for your time and I'll pass over to my colleague Chris.

[CHRIS GINNSALVES (MASS PUBLIC DEFENDERS):] uh huh. Thank you Brooke and Rebecca. So my name is Chris Ginnsalves. I've been an investigator at the Massachusetts Public Defenders for almost 12 years. First in Roxbury and now in Wester. I'm a member of our staff union, Mass Defenders Union and I'm currently the recording secretary on our executive board. The Mass Defenders Union is our staff organization at2393 CPCS. We are union without rights, a union without recognition. So we ask that you join with us to change that by championing these bills. That would make a simple change to chapter 150(e) and add CPCS to the definition of public employer as public defenders we stand between our clients and the legal system that often robs them of not just their freedom but2414 of their humanity.

Our responsibility is to ensure our clients are treated fairly and with dignity as investigators. One of our basic responsibilities is to listen to our clients and their loved ones to the victims in the case, to other witnesses. We listen to learn to better understand what someone else has experienced. I'm here to ask that you share that responsibility to listen and to act. My co workers flat out inspire me. Their commitment breathes life and gives meaning to the right to an attorney, a constitutional2443 right essential to any democracy. So why are we being denied our rights as workers? The right to a unique potential. It is democracy in the workplace. With union recognition, we can better address the issues that impact staff, our clients and the communities we serve.

The work has always taken an emotional toll, but the past year brought on new difficulties. As investigators, we knocked on doors in the neighborhoods hardest hit by the pandemic. We met with witnesses tried to find the person that no one spoke to or found surveillance video exonerating our client. Our social workers worked tirelessly to help our clients get into drug treatment, find housing or get a job at a time when many services were shuttered. Our administrative professionals who are the core of our agency adapted on the fly and kept are suddenly remote offices running smoothly. Our attorneys went to court and confronted health and safety concerns. We visited our clients in jail and took on more phone and video calls as clients were often cut off2502 from their loved ones.

We were furloughed and experienced2505 the stress of loss pay, delayed unemployment2508 benefits and the fear of layoffs. Our family struggled with distance learning, childcare and looking after older relatives. And we can't forget some of us got sick and lost loved ones. Being a public defender in Massachusetts takes a financial tool. The Mass defenders union made public defender pay a major policy issue after we formed in 2013. Two commissions issued reports within a year and we were thankful when we won two significant raises in 2016 and in 2019, it was a great example of how frontline staff, senior management, community partners and the legislature can all work together for a common2544 goal, but they're still exists major salary gaps between many of our positions and other similar state workers right here in Massachusetts without union recognitions were denied the financial stability and consistency of a contract.

The salary gap will grow instead of clothes. Student debt, rising rents and mortgages and childcare costs are among the many pressures that make a career in public defense almost unsustainable. We lose dedicated and talented public defense workers every year. Union recognition won't automatically solve these issues, but we would have a recognized voice and some predictability to plan our futures. We want to be part of the process and work together to achieve the public defense our communities deserve but let me be clear this bill. This bill before you has no cost were already state workers with state pensions and GIC healthcare, so no big ticket items if passed we would still need to negotiate a contract2598 that has been funded by the Legislature.

For us this bill is not about raises, this bill is about rights. Do you believe that workers have the right to a union? The question is simple and our position is clear. So please ask yourselves, which side are you on. Thank you very much.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


[BRADY:] I do have a question as we get back to the somewhat normalcy. I know a lot of the courts have been closed in person meeting and I know some of the severe cases in the spirit court have opened up. But how has it been with the CPS Attorneys? The CPCS attorneys, Are you able to meet with your clients now or is it still virtual?

[DIMARIAM:] well I could answer quickly. Uh Honestly I know district attorneys, they have been2665 in a safe manner meeting with their clients throughout the pandemic. I don't think that um if it was available of course we tried to do um using video calls and all of that but that hasn't. There's sometimes no substitute for meeting your client where they are. And I want to say that that's something um2687 attorneys have continued to do this year.

[BRADY:] Correct. I know that some of the courts have had outbreaks. As soon as we start to open up some of them, then somebody would come down with Covid. But as as we all know the more people will get vaccinated and and protected the better things will be. So thank you for your testimony.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


[NINA HOFFMAN (CAPE COD COMMUNITY COLLEGE):] Hi, my name is Nina Hoffman. For the past 14 years I have worked as an adjunct in Cape Cod Community College and as well adjuncts out there I also worked in Quincy College and in Curry College in order to make ends meet. I've been a member of the NBTA For the last 14 years who have petitioned for the bills that has to do with health care 401K and retirement little, this is a very personal story and I'm just adding my voice to all the 1000 adjuncts members in Massachusetts and probably many across the United States. Um, I am off the boat. My husband is off the boat. Our kids are first generation. My husband always said, don't worry about retirement, don't worry about 401K. Don't worry about health care.

Little did I know that at age 44 he got diagnosed with esophageal cancer. He battled it for two2781 years and then he died. That leaves, leaves me with three kids under the age of 18. I2788 have to work and over six months none of us had health care. So it's very difficult to work in these kinds of conditions. Um us adjuncts, we should do what we do best which is to teach which is to inspire and which is to help all the students, especially in community college to stay the course. Who would think that coming to United States, the richest country in the world. I come from Spain, but just being a citizen, we have universal health care and over here again, the richest country in the world. We don't have health care especially for people who have been working. So I just would like to finish by saying We should have health care, we should have 401K. And2834 we should have retirement and we should not have to worry about how to feed our kids, which I have. Three of them living at home under the age of 18 who are grieving right now from their father, who died exactly a year ago. Thank you very much for listening to my story.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


[GORDON:] This is Chair Gordon and thank you very much for your testimony and I'm sorry for the loss of your husband. And you make some very good points about the things that um that you shouldn't have to deal with and the rights that we should have here and we will continue to work on this. Thank you.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


[JIM REDMOND (NAGE):] [SB2444] Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman Chairman brady, Chairman Gordon Members of the Committee for the Record. Uh We have written testimony on behalf of the MWRA bills that my colleagues that we're working on those issues with have already spoken on. So in the interest of time, I'm going to submit that written testimony. But I just want to start by echoing um their comments, the comments of Steve Smalley and Jim Durkin. We've been working for years on this issue, particularly just caused one, it's an issue of equity and fairness. Um and they are the only group of unionized public workers in the state that do not have just cause protection in their CBA. So we ask for your support on that.

I'd like to focus my testimony this afternoon on Senate Bill 2444 and I apologize. Our national president David Hallway was originally scheduled to deliver this testimony. Um and he's asked me due to a scheduling conflict to uh pinch hit today. So without further ado, I will just get right into it. And again, I thank you for your time uh NAGE worked on this piece. We work to draft and file this with Senator Dizoglio in response to the situation the NAGE and the other public sector unions across the commonwealth are currently facing a negotiations with Governor baker and his administration. Uh the bill as drafted would enable the automatic implementation of a salary increase for unionized state workers equal to the most recent statutory wage increase for constitutional officers in the general court.

Uh NAGE drafted the legislation um in order to begin a conversation with you the legislature about the need to deliver a salary increase for unionized workers outside of Chapter 150(e) because thus far the governor has refused to. Um as you probably know, NAGE has been engaged now in negotiations with the Baker administration for more than a year and July 1st will mark one year since3053 our contracts, state contracts expired at the outset of the pandemic, NAGE members and leaders rightly shifted bargaining to the back burner so that we could focus on the work needed to respond to the pandemic and provide support networks, the support network networks that our citizens needed. NAGE members worked through the night, some in their own homes processing unemployment claims to help families across the commonwealth keep food on the table and the lights on.

Our registry of motor vehicles. Clerk showed up every day to serve the public, placing themselves and by extension, their families at great risk of exposure. In order to ensure that public safety and commerce continued, our court employees made certain that public continue to have access to justice and public health employees worked around the clock to figure out how to defeat an enemy that we knew nothing about. Simply put NAGE members showed up and answer the call. We worked with the Baker administration to provide services and to our friends and neighbors and families that were relying on us. In3105 fact, union members from different organizations across the commonwealth all stepped up and answered the call.

And while each of the states unions represent unique workforces with distinct needs, the needs of our family, we find at the end of the day are very similar and we're just trying to keep pace with inflation and keep up to date with the cost of living. The state workforce is not a priority for Governor Baker, which is why we3128 have no choice but to appeal directly to you to deliver a raise that the state workforce will allow our members and their families to keep the pace with inflation at a minimum. As I stated earlier, uh, Senate 2444 is an idea um, designed to begin a discussion with the Legislature to directly authorise an appropriate wage increase of 6% to be granted outside of an independent from the collective bargaining process.

This increase would be consistent with3152 the raise given to all legislative staff earlier this year and consistent with the increase in median household income in Massachusetts. We estimate the cost for the proposed increase to be roughly $240 million dollars across state government in total. When considered in the context of the surplus that we're about to close the month the year with and the federal resources, it becomes easy and affordable to do the right thing to honor our workforce in the work they've done over the last 15 months Uh to conclude on Senate Bill 2444. I'd also like to point out that this idea is not without legislative precedent. When Governor Well took office, he was required by law to submit recently negotiated contracts by the Dukakis administration to the Legislature for funding.

Ultimately, Governor Well vetoed the contracts that he submitted and the veto was sustained because time had run out in the legislative calendar. The case was taken to the SJC, who ruled the governor world was not obligated to support raises negotiated by his press by his predecessor. However, the important point to note is that in the wake of that decision, the legislature took unilateral action in the form of chapter 267 of the Acts of 1992, which provided the affected employees with salary increases outside and independent of Chapter 150(e). We've actually provided a copy of Chapter 267 to the committee staff for your review today. Actually, one interestingly, one in every $7 earned by our members can be directly tied to that action by the Legislature in 1992.

I hope that the committee will look favorably on Senate Bill 2444 recognize the time sensitivity of this issue by moving quickly to work with the full legislature to deliver a salary increase that is worthy of our state workforce. And before I close, I also just want to ask the committee support for support on Senate Bill 1656 an act relative to collectively bargain health and welfare plans. I'm sure that you all remember the US. Supreme Court's Janice ruling from June of 2018. As you know in the wake of that ruling, which essentially outlawed the collection of agency service fees. Nature worked with a broad coalition of public sector unions and each of you in the legislature to draft and pass legislation to mitigate the impact that Janice would have on the labor movement here in Massachusetts.

Nearly two years after the passage of the Janice law over the objections of Governor Baker, I can report that your efforts have helped stabilize and strengthen the voice of working men and women in Massachusetts. It's in that spirit and with that goal in mind that we filed Senate 1656 with Senator Bankory. This bill would allow NAGE to transition its health and welfare plans from all employees in the bargaining unit to NAGE members only3304 under the bill, only NAGE members in good standing would be eligible for membership in the health and3309 Well,
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
[ALICIA FLEMING (MJWJ):] [HB2739] Hi, my name's Alicia Fleming. I am one of the co-executive directors at Massachusetts Jobs With Justice. Uh, Massachusetts Jobs With Justice strongly supports house Bill 2739 for the benefits it would bring to workers and residents of Massachusetts alike. The legislation would guarantee collective bargaining power to employees of the Committee on Public Council Services, a right that should be granted to any and all employees. Excuse me. CPCS employees are absolutely essential to the people of Massachusetts, ensuring the most basic rate of fair representation to those who cannot afford attorneys. The same3431 individuals who often endure the most harm in our systems in government increasing their agency as workers by permitting CPCS to unionize and participate in collective bargaining would benefit CPS CPCS employees, their clients and all who reside in Massachusetts.

It is our organization's fundamental belief that all workers should universally be granted the right to unionize collective bargaining, allows workers to participate more directly in the structure of their own workplace and provides the ability to negotiate equitable working conditions for themselves in their co workers, attorneys who are providing the incredibly important service of defending indigent and low income individuals need and deserve sustainable working conditions that grant them stability and agency. Furthermore, the state spends millions of dollars each year to hire new public defenders. Do a continue due to a continuous exodus of workers from a job with difficult working conditions.

When workplaces unionize staff turnover drops as workers become confident that they will be secure in their jobs and working conditions improve the people of Massachusetts deserve public defenders who have these protections passing HB2739 is an incredibly important, is incredibly important, not only for CPCS themselves and their employer, but also3514 for those whom they defend in the entire population of Massachusetts, all of which is impacted by the court and incarceration system. Public defenders serve the most vulnerable communities of our state, and if they are not working in conditions that enable them to support themselves and their own families, they won't be able to3533 support these individuals in a way that is just with bargaining power.3536 CPCS will be able to focus on doing the best they possibly can for their clients as they navigate a complex and difficult process and the state will be able to hire and retain employees at a much higher rate.

The constituents of Massachusetts deserve public defenders who are unable to do their jobs well and support everyone in our communities to find justice. Thank you very much.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


[LILY WANG (MJWJ):] [HB2739] So hi, good afternoon. Um, committee chairs Rep Gordon and Senator Brady and good afternoon committee members.3595 My name is Lily Wang and I live in Boat in Quincy Massachusetts. I am the other co executive director of Massachusetts Jobs With Justice. We are a statewide coalition with a hybrid approach of building collective power by building multi stakeholder coalitions and building individual grassroots members to win campaigns for working people, low income and poor bipac immigrants and women and families. Our coalition has more than 100 unions, community groups, faith groups and student groups with offices in spring. Austin and our individual members number in the thousands in our gateway cities.

During the last 4-5 difficult years that we've all experienced. Um, public defenders have3634 provided the basic human right to representation that we all deserve. When our members who were undocumented or non-citizens went to court for everyday hearings or errands, they were faced with the idea and the reality of being abducted by ICE officers at court and put into detention and deportation proceedings, Public defenders were able to do their best of their ability and represent these workers. They ensured our members and your constituents have the right to justice their day in court. As an organization that has advocated for the rights of all workers, Massachusetts Jobs With Justice supports House Bill 2739 This bill would enable employees3676 of the Committee on Public council services to collectively bargain, which should be already granted to them, um, as it should, all of us.

If CPCS is allowed to participate in collective bargaining and permitted to pursue unionization. This would benefit, um, them as workers. But all of us as residents of Massachusetts. Thank you.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


[RICHARD LEVI (SALEM STATE UNIVERSITY):] [SB1733] [HB2724] Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Um I'm Richard Levy, I'm a professor Meredith Political Science at Salem State, also speaking on behalf of Professor Joanna Gonsalves of Salem State. Um and we would like to address one key element of Senate 1733 House 2724 an act to ensure fairer public higher education workplaces, specifically streamlining the process through which public higher education collective bargaining agreements are validated and funded. Um as already mentioned by C.J O'Donnell and Max Page Currently there is a 12 step process and I've submitted written testimony I have included the 12 steps in that written testimony. It's still only two pages. But um, so it becomes clear exactly what the hoops are that have to go through.

The additional steps that would be removed by this legislation are unnecessary and untimely unfair. They're time consuming. They punish workers by delaying the implementation of contracts already agreed on by bargaining unit members and their employers. As such these additional steps are an affront to the workers, their unions and the very process of collective bargaining. This unnecessary step um contributed to the fact the fact that members of the Massachusetts State College Association, the union representing faculty and librarians at the nine public universities across the state, not including UMass, which C.J O'Donnell is the president, were without a contract for some two years after our contract3854 expired on June 30h 2017, despite a memorandum of understanding memorandum of agreement being signed in July 2018, 12.5 months after the expiration of the contract.

The unnecessary step in which the governor rejected the agreed on memorandum of agreement significantly extended the time for which those workers had to live on a salary that was less than both the original agreed on salary and the salary that was finally agreed on. In addition, um as a result of this step, one thing was lost and that was many of the faculty, The many faculty who teach in formats such as labs, studio instruction, nursing and allied clinical instruction, supervision of fieldwork internships and directed studies were forced to continue to receive less for each hour taught than their colleagues who teach in classrooms only, despite the fact that the original MOA agreed on and signed by both the MCSA and the Commissioner of Higher Education included equitable pay for these.

So this extra step cost a large number of people fair pay. In short the unnecessarily long and complicated process hurts workers in public higher education and undermines the very process of collective bargaining. So we speaking in3951 the interest of others but without specific sign off by other people, strongly urge you to support the streamlining of this negotiation and approval3963 processes articulated in these two bills. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. I'm happy to answer any questions.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
© InstaTrac 2025