November 6, 2014 – RI Future

November 6, 2014November 7, 2014

The election over, it’s time for a $15 minimum wage

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

On Tuesday, voters in Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska and South Dakota passed measures to raise the minimum wage in their states. These states are Republican strongholds, yet minimum wage increases passed overwhelmingly: 68.6% vs 31.3% in Alaska, 65% to 35% in Arkansas, 59.2% to 40.8% in Nebraska and 54.7% to 45.3% in South Dakota. These are conservative, hard-core red states, but the measures passed because no matter where on the political spectrum Americans stand, most of us believe in the fairness and justice of earning a living wage from a forty hour a week job.

Meanwhile, in California, ultra-liberal San Francisco leap-frogged all the competition by passing a $15 minimum wage ordinance in their city, and Oakland went to $12.25.

So what’s going on in Rhode Island?

Last year, the state raised the minimum wage to $9, from $8. This happened as hotel workers were fighting in Providence for a industry-specific $15 minimum wage and in short order a line was inserted into the state’s budget, without public debate or vetting, that prevented cities and towns from setting their own minimum wage floors.

The hardworking hotel workers had successfully petitioned the city council into placing a $15 minimum wage measure onto the ballot. Citizens of Providence would have voted on that measure Tuesday, if not for the actions of the General Assembly. There is little doubt that the measure would have passed here in Providence. I mean, seriously, are voters in Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska and South Dakota more compassionate than voters in Providence?

Speaker of the House Nicholas Mattiello and Budget Committee Chairman Representative Raymond Gallison did everything in their power to circumvent the will of the people and democracy itself in a sickening display of cavalier corporate bootlicking. Indeed, so great is Mattiello’s obsequious desire to serve corporate interests that he specifically targeted Maria Cimini, the only representative to raise any objections to the measure, by backing her opponent in the primary. Cimini lost her bid for re-election.

Over the course of the election here in Providence, many candidates have voiced their displeasure at Mattiello and Gallison’s power grab. Mayor Elect Jorge Elorza, said that he would actively work to have the law overturned, so that Providence and other cities might set their own minimum wage floors. In the October 22 mayoral forum Elorza even hinted that he supports a $15 minimum wage. I look forward to seeing Elorza at the State House in support of whatever bill is introduced to overturn the measure. Gina Raimondo is also on record as saying that the minimum wage needs to be increased to $10.10 (though she has never committed to $15.)

The Economic Progress Institute says an adult needs at least “$11.93 an hour to afford their most basic living expenses.” That’s $3 over our minimum wage and probably still another $3 shy of a living wage.

Raising the minimum wage to a living wage will prevent more Rhode Islanders from slipping into poverty, losing their homes and postponing their educations. It will give parents, now working two and three jobs to keep an apartment, more time to be parents and keep their kids off the streets and out of trouble. It will increase the purchasing power of Rhode Islanders, driving money to local businesses. It will reduce people’s dependence on financial debt traps like payday loans, and allow people to start bank accounts to earn credit and plan their retirement or their kids college.

Raising the minimum wage to a living wage will help people live lives of meaning without the stress of grinding poverty and the hopelessness such a life inculcates. Even the more conservative states are acting in lieu of a federal increase. The more progressive cities across the country are acting in lieu of a meaningful minimum wage in any state.

For this to happen in Rhode Island, we need to pressure the General Assembly to reverse last year’s law that prevents cities and towns from helping hourly-earning residents out of poverty.

November 6, 2014

FFRI joins fight against pipeline expansion

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Continuing a protest at U.S. Senator Whitehouse’s office last August, three Fighting Against Natural Gas (FANG) activists were arrested in the office of U.S. Senator Jack Reed on Halloween. They refused to leave until the senator would pledge to end to his support for expansion of the natural gas pipeline infrastructure.

Fossil Free Rhode Island stands in solidarity with the courageous protestors and takes emphatic exception to the statement issued by Senator Reed’s office that the senator is an “environmental champion” who “always puts public health and safety first.”

In June of 2013, the Obama administration launched the President’s Climate Action Plan, which touts natural gas as a “bridge fuel.” In June, the EPA proposed its Clean Power Plan that allegedly “will maintain an affordable, reliable energy system, while cutting pollution and protecting our health and environment.” Both Rhode Island U.S. senators, although aware of the problems associated with natural gas, are on record for their strong support of its expanded use.

At a public forum held May 16, 2014, responding to a question of the senators’ stands on natural gas, Whitehouse said:

I actually think that it is a bridge fuel.

He went on to explain:

I do think that trying to ease the choke points into New England so that we are not seeing price spikes, as a short-term benefit for our economy, is a value.

Reed concurred and stated that:

We should be able to generate significant resources to safely rebuild our pipelines in New England so that we do not have methane leakage so that we tap into energy sources around the country.

Unfortunately, a “short-time economic benefit” is inconsistent with the typical 50-year lifetime of natural gas infrastructure. Even more jarring is that science tells us that humanity has about a decade to develop a global, sustainable energy system. A report released in December of 2013 by a multidisciplinary team of scientists “conclude[s] that the widely accepted target of limiting human-made global climate warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above the pre-industrial level is too high and would subject future generations and the earth itself to irreparable harm. Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use must be reduced rapidly to avoid irreversible consequences such as a sea level rise large enough to inundate most coastal cities and extermination of many of today’s species.”

More important than what the senators say are their omissions. In their pitch for a business-as-usual infrastructure in New England they mention that escaping methane is a serious problem. However, they fail to mention that 75% of the leakage occurs near the fracking wells rather than in the pipelines. Nor do they utter a word about the public health and safety concerns associated with fracking: “A significant body of evidence has emerged to demonstrate that these activities are inherently dangerous to people and their communities. Risks include adverse impacts on water, air, agriculture, public health and safety, property values, climate stability and economic vitality.”

Meanwhile, the planned use of natural gas is based on serious underestimates by the EPA[10] of how much methane leaks into the atmosphere. The bottom line is that this development is likely to exacerbate the greenhouse gas emission problem.

At the same time, this course of action will delay the development and deployment of renewable energy technology. In fact, it is but an excuse for inaction. Indeed, one of the authors of the Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report, that just came out, Michael Oppenheimer, a principal author of the report said:

We’ve seen many governments delay and delay and delay on implementing comprehensive emissions cuts. So the need for a lot of luck looms larger and larger. Personally, I think it’s a slim reed to lean on for the fate of the planet.

The climate disruption resulting from “all of the above” is morally unacceptable in terms of its human, environmental, and economic toll.

November 6, 2014November 6, 2014

Rally at Brown to protest mail room outsourcing

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Students and staff of Brown University gathered Tuesday on the campus green to protest the outsourcing of nine mail room jobs over the summer and the potential loss of two “mail driver” jobs this year.

Over the summer Brown laid off nine workers and contracted with RICOH, a Japanese corporation, for its mail room services. Brown said the move would save money and increase efficiency, but according to the protesters:

“Important packages have been lost, students have not received medication in a timely fashion, departmental mail has been lost, and lines for picking up packages can be extremely long.”

Perhaps more important than lost and late mail is the impact such moves have on workers and our community.

It is extremely difficult to find a good job that pays decent money and provides anything in the way of benefits. Now, thanks to outsourcing, its even more difficult. Outsourcing allows a company to lay off a bunch of employees and pay a lump sum to an outside vender who supplies low paid workers, usually temps who work by the hour and receive no benefits. This saves the company money and transforms good jobs that people can use to raise families and improve their lives into low wage poverty traps.

The rally was called because an analyst from RICOH was coming in to “assess the mail room drivers, positions that previously were not outsourced to RICOH.” Though Brown administrators Beppie Huidekoper and Beth Gentry claim there are no plans to outsource these jobs, protesters are skeptical. The same RICOH analyst came to Brown last year to assess the mail room, and now those jobs are gone.

The protesters are asking “that President [Christina] Paxson, Beppie Huidekoper, and Beth Gentry publicly commit not to outsource these jobs to RICOH, maintaining them as Brown employees. We ask that they disinvite the RICOH analyst.”

As workers, students and the community suffers, Brown pockets the profits. If Brown University can’t offer decent, well paying jobs to our community, why are they exempt from paying taxes?