aaron regunberg – Page 2

March 9, 2016March 9, 2016

Rep Regunberg’s climate bills opposed by National Grid

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

Screen Shot 2016-03-09 at 1_Fotor — Frank McMahon, National Grid

State Rep Aaron Regunberg’s bill to allow net metering and virtual net metering in Rhode Island, (House Bill No.7585) heard in House Corporations Tuesday evening, was met with an outpouring of support from business owners and conservationists. The only people who spoke against the idea were representatives for National Grid, the RI Public Utilities Commission (PUC), and the RI Office for Energy Resources (OER).

Net metering allows people to generate their own electricity- think solar panels, wind turbines, or even exercise bikes- in order to reduce their electric bills or even to sell their surplus electricity to their neighbors. Virtual Net Metering allows people to pool resources and develop solar and wind farms off their property, yet still reap the benefits of reducing or reversing the costs of electricity.

This is a big win for consumers in states like Massachusetts, where the solar rooftop industry is flourishing. During testimony, five representatives from solar companies testified in favor of the bill. They testified that the regulatory climate in Massachusetts has allowed their businesses to boom there. In Rhode Island, it is much more difficult to make the numbers work, if they can at all, because of the laws and regulations here that protect the interests of a multi-billion dollar, out of state corporations like National Grid.

Christopher Kearns, representing the RI Office of Energy Resources and the Governor’s office, said that net metering is “touched upon” in Governor Gina Raimondo’s budget and that they would prefer all net metering policy decisions be determined there.

I’ve spoken about the anti-democratic nature of inserting policy into the budget in the past. When the General Assembly prevented cities and towns from determining their own minimum wages, it was done as a budget item. When Gina Raimondo messed with abortion coverage in HealthSourceRI, it was done as a budget item. Both these decisions were disasters for poor and working class Rhode Islanders.

I maintain that the reason to insert policy into the budget rather than through an open legislative process is to prevent public input and public discussion on vital issues and to concentrate power into the hands of a small group of legislators and the Governor’s office. As of this writing Kearns has not responded to a request for comment on this.

Cynthia Wilson-Frias, Deputy Chief Counsel for the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission, also spoke against the proposal. The PUC effectively exists to rubber stamp National Grid’s periodic rate increases. The PUC is also working with the Governor’s office and the OER on a version of net metering. She said that the bill seems over broad and might put the state at risk of violating federal laws. Of course, if Massachusetts can do this, why can’t Rhode Island?

That leads me to the last objector, Frank McMahon of National Grid. Speaking with the casual disdain of someone who knows that the power is on his side, McMahon told the room that he doesn’t want to bore us with the “technical reasons” of National Grid’s objections. McMahon agreed with the the PUC and the OER that net metering is a subject best kept within the confines of the Governor’s budget article, where, it can be presumed, his lobbying efforts will have the greatest impact.

You can watch Regunberg’s presentation of his bill and the testimony here:

You can also watch all the testimony concerning Rep Regunberg’s other bill, House Bill No.7514 in the video below. This bill, also opposed by the PUC and National Grid, would require “the division of public utilities and carriers and the public utilities commission to include climate, environmental, employment, health and consumer concerns in all their proceedings and decisions.”

Watch as Wilson-Frias of the PUC objects to the bill on the grounds that the PUC’s “primary role is to approve rates sufficient to provide a utility to engage in providing a safe, reliable service…”

In other words, climate, environmental, employment, health and consumer concerns are secondary to a utility’s ability to make a profit.

As long as that is true, effective action against climate change and towards energy independence will be impossible.

February 29, 2016February 28, 2016

Health insurance industry lawyer makes the case for single payer

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

In speaking out against a bill that would make sure no pregnant person could be denied medical coverage due to their pregnancy, a health insurance lawyer unintentionally made a great case for a national, single payer health program.

Shawn Donahue is an attorney at Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island and last Tuesday he spoke at the House Corporations Committee meeting to oppose a bill that would ensure “no pregnant applicant for medical insurance coverage would be denied coverage due to her pregnancy.”

I want to stress at the outset that Donahue seems like a decent man, and I sensed that he was somewhat uncomfortable speaking out against this bill.

“No one believes in the importance of pre-natal care more than Blue Cross,” said Donohue, “We’ve invested in it.”

That’s true. “Getting early and regular prenatal care is one of the most important things you can do for the health of both you and your baby,” says Blue Cross on its website. The site contains a wealth of information and advice on healthy pregnancies. But we don’t have to assume that Blue Cross is promoting neonatal care out of any sense of public service. Healthy pregnancies are cheaper for insurance companies. An insured baby, with proper neonatal care, is less likely to have expensive health problems going forward.

The importance of prenatal care is underscored by the health risks associated with not having such care.

“Women in the United States who do not receive prenatal care have an increased risk of experiencing a neonatal death… Lack of prenatal care is associated with a 40 percent increase in the risk of neonatal death overall…” says the Guttmacher Institute, citing a study, “Black women are more than three times as likely as white women not to receive prenatal care, and regardless of their prenatal care status, their infants are significantly more likely to die within their first 27 days of life than are infants born to white women.”

Other risks from not receiving adequate prenatal care include low birth weight for the infant, and pre-eclampsia, a form of organ damage, that affects the mother. From a human perspective, this is terrible and unnecessary. From the perspective of an insurance company, such health problems are expensive.

Yet, said Donohue, speaking for Blue Cross at the Rhode Island State House, “The only way insurance works is if you purchase it when you don’t need it so it’s there for you when you do. If you allow people a special enrollment period, whether they’re diabetics, cancer patients or pregnant people, they won’t buy it until they need it.”

The Affordable Care Act (ACA or Obamacare) mandates that Rhode Islanders buy private insurance on the state run health insurance exchange, HealthSourceRI. “If you’ve missed the open enrollment period,” said Donohue, “ you’ve broken the law and now you are penalized for that, and the penalties start to grow.”

Donahue is talking about financial penalties of course, but the real penalties from a societal point of view are dead babies, or babies and mothers with terrible health outcomes. Suddenly the financial penalty for not complying with the ACA mandate seems rather small and meaningless, doesn’t it? But more to the point, it’s exactly these negative health outcomes that Obamacare was supposed to address.

“We don’t let people buy insurance on their way to the hospital in an ambulance,” said Donahue. I would say that having to worry about financial issues during a medical emergency is a major system failure, and further, these gaps in care for vulnerable Americans expose the weaknesses in today’s for-profit health insurance industry, of which Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island is a big part.

According to Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), “Single-payer national health insurance, also known as ‘Medicare for all,’ is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health care financing, but the delivery of care remains largely in private hands. Under a single-payer system, all residents of the U.S. would be covered for all medically necessary services, including doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs.

“The program would be funded by the savings obtained from replacing today’s inefficient, profit-oriented, multiple insurance payers with a single streamlined, nonprofit, public payer, and by modest new taxes based on ability to pay. Premiums would disappear; 95 percent of all households would save money. Patients would no longer face financial barriers to care such as co-pays and deductibles, and would regain free choice of doctor and hospital. Doctors would regain autonomy over patient care.”

On the national scene Bernie Sanders has championed single payer, calling it Medicare for All. “Health care must be recognized as a right, not a privilege,” says Sanders, “Every man, woman and child in our country should be able to access the health care they need regardless of their income. The only long-term solution to America’s health care crisis is a single-payer national health care program.”

State Representative Aaron Regunberg has introduced, for the second time, a bill to bring the benefits of a single payer health insurance program to Rhode Island. His bill would “act would repeal the ‘Rhode Island Health Care Reform Act of 2004 – Health Insurance Oversight’ as well as the ‘Rhode Island Health Benefit Exchange,’ and would establish the Rhode Island comprehensive health insurance program.”

His bill deserves our support.

February 25, 2016

My toll take

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

On February 10th, after 7 hours of debate on the House Floor, I voted for legislation to invest in our state’s crumbling infrastructure and establish a sustainable source of revenue to maintain and repair our roads and bridges. As a proud progressive, I am happy to stand by that vote.

We’ve seen some loud opposition to the truck tolling plan, and I understand where some of this hostility is coming from. For example, I get why the rightwing Center for Freedom and Prosperity would seize on this issue – they, like their benefactors the Koch brothers, are philosophically opposed to the whole premise of taxing private property for the public good, so asking truck companies to pay their fair share for infrastructure maintenance is naturally going to rub them the wrong way. Similarly, it makes sense that my friends and colleagues in the Republican Caucus – who have strenuously fought against every policy I’ve put forward to improve wages for low-income workers, to strengthen the social safety net for struggling families, and to create a more progressive tax structure – would argue against a proposal like this, and instead push for more regressive alternatives like privatizing our roads and bridges.

But I have a lot more trouble wrapping my head around the handful of progressive voices who have come out against this public investment and jobs initiative.

To me, the situation seems pretty straightforward: our infrastructure is in disrepair, and the responsibility for that disrepair is not evenly distributed throughout our state. Big trucks do a lot of damage to our roads and bridges. In fact, a government study found that one 40-ton truck causes as much damage as 9,600 cars. Yet the folks who own these trucks are not paying for the consequences of their damage – all of us are. It’s a negative externality on a public good, not so different from a factory polluting a river or a smoker’s second-hand smoke. And in the same way that I support environmental regulations and smoke-free workplaces, I believe it’s completely reasonable to require the businesses who are deteriorating this shared public good to the greatest extent to pay their fair share for our infrastructure’s upkeep and maintenance.

So I stand by my vote to invest in our state’s economic development, to invest in the livelihood of our workers, and to invest in the the future safety of our young people. And while I would never claim to be the final arbiter of what is and is not progressive (that age-old question we love to argue about on the left), I will say that in my personal opinion, RhodeWorks passes that test easily, and those of us who care passionately about economic, social, and racial justice have better targets for our energy and outrage than the placement of a $20 toll on a million dollar truck.

February 5, 2016

Reps Regunberg and Metts seek to curb solitary confinement

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

Rep. Aaron Regunberg and Sen. Harold M. Metts have introduced legislation to reform the controversial use of solitary or “segregated” confinement in the Rhode Island prison system, saying the practice causes psychological damage and often exacerbates the very problems it is intended to address.

“The United Nations has condemned the use of solitary confinement, saying it can amount to torture,” said Representative Regunberg (D-Dist. 4, Providence). “And the research is very clear that prolonged solitary confinement causes psychological problems that can damage inmates’ chances of rehabilitation. It’s a vicious cycle that is destructive rather than corrective, and it particularly impacts already vulnerable populations, including the very high proportion of our prison population affected by mental illness. Add this to the fact that segregation units are by far the most expensive facilities to operate, and it should be clear that we need to put responsible limits on, and devise humane alternatives to, the use of solitary confinement in the prison system.”

Said Senator Metts (D-Dist. 6, Providence), “We cannot in good conscience call our prison a ‘corrections’ institute when the system relies on a punishment that is essentially designed to cause mental breakdown, particularly when so many of those subjected to it are already mentally ill. We have a moral imperative, as well as a constitutional mandate, to ensure we are not employing cruel or unusual punishment, and it is time we recognized that solitary confinement, in many cases, is cruel. Its use must be limited, and our prison system must stop using it on people who are particularly susceptible to the lasting effects it can have. We have to strive to find a better balance between rehabilitation and punishment.”

Many studies have found that long-term solitary confinement can produce psychological damage with symptoms such as hallucinations, hypersensitivity to noise or touch, paranoia, insomnia, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), increased suicide risk and uncontrollable rage or fear. The risks are higher for juveniles, whose brains are still developing, and for those with mental illness.

Those effects can result in inmates having more difficulty complying with prison rules, defeating the purpose of solitary confinement. Even those who aren’t mentally ill when they enter solitary confinement can be left with lasting psychological effects that they take with them when they are released from prison into the community.

“Solitary confinement is cruel and unusual punishment,” said S, a current inmate at the ACI who has asked to remain unidentified for fear of retribution. “I have seen people get years in segregation, and get locked in solitary for non-problematic reasons, like identifying as LGBTQ, filing lawsuits, or sharing political views. I have witnessed people in solitary confinement break down, start talking to themselves, become paranoid, play with their own feces, and worse. When you go to High Security [the solitary confinement facility] for causing a problem, they don’t help you, they don’t give you any mental health services, they just lock you in a cell for 23 hours a day. So when you go back to the normal facilities, you’re worse off.”

The legislation would prohibit the use of solitary confinement — also called “segregated confinement” — for specific vulnerable populations, ensure that conditions in segregation are humane, and limit the use of solitary confinement for all inmates to 15 consecutive days, and no more than 20 days within any 60 day period.

The bill (2016-H 7481) has support from a wide array of inmates’ rights activists, mental health advocates, civil rights groups and families of incarcerated individuals.

“Solitary is a very dehumanizing experience that leaves a person broken and unable to function,” said John Prince, a member of Direct Action for Rights and Equality with first-hand experience of solitary confinement in the ACI. “You hear nothing, see nothing, have nothing to think about almost 24 hours a day. You lose all perspective of time. Human beings are not meant to live like that for weeks or months on end. My experiences in solitary were extremely painful, and I have many friends who were left unable to relate to people, even their families, after prolonged segregation. There have to be limits that keep this from being used for long periods or on people who are likely to suffer lasting damage from it.”

“Even mentally healthy people lose their faculties in solitary confinement, but for people with mental illness, it is a particularly unhealthy situation that impairs an individual’s ability to maintain healthy relationships,” said Michael Cerullo, a psychotherapist with extensive clinical experience in the juvenile and adult criminal justice system. “Without positive relationships in the community and with oneself, meaningful rehabilitation is significantly compromised. People with mental illness suffer serious trauma that cannot be undone when they are released either back into the prison population or back into the community, and that damage has ill effects on them and the people around them. We have to stop using this counterproductive approach with human beings challenged by mental illness for their sake and for the sake of the whole community.”

“Across the country, states are reducing their reliance on solitary confinement,” said Steven Brown, Executive Director of the Rhode Island ACLU. “Long-term isolation costs too much, does nothing to rehabilitate prisoners, and exacerbates mental illness — even in those who were healthy when they entered solitary. More than a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court noted not only the extreme toll solitary confinement takes on those subjected to it, but that those who are affected may never recover well enough to reintegrate well into the community. Yet, the use of solitary confinement persists. States that once relied heavily on solitary confinement are now instead focusing on policies that promote safe communities and fair treatment — at the same time saving their states millions and reducing violence in the prisons. It’s time for us to do the same here in Rhode Island.”

The House bill has 38 cosponsors, including Representatives Scott A. Slater (D-Dist. 10, Providence), Jean Philippe Barros (D-Dist. 59, Pawtucket), Raymond A. Hull (D-Dist. 6, Providence, North Providence) and David A. Bennett (D-Dist. 20, Warwick, Cranston).

[From the press release]

January 26, 2016February 29, 2016

Energize RI brings carbon pricing bill to the House

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

New carbon pricing legislation, backed by the Energize RI coalition, was introduced by Representative Aaron Regunberg (D District 4 Providence) in the House chamber on Tuesday. The legislation “is designed to provide incentives for renewable energy use, encourage the development of cleaner renewable energy projects, and create local jobs.”

“The legislation would establish a new Clean Energy and Jobs Fund that will invest in renewables and efficiency and help Rhode Islanders lower their energy costs,” said Energize RI in a press release, “The Fund will be financed by a fee on carbon pollution, beginning at $15 per ton of greenhouse gas emissions, paid by the companies that sell fossil fuels in the state.”

Traditionally, user fees hit members of low income communities hardest, but Douglas Hall, Director of Economic and Fiscal Policy at the Economic Progress Institute, said that this bill addresses that problem head on and to good effect. “This bill does a few things that we at the Economic Progress Institute think are important. A portion of the carbon tax will be passed onto consumers, including lower-income families, in the form of higher prices. The Energize Rhode Island Act addresses this concern, by providing rebates to Rhode Island families and businesses, ensuring they come out ahead. We have seen the incidence analysis of this bill and are confident that lower income Rhode Islanders will be more than protected from additional costs.”

Introducing the bill, Regunberg spoke about the economic, legal and moral responsibility Rhode Island has to take on such an “ambitious legislative proposal.”

“Economically, this is where the world is moving… Rhode Island can either be a follower, and get the least economic benefit from these trends, or we can be a leader for this country.

“Legally, in 2014 we passed the Resilient Rhode Island Act, which obligated our state to reach certain emission reduction goals. Right now we are not on track to reach those goals…

“And morally, we have a responsibility to Rhode Island’s young people, to my generation and to the generations that come after mine… by failing to enact significant climate legislation, we are condemning the babies who are born today at Women and Infants to a dangerous future.”

Small business owner Joseph Fernandes saw the issue from an economic point of view. “If you were to attempt to open a business today in many parts of our state, you would find yourself facing a whole new set of barriers that didn’t exist for my parents. You would be faced with the burden of having to pay for costly flood insurance premiums that will only grow higher. Climate change means your business is always vulnerable to an extreme weather event that could permanently close you down.”

The Energize RI Coalition sees their efforts as complementary to other state programs dealing with climate and energy. Ken Filarski of Filarski Architecture said the the clean energy sector of our economy is one of the fastest growing in the state. “This sector is already growing at a rate that is stronger than the rest of Rhode Island’s economy, supporting over 10,000 jobs and adding 1,600 more by the end of the year. Passing this legislation means more funds to install solar panels, insulate houses, and implement other energy efficiency measures. It means more Rhode Islanders working in a field that has proven itself to be both profitable and sustainable.”

More details from the press release:

2016-01-26 Energize RI 01 — Douglas Hall

“An economic impact study by Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI) estimated that the legislation would create a net growth of 1,000 to 2,000 new jobs in just the first two years of the program. It also noted that Rhode Island spends more than $3.1 billion annually on fossil fuels, nearly all of which flows out of the state, since Rhode Island does not produce these fuels itself. Incentivizing Rhode Islanders to switch from out-of-state fossil fuel sources to local renewables and efficiency will help keep more of that money in Rhode Island and protect the state from the volatile market swings that often affect these fuel prices.

“The legislation establishes that 25 percent of the fees collected for the Clean Energy and Jobs Fund would be used for climate resilience, energy efficiency, energy conservation, and renewable energy programs, to be administered by the state infrastructure bank created through legislation last year. Thirty percent would be used to provide direct dividends to employers in the state per full-time employee, and 40 percent would be used to provide direct dividends for every single state resident. Employees and residents would receive their funds via tax credits, or direct checks for those not required to file taxes.

“According to the coalition’s research based on average energy use data, the program will not increase energy costs for the average Rhode Island family and businesses In fact, by paving the way for a transition to an energy independent economy, the policy will reduce costs for all Rhode Islanders in the long term. In the short term, the average Rhode Island household receives a net gain from the rebate. Even higher-income households will have an average net cost of only $25 per year toward the Clean Energy and Jobs Fund.”

Energize RI is a coalition of advocates from business, environmental and faith communities. Speaking from a faith perspective was Beth Miham, a member of Channing Memorial Church in Newport and a former board member of Interfaith Power and Light for a number of years.

November 20, 2015November 20, 2015

RIPTA Riders Alliance rallies against elderly/disabled fare increases

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

The RIPTA Riders Alliance held a rally and press conference outside the State House yesterday to call attention to the proposed increases in fares for elderly and disabled passengers. As has been reported here before, in order to close a budget gap, the General Assembly and Governor Gina Raimondo authorized RIPTA (Rhode Island Public Transportation Authority) to do away with free rides. In response, RIPTA is planning to charge, “all disabled people and seniors $1.00 per ride during peak AND off-peak hours, regardless of those passengers’ income levels.”

Other fare increases for monthly and weekly passes and transfers have been proposed, as well as eliminating discounts on multi-ride tickets.

Many seniors and disabled passengers live on fixed incomes and will be negatively impacted by this rate increase. Though the state will provide rides for scheduled doctor’s visits, free rides will not be provided for shopping, visits with friends and relatives, or attending political rallies. Those stuck at home will face isolation and declining health outcomes.

Balancing budgets on the backs of the most vulnerable populations in a state that continues to cut taxes on the wealthiest, is a moral outrage.

State Senator Harold Metts and Representative Aaron Regunberg both addressed the crowd and promised to revisit RIPTA funding when the new session of the General Assembly begins in January.

Here are RIPTA’s proposed fare hikes for early 2016, from the RIPTA Riders Alliance press release:

SENIORS AND DISABLED PEOPLE will be charged $1 per ride. Disabled people must go back and submit proof that they’re disabled again.

MONTHLY PASSES will go up from $62 to $70. Weekly passes will go up from $23 to $25. The 15-ride pass will be discontinued and replaced with a 10-ride ticket costing $20.

TRANSFERS, which now cost 50 cents, will double in price. The new transfers will cost $1 for regular riders and are usable for travel anywhere in a 2-hour period.

SENIORS AND DISABLED PEOPLE will pay 50 cents per transfer. If they want a monthly pass, that will be $35 per month. Weekly passes will be $12.50.

November 10, 2015

National Grid responds to liquefaction opposition

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

National Grid has proposed a liquefaction plant as an addition to the Field’s Point gas storage facility, to be located in South Providence, and every single comment the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) received on the proposed facility from the public was negative and against the facility’s construction. No one from the public, it seems, is in favor of the project.

Of course this will not deter National Grid.

In a 39 page letter, National Grid’s legal counsel responded to every commenter. Of course, some of the comments were dismissed as irrelevant with the phrase, “Expression of commenter’s view.” This phrase was repeated 27 times, in response, for instance, to Greg Gerritt saying, “Climate change is the crisis of our times” or Jesus Holguin saying, “This facility is not going to benefit us in any way. Something that would benefit us is [a] just transition away from fossil fuels.”

National Grid’s legal team sorted through the testimony of the various commenters and pulled out all the statements that “identify potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.” Expressed concerns that were not environmental in nature will be addressed at a later time, says National Grid.

The sloppiness of the response’s composition is evident in some of the misspellings of various names. Monay McNeil is misspelled Money McNeil and state Representative Aaron Regunberg is misidentified as Erin Regunberg for instance.

Further, the response to each comment, if the comment was deemed worthy of response, is footnoted in some 13 documents called “draft resource reports” and filed with FERC on November 2 and 4. This means that finding the reason for National Grid’s objection to a particular comment requires cross referencing footnotes with the draft resource reports.

For instance, when Rhode Island state Senator Juan Pichardo was paraphrased as saying he was, “Opposed to this LNG or this facility being built and the waterfront is so close to hospitals and so close to the neighborhood,” National Grid responded with:

Refer to Resource Report 1, Section 1.4 (page 1-14) (Operation and Maintenance).

Refer to Resource Report 5, Section 5.3.2 (pages 5-8 through 9) (Fire Protection), Section 5.7 (pages 5-13 through 5-22) (Environmental Justice) and Section 5.9.2.6 (page 5-28) (Environmental Justice Socioeconomics).

Refer to Resource Report 8, Section 8.2.2 (Existing Residences and Buildings).

Refer to Resource Report 11, Section 11.1 (pages 11-2 through 11-8) (Safety Issues), Section 11.2.3.2 (pages 11-10 and 11-11) (Thermal Radiation and Flammable Exclusion Zones) and Section 11.3.1 (page 11-11) (Facility Response Plan).

Refer to Resource Report 13, Section 13.14 ((pages 13-102 through 104) Hazard Detection System), Section 13.15 (pages 13-105 through 109) (Fire Suppression and Response Plan) and Section 13.16 (pages 13-110 through 111) (Hazard Control Systems).

Senator Pichardo could spend quite a bit of time wading through page after page of reports to find out exactly why National Grid believes his concerns are without merit, if he were so inclined.

To be fair, pages 2-9 of National Grid’s legal response attempt to distill the information from the draft resource reports into a few paragraphs organized by subject, such as “Traffic Impacts” or “Comments on Rate and Cost Impacts on Retail Gas Customers.” In these sections, the concerns and opinions expressed by the public are legally elided by claiming that the law is on the side of National Grid, a legal position that National Grid maintains, but does not prove. Remember that all the documentation National Grid is submitting to FERC are essentially sales documents, created to convince FERC to approve the project over the objections of the public.

For instance, in response to a complaint made that the public meetings were not adequately advertised within the affected community, National Grid’s legal team writes, “Some stakeholders commented on the quality of the public notification that has been provided to local residents for the proposed Project. Resource Report 5, section 5.7.2 discusses the public outreach undertaken by NGLNG to communicate with the environmental justice populations near the proposed Project…”

In other words, despite the experience of the community, National Grid maintains that they satisfied the letter of the law.

There’s a lot in the legal team’s response worthy of comment, and I hope others will chime in with comments on this, but one more point is worth consideration. National Grid is a huge company, with many subsidiaries and ventures. So when National Grid says that there is a customer need for the new liquefaction facility, it should be noted that the customer mentioned is The Narragansett Electric Company, which is owned by National Grid.

At another point, when discussing rate impacts, National Grid disingenuously claims that, “State public utility commissions regulate retail rates.” This is true as far as it goes, until one realizes that the Rhode Island Public Utility Commission serves as a virtual rubber stamping agency for any rate increase proposed by utility companies such as National Grid or its subsidiary, Narragansett Electric.

Like an evil octopus, National Grid wants us to believe that it’s various tentacles aren’t actually all parts of some enormous beast, but independent snakes acting alone.

This is why it is difficult to take seriously National Grid’s answer to the comments of Nick Katkevich, who “urged that the environmental effects of the proposed Project be considered in the same environmental document as pipeline projects sponsored by subsidiaries of Spectra Energy Partners, LP in New England, specifically the AIM, Atlantic Bridge, and Access Northeast projects.”

National Grid claims that these are all separate projects that must each be judged independently, and that there will be no cumulative environmental effects, at least as can be judged under present law. National Grid claims that the liquefaction facility “would be undertaken even if those pipeline projects did not or do not proceed” and “is an unconnected single action that has independent utility so it would not be appropriate to consider it in the same environmental analysis with any of the pipeline expansion projects.”

Despite the contentions of National Grid’s legal team, the planned expansion of fracked and unfracked methane gas infrastructure in Rhode Island seems part of a grand plan to keep our state addicted to fossil fuels that are destroying the environment. These proposed projects have lifespans of 50 years or more, yet optimistically we have much less than 35 years to kick the fossil fuel habit.

No amount of corporate legalese can change that math.

October 9, 2015October 29, 2015

FERC listens as no one speaks in favor of National Grids’ LNG facility

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

No one spoke in favor of the project, but more than 100 people packed the room and 33 people spoke against National Grid‘s plan to build a $100 million methane gas liquefaction facility in Fields Point in South Providence before representatives of FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission), the agency tasked with the job of approving or disapproving the project.

One after another speakers from the affected community, environmental activists, concerned Rhode Islanders and elected members of the General Assembly spoke passionately about negative environmental impacts and the explicit environmental racism implicit of National Grid’s plan.

The liquefaction facility is to be located adjacent to one of Rhode Island’s poorest communities, which already suffers from higher rates of asthma and other respiratory ailments. This community has become a sacrifice zone, a place where dangerous chemicals are stored. A representative from FERC admitted that some additional methane leaks are to be expected as a result of this plan, and methane is one of the most dangerous gases contributing to global warming and global catastrophe.

Peter Nightingale, a member of Fossil Free Rhode Island, has been involved in several FANG (Fighting Against Natural Gas) actions and who was arrested for his peaceful protest at Senator Sheldon Whitehouse‘s Providence office, pulled no punches when he told FERC, “To you who are here silently doing your jobs for this project I have but one thing to say: You are complicit in crimes against humanity and against Mother Earth.”

Monae McNeil, from the Environmental Justice League of Rhode Island (EJLRI), a group central to the community’s resistance to this project, said, that this project “puts low-income communities at risk, if something were to happen.” The site of the project is not protected by the hurricane barrier. There was an earthquake near this location in August. A disaster at this facility would affect as many as 140 thousand Rhode Islanders.

Jan Luby pointed out that no storage facilities like this are being proposed for Barrington, Lincoln or East Greenwich. Instead, these projects are proposed for low-income communities where resistance is expected to be minimal.

Greg Gerritt spoke on behalf of the Green Party of RI and Prosperity For RI. FERC, he said, “has never turned down one of these projects” demonstrating that the agency is not serious about climate change.

Kate Schati doesn’t live on the South Side, but she cares what happens there, because “it affects the people who live in Providence with me… I don’t want them to be at risk of a breach or a leak or an explosion or even the normal operation of a plant…”

Ben Boyd: “…we need to be investing in clean, renewable, sustainable energy sources…”

One of the most impassioned testimonies of the evenings came from Stephen Dahl, of Kingston, RI. “Weep, weep, weep, weep,” he began, quoting William Blake on the Industrial Revolution. This was more performance piece as testimony, and was powerful.

Marti Rosenberg lives within the affected community. “This project shows us that the impact of fracking is much closer than we think.” Methane is used by communities near the South Side, but the South Side itself not so much. Instead, this community bears the brunt of the negative impacts of methane gas, and none of the benefits.

Peter Sugrue questioned National Grid’s motives for project. “We will clearly see a rate increase for this $100 million project,” yet all National Grid is promising is a smoothing of price volatility. How does this benefit Rhode Islanders, is that even to be honestly expected and is it worth the cost?

Paul Klinkman

Liberty Goodwin

Karen Palmer

Nick Katkevich of FANG, which has lead several actions against fracked gas infrastructure in Burrillville and Providence, promised resistance to this project in the event that FERC approves it.

Gina Rodriguez-Drix is a resident of Washington Park, a mother of two and a birth worker, is “deeply concerned about the disproportionate effects” this project will have on women and children of color in her neighborhood and other affected communities.

Julian Rodriguez-Drix is tired. “I’ve got a family with two kids, a full time job, and now it’s up to us to us, spending our free time poring through pages and pages of bureaucratic nonsense that is trying to find ways to justify a facility that you’ve heard everyone here speak out against.”

Representative Aaron Regunberg

Claudia Gorman

Servio

Lisa Petrie

Yudiglen Sena-Abrau

Jesus Holguin

Ana Quezada

Dania Flores is a board member of EJLRI. She spoke to the community (not to FERC) about how National Grid’s plan impacts the Latino community, about how we have our own solutions, and how we need to deport National Grid.

Paul

Beth Milham

Senator Josh Miller

Senator Juan Pichardo

August Juang

Vanessa Flores-Maldonado

Helen MacDonald

Steve Roberts

Susan Walker

Michelle Lacey

Will Lambek

September 1, 2015September 1, 2015

Stadium opponents hold a concert in future public park

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

On Monday evening more than 100 people, including families with children, came to the publicly owned site desired by the Pawtucket Red Sox behind 200 Dyer St in Providence to fly kites, enjoy a concert, listen to storytellers and generally act like they “own the place.” This was the second time members of the community have descended on the parcel of land to treat the space, a mass of scrubby vegetation, dirt and pavement, like the park it was originally promised to be. Back in July the PawSox owners brought minor league baseball player Matt Spring and PawSox mascot Paws in an apparent attempt to use the event as an opportunity to sell the stadium.

This time the PawSox owners didn’t make any attempt at countering the event. This time the media showed up in force, with Channel 10 doing a live remote. The What Cheer! Brigade played four rousing selections and storytellers Len Cabral and Mark Binder (who has contributed to RI Future) entertained the crowd with stories. Kites were flown, games were played, children danced and the promise of a public park was glimpsed, if imperfectly.

The only elected official I noticed at the event was State Representative Aaron Regunburg, House District 4, on the East Side of Providence. He is opposed to building the stadium on that land.

Below are four videos of the What Cheer? Brigade, and photos from the event by Andrew Stewart and myself.

July 14, 2015

‘I’m a great tipper’ A House debate on tipped minimum wage in 5 minutes

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

The RI House of Representatives floor debate on the tipped minimum wage featuring Representatives Joseph Shekarchi, Doreen Costa, Patricia Morgan, Aaron Regunberg, Michael Chippendale, Antonio Giarrusso, Teresa Tanzi and John DeSimone.

Featuring such classic lines as, “I’m a great tipper. I’m sure all of you are great tripper.” and “Percents don’t change!”

July 1, 2015July 3, 2015

Advocates beg lawmakers to save Good Samaritan Act

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

The General Assembly’s recess last Thursday has shown to have tumultuous effects, leaving several bills in legislative limbo. But, today at the State House, protestors made it known that for the Good Samaritan bill and those it seeks to save, anything is better than dying a preventable death.

The Good Samaritan Overdose Prevention Act, put into law in 2012, has three sections that help to protect those who have experienced a drug overdose. The first allows someone to admit an “opioid antagonist” to the victim. This antagonist helps to reverse the effects of an overdose, and can save lives. A popular drug that has been used under the Good Samaritan law is called Naloxone, or Narcan.

The second prevents those who have overdosed from being charged with a crime. Before the law, it was possible that someone could overdose, and nobody would call 911 out of fear of legal repercussion. The Good Samaritan Act makes it safer for them to seek medical assistance. The third portion of the act dictates that the Attorney General’s office will release a report each year that outlines the effects of the act on law enforcement.

Originally, law had a three-year sunset provision on it. But, with the abrupt recess of this year’s legislative session, the Good Samaritan Act could not be renewed, and expired today, July 1. Supporters of the act gathered on Smith Hill today to voice their concerns for Rhode Island if the bill is indeed allowed to expire, including Governor Gina Raimondo.

“Drug overdose is the leading cause of accidental death in Rhode Island,” she said. “It’s a public health crisis and it’s time for greater action.”

Raimondo said that it is “unacceptable” that Rhode Island has the highest overdose rate in New England, and that everyone should be first and foremost focused on saving lives. Although there is not one solution, she said that the Good Samaritan Act is a step in the right direction for an “all hands on deck effort.”

“As a mother, with two little kids, I want my kids to be protected, and every kid to be protected,” she said.

Raimondo also expressed how discouraged she was with the General Assembly for simply letting the law pass them by this session, imploring that they “get to work.”

The theme of protecting families was a resounding one as supporters continued to speak, citing that nobody should fear calling 911 to save someone they love.

“We’re here today to address the need to protect families,” Holly Cekala, the executive director of Rhode Island Communities for Addiction Recovery Efforts, said. “All families have the right to protect their family members from any illness.”

Cekala said addicts can, and do, recover. The Good Samaritan Act will not only save an addict’s life, but put them on that path to recovery as well.

“We have a feeling that families matter. You can’t get to recovery if you’re not alive,” she said.

John Prince, an organizer for the Behind the Walls Prison Committee, as well as Direct Action for Rights and Equality, related that many in his community are on parole or probation, and that they will not call 911 if they have a police record, and especially if they know they can get arrested for it.

“The General Assembly is basically saying our lives don’t matter,” he said. “The governor needs to sign an executive order to protect all victims and save lives. They need to get this thing right to have protections for all men and women. And they need to do it now.”

Rebecca Nieves McGoldrick, the executive director of Protect Families First, put the blame on Attorney General Peter Kilmartin for the act’s expiration, along with the General Assembly.

“Their actions right now, speak louder than their words,” she said. McGoldrick added that for the opinions of Kilmartin to outweigh the Good Samaritan act’s support simply isn’t right.

“To have families suffer through the loss of a loved one so that the Attorney General could add another notch to his belt of drug arrests is frankly unconscionable,” she said.

Not all members of the General Assembly wanted to see this legislation die, though. Representative Aaron Regunberg (D- District 4), said that he would like to see the body reconvene and put the bill through as soon as possible. If that were to happen, Regunberg said that he would try to rally support for the act.

“I’m certainly going to be reaching out and making sure folks up there understand how urgent it is,” he said.

The odds of a special session in September are split right now. House leadership would like to reconvene at that time, but on the Senate side they don’t. Many have urged Governor Raimondo to issue an executive order, but her office has not indicated any such plans. Either way, supporters all agree that something, anything, must be done.

June 18, 2015June 23, 2015

Online voter registration bill passes RI House

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

The House floor saw heated debate Wednesday as representatives discussed the implications of bill H6051, which would allow electronic voter registration. The action would make Rhode Island the 28^th state to do so, following a trend that has saved other states money and time, as well as helped to clear voter rolls during elections. Supporters of the bill said that it would bring Rhode Island into the 21^st century. Opponents were not as kind.

“I don’t want everyone to vote that’s not well informed on the issues,” said House Minority Whip Joseph Trillo (R- District 24). “So I don’t want to register everybody just because I want bodies to go into a voting booth and vote. You Democrats don’t care about that! You’ll take them by the thousands! As long as they can breathe, walk, take them into the voting booth!”

“An uninformed voter is a manipulated voter,” he added.

Trillo’s concern, as did many others, stemmed from possible voter fraud using an electronic system. The legislation would operate using one’s existing driver’s license or state identification card, which already has their signature on it. Those eligible would be able to register because their signature would already be on file at the DMV, making it easier for them to be verified by the Secretary of State. Their local board of canvassers would then notify them that their registration has been confirmed.

Language in the bill that states that the Secretary of State’s office “may” verify a registrant sparked the debate. Many opponents believed that the Secretary’s office should be required to verify everyone who registers to vote, but those who supported the bill stated that not only is it an undue burden on administration, it is unnecessary because of the cross-referencing done by the board of canvassers. Representative Stephen Ucci (D- District 42), stated that the verification is normally only used to analyze voter trends that may be suspicious.

“You have to look into this in the totality of our voting system,” Ucci said. “Let’s join those other 20 something states that have done this, and get ourselves on the right path to getting people to vote.”

“A person is still required to have a state license or state ID, which you don’t need in person,” Representative Aaron Regunberg (D- District 4), who is the main sponsor of the bill, added. “The system has existed in dozens of states, registering millions of voters, and there has not been a recorded successful incident of fraud.”

Other key points in the debate included accessibility to registration, as well as modernizing Rhode Island’s system. Many spoke about how there are people who do not have the time to go to their town or city hall to register, because they are working during office hours. Going online to vote, rather than paying for an envelope and stamp to mail in registration, is free, making the process more accessible to low-income voters. Putting the process online and making it easier would, in their eyes, serve as an incentive to both register and vote.

Regunberg’s legislation also includes a provision that would enroll Rhode Island in agreements with other states that would allow them to reference data in order to update voter rolls, either registering people who have recently moved into the state, or expunging those who have moved or died.

The bill passed with overwhelming support, in a 63-10 vote. In an interview after the meeting, Regunberg said he was very excited that the legislation passed, especially because it will be one of many solutions to get people out and voting.

Photo courtesy of http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/

“There’s a whole bunch of things, I think this is one part of it that will absolutely, for a generation of people who are much more used to doing these things online, who don’t really use snail mail, who don’t really understand those more antiquated systems. I think it will make it more accessible. It makes it more convenient for everyone,” he said.

Secretary of State Nellie Gorbea, who helped to craft the bill, provided a statement about its passage as well:

“This legislation will make it easier for citizens to register to vote and update their voter information, and it will improve the accuracy and integrity of Rhode Island’s voter rolls. I thank Speaker Mattiello, the bill’s sponsors, Representatives Regunberg, Handy, Keable, Blazejewski, and Barros; and the entire House of Representatives for their support of this legislation.”

John Marion, the Executive Director of Common Cause RI, was also involved in the bill’s drafting process, and stated that this is a huge step forward for Rhode Island, not only in terms of modernization, but also in terms of system management, and accessibility. As far as systems management is concerned, the electronic process makes everyone’s jobs easier and more cost effective. In some states, the cost per voter has gone down to less than ten cents per registration. But to Marion, those benefits are only secondary.

“The real benefit is to the voters. This is going to allow people easier access to registration, and not just new registrants, but this has a lot to do with people who are moving and don’t want to change their registration,” he said. “Because this is not replacing the current paper based system, it’s a complement to that, it’s going to capture more people, ultimately.”

June 3, 2015June 3, 2015

Restaurant workers, faith leaders march for tipped minimum wage increase

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

Restaurant workers, joined by faith leaders and and other supporters, marched in the drizzling rain from the Gloria Dei Lutheran Church to the State House to demand an increase in the tipped minimum wage, the first such increase in 20 years. The tipped minimum wage in Rhode Island is $2.89, as opposed to the regular minimum wage of $9. It is expected that the General Assembly will raise the regular minimum wage to $9.60 in this session, though even $9.60 is a far cry from a living wage, estimated to be about $12 per hour.

The effort to raise the tipped minimum wage has been led by Restaurant Opportunities Center RI. A bill introduced by Representative Aaron Regunberg in the House and Senator Gayle Goldin in the Senate seeks to raise the tipped minimum wage every year until it reaches parity with the regular minimum wage. That bill is not expected to pass this year, though Regunberg is hopeful that a $1.00 increase in the tipped minimum wage can be negotiated.

April 30, 2015

Providence Student Union calls on legislature to fix broken schools

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

The Providence Student Union (PSU) called on the General Assembly to “Rebuild Our Schools” in a rally held at the State House. Joining the students was Representative Aaron Regunberg, a co-founder of the group, along with teachers, parents and community members and many elected legislators seeking to, “increase funding to repair the state’s deteriorating school buildings.”

Speakers stood next to pictures projected on a screen that showed rotting ceilings, damaged floors and walls and infrastructure in serious need of repair or replacement. Many of the students at the rally wore yellow construction hats “to reflect the danger of attending public schools.”

Jeremiah Ledesma, a student at Mt. Pleasant High School, spoke about a “very serious rat and roach problem” at his school.

“There’s a rat living in a classroom on the first floor,” said Ledesma. “It pops out every once in a while when it’s looking for food. I’ve seen cockroaches walk across the lunchroom floor.”

Laura Maxwell, a teacher at Hope High School, recalled a classroom she taught in that shared a wall with a student bathroom. “One morning,” said Maxwell, “I smelled something… not so nice… I finally went to the bathroom and saw a stream of human waste coming down the wall from the floor above.”

These stories are shocking, and they serve to highlight the sad state of our schools. The average age of schools in Rhode Island is about 60 years. Only 10 percent of the schools are under 25 years old. The PSU estimates that repairing only the worst schools will cost more than $300 million. Bringing all schools into good condition will cost $1.8 billion.

PSU has “called for an end to the state’s school housing aid moratorium, and for an increase in school facilities funding in the state budget.” They are supporting Governor Gina Raimondo’s addition of $20 million in school housing aid in her state budget.

Participants also support House Bill 5434, sponsored by Representative Regunberg, “to create a $70 million trust to continually generate funding for school repairs.”

According to a press release, the legislation “would establish the Rhode Island Health and Educational Building Corporation, which would oversee distribution of funds generated by the trust for school construction and would be responsible for developing and implementing a formula for borrowing and issuing loans and grants to districts.”

The night before the rally, Brendan Caprio, a student at Hope High School, testified before the House Finance Committee on the importance of properly funding our schools. You can watch that here, followed by video from the rally itself.

March 31, 2015March 31, 2015

Raimondo cherry picks data, overstates issues in Reinventing Medicaid

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

Two single-payer advocacy groups, Rhode Island Chapters of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) and HealthCare-Now, have prepared a report that is highly critical of Governor Gina Raimondo’s Reinventing Medicaid initiative.

The PNHP/HCN-RI report identifies five areas of concern and concludes that “Governor Raimondo has made it impossible” to achieve the goal of developing “a plan to improve the quality of care Rhode Islanders receive and reduce the costs for Rhode Island taxpayers.” The areas of concern cited in the analysis are:

1. presenting faulty and misleading data and analyses
2. misidentifying “problems;”
3. requiring unjustified budget cuts within preselected “six major strategies’”
4. not permitting consideration of the actual problem: private health insurance companies generating enormous administrative costs and improperly rationing care
5. not permitting consideration of an effective solution: a comprehensive single payer health care program for all Rhode Island residents such as that proposed by H5387, a single-payer health care bill introduced by Representative Aaron Regunberg.

The report says Raimondo overstates the percentage of the Rhode Island budget spent on Medicaid. She uses 31 percent, but the PNHP/HCN-RI report says the actual number is 22.1 percent. Further, Rhode Island’s expenditures are below the national average of 23.7 percent. And it should not be forgotten that most Medicaid expenses are reimbursed by the federal government dollar for dollar. Every dollar cut from state expenditures is two dollars cut from services.

The PNHP/HCN-RI report also accuses Raimondo of cherry picking data to paint the worst possible picture to create a false Medicaid crisis.

When Raimondo considers the drivers of high Medicaid costs, she ignores key problems. While Raimondo blames “High Utilization,” an “Aging Population” or “fraud, waste and abuse,” the PNHP/HCN-RI analysts note that her supporting data are questionable and we should be looking at the fact that “multiple payers create enormous excessive administrative costs and unfairly ration care.”

The report concludes by making the case for single-payer healthcare. Adopting such a program, says the PNHP, will:

Provide comprehensive health care coverage to all Rhode Island residents with most Rhode Islanders paying less for health care than they are currently paying;

Improve access to health care;

Save approximately $4000 per resident per year by 2024 and put more money into the Rhode Island economy.

Significantly reduce health care dollars spent on administrative costs and shift these dollars to actual provision of health care (providers would save almost $1 billion in administrative costs in the first year);

Decrease administrative burdens on health care providers and allow them to spend more time providing health care;

Eliminate the burden of health insurance costs and administrative obligations on Rhode Island businesses and thereby make them more competitive and profitable. In the first year, payroll contributions to the single payer plan would be over $1.2 billion less than current private health insurance premiums.

Contain health care costs (reduced administration and control over monopolistic pricing) would save 23% of current expenditures in the first year with larger savings in subsequent years.

Create a significant economic stimulus for the state by attracting businesses to and keeping businesses in Rhode Island because of reduced health insurance costs, a particular boon to small businesses and their employees.

Chair of the RI PNHP, J. Mark Ryan, MD., will be presenting some of this data at the next Reinventing Medicaid Town Hall Meeting at the East Bay Family Health Center, 6 John H Chafee Blvd, Newport at 6pm on April 1. You can see my coverage of the Providence Town Hall meeting here. For more on PHNP and single payer, see here.

March 23, 2015

Tipped minimum wage increase debated at the State House

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

A large coalition to raise the tipped minimum wage was launched at the State House with a press conference and public testimony on House Bill 5364. Representative Aaron Regunberg introduced the bill that would gradually increase the the minimum wage from $2.89 to match the regular minimum wage by 2020. Senator Gayle Goldin introduced matching legislation on the Senate side. There has been no increase in the tipped minimum wage in nearly 20 years.

ROC United RI (Restaurant Opportunities Center) launched “One Fair Wage Rhode Island,” an impressive coalition of community, labor, faith business and women’s organizations that includes the Women’s Fund of Rhode Island, RI-NOW, NAACP-Providence Branch, Farm Fresh Rhode Island, the Economic Progress Institute, the Bell Street Chapel, Rhode Island AFL-CIO, the Coalition of Labor Union Women, Rhode Island Jobs with Justice, Fuerza Laboral, NEARI, United Service and Allied Workers of Rhode Island, Planned Parenthood of Southern New England and Unite Here Local 217.

Many restaurant patrons are unaware that their tip is not simply a “thank you” for great service, said Senator Goldin, “It’s paying your server’s base salary, and nobody’s base salary should entirely depend on a customer’s mood.”

More than just being an issue of fairness, this is an issue of impacting “women’s economic security,” says Women’s Fund Executive Director Jenn Steinfeld. “Nearly three in four Rhode Island tipped workers are women, one-third are mothers, and more than half of these are single mothers.” Steinfeld says that eliminating the tipped minimum wage will “help address the gender pay gap.”

Being dependent on tips for their salary makes servers more vulnerable to sexual harassment, since telling a customer that their advances or flirting is unwelcome puts the server at risk of losing a tip. A recent report from the national ROC United found that, “Women living off tips in states with a $2.13 an hour tipped minimum wage are twice as likely to experience sexually harassment than women in states that pay the full minimum wage to all workers. In fact, all workers in $2.13 states, including men, reported higher rates of sexual harassment, indicating that the sub-minimum wage perpetuates a culture of sexual harassment.” It’s in response to this atmosphere of sexual harassment that ROC United has launched its “Not on the Menu” campaign.

There is also good economic sense in raising the tipped minimum wage, maintains Mike Araujo, of ROC United RI. “”Raising the subminimum wage will have an important stimulative effect for Rhode Island. When tipped workers earn more, that money goes right back into the local economy.” ROC United estimates raising the wage will pump $64 million into the state’s economy. Further, tipped workers in Rhode Island currently receive $638,325 in food stamps every month, which means that taxpayers are effectively subsidizing the restaurant industry through social welfare programs.

After the press conference there was a heaing on Regunberg’s bill in the House Labor Committee. Though over 150 people signed up to testify, on both sides of the issue, in the end only 25 people could endure the four hour hearing waiting for their turn to speak. Those speaking against raising the tipped minimum wage were mostly members of the Rhode Island Hospitality Association (RIHA), a business lobbying group that routinely opposes any legislation that might raise the minimum wage or improve the ability of workers to collect money lost to wage theft. Many of the RIHA members wore small golden pineapple pins.

“The states that have eliminated completely their subminimum wage,” said Representative Regunberg describing the economic impact of his bill, “have as high or higher industry and job growth rates as subminimum wage states.”

Bill Kitsilis, of Angelo’s Palace Pizza sees no reason to raise the tipped minimum wage, and said, “My tipped employees… are some of the highest paid employees in my business.” He thinks $2.89 is fine, since that’s what he predicated his business model on. Comparisons with other states are not valid, Kitsilis maintains, because other states have much, much stronger economies.

Representative Antonio Giarrusso asked about employee turnover. Kitsilis feels that turnover only happens when people aren’t making money, and he also says that there are a lot of people hiring right now, making it difficult to find workers. An odd statement, considering Rhode Island’s unemployment rate.

The issue of “side work” came up, that is, the work servers do for a restaurant, at $2.89 an hour, that doesn’t earn the server tips. Side work is an old way of getting work done in a restaurant on the cheap, and is completely legal. Raising the subminimum would eliminate this disparity. Kitsilis said that such work “tends to be… a small percentage of what they do, most of the time…”

Representative Teresa Tanzi has worked in the restaurant industry for 14 years. “In those 14 years I have worked at dozens of restaurants, somewhere around 45 restaurants, I would say. And in all those restaurants, one has paid me according to the law.” For fear of retaliation, she could never confront management about this. “I’m well aware that they are breaking the law, but there is nothing I can do. I am relying on my manager and the owner of that restaurant for my employment.”

The Department of Labor surveyed 9000 restaurants over two years and found that 84 percent of them violate the law.

When Chairperson Joseph Shekarchi pushed back against Tanzi’s experience, saying that he doesn’t see the connection between low wages and harassment and abuse of servers, drawing on his experience as a bartender, Tanzi stuck to her guns and pointed out that the experience of women working as servers and men working as bartenders are very different. “It does happen and it’s a daily occurrence. If someone touches you, or if you’re waiting on a table and it’s a party of ten and that’s all the money you’re going to make tonight, and they want to be fresh with you in some way shape or form… I refer to it as a ‘golf clap’ in my vernacular. Whenever someone says something that’s ‘funny,’ you’re waiting on someone and they something that isn’t funny, you have to laugh. If someone touches you inappropriately, what are you going to say? There’s very little recourse as a server that you have.”

Rep Giarrusso’s solution for “any woman or anybody getting sexually harassed” is that “they should hit somebody with a nine iron.” Maybe he’ll introduce legislation to that effect.

“The truth is, 60 percent of restaurant workers in Rhode Island are over the age of 24 and 32 percent of all of Rhode Island’s restaurant workers are parents.”

“I feel that the current wage devalues me as an employee,” says Daniel Burke. Burke explained how the days and hours he is making good money from tips are averaged with the days and hours he’s performing other tasks at the restaurant. As long as he averages minimum wage with the money provided by customers, the restaurant can get away with paying him $2.89 an hour. Of course, Representative Giarusso thinks that Burke should take this issue up with his employer because, “I would, that’s for sure.”

As a 31 year old mother explains that her bartender job requires her to perform duties that are not directly related to serving customers. Therefore no tips can be expected and the restaurant gets away with paying employees $2.89 an hour for work that any other business in the state would have to pay at least minimum wage to accomplish. Again, Representative Giarrusso misses the point, thinking that the issue of side work isn’t related to this. As long as there is a two-tiered wage system, restaurant managers and owners will have an incentive to make workers do untipped work at the lower wage, rather than pay the server properly.

ROC United RI’s Mike Araujo finally explains that “those extra tasks,” that is side work, are “built into the job.” Side work, prep and cleaning averages out to about 3 or 4 hours a day, which is “effectively unpaid labor.” This profitable industry is built on the backs of primarily underpaid women.

Araujo may have summed up the night best when he said, “This issue speaks to how we believe society should be shaped. Do we believe that our citizens deserve equal treatment and deserve full equality, or do we believe that there is a second tier that women, increasingly, belong to?”

“Moving into a restaurant that paid over the minimum wage had such a tangible benefit…”

“When we talk about this issue we can’t escape the fact that this is a women’s issue… forcing a worker to rely on tips for any portion of their base wage significantly increases their chances of experiencing sexual harassment.”

Once again, Representative Giarrausso claims that “I don’t really understand the connection to sexual harassment… If someone’s a jackass, for lack of a better word… I mean, I don’t promote sexual harassment. I think those people should be tied up and jailed and never come out.” Giarrusso claims he “can’t draw the parallel” between low pay and sexual harassment.

But Giarrusso tips his hand as he grins and asks, “Is there an acceptable level of sexual harassment depending on how much you’re getting paid?” This is simply a variation of the line, variously ascribed to George Bernard Shaw or Winston Churchill, “We know what you are, we’re just haggling over the price.”

In response to testimony quoting FDR, Rep. Giarrusso maintains that “there is data that shows that every time minimum wage goes up, so does unemployment.” The US Department of Labor dispels that myth at the top of its page on the minimum wage. Giarrusso also brings up the specter of automation, as is done now whenever minimum wage increases are discussed. I deal with the automation argument here.

Joe Fortune, speaking below, wrote about his experience speaking before the committee on his own blog here.

Notice the pineapple pin. RIHA is in the house. This man is a CPA who specializes in hospitality. I am willing to bet he makes more than $2.89 an hour plus tips.

John Elkhay owns Ten Prime Steak & Sushi, Rick’s Roadhouse, XO Café, Luxe Burger Bar, and Harry’s Bar & Burger, as well as Veritas Catering. “Unlike the people who testified before me,” says Elkhay, “I actually live and work in Rhode Island.” I guess he wasn’t listening to the experiences of the four speakers who do live and work in Rhode Island. After telling the committee about how many employees he has and how much money they all make, he throws them under the bus, saying, “They don’t claim all their tips, by the way. That’s a sneaky little secret.”

“Don’t say that in this building,” says Representative Giarrusso, trying to make light of the comment.

Elkhay doesn’t blink. “Yeah, well, it’s the truth.”

“Who is here, in the industry, saying there is a problem?” asks Chris Tarro, owner of Siena Restaurant Group, answering “I don’t think there is a problem.”

“Don’t take my word for it,” he continues. Rather, he recommends going out to dinner and asking a server. But, “don’t ask if they want a raise, everyone would like one.”

Tarro thinks that the kind of retaliation employees face for stepping up to complain about their working conditions is somehow equivalent to the reaction of potential customers when they hear about the ways restaurants pay their employees and the ways in which many restaurants exploit their employees. “When I testified last time here,” says Tarro, “I got emails, I was on progressive blogs… there’s a penalty to us coming here.”

“I would like to give a nice big golf clap to Representative Tanzi and to anyone else who is trying to distract you from the issue at hand…” is as much as this sarcastic restaurant owner could say before being stopped by Chairperson Shekarchi, who advised not going after those who previously testified.

“I don’t want character assassination,” said Shekarchi, “It doesn’t help your cause.”

“I would suggest to you that twenty years… twenty years without a raise… I don’t think there’s anybody in this room that’s going to work for anybody for twenty years without a raise.”

Kristin Dart, speaking for Planned Parenthood, said that when women are paid more, they are better able to pay for essential medical care.”If I have to choose between food on my table and my annual health exam, I’m going to put food on the table.”

Speaking of her own experience as a server, she said that she was regularly told by her bosses that sexual harassment was “part of the job. If you want to make tips, then you have to be ‘nice’ to customers.”

Amy Barclay owns Simpatico in Jamestown. She’s worked her way up from being a server, pregnant with twins making $4500 a week to owning her own place. She says, “This isn’t a gender issue. This isn’t a Planned Parenthood issue, this is a performance issue.” Barclay says, “I was great staff. I still am.”

Barclay has 15 core employees and 60 in season. “They beg for their jobs back,” she says, “and they should.”

Having worked in California, where there is no tipped minimum wage, and now working in Providence, Avi maintains that in California the restaurant industry is booming and that people in the restaurants out there have a greater feeling of teamwork. “It should be the employers responsibility to pay their employees, and not to pass that on to the customers.”

Ray Desmarais, of 99 Restaurants, sounded like he was blaming victims for for their harassment when he said, “For anyone to be harassed in the restaurant business, shame on them for allowing it. Leave and come work for me. Cause I’m a good guy and I’ll treat you well.”

Senator Joshua Miller says, “…there hasn’t been a minimum wage bill I didn’t love, until today, until this bill.” Miller feels this bill takes “important revenue away from some of my most valued staff.” He owns three restaurants with over 80 servers. Senator Miller, like Representative Giarrusso, sees no relationship between low wages and sexual harassment.

Justin Kelley said that “it’s time to raise the wage” in Rhode Island. Business models change, says Kelley, citing out the end of slavery, child labor and the eight hour day as examples. Compared to those changes, raising the subminimum wage should be easy.

“I think it’s a human rights issue,” says this restaurant worker from Olneyville, “I don’t care if your male or female, that minimum wage needs to come up.”

Bob Bacon is the owner of Gregg’s Restaurants and the president of the Rhode Island Hospitality Association. He frequently visits the State House to testify against bills that might increase a worker’s wage or strengthen a worker’s ability to not have their wages stolen. Bacon feels that the Department of Labor is doing a terrific job enforcing labor laws, and no new laws are needed. Servers make a “self-reported” average of $12.12 an hour, says Bacon.

Sam Bell, president of the Rhode Island Progressive Democrats, explained President Obama‘s support for increasing the minimum wage and for increasing the tipped minimum wage. “Raising the full minimum wage and the tipped minimum wage will help reduce poverty among women and families as well as make progress towards closing the gender pay gap.”

“Considering a tipped minimum wage increase… would cost ten percent of our current sales.” This begs the question: Is the entire profitability of the restaurant industry dependent on paying servers subminimum wage? Do restaurant profits come solely from underpaying staff? How do restaurants remain profitable in California, where there is no tipped minimum wage?

She finishes the evening’s testimony with, “we’re seeing servers being replaced right now with technology all over the world.”

As I’ve said before: technology like that is coming no matter what we pay our employees. The questions we need to be asking in the face of new technologies are bigger than minimum wage increases, such questions go to the heart of our economic system, and whether it’s sustainable in the long term.

March 2, 2015March 3, 2015

Restaurant workers and owners wrestle over tip theft

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

House Bill 5363 which attempts to curb tip theft in the service industry and give employees additional power to combat the practice, was introduced by Representative Aaron Regunberg this year. It is identical to the one introduced the last two years by Rep Chris Blazejewski with the big difference being that public awareness of the pervasiveness of tip and wage theft is growing due to some serious studies released recently (along with the efforts of the Fight for $15 movement) and the addition of a new player here in Rhode Island as Mike Araujo takes the helm of a new local branch of the Restaurant Opportunity Center, ROC United RI.

“Tip theft is a practice in which employers or managers appropriate some of the money left as tips for restaurant, hotel or other service workers,” Regunberg explained.

It primarily occurs, he said, in four different ways:

1. Employers can demand a cut of tips from workers
2. Employers can absorb automatic service fees who you might think would go to those workers that provided the service,
3. Employers can charge workers if customers use credit cards
4. Employers can include themselves in the tip pool and then take a cut of that pool.

“For me there’s a few different angles to this issue,” said Regunberg, “Besides being a workers protection issue, I really believe it’s fundamentally a consumers rights issue as well. If I am eating at a restaurant or staying at a hotel, and I leave a ten dollar tip, I assume the entire ten dollars is joined to the workers who did the work that I paid the tip for. I think that’s a reasonable assumption, one that’s shared by the vast majority of customers.”

Chris Tarro, owner of Siena Restaurant Group, sidestepped the issue as to whether or not customers are being duped when restaurants take part of a tip or the entirety of a service charge, saying, “Every employee in my facility knows, when they get hired, that I deduct the credit card fee on their gratuity only.”

Mike Araujo of ROC United RI, countered that, “To say that the credit card fee or the commission that’s paid is on the gratuity alone is kind of a misnomer. The fact is that a tip is a wage. It’s making up the difference in a wage that’s already too low, so anything that comes out of that wage is directly coming out of the pocket of that employee.”

Joey DeFrancesco, who became an Internet sensation with his video “Joey Quits” in 2011, explained one way in which the present process works against the employee actually providing the service.

“I worked at the Providence Renaissance Hotel… this is a pretty fancy place… I worked in room service and we made about $5.50 an hour, so below minimum wage. On top of that we got service charges in the hotel. Each bill going to room service got a 20 percent service charge. the customer sees that bill, assumes that’s a tip, and is not going to tip you. You’re not going to be impolite and say, ‘Actually, you know, we’re not getting that,’ you know, that’s against the rules.

“What was actually happening is the hotel was taking that 20 percent service charge and then our managers, supervisors who were making more than twice as much as us per hour, were taking half of that. So at the end of the day the servers actually conducting the work were making less than half of the tip money that customers believed they were giving to those servers.”

Joseph Fortune worked at Ruth’s Chris Steak House in downtown Providence during the entirety of it’s being open.

“If it was a booked banquet, I would still be making $2.89 an hour. The tip would look like a 20 percent tip going to the waitstaff, but really 17 percent went to the waitstaff and the other 3 percent was administrative for the managers. And pretty much, the customers never knew that… I would be fired if I told them, ‘Look, that 3 percent isn’t going to me.’”

The restaurant owners in attendance, mostly members of the Rhode Island Hospitality Association (RIHA), disagreed with the way the issue was being framed, and disagreed on the basic definition of certain terms, like service charge, gratuity and management. Kristin Gennuso, of Chez Pascal, explained why she thinks there’s a difference between a tip and a service charge.

“They are not considered to be the same thing by the IRS,” said Gennuso, “A tip is money that is left by a consumer. It is left free of will. A service charge is imposed, put on by the establishment. Sometimes you’ll see that for parties of six or more there will be a 20 percent gratuity, excuse me, service charge.”

“When you add a service charge to someone’s bill, you the consumer has to pay an 8 percent tax on that service charge. Then I take that service charge, I have to put that in as a sale… and then I can distribute it to my employees through payroll where the taxes can be taken out. So it’s consider a sale, that raises my sales liability, I have to put it into my payroll, which raises my payroll, and my worker’s compensation liability, and then I can distribute it out as I see fit because it’s an item on a check.”

“So, if it says a service charge, it’s not a tip. They’re two very different things.”

House Labor Committee vice-chair Rep Thomas Palangio pointed out that when a customer sees a service charge on a bill, they are going to assume that it’s for the server, to which Gennuso replied, “That’s a problem with the language, isn’t it?”

When Palangio pressed that people won’t tip as much, because they assume it’s taken care of in the service charge, Gennuso countered, “But it’s not the fault of the employer, however.”

Restaurant owners had other complaints as well. Chris Tarro explained that he has “140 employees, and I love my employees. I love ‘em. So when I hear the word ‘fraud,’ or ‘steal,’ or ‘take advantage,’ I get pissed off. I love my staff. When it snows and we have a bad day, I care more about them than about me. I’m getting choked up because I care about them, and I don’t know a restaurant owner that doesn’t.

“This is the industry I love, and this is one of the only thriving industries in the state, and we’re being attacked.

“This bill- I get the intent of this bill- we shouldn’t steal from our staff. I absolutely agree that this is a worthwhile goal but this bill isn’t the way to accomplish it.”

This prompted Jaimie, a restaurant worker in support of this bill, to counter, “If [Taro] really loves his employees and wants to protect them, there’s no reason there should be any opposition to this bill.”

“This legislation,” says Representative Regunberg, “is not punishing businesses. It doesn’t add an additional tax onto business owners. What it does is ensure that workers, many of whom are low wage workers relying on those tips, receive the gratuities that they worked for, and customers’ money goes where it was intended to go.”

But Chris Tarro thinks the bill does impose a cost, saying, “This bill avoids the Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training (DLT) and goes to Superior Court. We have a DLT to handle this, but the bill would move these cases to the much more costly superior court.” (Though unsurprisingly, I have never heard of a business owner who would willingly forgo Superior Court in the case of an employee caught stealing from them.)

Bill Kitsilis, an attorney as well as the owner of Angelo’s Pizza Palace, complained that “what scares me about this bill is that it’s a pro-plaintiffs bill. There’s a lot of propaganda to say it’s protecting employees, it’s tip theft and wage theft, but what this is is an administrative nightmare for especially pizza restaurants, the counter service, coffee shops, you name it.”

“This bill says that you can only share the tips in proportion to the work done by the service employees. What does that mean? On a Friday night at Angelo’s Pizza I have two people working the counter up front, two cashiers in the back answering phones but they’re not doing the same exact work. There’s one tip jar up in the front and they all share it equally. We’ve been doing it this way for thirty years without a problem.”

“What happens here, when you have a law that brings you right to Superior Court, it absconds, because you don’t go to the Department of Labor anymore, and it makes you pay if you lose, even a little bit. Trying to defend what proportionality means and sharing of tips? Who a manager really is and who a manager isn’t?”

“Put this in the hands of a plaintiffs attorney where they get to go to court and they’re entitled to attorney’s fees and triple the damages if they just win a little bit? or put a gun to an owner’s head where you’re forced to settle. No offense to any attorneys on this board.”

This prompted Rep. Joe Shekarchi, the chairman, to distance himself from the legislation, laughing, “I can assure you that none of us drafted this bill.”

Bob Bacon, head of the Rhode Island Hospitality Association and owner of Gregg’s Restaurants argued that, “A state law on this would be redundant to the federal law. The federal law is very thorough. It’s very well enforced…”

Joey DeFrancisco disagreed with Bacon’s assessment. “I thought federal law would cover [the tip theft I experienced at the Renaissance Hotel Providence], so I went to the Department of Labor… and I said, ‘This is crazy that this is going on, can you guys investigate?’ This was in 2011. They did so, they looked into the issue, they interviewed managers and workers they got back to me and said, ‘Okay, in fact, they are stealing your tips, however because they are not stealing enough of your tips that it’s putting you below minimum wage, there’s actually nothing the federal Department of Labor can do about this.”

Remember that there are many different ways in which tips may be stolen by management. So sometimes, when the fines are big enough and the case is against a high profile target, the US Department of Labor does step in. “Mario Batali was fined $5 million” for wage theft, points out Chris Tarro.

“The federal laws are simply not sufficient,” concludes DeFrancisco. “They do not cover tip theft in the forms we’re talking about, which is why so many states… have passed bills like this.”

In fact, according to Regunberg, “Rhode Island is significantly behind the eight ball on this issue. By my count there’s at least 23 other states that have state legislation banning some or all forms of tip theft, including most of our neighbors. New Hampshire, New York, Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, etc.”

“If you pass this bill and servers cost more,” warns Chris Taro, “the people that might get hurt are the people who are already the lowest paid in the industry. The cooks. The dishwashers. The cleaning guys.

“I want my servers to make more money,” continues Tarro, “This isn’t the bill to do it. Let’s work together promoting this industry. Let’s educate the people who are breaking the law and penalize them. Let’s get together and spend more money on tourism because our state is pitiful and behind. I do more business, they make more money. Simple as that.”

But to argue that laws meant to protect low wage workers hurts the restaurant industry ignores the fact, says Mike Araujo of ROC United RI, that, “the people who serve are part of the industry.”

He said, “The average tipped worker does not make $20 an hour. We are not all high end restaurants. We are mostly Denny’s, we are mostly diner service. So to say that ‘my people do well’ or ‘I love my people’ might be true, but we have to love all the people who work in the industry.”

Bob Bacon made a counter offer that would involve no intervention from government. “…as chairman of [RIHA] last year and as a member of the board the year before, and I’ll reiterate this year again, if one of these people that says they have all these problems, if they want to come to us, I’ve offered for three years in a row to do the following: First, we’ll keep the employees name confidential. Second, we’ll meet with the employer and we’ll bring the complaint to their attention, third, we’ll work to educate that employer on the U.S. Department of Labor’s rules and regulations on the matter, and fourth, probably most important, in the event that an employer chooses to stay out of compliance with an issue, we would assist the employee in going through the appropriate channels to get the situation rectified.”

It doesn’t seem to have occurred to Bacon that the idea of an employee, going to a consortium of power players in the restaurant and service industry here in Rhode Island to make a complaint with no guarantee of legal protection of the kind granted by the government, might be seen as career suicide. The idea that wage theft can be dealt with by the very industry committing the violations is absurd.

“…the majority of the people in this industry, they object to the people who may violate [laws against wage and tip theft],” says Bacon, “Thirty-five years plus in the industry, I’ve never encountered it, but I’m not naive enough to say that it doesn’t exist. I can tell you that it doesn’t exist on the level that’s being portrayed here tonight. I can say that without any reservation.”

Back in reality, Rep Regunberg said, “In order for us to have a productive dialog and come to a solution that optimal for all parties, we first have to take as valid that this is a real issue. This is a practice that happens, and I’m by no means implying that all employers engage in tip theft, but I can almost guarantee you that if you talk with nearly any service worker, they can clarify that this is something that takes place and not as an isolated incident. This is something that can occur regularly, that places a real burden on Rhode Islanders who are working hard and are relying on tips to make ends meet.”

Mike Araujo was more pointed. “The fact is that the people who work for tips in Rhode Island use public assistance at a rate twice that of any other employee. Of the 20,000 people who work for tips in Rhode Island we’re talking about 10,000 who are on assistance. Clearly, every penny counts to these people.

“The cost of public assistance, just in food assistance to tipped workers in Rhode Island, amounts to $700,000 per month,” continues Araujo, “It’s vital that this passes. This is an issue of poverty, this is an issue of equality, and this is the right thing to do.”

February 3, 2015

‘Medicare for All’ advocates focus on Rhode Island

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

Dr. Oliver Fein, representing Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP-RI), gave a talk Monday night to a class of second year med students at Brown University’s Warren Alpert Medical School in Providence. The talk was open to the public, but due to the snow storm attendance was low. That’s too bad, because Dr. Fein’s talk was an informative and eye opening examination of both the history of public healthcare in the United States and the possibility of transforming the current system beyond Obamacare and towards a system of truly universal coverage, what supporters call, “Medicare for All.”

In the video, Dr. Fein covers the history of healthcare in the United States, starting with President Truman’s suggestion that some sort of universal health care program might be a good idea, right up to President Obama’s successful passage of the Affordable Care Act. (For Dr. Fein’s summary, go here.)

At the 17 minute 30 second mark Fein leaves history behind and explicates the ideas behind a single payer healthcare model, or what he calls an “Improved Medicare for All.” Such a system would build upon and expand Medicare to the entire population, improve and expand coverage in the areas of preventive services, dental care and long term care, eliminate deductibles and co-payments, expand drug coverage (eliminating the “donut hole”) and redesign physician reimbursement.

Several points leapt out at me during Dr. Fein’s presentation. Using data from 2009, Fein reported that 62% of personal bankruptcies were due to medical expenses and 75% of those who declared bankruptcy had health insurance. For too many people, it seems, health insurance did nothing to prevent financial disaster.

Fein also reported that overhead costs in administering Medicare run about 3.1%. Commercial healthcare runs near 20%. This means that 17 cents (or more) of every health care dollar is wasted on administrative costs or corporate profits under our current system of private insurance. This is money that could be going towards patient care.

Fein concluded that a system based on private insurance programs will not lead to universal coverage and will not create affordable coverage, whereas a Medicare for All system can lead to universal comprehensive coverage without costing more money.

“What will happen if we don’t do this?” asked Fein in conclusion, “By [the year] 2038 a person’s entire household income will… have to pay for health insurance. A condition that’s not compatible with life.”

Rhode Island

Gerald Friedman, a PhD and Professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst released a 41 page report earlier this month on the possibility of adopting a single payer healthcare system here in Rhode Island. Friedman maintains that a single payer plan would result in significant savings for most Rhode Islanders and only increase healthcare spending for those making over $466,667 a year.

Representative Aaron Regunberg, from the East Side’s District 4, is planning to introduce legislation for a statewide single payer healthcare plan this session. Model legislation from the PNHP is available here.

More information about the Rhode Island branch of the PNHP can be found at their website.

January 27, 2015January 28, 2015

RI Hospital employees and community allies speak out

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

More than 500 people crowded into the meeting room of Our Lady of the Rosary Church on Benefit St in Providence for the Worker & Community Speakout for Good Jobs and Quality Care on January 17. At issue was the contract negotiation between Lifespan/Rhode Island Hospital and General Teamsters Local 251 representing some 2,500 hospital employees.

According to Local 251, “As a non-profit entity, Lifespan and RI Hospital are supposed to put the healthcare needs of the community first. Unfortunately, management has taken cost cutting measures, causing shortages in equipment and staff that undermine patient care.”

Literature at the Speakout quoted a nurse, Aliss Collins, saying, “When we are understaffed, I cover 56 patients in three units. It’s not right for the patients or the employees.” There was a story at the Speakout of another nurse who was forced to buy her own equipment for measuring oxygen levels, because the hospital did not provide it.

Obamacare has allowed Lifespan/RI Hospital to take in an additional $33 million in net revenue last year, because so many Rhode Islanders are now covered under Medicaid. Yet rather than invest this money in patient care, Lifespan pays its “ten highest paid executives” more than $16.6 million in its last fiscal year, an average of $1 million more in compensation “than the average earned by CEOs of nonprofit hospitals nationally,” according to the union.

At the same time, hospital employees such as single mom Nuch Keller make $12.46 an hour with no healthcare coverage. Keller’s pay does not even cover her rent. She regularly works 40 hours or more per week, yet Lifespan continues to pay her as a part-time employee. And in case you missed it, Keller works at a non-profit hospital, and receives no healthcare.

The Speakout was intended to show community support for the workers of RI Hospital, and was attended by Representatives David Cicilline and Jim Langevin, as well as General treasurer Seth Magaziner. There were also representatives from many other unions and community groups such as Jobs with Justice, Unite Here! and Fuerza Laboral. Many religious leaders, including Father Joseph Escobar and Rev Duane Clinker, were on hand to show support.

It was hard not to feel that something new was happening at the Speakout. The level of community support and solidarity made one feel as if a union resurgence were imminent, which many feel is necessary if obscene inequality is to be combated.

It was Duane Clinker who helped put the event into perspective for me. He said that unions have often limited their negotiations to wages, hours and benefits, and health-care unions have long argued staffing levels, but “when/if organized workers really make alliance with the community around access to jobs and improved patient care – if that happens in such a large union and a key employer in the state, then we enter new territory.”

This struggle continues on Thursday, January 29, from 2-6pm, with an Informational Picket at Rhode Island Hospital. “The picket line on Thursday is for informational purposes. It is is not a request that anyone cease working or refuse to make deliveries.”

Full video from the Speakout is below.

Speak-Out for Good Jobs & Quality Care at RI Hospital 002 — Mirjaam Parada

Speak-Out for Good Jobs & Quality Care at RI Hospital 033 — Duane Clinker

Speak-Out for Good Jobs & Quality Care at RI Hospital 080 — James Langevin

Speak-Out for Good Jobs & Quality Care at RI Hospital 172 — Seth Magaziner

Speak-Out for Good Jobs & Quality Care at RI Hospital 087 — Aaron Regunberg

Speak-Out for Good Jobs & Quality Care at RI Hospital 098 — Carmen Castillo

November 18, 2014November 18, 2014

Rep-elect Regunberg brings ‘little d’ democracy to District 4

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

Well over 60 people showed up for newly elected State Representative Aaron Regunberg’s District 4 Community Forum at the Rochambeau Library Tuesday night. Regunberg and the helpers he had assembled for the event were pleasantly surprised by the turnout. The event had the feeling of a fresh start for District 4, which has long been represented by former House Speaker Gordon Fox until political scandal destroyed his career. Fox was not what most voters would consider to be accessible, so Regunberg’s collaborative and open style was warmly welcomed.

“I believe in ‘little d’ democracy,” said Regunberg to the assembled voters, before asking those present to suggest topics of political concern. “Education” was suggested first, then “public banking,” “violence,” “the environment” and a dozen more. The list of concerns was then consolidated and posted on large pages that were attached to the walls.

For the next 45 minutes those in attendance broke into smaller groups around the larger topics of concern to discuss possible solutions. Regunberg’s helpers moderated the discussions, and by the end a host of problems were identified and potential solutions were advanced. Regunberg intends to use the ideas generated at forums like this to guide his decisions at the State House.

This was democracy at its most participatory. Regunberg hopes to continue the dialog with his constituents and bring this format to other venues within his district, so he can get a more complete idea of the concerns of voters in all the neighborhoods he represents.

Time will tell if Aaron Regunberg can bring the kind of change he’s already brought to District 4 to the State House, where the culture can be poisonous and intransigent. But Regunberg’s experiment in “little d” democracy could prove to be a game changer in Rhode Island if more state representatives and senators were to implement it.

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