Legislation heard last night would raise the sub-minimum wage to be equal the minimum wage over four years, so that in 2020 the sub-minimum wage would effectively be eliminated for servers.
How does one live on $2.89/hr.? They don’t. The idea is that tips make up the difference between $2.89 and $9.00, and current law in fact states that owners must add to servers’ income whatever is necessary to bring $2.89+tips up to $9.00. For that matter, how does anyone live on $9.00/hr.? Again, they don’t. That’s way below the poverty line. But that’s another story.
Note that tips are supposed to reward good work, above and beyond what is required of the server. At least, that was the original intent, but now they are formally part of ‘regular’ wages. I’ll bet most patrons do not know that. I didn’t.
Does anyone else see a problem with this? Like, what about all of the slow nights when there are hardly any tips? Even including the good nights the typical server’s income is nothing to write home about.
Many numbers for the actual average server wage, including tips, were tossed around last night. About $8.50/hr. seems to be the most believable. But wait: weren’t servers guaranteed to get $9.00/hr.? Unfortunately some wage theft and other unscrupulous practices occur in some restaurants. But, again, I digress.
Another problem: in order to get decent tips, a server has to suck up to her patrons. The servers that look the best, smiles the most, and doesn’t complain, make the most. If you don’t want to fit this picture, tough. Like it or get another job. Several restaurant owners at the hearing actually said things like this.
There is a LOT more to this, which others have or will addressed.
1) One of the senators on the committee hearing the bill asked: If there are thousand(s) of servers in RI, and they support the bill, why aren’t they all here testifying tonight?
2) Many of the owners took personal offense at the testimony of the supporters of the bill. Many talked of their staff and themselves as “family.” I have no doubt that the vast majority of the owners in that room are sincere, good people with good intentions. I told a couple of them that. They are also small-business owners, and they do have a tough life. My father was self-employed, I know.
3) Many of the owners testified that their servers like the status quo. The owners know this because they asked their servers about it directly.
4) One of the owners told me that he didn’t think that sexual harassment had anything to do with the bill and, implicitly, should not have been brought up by the bill’s supporters.
Remember: tip high, tip often.
]]>The bill, sponsored by Sen. Betty Crowley of Central Falls, will be heard by a Senate subcommittee today after the full Senate commences. A House version is sponsored by a wide range of Democrats, from Rep. Aaron Regunberg, a rookie and one of the more progressive legislators, to Doc Corvese, a veteran Democrat but also one of the most conservative members of the General Assembly.
The idea for the legislation was conceived in large part by the Rhode Island Homeless Advocacy Project (RIHAP), headed by Barbara Kalil, Bill Chamberlain, and John Freitas.
“What we’re trying to accomplish is to set standards for anyone who is trying to shelter the homeless,” Freitas said. “As an advocacy group, we have to deal time and time again with people who have been denied shelter for arbitrary reasons.”
Among those reasons, they said, were girls wearing too much makeup, an unwed pregnant woman and sexual orientation.
The bill was inspired, in part, by the conditions at the Safe Haven shelter in Pawtucket, which was run by the Urban League and forced to close during the summer of 2014.
But RIHAP has also received many complaints about the Providence Rescue Mission at 627 Cranston Street. Freitas said he has seen a number of these violations themselves – including forcing residents to attend a church service which talks about the evils of homosexuality.
“I was talking to a gay resident while I was staying there, and the staff questioned my manhood,” he said. “When we were in line to shower, they separated us. I don’t deny anybody the right to their beliefs, but I don’t think shelters should be dependent on me falling in line with those beliefs. Shelters should be just that, a sanctuary.”
RIHAP also received reports that gay individuals have been discouraged from going there. And when they are do, said RIHAP members, they are purposefully made to feel uncomfortable, and are identified as gay to both the staff and residents.
They have been told the staff believes it is their religious right to turn people away because it is not publicly funded.
“They don’t answer to anybody, so they can get away with it,” Chamberlain said.
Jim Ryczek, executive director for the Rhode Island Coalition for the Homeless, said that although they have received the same complaints, the Rescue Mission has not broken the law.
“Since they are not a member agency, they are free to operate their program as they see fit, as long as it doesn’t violate state law,” he said.
Sometimes, RIHAP members said, the discrimination is simply personal. “In some cases, it’s just a matter of a staff member doesn’t like you, so you’re gone. And there’s no accountability,” Freitas said.
Chamberlain said when such abuses are brought to the state, the response was that they did not want to withhold funding from the agencies. There were many times, though, when a grievance was brought forward and it did not receive a proper procedure.
“If you were to make out a grievance against a shelter you were staying in, it could potentially go into the circular file,” Kalil said. “Nobody is really watching anybody to make sure it’s getting heard. Not only does it not get heard, but they’re going to make it all nice, and nobody gives any timeline to when things will get fixed.”
Kalil added that they have also heard incidences of a shelter telling a homeless person they are barred, when in fact they are not. “We need to make sure their rights are respected,” she said.
The bill says “all homeless persons have the right to homeless shelter services regardless of political or religious beliefs, immigration status, former geographic location of residence, ethno-cultural background, (dis)ability, gender identity, criminal background, and/or sexual orientation.”
The bill also outlines that homeless individuals should not be expected to pay a fee to stay in a shelter and nutritious food should be provided and that shelters should provide residents an atmosphere of dignity, and that staff should accept gender identity as defined by the individual, among others.
These guidelines would be enforced by a committee formed by the Housing Resources Commission (HRC), which would include one homeless or formerly homeless person, as well as one resident or former resident of a domestic violence shelter. The committee would be responsible for several tasks, all of which would address the concerns outlined in the bill, such as resident rights and responsibilities, and organizational standards for the shelter itself. The HRC would be required to enforce and implement any of the approved regulations drafted by the committee.
The bill would also impose baseline standards for homeless shelters in Rhode Island. An External Review Committee would conduct four onsite inspections of all shelters in Rhode Island per year. Only one of these inspections would be scheduled two weeks before their arrival, the other three would remain unannounced. Penalties for violating any of these standards would be monetary; between 2 percent and 10 percent of their average monthly expenses, based on the severity of the infraction, and the agency’s history.
Concerns about the legislation include aversion to new regulations, as well as aversions to potential new costs, Ryczek said.
“The members are rightly bringing up that if there are increased costs, where is that coming from? We will advocate with state and federal governments and say that if we need to do this, you need to provide,” he said.
H5242 will be heard in the Senate Committee on Housing and Municipal Government meeting on Wednesday, April 1, at 4:30 pm. Updates to follow.
]]>If you clicked the national campaign link above, you will see that our little state is 9th (!) in ranking nationwide. This makes me happier than I can say. I am proud of this work; it is one of the most important things we can do to help people claim autonomy of their bodies and make personal choices regardless of access restrictions.
With a couple of new state bills proposed that would limit abortion access in Rhode Island, we have to take a critical look at our state’s commitment to bodily autonomy and personal choice. The most infamous of these bills, proposed by State Representative Karen MacBeth of Cumberland, has been brought back and struck down every year for the past five.
Karen, move on. Forced ultrasounds are not informing people of the choice they are making. Abortions are a deeply personal choice and quite frankly, none of your damn business. This bill is an act of intimate violation of a person’s body by the government. Every pregnant person has a right to decide what to do with their bodies without your interference.
With H 7303 and other bills like it creeping steadily into our legislation, we need to think about how we phrase our fundraising and work that we do in this state. “Women’s Health and Education Fund of Rhode Island” feels like code. Why aren’t we more transparent about the work we are doing? Why is the word “abortion” skirted around? If you visit the WHEFRI website, you see in clear language that these funds are going to abortion services. The more we use the word abortion, the less stigma there will be attached to it. I encourage the Board Members of WHEFRI to look deeply at the name and think about changing it to bring light to this important work under no cloaks or guises.
I’d also like to address with use of the word “Women.” We have to recognize that abortion services need to be available to everyone, regardless of gender identification. In that I mean that not all people who need access to abortion services are women. A transgender man may need abortion services. A non-binary person may need services. Keeping around terms like these may limit people’s access to these funds. I do not mean to say that WHEFRI would ever discriminate against someone because of their gender, however I will posit that it may make a pregnant person who does not identify as a woman question whether they would have access to these funds. Inclusive language is something we need to address in the reproductive justice world; without it we are limiting who we reach. If we want all people to have access to abortions, let’s work on how we present our mission and work.
As one of the biggest access funds in the state, we should be shouting loud and proud. Let’s work on ensuring that all pregnant people have access to abortion services and that our work is recognizable as such. I want to make Rhode Island a forerunner for reproductive justice.
]]>