Connect with us

Economy

Dozens Speak Out on Fight for $15 Legislation

WASHINGTON INFORMER —  Kara Brummell works five days a week assisting adults with mental and physical disabilities to help them seek employment.

Published

on

By William J. Ford

ANNAPOLIS — Kara Brummell works five days a week assisting adults with mental and physical disabilities to help them seek employment.

Sometimes Brummell must budget at least $60 a week for gas to drive clients around to various businesses along the Eastern Shore. Personally, she receives less than $15 an hour taking care of her 3-year-old son as she resides with her brother and his family.

“I’ve been hit, I’ve been cursed at, I’ve had people run away from me,” said Brummell, 33, an employee transition specialist. “But I’ve built trust with them and their families. It’s important work me and my colleagues do.”

Brummell and dozens of direct support professionals, health care workers, advocates and others testified Friday for proposed legislation to gradually increase Maryland’s minimum wage to $15 an hour.

Economic Matters Chairman Dereck Davis (D-District 25) of Mitchellville said 174 people registered to speak at the hearing.

The designated slogan, “Fight for $15,” almost became a reality last year but a version in the more conservative Senate didn’t move forward. With about one-third of the Senate changed this year, it’s believed the long-awaited legislation may finally pass.

A standing-room-only crowd filled the hearing room with more outside wearing  “Fight for $15” buttons. Other sported red T-shirts that read, “Save our Tip$.”

The minimum wage in Maryland increased to $10.10 in July.

According to the draft legislation, the minimum wage would gradually increase this way:

• $11.50 per hour starting July 1, 2020.

• $13 per hour starting July 1, 2021.

• $14 per hour starting July 1, 2022.

• $15 per hour starting July 1, 2023.

Tipped wages would also gradually increase to $15 an hour for employees who receive more than $30 each month in tips.

Dissenters such as Delegate Seth Howard (R-Anne Arundel County) said small-business owners he’s spoke to are scared the legislation could force them to lay off workers.

“The conversations I am having is not about profit. It’s not about economics. It’s a genuine fear being able to offer those jobs,” said Howard, who owns Broadleaf Tobacco and Smoke Shop in Severna Park. “As an employer myself, I understand that fear. I’ve had to look at people I like very much and say, ‘I’m sorry.’ That’s a disgusting feeling.”

Prince George’s County Executive Angela Alsobrooks, one of the first people to testify in support of the minimum wage increase, had a response.

“This is not easy,” she said while sitting beside Delegate Diana Fennell (D-District 47A), sponsor of the legislation. “We’re not saying it’s convenient. We’re saying it’s the right thing to do. It’s not that we don’t recognize that this is difficult. We’re saying in many instances this is a moral issue.”

Some support the measure, but with amendments.

Sally McMillan Guy, associate director of state affairs for John Hopkins University in Baltimore, requested $15 hourly wage be implemented one year later by 2024 to give businesses more time.

A provision in the bill prohibits an employer to take adverse actions against an employee that includes “a reduction or change in work hours.”

“Many of our workers are shift workers … who change hours all the time,” Guy said after testifying. “We are not for adverse action, but we think it’s a step too far.”

The hearing, which started just after 12:30 p.m., continued beyond 5 p.m.

This article originally appeared in the Washington Informer

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Activism

OPINION: Your Voice and Vote Impact the Quality of Your Health Care

One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare. 

Published

on

Rhonda M. Smith.
Rhonda M. Smith.

By Rhonda M. Smith, Special to California Black Media Partners

Shortly after last year’s election, I hopped into a Lyft and struck up a conversation with the driver. As we talked, the topic inevitably turned to politics. He confidently told me that he didn’t vote — not because he supported Donald Trump, but because he didn’t like Kamala Harris’ résumé. When I asked what exactly he didn’t like, he couldn’t specifically articulate his dislike or point to anything specific. In his words, he “just didn’t like her résumé.”

That moment really hit hard for me. As a Black woman, I’ve lived through enough election cycles to recognize how often uncertainty, misinformation, or political apathy keep people from voting, especially Black voters whose voices are historically left out of the conversation and whose health, economic security, and opportunities are directly impacted by the individual elected to office, and the legislative branches and political parties that push forth their agenda.

That conversation with the Lyft driver reflects a troubling surge in fear-driven politics across our country. We’ve seen White House executive orders gut federal programs meant to help our most vulnerable populations and policies that systematically exclude or harm Black and underserved communities.

One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.

Medicaid, called Medi-Cal in California, doesn’t just cover care. It protects individuals and families from medical debt, keeps rural hospitals open, creates jobs, and helps our communities thrive. Simply put; Medicaid is a lifeline for 1 in 5 Black Americans. For many, it’s the only thing standing between them and a medical emergency they can’t afford, especially with the skyrocketing costs of health care. The proposed cuts mean up to 7.2 million Black Americans could lose their healthcare coverage, making it harder for them to receive timely, life-saving care. Cuts to Medicaid would also result in fewer prenatal visits, delayed cancer screenings, unfilled prescriptions, and closures of community clinics. When healthcare is inaccessible or unaffordable, it doesn’t just harm individuals, it weakens entire communities and widens inequities.

The reality is Black Americans already face disproportionately higher rates of poorer health outcomes. Our life expectancy is nearly five years shorter in comparison to White Americans. Black pregnant people are 3.6 times more likely to die during pregnancy or postpartum than their white counterparts.

These policies don’t happen in a vacuum. They are determined by who holds power and who shows up to vote. Showing up amplifies our voices. Taking action and exercising our right to vote is how we express our power.

I urge you to start today. Call your representatives, on both sides of the aisle, and demand they protect Medicaid (Medi-Cal), the Affordable Care Act (Covered CA), and access to food assistance programs, maternal health resources, mental health services, and protect our basic freedoms and human rights. Stay informed, talk to your neighbors and register to vote.

About the Author

Rhonda M. Smith is the Executive Director of the California Black Health Network, a statewide nonprofit dedicated to advancing health equity for all Black Californians.

Continue Reading

Activism

Oakland Hosts Town Hall Addressing Lead Hazards in City Housing

According to the city, there are 22,000 households in need of services for lead issues, most in predominantly low-income or Black and Latino neighborhoods, but only 550 to 600 homes are addressed every year. The city is hoping to use part of the multimillion-dollar settlement to increase the number of households served each year.

Published

on

iStock.
iStock.

By Magaly Muñoz

The City of Oakland’s Housing and Community Development Department hosted a town hall in the Fruitvale to discuss the efforts being undertaken to remove lead primarily found in housing in East and West Oakland.

In 2021, the city was awarded $14 million out of a $24 million legal settlement from a lawsuit against paint distributors for selling lead-based paint that has affected hundreds of families in Oakland and Alameda County. The funding is intended to be used for lead poisoning reduction and prevention services in paint only, not water or other sources as has been found recently in schools across the city.

The settlement can be used for developing or enhancing programs that abate lead-based paint, providing services to individuals, particularly exposed children, educating the public about hazards caused by lead paint, and covering attorney’s fees incurred in pursuing litigation.

According to the city, there are 22,000 households in need of services for lead issues, most in predominantly low-income or Black and Latino neighborhoods, but only 550 to 600 homes are addressed every year. The city is hoping to use part of the multimillion-dollar settlement to increase the number of households served each year.

Most of the homes affected were built prior to 1978, and 12,000 of these homes are considered to be at high risk for lead poisoning.

City councilmember Noel Gallo, who represents a few of the lead-affected Census tracts, said the majority of the poisoned kids and families are coming directly from neighborhoods like the Fruitvale.

“When you look at the [kids being admitted] at the children’s hospital, they’re coming from this community,” Gallo said at the town hall.

In order to eventually rid the highest impacted homes of lead poisoning, the city intends to create programs and activities such as lead-based paint inspections and assessments, full abatement designed to permanently eliminate lead-based paint, or partial abatement for repairs, painting, and specialized cleaning meant for temporary reduction of hazards.

In feedback for what the city could implement in their programming, residents in attendance of the event said they want more accessibility to resources, like blood testing, and information from officials about lead poisoning symptoms, hotlines for assistance, and updates on the reduction of lead in their communities.

Attendees also asked how they’d know where they are on the prioritization list and what would be done to address lead in the water found at several school sites in Oakland last year.

City staff said there will be a follow-up event to gather more community input for programming in August, with finalizations happening in the fall and a pilot launch in early 2026.

Continue Reading

Bay Area

State Orders Cleanup of Former Richmond Landfill

There is no immediate public hazard at the fence line of the site, which is located on the city’s southeastern shoreline, at the foot of S. 51st Street. However, the “site’s wastes pose an unacceptable long-term risk,” according to a CDTSC statement. Also, since the uncapped site sits along a creek and the Bay, wastes can wash off during each rain and high tide, the agency stated.

Published

on

Site map provided by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control.
Site map provided by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control.

The Richmond Standard

The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (CDTSC) is ordering Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) and Bayer CropScience, Inc. to clean up the former Blair Southern Pacific Landfill in Richmond due to findings of elevated levels of lead, banned pesticides like DDT, and radioactive material at the site.

There is no immediate public hazard at the fence line of the site, which is located on the city’s southeastern shoreline, at the foot of S. 51st Street. However, the “site’s wastes pose an unacceptable long-term risk,” according to a CDTSC statement. Also, since the uncapped site sits along a creek and the Bay, wastes can wash off during each rain and high tide, the agency stated.

Bayer and UPRR were ordered to clean up the site as it is their predecessor companies that are deemed responsible for the hazardous waste. The site was used from the 1950s to the 1980s, before modern environmental laws were in place, according to the CDTSC.

“During this time, the site was leased to landfill operators, who developed and operated the site as a series of landfills for disposal of industrial and non-industrial wastes,” the CDTSC stated.

The state’s order requires Bayer and UPRR to safely remove and dispose of the radioactive materials and includes penalties of up to $25,000 per day for noncompliance.

“There will be opportunities for public involvement during the development of the cleanup plan and at the Richmond Southeast Shoreline Community Advisory Group (CAG) meetings, which meet on Zoom the second Thursday of every month,” said Richmond City Councilmember Soheila Bana.

Continue Reading

Subscribe to receive news and updates from the Oakland Post

* indicates required

CHECK OUT THE LATEST ISSUE OF THE OAKLAND POST

ADVERTISEMENT

WORK FROM HOME

Home-based business with potential monthly income of $10K+ per month. A proven training system and website provided to maximize business effectiveness. Perfect job to earn side and primary income. Contact Lynne for more details: Lynne4npusa@gmail.com 800-334-0540

Facebook

Trending

Copyright ©2021 Post News Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.