Harvard divests from fossil fuels, Uber/Lyft’s attack on labor, criminal justice reform, & office hours!

Hi , We’re back in full swing this fall at the State House with a lot of updates to share. Here’s what’s happening at the State House. Harvard divests from fossil fuels! Incredible news that made national (and global) headlines: Harvard University will divest its $42 billion endowment from all fossil fuels! Shortly thereafter Dartmouth College (announced last Friday!), Boston University, the MacArthur Foundation, and the University of Minnesota followed suit to divest as well. It has truly been an honor to work with the student activists at Harvard on leveraging every tool in the toolbox to arrive at this much-needed and timely win. This includes filing a bill to compel Harvard to divest with Rep. Connolly, and meeting with Attorney General Maura Healey’s office to file a legal complaint that Harvard’s investments violate state law given their “charitable” status as a non-profit institution. I hope this serves as a critical example that activism works, plain and simple. As a former student activist myself who sat (and slept many nights) for a 116 day-long sit-in, it was truly a life changing experience for me to use my current position to support this generation of student activists.  One student activist put it well: “Divestment isn’t a panacea for the climate crisis. But it is an important step in breaking the stranglehold that the fossil fuel industry has on politics, on economics, and on the planet.” I will do everything in my power to lift the voices of activists fighting to ensure a livable future and environmental justice for all. You can read more about the arc of their campaign from the student activists themselves in the New York Times and in The Nation. Standing up to Uber/Lyft’s attack on workers Tech giants Uber/Lyft are coming to Massachusetts to water down our state’s comprehensive labor laws, which are among the strongest in the country (learn more about MA's ABC test at the bottom of the email). California also had similar worker protection laws until “gig economy” tech companies spent $200 million to pass Prop 22 last year (which CA courts have ruled unconstitutional earlier this summer). Now they are coming to Massachusetts to buy our laws too.  By exploiting drivers, they are breaking the law. Attorney General Maura Healey is currently suing Uber and Lyft for failing to follow our labor laws. This is why these corporations are both filing a bill in the legislature and collecting signatures for a ballot question to gain special exemption from our labor, civil rights, and consumer protection laws.  This is why I testified against their bill, H.1234. This bill is harmful to workers, harmful to our local economy and small businesses, and harmful to the integrity of our state government and democracy.  Corporations buying our laws will massively erode the public’s trust in our state government and harm our democracy in a time when we are fighting to keep our democracy healthy and alive. Five corporations broke the record for most expensive ballot campaign in California at $200M last year (for context, the last record was $111M spent by kidney dialysis companies to defeat labor in 2018). This is why I filed with Free Speech for the People two bills to end super PACs and corporate money in elections. I’m proud to be joined by Senator Warren and Congresswoman Jayapal who filed the equivalent bill in Congress, the Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act.  Learn more about these bills and Free Speech for the People's work in the short video below: When corporations are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to buy laws that are supposed to protect people, we need to ask the question, whose interests are the corporate executives serving? The top investors in Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash include the Saudi government, domestic and foreign private equity funds, and other financial firms and conglomerates. By law, corporate CEOs are obligated to maximize profit and serve the interests of their investors, not the interest of the people. As the CEO of ExxonMobil once famously said, “I am not a U.S. company and I don’t make decisions based on what’s good for the U.S.”  This is an issue in which polling shows 73% of Americans, including majorities of both Democrats and Republicans, support. We must protect the cornerstone of our democratic elective process, a free and fair election.  Eliminate Mandatory Minimums Mandatory minimums are a direct legal consequence stemming from the War on Drugs that disproportionately harm communities of color and contribute to mass incarceration. This is why I filed a bill to eliminate all mandatory minimums in Massachusetts with Senator Creem.  A brief history, Massachusetts like many states introduced mandatory minimums following the 1984 Sentencing Reform Act. In 2018, Massachusetts did eliminate mandatory minimums for certain drug offenses, but unfortunately, left several mandatory minimums intact. Our bill would eliminate them entirely.  One of the mechanisms in which mandatory minimum sentencing contributes to mass incarceration is by tying judges’ hands. Regardless of the circumstances or context of a case, judges are forced to issue the mandatory minimum sentence. This effectively takes power away from judges and gives it to prosecutors, who could threaten to charge defendants with crimes that would trigger a mandatory minimum. This is what causes an imbalance in the courtroom that should not exist for any drug offenses.  Office hours Join us for office hours this Friday October 15th from 8am to 10am at 11 Wesley Park (in my backyard!) near Union Square or join us virtually via zoom, register at this link. You can also join us next Saturday October 23rd from 4pm to 6pm at 251 Summer Street (near Porter Square) or join us virtually via zoom, register at this link. We didn’t hold office hours this weekend for Indigenous People’s Day weekend so I’m looking forward to seeing you all soon! In solidarity, Erika Employment Law: the ABC Test What makes Massachusetts employment law one of the strongest in the US? We have a clear and  straightforward way to classify workers known as the “ABC test”. The ABC test has three conditions that must be met for a worker to be classified as an independent contractor (rather than an employee), the employer must show that the work: Is done without the direction and control of the employer; Is performed outside the usual course of the employer’s business; and Is done by someone who has their own, independent business or trade doing that kind of work To learn more, check out the Attorney General’s Advisory on this law. Why is this classification so important? Employees get protections such as minimum wage, overtime, a safe workplace, unemployment insurance, and workers comp under state and federal law. Contractors do not.  This is why tech corporations like Uber and Lyft are trying to buy our laws to misclassify their workers, so that they can skimp on paying into Social Security, skimp on paying corporate taxes, and skimp on paying their workers fairly or consistently. For context the federal Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act would adopt the Massachusetts “ABC test”, expanding protections for workers nationwide. This bill is supported by a majority of voters, passed the House, and has the support of President Biden. It is currently stuck in gridlock in the US Senate. Committee to Elect Erika Uyterhoeven 11 Wesley Park Somerville, MA 02144 United States Official State Rep website: www.RepErika.com Campaign website: www.ElectErika.com If you believe you received this message in error or wish to no longer receive email from us, please (Unsubscribing is not supported in previews).