This week on Talk of the Neighborhoods, State Auditor Diana DiZoglio joins us to talk about Ballot Question 1, to authorize her office to audit the state Legislature. Then on the second half, we'll feature a mini-debate on Ballot Question 5, which would raise the minimum wage for tipped restaurant workers and pool the tips for sharing among back room personnel. Arguing in favor of a Yes vote is Grace McGovern, the Mass. coordinator for One Fair Wage. On the No side is Doug Bacon, a Boston restaurant owner and chair of the Mass. Committee to Protect Tips.
WBCA Podcasts
Talk Of The Neighborhoods
- Good evening and welcome to Talk of the Neighborhoods. I'm Joe Heiser, your host, coming to you from the B&N Live Studios in Eggleston Square, where tonight we're also being simulcast on our sister radio station, WBCA 102.9 FM. Tonight, our terrific show, All Politics, as is our usual want. Here's the ballot. That's right, Election Day is right around the corner, and tonight we continue our coverage of Election 2024. There's not a lot of local races on the ballot, especially here in Boston, a few statewide races, but we've been focusing on the ballot questions, and there's five ballot questions that voters will see when they go into the polls. On Tuesday and tonight, we'll talk about two of them. First up, ballot question number one, which seeks to give the authority to the state auditor to audit the legislature. The sponsor, you guessed it, state auditor, Diana DiZaglio. She'll be with us later on as we talk with her about what prompted us. There's no formal opposition to it, so a chance to talk in depth with her about what she hopes to accomplish. Then on the second half, we'll shift gears a bit to a mini debate on ballot question number five, which would raise the minimum wage for tipped workers over the course of five years. It's being sponsored by a national organization, one fair wage, and opposed by the Mass Restaurant Association, a number of restaurant owners, and also some employees. And we'll talk with one of the Boston owners, Doug Bacon, when he joins us. All that and more tonight on Talk to the Neighborhoods. Stay tuned, we'll be right back. (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) - As early election voting kicks up, ride share drivers and elected leaders rallied in Roxbury to encourage voters to select, yes, on question three. - Question three gives Massachusetts Ride Share drivers the option to join a union, the option to organize, to come together for improved pay, conditions, safety and more. We know unions make a difference. We've seen it for janitors, security officers, construction workers, hospital workers and so many more. So this is not a new idea. But Massachusetts is gonna lead the way in giving a voice for workers who don't have that option. On November 5th, when we vote yes on question three, Massachusetts is gonna make history. - Proponents of creating ride share driver unions gives drivers the empowerment to fight for improved conditions and fair pay. - As ride share drivers who work for companies like Uran left, they get us to school, to work, right, to everywhere we need to go. But they want the option to join a union, just like other workers here in Massachusetts, including childcare workers and home care workers, maintenance workers, building workers. We know that question three has overwhelming support. Together we can make history and help ride share drivers win the option to join a union. - We started just working longer hours, earning less money and it's not fair. So this job is getting very difficult and we have no representation. We need a voice and they just don't literally respect the drivers as a partner. - Many current ride share drivers in Boston are concerned with being slighted by their ride share corporations and are asking for protections against unfair suspensions and fire rates. - We have no support from them. They can disconnect us at any moment for, you know, not even for a fair reason. So sometimes for a mistake, like it happened to me three years ago and every year they've been decreasing our wages. They've been getting a higher percent of the fairs to the point where like sometimes I give a ride and I can only take 20% and they take 80% when I'm doing everything. - To treat us unfairly, that's not good because a lot of us, we are hardworking people and then we have ambition, we have plane, we have stuff we want to achieve. So once you pay, go down. All your dreams just start cutting, just trickle down. And that's for a lot of drivers. I'll be talking to even myself. I'm going through the same problem too. - This demonstration represented the larger trend of workers all across the United States who are pro-union and want to create a system that puts workers' rights before corporate profits. - We won't stop until we won the right to form a union for every worker in this country, regardless of the color of our skin, regardless of where we live, or regardless of the kind of work we do. - We won't stop until we won the future that our kids and our grandkids so richly deserve. - All right, we're back with Talk of the Neighborhoods. I'm Joel Icy-O's. Tonight, all politics as is our usual want and we're focusing on ballot questions earlier this month. We had some many debates over question two. And then last week, question four. Tonight, we'll focus on question one, which would authorize the state auditor to audit the legislature. And then later on, we'll look at question five. And I'm pleased to have joining me. In fact, the state auditor, Diana DiZaglio, and so nice to have you here. - Great to be back. Thanks so much for inviting me. I'm really excited to be here. And Halloween, my friend. It's great. - Well, it's, we're trying not to be too scary here. - No, I weren't asking where my costume was today. And I said, well, I'm at the state house. I said, I think that dressing as the state auditor is scary enough these days for some of these folks. - Well, for some of them. - Okay. - Well, let's start out with the basics. Here, we've got a few minutes here. Why do we need this? Don't you already have the authority to audit government agencies? - Yes, actually we do. Our office went in to conduct an audit of the state legislature, our House of Representatives and our state senate. And unfortunately, even though we demonstrated that we've audited the state legislature over 100 times throughout history, since 1849, legislative leaders recently have decided that they don't want to allow the auditor's office to view the books of how they use our taxpayer dollars. They say that they make their own rules and that they audit themselves through a private contractor that they contract out with, that they get to select and they get to tell what they want that group to look at and not to look at. You know, rebuffing any attempts to increase transparency, accountability, accessibility to the work that my office does. So we have tried to go to court to adjudicate this matter, but our efforts have been blocked. Up to this point, we're still pushing. And in the meantime, we are taking this issue to the ballot to codify and to explicitly state that the legislature is included in the language of the law. It already says all departments, Joe. It says we are to audit all departments. They say that everybody but them is what that means. - They say it's only administrative departments. Now, I'm sure you'll clarify as I go. Now, they got the attorney general to back them up, if I understand correctly, said that wasn't enough to convince you that maybe you're beating on a dead horse, so to speak. - Yeah, well, I will say I very much respect our attorney general and we have a disagreement about this. I believe that the Constitution is there to protect the people, not the politicians. And I believe that with 100 years of precedent, I have over 100 audits, like I said, that my office has conducted, that that demonstrates that this was always done. But yes, the attorney general has been obstructing our access to the courts, siding with legislative leaders, saying that she believes that, you know, they don't have to be audited right now. So again, we're taking this to the ballot to give the people the decision on whether or not they should comply with the law. While those conversations are very much still happening up on Beacon House. - And the court case ongoing, going forward, or are you waiting to have the people's voice to- - Yeah, so I think it's important that we get through Tuesday and we let our voices be heard. The legislature should be audited. This is a basic issue of transparency and accountability. And yes, there have been questions about constitutionality, but I will say, I don't think that they're going to bring us to court, never say never they could. The reason why I don't think that they're going to bring us to court and that that's just the threat that they're using to try to get people to think that their vote doesn't count and that it's just going to be overturned anyways, is because we've actually already been asking to take them to court, like I said, and we've been blocked from accessing that impartial hearing that the constitution actually provides for us as residents and citizens of the Commonwealth. We've been denied access to the court system, and I think why that's been the case, Joe, is because they very much understand that they have what's called a post-audit and oversight committee that actually has subpoena power over executive branch agencies. They've actually had legislative auditors audit the executive branch agencies and require, and require that the previous state auditors have come before them in those hearings. Let me tell you this. If it's a violation of the constitution for the executive branch to audit the legislative, what does that mean? It's a violation for them to audit us back. So what they're saying is they can audit us, but we can't audit them back. I think that that's a system of checks and balances. What does this tell you hoping to find, not hoping to find? What do you think? I mean, what do you think might be? Now you served in legislature, both in the House and the Senate, right? Yeah. If I remember correctly, what are you hoping to find? We're hoping to find ways to make improvements, like we do with every other state entity. You know, we're going to be releasing... What do you think there's corruption there? There's cronyism, there's malfeasance, there's... What I will say... What I will say is that there is a tremendous amount of power centralized into the hands of just a few, namely the Speaker and Senate President, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. And that's what these audits are here for. They're here to be a check on that power to make sure that we don't just have a couple of people who say they make their own rules, they audit themselves, they spend their taxpayer dollars with unfettered and unchecked authority with the ability for potential problematic issues to arise. Our audits are there to help not to hurt state entities. We're not the FBI. We don't go in and grab people's cell phones. So if they're not complying with a basic audit is the point, what are they hiding? Right. Well, and what is it that you're looking at? You're looking just at dollars and cents? Are you looking at procedures, policies they have in place? We look at all of it. We look at financials, we look at performance, we look at programmatic efficiencies and inefficiencies, we look at processes and procedures. You know, and that's what we do for every other state entity. We actually just released an audit of the legislature. It was conducted as I had committed to conducting an audit when I ran for this office. I wanted to fulfill that commitment. So we just released a 77 page audit of the state legislature, but they didn't comply with the audit. So you can actually go and see for yourself all of the things that we wanted to audit that they refused to participate in cooperating with my office on. Things like how they're spending their balance forward line item funds in the state budget, things like how they're using non-disclosure agreements. Non-disclosure agreements can be used to cover up harassment, discrimination, abuse, even potential corruption, losing our tax dollars. I did actually witness an experienced sexual harassment myself while I was working in the house of representatives. And I actually experienced receiving one of those non-disclosure agreements, not because I took anyone to court, but because I wasn't able to get my six-week severance package unless I signed away my right to talk about what happened. Obviously, I didn't stay quiet. I subsequently ran for office. And now I'm fighting this fight for transparency and accountability. But I can tell you those agreements are in fact being abused across state government. We just audited the convention center authority right here, you know, in the city. And we found that an unlawful $1.2 million non-disclosure agreement was executed to conceal allegations of racial discrimination and retaliation at our own convention center authority completely done unlawfully. And this was under the previous administration. But we were able to point to that unlawful activity to the new leadership center who has very strongly come out in support of ensuring that that is dealt with and that the protocols there are changed to prevent this from happening. But let's see. Who would prosecute that if there was a problem about the attorney general? We referred the matter to the -- I'm not -- We did. We referred the matter to the attorney general's office. And we referred several other issues to the state ethics commission, the secretary state's office, not only the attorney general's office. Because actually a lot of folks might not know. Our audits, we are able to uncover what we find. We're able to then make it public because we are subject to the public records law, unlike the legislature. And we make our findings public, but we don't have any enforcement authority. So we can't force any agencies to do anything. So when we find something, we very much do have to rely on that partnership with other agencies and other offices to make sure that, you know, justice is upheld and, you know, our democratic system here. And to make sure that, you know, issues are resolved. So we will find the issues and then we'll make -- we'll refer them to other agencies. You're not making many friends in the political world by doing this. And in fact, playing on the devil's advocate here, your critics say this may amount to political vendetta. That might be a bit strong. But what do you say to that? I find it unfortunate that all they have is to resort to personal attacks. You know, I'm not on the ballot this year. But it's like they're running a campaign against me all over again. It's like we're going back to 2022. And, you know, I mean, that's their right if they want to launch personal attacks and launch character assassinations, then that's on them. I'm staying focused on the issues. You know, we just released an audit. It was a great audit. The Globe editorial board did a great editorial praising the work of the office on this audit, you know, talking about the good ideas that it presented to the taxpayers and to the legislature to consider. It was done in accordance with government auditing standards. So, you know, I mean, the personal attacks are what they are. It's close to election day. We expect them. It's par for the course. But we're focused on doing the good work of the people. Does your office have the capacity to do an in-depth audit of the let's say chart? There was a report. I'm trying to remember where I saw it. And, of course, you saw it, suggesting that the number of audits that your office has to do is more than you can accomplish with the staff you have. Yeah. Are you prepared to kind of take this on? Yes, absolutely. We are absolutely underfunded. Let me just say that. Recent reports, unfortunately. Absolutely. Authorizes the funding. Yeah. The recent reports, probably the ones you saw, I did speak with them. They didn't think it was relevant to include it in the story that we've been underfunded to the tune of five times less of an increase than my counterparts holding constitutional offices such as Secretary of State or even the inspector general who was appointed who received a 10% increase while we received about a 2% increase when there was an 8% cost of living adjustment last year. So as you can kind of imagine getting a 2% bump with an 8% cost of living adjustment, other constitutional is getting 9% and 10%. We were less than equitably funded. You know, and the speaker is quick to point out that he thinks we should be focused on other things. We need to do our jobs, all these other things. Meanwhile, he's significantly and inequitably underfunding our office. So it is what it is, you know? Well, and of course that's the speaker that's in prison. But what are the rank and file members saying? And they have a problem with this as well? You know, if your legislator hasn't said anything about it, they may be supporting this privately. I say that. There's no organized opposition to this. No. No. And all the polling I've seen, she's a little past overwhelming. Yeah. It's the speaker, the Senate President, and a few of their friends who are referring to themselves as scholars and experts. None of them have ever been auditors before. But, you know, they're trying to tell people that, you know, this can't be done. They're trying to tell people that the Constitution is there to protect the politicians. And, you know, they're weaponizing the Constitution against the people that's there to protect. And I think a lot of people are seeing through that, trying to muddy the waters right now. What about the governor? Has she weighed in on this? No, the governor has not weighed in. But the governor may well indeed be in the position of after this passes in just a few days here on November 5th. Please go vote yes on one. Let's bring on the sun. Sunlight's the best as infected. Governor Hilly and I spoke today, you know, and I made it very clear that I will absolutely be calling for a veto to any attempt by the legislature to overturn the people's decision to increase transparency through an audit. Well, and correct me if I'm wrong here, that the legislature can, of course, there's five different ballot questions. They can go and pass additional legislation or make further changes to what's approved. Is that correct? They can. That is the right of it. So they could go in and, you know, and, you know, they could go in tomorrow and do this while they're in formal sessions, but they could go in and alter the intent. And are you worried about that? No, you know, I think that right now, what we have to do is we have to focus on getting through November 5th. There's all sorts of, there's, there are all sorts of sorts of questions. What do I show down? Absolutely. And you know what? I mean, fears are there to be conquered. You know, feel the fear, do it anyways. Yeah. Could they? Sure, they could. But I think it's our obligation to fight for what is moral and ethical because what they're doing, hiding how they're spending our taxpayer dollars is completely unethical. It's unlawful as well, but it's also unethical, immoral, and just wrong. So I think it's our responsibility to go and vote for what we think is right in our hearts and what we feel is what should be being done and fight for our rights and not just roll over to their, you know, planned potential attempts to try to, you know, overturn things. I think that we should make it crystal clear with a very large margin that this is what we want. But you don't expect them to roll over either, do you? You know, I think that the louder people are on election day regarding that vote on question will get where to pass, but 75 to 80. The speaker himself said he's going to be looking at the margin, meaning if it's a really big margin, it might be less likely that he would want to mess with the voters, but he might feel a little bit more empowered if it's just a small margin and, you know, might feel like he has more wiggle room to try to repeal what you all vote for. So I definitely say to people, look, we have a chance to make a change. We shouldn't miss this moment. This is an opportunity to not solve all of the problems up at the State House, but to solve a few of them as it pertains to, you know, the fact that our state legislature is the least transparent state legislature in the entire nation. They're not subject to open meeting laws. They're able to take unrecorded roll call votes and pass bills in the middle of the night. You wouldn't be auditing that. You'd be looking at the dollar side, would you? We would be looking at process, procedures, and the dollars. So we would be able to do comparative analyses like we just did in this audit that I released, which is up on my website, mass.gov/auditor. Feel free to go in, click on audits, and then you can find the general court audit. This is one of the last few audits that we've conducted. And you can see for yourself, we're able to do comparative analyses with other states and see what they're doing and what we're doing. And if another state has seen some more success than we've seen, why wouldn't we want to know how to augment our systems here and make government work better? You know, we work with agencies and entities across the board who most of the time cooperate with our office, understanding that while audits can be a pain to have to go through, because you have to look for all the documents and get organized and put all your receipts together. And we understand it's not like we have people getting pom-poms out when we come in the door. Certainly not. You know, they know it's the auditors are here and we need to get all of our documents in order. But when the audit is completed, we get to look back and we get to look at how we helped that agency to perform better because we pointed to areas that needed improvement. And you can make recommendations and they may or may not make them. Right. We shine a light. It's a service that we provide. It's a service that we provide on behalf of taxpayers and the agency that we're auditing to let them know, hey, you have some issues in these different areas or hey, you provided training to all of your employees except these two. And we found that these two didn't get the appropriate training in accordance with the law. You know, even things like that that our auditors are able to go in and detect, they're important things. And, you know, again, we go through this as a matter of routine with every other state entity. It's only our state legislature that's refusing to show us how they're spending their money, show us the receipts. And my question is, what are you hiding? If there's nothing to hide, open up the books, let the sunshine in, vote yes on one, bring on the sun. And, of course, in fairness to the opponents, whoever they are, wherever they are, they say that there is nothing there to see. But we shall see what the voters have to say. Of course, again, we're talking with the state auditor, Diana Dezoglio, and about question one, will the voters give her the authority to audit the state legislature? Thanks so much for joining me. Thanks so much for having me. Great to see everybody. It won't be no time for you to sing tonight. Like last time, we loved that. But when we come back with more of "Talk to an Average," we'll look at question five, which would raise the minimum wage for tipped workers gradually over a five-year period, and we'll hear pro and con on that. Stay tuned. We'll be right back. [music] Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, with conquering limbs, a stride from then to then. We hear that our sea-washed sunset gates shall stand a mighty woman with a torch whose flame is imprisoned lightly, and her name, Mother of Exiles, from her beacon hand, glows worldwide welcome. Her mild eyes command the abridged harbor that twin cities reign. Ancient lands, your story, punk, cried she with siloed lips. Give me a tide, your poor, your huddle masses, yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teaming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest toss to me, and I lift my lamp beside the golden door. The new Colossus, and the Lazarus. [music] All right, we're back with more of Talk to the Neighborhoods. Tonight, we're looking at ballot questions, two more questions, earlier question one with the state auditor, and now in this segment, question five, which would raise, gradually raise, the minimum wage for tipped workers here in Massachusetts until ultimately reaching the full minimum wage scale. And I'm pleased to have joining me a proponent and an opponent, but first of all, on my right from one fair wage, the Massachusetts coordinator, Grace Goveren, nice to have you here. Thank you so much for having me. And in opposition, we have Doug Bacon, who's a local restaurant owner and the chair of the Committee to Protect Tibbs, I think I have. That's great. Thank you, Joe. Nice to have you both here. Well, start with you, Grace. Why do we need this, is something not working here? Absolutely. I think there are a lot of problems with the restaurant industry. I mean, there's issues with worker exploitation across the board. But the system of subminimum wages is an outdated system, and it's past due that we end it. I think the practice of a two-tiered wage system leads to exploitation in the restaurant industry, wage theft, sexual harassment, racial inequity. All of these issues are exacerbated by having a two-tiered wage system, and it creates more confusion and more tension for the workers who are hourly workers who are working paycheck to paycheck, and especially the vulnerable communities who aren't making enough right now see those issues tenfold. And so slowly, incrementally, increasing the subminimum wage will not solve all of these issues, but it's a very needed step to start making progress towards equity for hourly workers. And it's a step we need to take that's past due. Okay. And Doug, is somehow the current system exploiting workers? Absolutely not, Joe. To the extent that Grace has referenced it. No, absolutely not. I have over 100 tipped employees in Massachusetts. All of them have told me that they make far in excess of minimum wage every single day. There is no subminimum wage in Massachusetts. By law, every worker who works for tips must be paid a minimum of $15 an hour. If they earn it in excess of that, they will make more, and the restaurant is permitted to pay a slightly lower rate. But everyone is guaranteed to make $15 an hour. This proposal from the out-of-state activists would be a very bad thing for Massachusetts consumers, because menu prices will go up dramatically. Menu prices will go up dramatically. It will be very bad for tip workers, because jobs will be lost, and income will go down, and it will be very bad for small business owners, because they will be squeezed between having to raise prices and pay more in labor costs. Affordable restaurants will likely diminish dramatically in Massachusetts, if not disappear completely. Would that squeeze out these small restaurants? I'd love to respond to a few things Doug said. I think it's fantastic that your workers make more than minimum wage. That's great. I've said that in conversations before. I think everyone should be in a position to work for a restaurant, to be in the high traffic shifts, to be in the high traffic restaurants where they're taking home more than minimum wage. We both agree, and the opposition and the proponents of this question, both across the board agree, restaurant workers are hard workers. And so we're fighting for an increase in the base wage, because unfortunately, a lot of people don't have the opportunity to earn high above $15 an hour. We also have the pervasiveness of wage theft. The UMass Amherst labor report that came out about question five said that restaurants in the Massachusetts make up for 5.6% of employment in the state. But they accounted for the most wage complaints out of any industry. That's a crazy discrepancy. If you're only making up 5.6% of the employment, but you're a majority and the highest number of wage complaints. Now, also, the law does say that you're supposed to be brought up to the $15 an hour. That's great. We know that that doesn't always happen. I've heard anecdotally stories of that not happening. I've experienced wage theft myself. I know my coworkers have experienced wage theft in different situations. And also, the last time the Department of Labor did a study on the enforcement of the two tiered wage system, it was an 84% non-compliance. Now, across the board, but largely, largely, the non-compliance was with the two tiered wage system. Now, also, if subminimum wages don't exist, wages are what you're earning from your employer, a consistent hourly base pay. So even if you're brought up with a tip credit, that's still a subminimum wage. You're still being paid 675 from your employer. I'm sure you don't engage in wage theft. But is that a problem across the board in the restaurant industry? And by wage theft, you've been paid somewhat short of meeting the $15 threshold. I gather that's what you're talking about. So I have been accused last week by one fair wage of wage theft. It's absolutely false. I have never been accused of wage theft in 34 years. I take great pride in my relationship with my employees. So what Grace is describing is a problem with employment in Massachusetts. It's not unique to the restaurant industry. It's common with landscapers, general contractors, painters, cleaning contractors. So we are all in favor of enforcement. This law, if it were to pass, would not cure those ills. All it would do is increase the wage for workers, increase the costs, increase the wage for workers who are not being compensated through tips. And it would dramatically increase the costs of operating for small businesses and menu prices for consumers. But if you don't believe me, just ask your local server or bartender or restaurant owner. We have gotten a dramatic groundswell of support from workers in the industry. Just ask the workers, do they want this? And the answer is a resounding no. They do not want question five. They're voting against question five. In spite of the support from this out of state group of activists, local servers and bartenders do not want to see question five pass. They're voting no. >> Is that what you're hearing? And is there any survey information? >> Yes, so the last time, and the only time there was scientific polling done on tipped workers in Massachusetts, over 70% preferred a higher base wage plus tips on top. So you're still having the incentive to earn tips. That's what we're talking about. We also collected 4,300 petition signatures from tipped workers during the pandemic who wanted this. And now on the small business front, we have over 100 restaurants in Massachusetts who are already operating this way, while competing with the restaurants who operate on half of the labor costs for their tipped workers. And so they're making it happen. They're making it profitable. And we still go out and we tip, because no one, absolutely no one that I've ever met in my life, says that they research and look up how much a server is getting made hourly before they decide how much to tip. You don't look up how much a server is getting made before you travel. You don't look up to research how much a server is getting made before you go to your local business that's paying a full minimum wage. >> But do you dispute the fact that it's likely to increase the prices? >> Slightly. The same labor research policy briefing from UMass Amherst said that the implications for Massachusetts question five would be a slight increase of menu costs. Now increasing, mitigating the labor costs would be combated by a menu hike of one to two percent, which menu hike is scary. But if you think about one to two percent in practice, that means a $50 bill is now $51. A $100 bill is now $102. And I would argue that the good people of the Commonwealth are willing to pay one dollar more on a $50 bill to know that their server is making the same minimum wage as everyone else in small businesses in the state and that their tip is not going towards a subsidy for the employer to pay them a poverty wage. >> One to two percent. >> I have to live in the real world. >> You can't deal with that. The labor increase from $675 to $15 is 250 percent increase. No business can accept that without making adjustments. What will happen is dramatic numbers of servers and bartenders will lose their jobs. Small businesses will adapt by adding QR codes, tablets. People will order in restaurants from their phones. Jobs will be lost. This is what servers and bartenders are telling us they're afraid of. Another component that we haven't talked about is tip sharing. Presently, when you leave a tip for a server or bartender, by law, that cannot be shared with any employee who doesn't have interaction with the guest. So it can't be shared with the cooks or the cleaning crew or the bookkeeper in the office. >> But don't they deserve something? >> They deserve to be compensated. But servers and bartenders work very hard and deliver the hospitality in the front of the house to the guests. They hustle, they smile. They deliver the food, they talk about the specials. When consumers get that great experience in a restaurant, they want the servers to keep the tips and the servers believe that they deserve it. We pay well, our back of the house staff, we don't believe that the tips should be shared. If it's shared with employees who have no interaction with the guest, it turns into nothing more than a service charge. >> Are your back of the house employees already getting a minimum wage? >> They already make much more than minimum wage. My lowest paid employee makes $20 an hour. In Massachusetts, everybody is guaranteed to make $15. In Massachusetts, in the Boston metro area, most employees are making far in excess of that. And I'm not suggesting that's in line with the cost of living. And it's a good thing, they make well in excess of minimum wage. But the point is, the tips that are left by the guest. If this changes, 100% control of the tips could be taken by the owner of the restaurant and distributed the way they see fit, not to the server, but the owner might decide, I'm going to share this with the dishwashers and the cleaning people and the line cooks. >> How would that work on your proposal, Quiz? >> So, I have a hard time understanding that. >> Yeah, tip pooling has a lot of questions around it. So first and foremost, we already tip pool in Massachusetts. In the front of House staff, I personally work at a- >> Tip sharing, this will change to- >> Okay, can I finish, thank you. I work at a restaurant that pools tips, I love it. It promotes teamwork, it promotes helping each other out. I would never go back to the house staff, get some portion. >> Back of the House staff currently in Massachusetts and New York are the only two states that do not allow for back of House staff to be a part of the tip pool. Only two states out of the entire United States disallow for once everyone is brought up to the full minimum wage, back of House staff to be included. Now, typically in states like Montana, Minnesota, California, Washington, where this is allowed. If everyone's brought up to a full minimum wage, and you decide to include some back of House staff into the tip pool. It's anywhere from five to 10%. It's not the dishwasher taking 100% of a service tip. And the great part about this is, it's an allowance. It just makes it not illegal to share the tips with the back of House. Any worker who doesn't want to pool tips can work at a restaurant where they don't pool tips. And me personally, if my restaurant decides to give 5% of my tips to the dishwashers and the line cooks who help me make the meals that I'm being tipped on. If you help me grab six sauces for one table and I have to run up the stairs and every five minutes, the line cooks who stand for 12 hours in front of fires and 93% humidity in Boston summers. Yeah, they can have a few of my tips. They're making the food that I'm getting tipped on. We've got just a few minutes left. I'm going to play a little devil's advocate here though now. And what do you say to those people and say, you're a national organization that's come into Massachusetts and to tell Massachusetts how to run their restaurants. And that one size doesn't necessarily fit all. So this movement was started by tipped workers in Massachusetts and I've carried the torch as a tipped worker from former tipped workers in Massachusetts. It is true that there is a national component of one fair wage, the same way there is a national component of the Massachusetts Restaurant Association, which is the National Restaurant Association. So it's a very convenient talking point for them to use, but I'm from Massachusetts. The two tipped workers who started this were tipped workers in Massachusetts. All of the workers who helped me gather signatures and helped me campaign and flyer throughout this entire campaign are from Massachusetts and they work in Massachusetts and they pay for things in Massachusetts. They pay taxes to this state. It's for the workers, by the workers. It's a national organization, but locally run and let me just keep going with that. I know you're not exploiting your workers, but do you argue with the fact that there may be some restaurants that do exploit their workers? Yes, and there are also general contractors and there may even be broadcasters who exploit their workers somewhere. It could be, but my employees, I'm supporting my working tipped employees who say they do not want this change. Some of them have contributed to the campaign. We have dozens of tipped workers and restaurant workers who have contributed to our campaign, many, many restaurant owners. This is a grassroots campaign and you will see the signs in restaurants and you will see the T-shirts and the check presenters and the messaging everywhere. It's paid for by the owners, by the bosses who don't want to pay their workers. The ballot campaign was paid for by a group from California who spent $900,000 to get it on the ballot. 100% of that money was raised in California. Well, and so, what's the outcome? If it does pass, what's going to be devastating for the restaurant industry? And if it doesn't pass, what do you folks do? We're going to keep at it. Workers deserve this change. Workers want this change. It's overdue. The two-tiered wage system is outdated. It's exploitative. Like I mentioned, wage theft is rampant. The AG's office called it an epidemic in Massachusetts. $1 billion in wage theft losses just last year. And remember, the restaurant industry had the highest number of complaints, despite being 5.6 of employment in the states. So again, I'm so glad that your employees love you and love working for you. That's not the case everywhere. That is not the case everywhere. The former Attorney General, who is now the governor of Massachusetts, Mora Healy and her lieutenant governor, Kim Driscoll, have come out strongly and urged voters to vote no on question five because they were servers. They understand the industry. Mora Healy was the chief law enforcement officer in the state of Massachusetts. And she understands that these issues while serious are not going to be cured by question five. Everyone should vote no on question five. >> Well, and unfortunately we're on a time for tonight. >> Thank you. >> Both of you were extremely well-spoken and I appreciate you coming in. Question five on the ballot would raise the minimum wage gradually over five years for tipped workers and also allow for pooling of tips for the back office staff. Tuesday is the election day you, the voters will decide it's a right. But we hope that you take advantage of it to cast your ballot here in Massachusetts. Of course, the presidential race is on the ballot as well and fortunately we're out of time for tonight. We'll be back two weeks from tonight, City Council John Fitzgerald will be joining us at that time. Until then, for the entire staff and crew here at BNN. Thank you for watching Talking to the Neighborhoods. Have a pleasant evening, good night. Okay, you okay? [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [BLANK_AUDIO] (upbeat music)