What is Community Labor United? A long-term strategic partnership between Boston-area labor unions and the region’s progressive community organizations working in different sectors United to mobilize our community members and unions to win concrete improvements and to build power for working families in the Greater Boston region Dedicated to a combined program of coalition building, research, policy development and grassroots mobilization

CLU Mission To protect and promote the interests of low and moderate income persons in the Greater Boston region through joint organizing campaigns. To build regional power through work that is rooted in the principles of equitable development, economic justice, the protection of the right to organize for workers, tenants and communities. To actively contribute to the broad-based social movement for systemic economic and social change. To dedicate its efforts to creating a new political power center in Greater Boston region that directly competes with the existing strength of the corporate community.

The Hourglass Challenge: Creating a More Equitable Economy for Greater Boston The Changing Face of Greater Boston: A Demographic Profile The Hourglass Economy and It’s Implications for Equitable Regional Growth Vital Signs: A Snapshot of Housing, Health, Transportation, and Education Next Steps Toward Building an Equitable Regional Economy in Greater Boston These are the four chapters of the Framing Report

The Changing Face of Greater Boston: A Demographic Profile 4.4 million people live in the Greater Boston area The city of Boston is now “majority minority” with over 50% people of color Since 1980: the Latino population has more than doubled and the Asian population has increased five-fold Brazilians account for 1 in every 5 immigrants Seniors (55 and up) represent almost 20% of the population 75% of Boston residents between the ages of 14 and 17 are Black, Asian or Latino The data on this slide is take directly from our framing report Population is a 2003 estimate from U.S. Census for Boston Metropolitan Statistical Area.

A Tale of Two Cities: Growing Income and Wealth Inequality Today, a wealthy family has the income of seven poor families A typical household today makes less money than in 1989 People who are in the top 20% and already considered wealthy saw their income increase by more than 20% People whose income is already below the poverty line saw their income decrease by 2% The data here was analyzed and published by the Boston Indicators Project, but it is U.S. Census data.

The Hourglass Economy High-Wage Jobs During the past three decades, the economy of Greater Boston has steadily shifted away from a manufacturing base towards service jobs. The result of this shift is the emergence of an 'hourglass' economy, with large numbers of low-wage jobs at one end of the spectrum and high-wage jobs at the other, but few opportunities in the middle. Low-Wage Jobs

Boston Losing Good Jobs 12 Largest Employment Sectors--City of Boston 2003 Steady erosion of “good jobs” that pay high wages, offer union security and benefits Service sector jobs traditionally non-union Good jobs found in manufacturing and the public sector due to union organizing The Sectors are ordered from most dense to least dense of the 12 largest employment sectors in the City of Boston. So, even though Manufacturing and Construction represent the least dense employment sectors of the 12, they are still 2 of the largest employment sectors in Boston. However, time-series trends show that they are declining. Sectors in blue represent growing ones. Sectors in red represent declining ones.

The Hourglass Economy Here, the employment sectors are re-arranged to in order of average weekly wage. This table not only shows the divide between low-wage and high-wage work, but demonstrates that the fastest growing sectors are low-wage ones, and the two high-wage sectors that are generally accessible to working-class populations – and are typically union jobs – are declining ones.

It Pays to Be in a Union Across all workers, occupations and sectors in the U.S., union members earn 28% more in wages than non-union employees 52% of blue-collar workers in union shops earn $15.00 or more per hour, but only 17% of non-union workers make that much 30% of service workers in union shops earn $15.00 or more per hour, but only 15% of non-union workers make that much In terms of total compensation (health care and retirement benefits), union members earn just over 30% more than non-union employees The data on this page is from Ann Foster, Differences in Union and Nonunion Earnings in Blue-collar and Service Occupations (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS], June 25, 2005)

Fewer Manufacturing Jobs and More Low-Wage Service Sector Jobs In the 1980s and 1990s, Suffolk County lost 47% percent of its manufacturing jobs and Middlesex County lost 75,000 manufacturing jobs During that same period, Suffolk County added 85,000 service sector jobs and Middlesex County added 190,000 service sector jobs 71% of Boston’s projected new jobs through 2008 will be in service industries Service Sector 10% 71% of Boston’s projected new jobs through 2008 will be in service industries Manufacturing 8%

Low-Wage Occupations: Largest and Growing Fast 12 of the 15 largest occupations in Massachusetts pay wages below $15 per hour Together these occupations make up more than 25% of Massachusetts total employment. Most of these low-wage occupations have grown fast in the past decade Many are projected to be among the state’s fastest growing occupations through 2010. X $12.51 Nursing aids&orderlies $11.84 Janitors and cleaners $11.16 Home health aides $10.02 Childcare workers $13.26 Human service assists $10.21 Waiters & waitresses $8.36 Counter attendants $9.47 Food prep & fast food Predicted Top Growth to 2010 Among Fastest Growing 2000-02 2005 Wages Occupation (one of MA’s 15 Largest) Source: May 2005 OES Occupational Employment Survey from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The OES is a survey of non-farm employers done each May and November. There are two important concerns with this data. First, the information is not based on a full count of employers, but on a sample of them. This sample is taken from each state’s Unemployment Insurance files. This means that those employers not paying UI are not included in the sample, and the ones that do, but under-report due to hiring undocumented workers will have an incentive to underreport on the survey. Second, the information is reported by employers. This latter point means that it is the employers who report the information who (1) decide how to characterize their workers into the OES categories and (2) report the wages without independent verification. Also, please note that the wage information represents the median wage for the occupation. The median wage is the mid-point of all wages paid for that occupation; half earn more than the median, half earn less.

The Hidden Leading Sector: Non-Profit Institutions Statewide, non-profits employ over 13% of the workforce Healthcare and Social Assistance is Boston’s single largest employer Education is the city’s 6th largest employment sector The area’s largest hospitals generate revenue that rival many corporations CLARIFICATION: There was a “so what” kind of question here – out of those full-time numbers, what is the lowest-wage occupations and what do they pay versus let’s say the top pay for CEO’s and professionals? [Note: that this information is all we have at the moment – we will have more information about wages and surplus benefit, etc. soon. Research is ongoing at this time.]

A Temporary Town: The Growth of Contingent Employment in Boston Q: What does “contingent” mean? A: Part-time, no job security, less pay and less or no benefits. For example: Full-time contingent workers earned only 77% of what full-time workers make Only 1/5 of contingent workers had health insurance from their employer, while 1/3 of non-contingent workers had some kind of health insurance Between 1983 and 1999, the number of workers in Suffolk County employed by temporary staffing agencies increased by 165 Contingent employment is what is often referred to as temporary employment. At one time, such workers were routinely referred to as “temps” because their role really was a temporary one, staffing positions that were vacate for a short-time due to vacations, illnesses, or temporary needs. Temps often work for temporary staffing agencies who rent out their workers in exchange for a potion of the total wage an employer pays the agency for the temps’ services. Many larger employers have created their own in-house temp agencies/departments. In the past twenty years or so, temps have become more and more a way to hire workers without paying the wages and benefits due regular full-time employees. After criticism (and a high-profile lawsuit against Microsoft), employers began calling temps “contingent” workers, which better describes the situation and – it is (probably erroneously) thought – will inoculate employers from bad press and lawsuits. Many non-union building trades jobs are de facto contingent employment. In fact, contingent employment is more the trend than the exception where there are no unions present in the workplace. Low-wage workers are not the only persons who face threats from contingent employment strategies. There have been a number of situations where white collar professionals have been laid off, only to be offered “consultant” positions doing the very same work without benefits and at a lower salary with no expectation of job security. NYNEX used this “down-sizing” strategy in 1993.

Boston Underground: Misclassification and Beyond The Informal Economy Employers save big money and make even bigger profits 58,000 Massachusetts construction workers are misclassified by their employers as independent contractors 13-19% of all employers engage in misclassification Why? Don’t pay payroll tax on earnings Don’t pay standard wages Don’t cover workers with unemployment insurance Don’t pay workers’ compensation for injuries

The Rising Cost of Living According to the Economic Policy Institute, Boston is now the most expensive metropolitan area in the country, more expensive than even New York City EPI calculates that the annual income a 2 parent/2 kid family needs to meet basic needs in Boston is $64,656. New York is $58,656 and San Francisco is $57,624. Housing prices have gone up faster than wages 25% of all families in Massachusetts, and nearly 50% of urban families, do not earn enough to meet their basic needs. Source: Economic Policy Institute (EPI) Basic Family Budget Calculator This Calculator is available at the EPI website, http://www.epinet.org.

Income On average, across race and education level, women earn 50% less than men Median household income: $39,629 By race: White: $47,668 Blacks: $30,447 Asians: $27,963 Latinos: $27,141 Source: The Boston Indicators Project, from Census data

Poverty Massachusetts Poverty rate is from U.S. Census’ 2005 American Community Survey. It is an estimate based on a survey, not an actual count. The data on immigrant poverty is found in Andrew Sum, et al., Changing Face of Massachusetts (MassINC 2005) at page 73. During 2004-2005, almost three-quarters, or 74%, of all students in Boston public schools qualified for free or reduced lunch. According to the U.S. Census, the poverty rate for Massachusetts in 2005 was 10.3%. According to a MassINC report, 15.9% of immigrants were poor in 2000.

Unemployment The REPORTED unemployment rate is approximately 5%, but this figure does not consider those who are discouraged from looking for work. Although Boston is now a 'majority minority' city, whites still make up the bulk of the metropolitan workforce. As of 2004 the city's workforce was 85 percent non-Latino white. Unemployment rates in 2000 for blacks and Latinos more than doubled that of whites, with Asian rates somewhat higher than that of whites

Housing Costs In the past 25 years, the average price of housing in the Commonwealth has increased more than in any other state Rental Costs Home Ownership Boston rental housing costs rose 60% in only 5 years--from 1998 to 2003 3/4 of low-wage working families spend more than 1/3 of their income on housing A minimum wage earner (earning $7.50 per hour) can afford monthly rent of no more than $360 a full-time worker in Boston would need to earn an hourly wage of $27.58 in order to be able to pay the fair market value for a two-bedroom apartment according to HUD. In 2005, the median priced single-family home in Boston cost $394,874--this means over 79% of families in Boston could not afford to purchase a home. A projected 15,600 units are needed to meet housing demand annually Affordable units constructed for those making 80 percent or less of median income is less than half of what is needed In 2005, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) fair market value for renting a 2-bedroom apartment in Boston was $1,324 per month. HUD calculates affordability as no more than 30% of gross income. The fair market rent ($1,324) represents 30% of a gross monthly income of $4,413.33. Dividing the gross monthly income by four (4) weeks, and then dividing that number by forty (40) hours gives us an hourly wage of $27.58. 2005 median home price is from 2005 Housing Report Card published by CURP at page 38. The important thing to understand about “Affordable housing” is to whom is it affordable. There are two ways to look at this issue: from the perspective of the person and from the perspective of the unit. That is, when understanding whether a unit is affordable for a person (or family or household), HUD standards consider housing affordable where the monthly cost of housing does not exceed 30% of monthly income. From the perspective of the unit, however, “affordability” is determined by considering housing cost relative to a regional median income. The first way attempts to understand whether one is paying too much of his or her income on housing. The second attempts to understand whether a unit can be owned or rented by a certain income strata of the population. In general, affordability is anything up to 120% of the area median income. Even with this definition, there are problems: What is the area? What income? Family? Household? Per capita? Sometimes, the “area” is the Metropolitan Statistical Area (or MSA), a regional Census designation that for Boston reaches out to Worcester, up to New Hampshire, all of Rhode Island, and parts of Maine. The “income” is typically (in most cases, actually) household income. But localities can tweak this to their needs – within certain legal restrictions – when they subsidize or build affordable housing. One may choose to narrow the area considered for AMI or broaden it depending on the goals of building this particular housing. Standard income level definitions for Affordable Housing purposes: Moderate income – 120% of AMI Low income – 80% of AMI Very Low income – 50% of AMI Extremely Low income – 30% of AMI

Hunger and Health Care According to the Massachusetts Division of Health Care Finance and Policy, 7.8% of Boston residents had no health insurance in 2004. Low-income residents earning up to 300% of the federal poverty level will have to spend between $30 and $140 a month to buy health coverage under the state's new mandatory insurance law Nearly 1 in 4 people receiving food support were actually working The new mandatory health care law will require all Massachusetts residents to purchase health care plans if they are not covered by their employers. Employers will be fined less than $300 per year for every uninsured worker on the payroll. The impacts of the new law are still unclear as the state continues to negotiate with insurance companies. However, it appears that the cheapest plan will cost about $288 per month and will come with high deductibles and co-payments. The average uninsured resident (who is aged 37 – this is important because rates are higher for older folks) will face annual costs of $5,000 and families could face costs of up to $10,000! (Source: Boston Globe, State got insurers to trim health rates, March 30, 2007 – But Note that the state’s Commonwealth Health Care Connector website on March 30, 2007 claimed an average monthly cost of about $175.) The 2007 HHS Federal Poverty Level for a family of four is $20,650. For an individual, it is $10,210. 300% of the FPL would be $61,950 for a family of four and $30,630 for an individual. CLARIFICATION: Nearly 1 in 4 people receiving food support were actually working DOES THIS MEAN: EVEN FOR THOSE WHO WORK HARD AND HAVE JOBS, CLOSE TO 25% STILL NEED FOOD SUPPORT TO MAKE ENDS MEET? No, it means that of all the people who are receiving food support, 25% have jobs.

Transportation Today, transportation is the second largest household expense category after housing The average household income in the Greater Boston area spends $7,175 on transportation per household Households under the poverty level spend almost 40% of their household income on transportation From 1990 to 2003, fares for subway and bus increased much faster than the cost-of-living, and even faster than the price of gasoline. The average public transit commuter in Massachusetts spends 40 minutes on the bus or subway This is from the Boston Indicators Project 2004 (Transportation Indicator 10.4.1): “In 2003, transportation accounted for 17% of household expenses of Boston-area residents, making mobility the second largest household expense after shelter, an average of $7,175 per household. This share has been fairly constant throughout the period for which there is data. Household spending on transportation is an ever-larger proportion of spending for lower-income households, with national data indicating that families earning less than $13,000 (after taxes) spend 39% of their take-home pay on transportation.” The transportation costs include all modes. A typical household in Greater Boston has more than one car considering the data from the Registry of Motor Vehicles (2004) in which there are 1.3 cars registered per person in the Greater Boston area. It is fair to presume that many households that typically use public transportation also own and operate one or more cars. Two wage earner families may see one person commuting via public transit while the other commutes via car. Children also incur transportation costs. According to http://www.lowendliving.com it costs $8,970 per year to own and operate a car that cost $15,000. Zipcar reports (2006) that their customers claim to save $5,232 per year by giving up their car costs. The BLS (2004) estimates 39% of income spent on transportation by poor households.

Working Together with CLU Equitable Distribution of Public Revenues Negotiating Community Benefits Directly with Developers Increasing Public Participation in the Decision-Making Process Planning and Zoning Reform Wage Standards Lowering Barriers to Unionization