President-elect Joe Biden wants Boston Mayor Marty Walsh to be his labor secretary. With a Democrat-controlled Senate, he will likely have enough votes for confirmation, too.
It’s a win for Big Labor, which supported Walsh for the position over others, such as Sen. Bernie Sanders. However, it is a bad pick that conservatives and liberals should both oppose.
Can liberals support someone whose city used prison labor to shovel snow for the public transportation authority in Boston, as Walsh did in 2015 and 2016? As mayor, Walsh thought it was a good idea to have prisoners out in subzero temperatures working for $3 to $4 per day.
He touted it, saying, “Creating opportunities for our inmates to give back to our community is an important component in successful reentry. I am thrilled that the City is able to partner with the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Office to assist in snow removal in areas critical to the safety of our residents.” Keep in mind that the going wage for nonprison workers who removed snow was about $30 per hour.
Walsh also doesn’t think about the taxpayers when it comes to spending on labor. Last year, the city of Boston not only avoided layoffs and furloughs amid the coronavirus pandemic but also hired more employees. And for fiscal 2021, the city increased its budget. With less revenue coming in, Walsh’s Boston decided it was a good idea to put more people on the payroll.
Additionally, Walsh opposed a 2016 statewide ballot question that would have allowed for the creation of more charter schools each year in Massachusetts, even though charters are cheaper, produce better results, and are safer than district schools in urban areas.
Meritocracy in the workplace? Walsh prefers diversity. That’s a problem because under a meritocratic system, the city would hire the most skilled applicants available. Instead, Walsh plays identity politics, prioritizing racial, ethnic, or gender identity as a dominant hiring consideration. As an example, Walsh approved an ordinance requiring construction companies to allocate at least 50% of the total work hours in each trade to Boston residents, 40% to minorities, and 12% to women.
One could easily argue that such rules are discriminatory but also, practically, it could theoretically hurt productivity if better-skilled workers get passed over so that diversity quotas can be filled.
Further, Walsh is horrible on immigration and visa issues in ways that are bad for workers. As mayor, Walsh reaffirmed Boston’s status as a sanctuary state. He has blasted the idea of a public charge rule for the immigration system, which functionally seeks to keep taxpayers from funding public assistance for immigrants.
During the coronavirus pandemic, he strongly disagreed with the idea of having foreign students return home to take classes online. Sending them home would have made college towns and cities less densely populated and at least slightly reduced the risks of viral transmission.
Walsh also does not appear fond of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which, in addition to policing immigration, helps stop job-killing and dangerous counterfeit goods from hitting the market.
If Walsh can’t even criticize illegal immigration, how can he crack down on wage theft, and if he can’t criticize student visas, how will he address the holes in the system? Whether it’s the payroll tax exemption on the J-1 or F-1 visa, the outsourcing loopholes in the H-1B visa program, unpaid internships giving people an excuse to stay in the country on the OPT program, or H-2B visas depressing wages, we shouldn’t expect good leadership from him.
So while AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka may like this pick (Walsh will probably do a lot of listening to him), it’s a bad deal for many others and worth opposing.
Tom Joyce (@TomJoyceSports) is a freelance writer who has been published by USA Today, the Boston Globe, Newsday, ESPN, the Detroit Free Press, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Federalist, and a number of other media outlets.
