BACH is committed to supporting policy change that aligns with our mission and vision for a healthy, vibrant, just, and equitable Boston. In the upcoming election, two questions on the ballot will address important public health legislation:

On Tuesday, November 4th,

Vote YES to Questions 3 and 4!

Question 3: Expanding Prohibitions on Gaming
A YES VOTE would prohibit casinos, any gaming establishment with slot machines, and wagering on simulcast greyhound races.
A NO VOTE would make no change in the current laws regarding gaming.

1. Living close to a casino increases the chance of becoming a problem gambler. A large-scale study in 2004 found that people who live within 10 miles of a casino have twice the rate of pathological and problem gambling as those who do not. What can be said with confidence is that the prevalence of problem gambling has increase significantly in the period of rapid casino expansion since 1993. In some states, the rate of problem gambling rises three to four-fold after the initial adoption of a casino before leveling off at this higher level or declining modestly.
2. Problem gambling affects families and communities as well as individuals. Clinical and other observational studies confirm what common sense tells us: problem gamblers hurt their families as well as themselves. The compulsion to gamble leads to financial hardships: burdensome debt, loan defaults, and fraud; excessive payday borrowing; bankruptcy; loss of a business or home; and sometimes total destruction. Gambling destroys bonds of trust. Problem gamblers hide and lie about their gambling debts. They borrow or steal from family members, including children. They spend their time at a casino rather than at home.Spouses are harassed by bill collectors and suffer a wide range of stress-related physical and mental problems; they attempt suicide at three times the rate of the general population. Women in such situations are at higher risk for domestic violence. A study of members of Gamblers Anonymous found that upwards of 26 percent have gambling-related divorces or separations.The harms to children are persistent and wide-ranging. They include financial insecurity, parental neglect, and pervasive feelings of abandonment. Some children have spent hours alone in parked cars or unattended at home while their parents gamble in the casino. Others have lost money, homes, holidays, and the chance to go to college, due to parents’ gambling problems.
3. Young people are viewed as the future of casino gambling. A recent American GamingAssociation survey of casino visitors ages 21-35 found that young people had the highest rate of casino visitation and the greatest level of acceptance of casino gambling among all casino visitors. More than any earlier generation, today’s young people are technologically primed for gambling. The first national U.S. survey of gambling among adolescents and young adults found that gambling among youth is widespread. It estimates that three-quarters of a million young people ages 14-21 are already problem gamblers.
4. Working in a casino appears to increase workers’ chances of having health problems. Life as a shift worker in a casino poses a number of hazards to workers’ health. Shift work negatively affects sleeping and eating patterns, dating and family relationships, childcare, stress, and other health outcomes. Casino workers are more likely to have problems with alcohol than other service workers. Smoking is permitted in many casinos, and workers are subject to the known health risks of breathing secondhand smoke – a hazard now rare everywhere expect in casinos.
5. The benefits of casinos are short-term and easy to measure while many of their costs are longer-term and harder to measure. Problem gambling is hard to spot in the short-term. It takes a long period of mounting financial and family troubles – estimated at four to seven years – before a gambler admits to a problem. It takes even longer for a problem gambler to feel desperate enough to seek help.

Resources:
Why Casinos Matter »
Gambling with America’s Health? »
Fair Game: Producing Gambling Research »

Questions 4: Earned Sick Time for Employees
A YES VOTE would entitle employees in Massachusetts to earn and use sick time according to certain conditions.
A NO VOTE would make no change in the laws regarding earned sick time.

1. What it covers and protects Earned sick time could be used for recovery from a physical or mental illness or injury, preventive care or medical appointments, and to address the employee’s needs related to domestic violence or those of the employee’s own health, dependent child, parent, spouse or parent of a spouse without fear of losing their job. Question 4 would protect employees from being punished just for using their earned sick time.
2. How it would work All part-time and full-time employees would earn sick time at a rate of 1 hour for every 30 hours worked. Workers at companies with 10 or fewer employees would earn up to 40 hours of unpaid sick time, and workers at companies with 11 or more employees would earn up to 40 hours of paid sick time.
3. Access to health care While Massachusetts has near-universal health care, one-third of workers can’t access that health care without the risk of losing their jobs. In a report from the Institute for Women’s Policy Research,  “Paid Sick Days in Massachusetts Would Lower Health Care Costs by Reducing Unnecessary Emergency Department Visits” they explain how increased access to paid sick days would improve both access to health care and health outcomes in Massachusetts.
4. Impact businesses Many employers already provide earned sick time (paid time off, personal days, flex time, vacation, etc.),and these businesses will not have to make any changes to their policies. Question 4 simply sets a basic standard that all employers must meet, and prohibits employer retaliation against workers who take time off due to illness. Businesses would benefit from healthier, more productive, and more loyal employees. Research has shown workers use sick time like an insurance policy: only when it’s needed and often, never at all. In San Francisco, where workers can accrue between 5 and 9 sick days, a full 25% do not use a single sick day, and workers use a median of 3 sick days per year.
5. Current laws in place that do NOT provide sick leave The Federal Family and Medical Leave Act does not cover short-term illness or the effects of domestic violence. The Mass Maternity Leave Act does not protect workers whose absences are due to illness. The Small Necessities Act may not be used for a worker’s illness or medical appointments. The state’s Anti-Discrimination Law does not protect workers whose absences are due to illness.
6. Reduce the spread of disease Earned sick time would support working families by allowing parents to stay home with a sick child, rather than sending them to school sick. “Valuing Good Health in Massachusetts: The Costs and Benefits of Paid Sick Days” Institute for Women’s Policy Research finds that earned sick time would cut down the spread of disease at work.

Resources:
The Public Health Case for Massachusetts Ballot Question #4 »
Paid Sick Days Improve Our Public Health »
Rates of Access to Paid Sick Leave »
www.yeson4ma.org »