SOUTH END, MA – Eighty people gathered outside of Boston Health Care for the Homeless’s (BHCHP) headquarters on Tuesday, October 28th after BHCHP Workers United, a subsidiary of 1199SEIU, sounded the alarm on stalling bargaining efforts and threatened cuts.

BHCHP is a community health center that provides medical care and specialized social work services for people experiencing homelessness. The union first won bargaining rights in March of 2024.

BHCHP emerged from a grant by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with a clear mandate: provide medical care, continuity, and compassion for Boston’s unhoused population. In 1985, founding physician Dr. Jim O’Connell joined the staff, working from a van to meet individuals experiencing homelessness and connect them with medical services. Staff were driven by an urgent need to address the then-record number of people freezing to death on the streets. In 1987, BHCHP’s HIV team launched as a pilot program. Its success was so remarkable that it became a national template for HIV care units across the country during a time when the disease carried heavy stigma.

The organization will retain most of its clinical services, though management closed one respite care center in Jamaica Plain in early October. Cost-cutting included 25 layoffs, starting with the departments in BHCHP that do not provide direct medical care, but the workers who maintain key infrastructure to support and uplift those who utilize BHCHP services. 

Remaining workers are faced with paltry insufficient increases and some with reduced benefits. A union worker shared with Working Mass that BHCHP was offering insultingly low yearly increases, cutting benefits in half for new employees, and raising healthcare premiums. These figures are lower than staff had received consistently for years, especially juxtaposed with the 10-13.5% raises offered to other, non-bargaining unit staff. Many of these roles pay $22/hour- simply not enough to meet the skills of the workforce nor the ballooning cost of living crisis in the Greater Boston area.

The union’s demands are not just for dignity and adequate compensation; they are demands for workers’ survival.

Organized Case Managers Speak Out

Despite the specialized, crucially important, and profoundly moral work the non-clinical staff at BHCHP provide; management has determined that Boston’s unhoused would be better served with those funds for wages and benefits redirected elsewhere. 

The afflicted workers are crucial boots on the ground support for Boston’s most vulnerable. Case managers and recovery workers assist patients navigating a mind-numbingly obtuse and confusing patchwork of social safety net programs, including sober houses, MassHealth, and rehabilitation centers. So dedicated are these staff that many will leave their work cells on and pick up calls from patients 24/7. 

Perhaps counter-intuitively, non-clinical staff provide crucial revenue-generating functions, making their mistreatment even more perplexing. Worker-organizer and case manager Astrid Mora spoke about the regarding and significant increase given to the agency’s caseload at previous rally in September: 

Let’s be clear, if the nurses and providers generate revenue, it is our labor – our case management, our outreach, our advocacy – that links and retains patients in care and allows that revenue to generate.

One patient who spoke at that rally underscored the vital need served when they shouted:

I spend more time here than I do at home! And now what do I do? Where do I go? I’ll be back out here in the streets.

Organizers argue that the cuts were avoidable, predicated on financial predications, and Boston’s most at-risk people will surely suffer. Staff at BHCHP have consciously chosen to work with housing insecure populations because the mission matters, with most turning down more lucrative roles elsewhere. Yet even the most righteous workers are facing a financial breaking point. The burden of losing key staff will certainly fall onto the unhoused population who needs them.

Leslie, a BHCHP non-clinical staff worker, said:

Rents are going up, public service is going up, a lot of us are going to be homeless if we don’t get this raise…the company claims to care about the people and the patients that they serve – but how can you say you care about the people when you don’t recognize the workers that bring those people in?

BHCHP management, however, contends that the layoffs and minimal wage increases are necessary given the murky funding environment from federal healthcare cuts. These have led to what management calls “one of the most difficult financial periods in our 40+ year history.”  According to management, offsetting those costs to impact the most vulnerable workers trying to make rent and groceries was a “painful decision.”

Bargaining committee member Pam Rivas disputes this: 

During a supposed hiring freeze, new management positions have been created, existing managers have received promotions, and clinical staff have received above market rate adjustments. Meanwhile, we are told no funding is available for essential patient programs.

And meanwhile, the company has money for its other projects. The company hired an external consultant for evaluation in early 2025.

The President and New Management

Some of the problems with BHCHP are downstream of the risks policymakers run when they outsource social work, typically understood to be the responsibility of local government, to charities and non-profits. No steady funding leaves Boston’s unhoused subject to the whims of the free market, or in this case, broadsided by the arbitrary fiscal whims of the U.S. Congress. 

BHCHP, like community health organizations and hospitals across the country, was asked to tighten belt loops after the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill and respective cuts to Medicaid, grants, and other needed funding sources. Already reported are the over 300 rural hospitals set to close due to Medicaid cuts on funding that has been redirected to $50,000 sign-on bonuses with the U.S. secret police: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). 

Management justified the layoffs by citing internal funding projections. Given that BHCHP has admitted to having funds to pay people for at least another year using their own analysis, the decision to lay off key staff now – particularly with limited notice, is an active choice.

Out of the past ten years of BHCHP tax filings, only one indicated that the charity was losing money. As Rivas said during the recent rally:

Management would like you to believe that they have no money and that we, as workers, should shoulder the burden of their poor financial and strategic direction. But this is not true. They have money…They keep saying we need to just weather this storm and survive. But I and many of my coworkers believe; it matters if we morally debase ourselves while weathering said storm.

BHCHP spent $1,455,376 on executive compensation in fiscal year 2024. With compensation this lucrative, the reason cuts are necessary becomes clear: meeting the material needs of the unhoused is big business.

Commonwealth residents may recall the closures for three hospitals in Massachusetts owned by Steward Health Care, a vampiric private equity-owned firm affiliated with the Healey administration, as identified by Working Mass reporting. Before joining BHCHP as CEO earlier this year, Stan McLaren was formerly President of Carney Hospital in Dorchester. Carney was the only hospital in the Dorchester area and served populations who otherwise had limited access to care. 

Carney Hospital was closed by Steward Health after Steward went bankrupt in August of 2024.  This certainly cannot be blamed on McLaren, but it does demonstrate the private equity-friendly background with which he joined BHCHP. What McLaren can be blamed for, however, are the numerous Unfair Labor Practices (ULP) filed by Carney’s Massachusetts Nurses Association (MNA) local.

Mayor Michelle Wu appointed McLaren to be on Boston’s Board of Health in March.

When Non-Profits Act Like For-Profits

This mindset appears to have translated to the new management of BHCHP. They undoubtedly face financial headwinds – as do their workers. Management may have forgotten that BHCHP’s IRS designation is as a charity, not a for-profit machine that must cut costs and maximize shareholder value, with a requisite responsibility. Each worker facing cuts provides invaluable labor that not only sustains them as workers through an economy beset by misery, but provides essential and already-underfunded healthcare services to those experiencing homelessness. 

The layoffs at BHCHP are especially ironic given the incessant emphasis on public safety within the broader mainstream discourse in Boston, particularly around sites like Mass and Cass and Davis Square, where the state has waged its own one-sided class war on homeless people.  The suffering of the unhoused as a component of the homelessness epidemic, driven in part by private equity firms purchasing single family homes and apartment buildings, the lack of democratic control of the housing stock by tenants, and insufficient investment in solutions for the housing insecure  by state and local policy makers. These crises are set only to worsen as a result of BHCHP’s cuts.

BHCHP non-clinical workers are not the only non-medical staff suffering under executives using cuts to attack the stability of their jobs in the Greater Boston area. Other hospitals and medical institutions reportedly face similar conditions. While BHCHP is a union shop, there are even fewer protections at large medical facilities where non-clinical staff are not as organized to fight back for both their coworkers and patients.

According to 1199SEIU speakers at the rally, organizing is working. Since a previous rally in September, management conceded to providing severance packages for laid-off workers –  direct evidence that when workers fight, they win, and why continuing the public pressure campaign on BHCHP is critical for these workers. 

BHCHP is one of the most directly impactful organizations in Boston today for the most materially-oppressed tenants: the unhoused. This impact is due to the labor of its worker-organizers in non-clinical roles. Allies of the afflicted BHCHP staff should follow 1199SEIU communications for future rallies oon their Instagram.

Chris Brady is a public sector unionist and a member of the Working Mass Editorial Board.

The post Health Care For the Homeless: Non-Clinical Staff Demand Fair Treatment in Bargaining with BHCHP appeared first on Working Mass.

Monthly Newsletter of the Rochester Chapter of Democratic Socialists of America

Welcome to the November issue of Rochester Red Star. As usual, you’ll find a schedule of upcoming events and organizing group meetings, and coverage of chapter activities. This month, read essays on No Kings, COVID safety, anti-fascism, cuts to SNAP, and more.

Interested in contributing? Send submissions to bit.ly/SubmitRedStar, or get involved with our Communications Committee. Reach out to steering@rocdsa.org and join DSA today!

The post Rochester Red Star | November 2025 | (Issue 19) first appeared on Rochester Red Star.

Thursday, November 20 · 6:00pm (Online)

Wednesday, November 12·6:00 – 7:00pm (Online)

Thursday, November 6 at 5:30pm PST (Online)

Wednesday, November 5 at 6pm PST (Online)

The Danish parliamentarian argues that parts of the economy are already run on democratic lines. DSA can learn from his blueprint for building from these institutions to a more just economy.

The post Democratizing Our Economies: Nordic Socialism by Pelle Dragsted appeared first on Democratic Left.

California DSA (CA DSA) has recently voted in favor of supporting Proposition 50, a proposal to redraw California’s districts that is aimed at creating enduring structural Democrat electoral supremacy in California. We strongly dissent from this endorsement and reject its strategy, lay out a rebuttal to the argument for the endorsement of Prop 50, and, most importantly for DSA members, analyze what this debate reveals about the issues within CA DSA itself.

What Does DSA Stand To Gain from Prop 50?

In a piece laying out the argument for CA DSA’s endorsement of Prop 50, Chris K. relates Prop 50 to Republican gerrymandering efforts in Texas, which he calls a “calculated assault on democracy” and “the Right’s most powerful weapon for locking working people out of politics.” While he claims to have “no illusions about the [Democratic] party establishment and what it wants out of this,” he argues that gerrymandering can be used in California as a counterweight to Republican gerrymandering in Texas and in other red-states. However, this illustrates the defining political error of CA DSA and those within the organization that would back this proposal: mistaking the goals of the Democratic Party for the goals of DSA.

Prop 50 makes perfect sense from the Democrats’ perspective. Of course Democrats want to minimize Republican footholds and shape the American political map in ways that maximize the electoral power of their (shrinking & demoralized) base. To lend our endorsement to a measure designed in their party’s interest, not ours, is to sacrifice our independence and organizing efforts without gaining any leverage.

Indeed, if we truly have “no illusions” about what this is, then we must admit it is very likely that Governor Gavin Newsom is using this redistricting process to engineer mid-layer support for his 2028 presidential campaign. Prop 50 provides him and his allies with another mechanism for consolidating their networks of patronage, rewarding loyalists, disciplining the working class, and structuring the political field to his benefit. Indeed, the CA Dem website itself says that the redistricting is designed to gain Democrats 5 more seats in California, and those seats would be in districts that Newsom helps draw. Why align with that now unless we aim to be junior partners in the Democrat presidential campaign in 2028? But the junior partner strategy has been shown repeatedly to backfire against us, as most recently shown in the Democrat’s refusal to support a DSA-backed candidate in Minneapolis, because we consistently see the Democratic party strike against us as soon as we pose a threat.

In his piece, Chris K. states “this moment gives us a chance to both take a realpolitik move to reduce the GOP advantage from Texas gerrymandering and to agitate and push beyond the rigged two-party system,” but this point raises more unsettling questions than answers. How can we simultaneously be agitating against a rigged two-party system while supporting one of the parties rigging it? Chris also suggests that we demand more fundamental reforms in CA such as proportional representation, which gerrymandering is designed to decrease. Such contradictions between our rhetoric and our endorsements will not be lost on the working class of California, especially those who’ve been desperate for a true left-wing alternative to the business elites managing both major political parties.

But let’s also be clear on what we’re advocating for: if DSA wants to credibly demand an expanded democracy, our demand cannot be for “fair” electoral maps under capitalism, an idea which itself is based on very narrow liberal assumptions of political rights. It must be for a new kind of political system entirely — one in which workers control their workplaces, communities, and governments directly, not one in which capitalists shuffle district lines to their advantage.

How Our Experience in the Central Valley Shapes Our Position

North Central Valley DSA (NCVDSA), a small chapter which organizes in four counties throughout rural California, has experienced steady growth since 2022, which it owes to working class Californians who reject partisan divides in favor of class struggle. The palpable disdain for both Democrats and Republicans can be seen both within and beyond the electoral context, and there is a critical demand among rural Central Valley workers for an alternative to the capitalist two-party duopoly. In 2024, dozens of NCVDSA members participated in the CA DSA ARCH campaign, canvassing voters who spoke of the hardships they’ve faced for generations; astronomical rent increases, abandoned public transportation projects, extreme land subsidence, unbearable drought, unbreathable air. These attacks on Central Californians are bipartisan, conducted by politicians who switch-hit between D and R on a whim. Many NCVDSA ARCHers felt like we were fighting on two fronts: convincing our neighbors that, while not a panacea, some proposed pieces of legislation (e.g. raising the wage) are an important tool to help the working class, while at the same time convincing them that we were not sent by the Democrats, which would have instantly lost us credibility.

Being forced to support Prop 50 sets back the progress we’ve made throughout California by showing up as an alternative to the capitalist two-party system and developing a level of trust and participation among our working class peers. Rejecting an endorsement of Prop 50 does not mean ignoring the real frustrations people feel about Republican gerrymandering. On the contrary, it is an opportunity to connect those frustrations to a broader critique of capitalist politics. We can explain to workers why both Democrats and Republicans manipulate district lines, why neither party is invested in their empowerment, and why only socialist politics can deliver real democracy. The campaign to support Prop 50 loses sight of our broader political horizons and the opportunities that are truly before us to engage and agitate around a socialist agenda rather than an agenda that aligns neatly with the Democratic leadership.

California DSA’s Fundamental Political Error: Identifying the Democrat’s Goals with DSA’s Goals

CA DSA seems to be operating on the premise that the current primary contradiction in the United States is Trumpism, and the primary task before us as DSA is to stymie Trump. But we cannot absorb such a myopic view of the struggle between capital and the people: Democratic capital cannot save us from Republican capital and we cannot organize the working class through building the personal brand of Gavin Newsom. Our organizing work throughout California’s East Bay and Central Valley regions has made it clear to us that DSA must win the support of the working class regardless of party affiliation or lack thereof.

The mission of DSA as an organization is not to push the Democrats into action to defeat the Republican Party. Our class enemies are just as powerful within the Democratic network as they are within the Republican side – in fact they are often the same people – and losing sight of class contradictions is a huge political error. Our mission is instead to organize the broad working class and win political power on their behalf and with their support. It is not possible to achieve this goal by playing by the partisan rules of today’s political system.

What Would Organizing the Broad Working Class Look Like?

Last year, only 34% of California’s eligible voters voted for the Democratic presidential candidate. If we aim for a strategy that alienates the near supermajority – 66% – of eligible voters who didn’t vote Democrat, then we will forever limit our horizon to being a minor advocacy group in the Democrat orbit. It’s our responsibility as scientific socialists to assess the political terrain objectively, and be ready to make new alliances that upend the existing balance of forces. DSA chapters in California and throughout the country are learning how to organize people who oppose the Democratic Party, and supporting Prop 50 would present a significant setback to this work.

Imagine, instead of endorsing Prop 50, DSA aimed at agitating along class lines, communicating simply and clearly that both Democrats and Republicans are rigging the electoral system and disregarding the working-class. We could point to how working-class communities of color, immigrant neighborhoods, and rural towns alike are carved up by politicians at the peoples’ expense. We could argue that true representation will never be achieved through bourgeois redistricting, but through building worker-power independent of all capitalist parties. We could use this moment not to strengthen the Democrat hegemony in California, but to destabilize it, and to create openings for DSA to present an alternative.

Segments of the working class correctly view the Democrats as failing to fight back against Trump in any meaningful way, but simply fighting Trump to gain electoral ground without actually addressing the demands of the working class. We propose that DSA’s most effective strategy will be to lead with our popular socialist agenda, and explicitly reject Democratic party priorities – such as gerrymandering more seats for Democrats – that do not represent a mass working class constituency.

It’s worth emphasizing that the issues we find with Proposition 50 is not much to do with the principle of using tactics to undermine one’s class enemy. In fact, we recognize that antidemocratic measures are sometimes necessary, especially in revolutionary scenarios! But antidemocratic measures should be targeted squarely at the capital class, not against a broad political/social brand that many of the working class aligns with by normative default. Put simply: if people see DSA associate with a Democrat-coded move to disenfranchise them, they’re likely to write us off as yet another Democrat NGO, even if they would agree with the actual policies we have led with in the past, such as the ever-popular Medicare-for-all. Polarizing your potential base against your policy platform because you can’t see beyond the current identitarian alignment of party politics is a grave political error, and one that we should have learned to stop making long ago.

What this means for California DSA broadly

California DSA’s arguments for the Prop 50 endorsement repeat a common pattern that highlights the dysfunction within the body. It’s hard to find anything but an uncritical acceptance of myopic Democratic partisanship. In the rebuttal to the authors’ earlier piece in California Red, CA DSA leader Fred G. asserts that a position against DSA endorsement of Prop 50 is equivalent to aligning with right-wing billionaires, and that the Republican party is fascist without qualifiers, with all the implications that term carries. This binary style of thinking heightens the polarization of the political choice at hand and makes it seem like there are only two options – either support Democrats or support Republicans – and this rigidity leads to self-marginalization in the long term. The Republican program is highly anti-social and destructive, but if we can’t stand shoulder-to-shoulder with workers who have voted Republican in the past, we are bound to lose. 

In addition to that section of the working class, there are many who have voted Democratic in the past but have ceased doing so because the Democratic party leadership is increasingly out of step with their own progressive values. At the national level, most Democrats who refused to vote Kamala Harris did so out of a justified anger at the Biden/Harris administration’s support for the Israeli genocide of Palestinians. Aligning ourselves with the Newsom administration means aligning ourselves against the most progressive Democrat voters who have historically constituted much of DSA’s base and have increasingly begun to stray from the party.

The only way to break through the current partisan alignment is to break off the working class element from both parties, and that strategy cannot be taken when we ally with one party against the other.

As DSA SF’s Hazel W recounts in her Reflections on California DSA, CA DSA was born out of a cross-chapter effort during the Prop 15 campaign (taxing commercial real estate to fund public education), with hopes that it would evolve into a lasting infrastructure for coordination, chapter growth, and statewide strategy. California DSA was meant to be broadly representative, but rather than serving as the connective tissue among a statewide web of chapters, it is increasingly disconnected from them. CA DSA’s stated goal of uniting & strengthening California chapters has remained unfulfilled, and Prop 50 represents a further step back. 

With only two chapters – East Bay DSA and DSA-LA – represented on its 2025-2026 State Committee, California DSA is far from representative of California, and is in fact a shell of a body increasingly reflexive to DSA-LA’s politics: according to the records the authors have seen of the ‘24-25 state council, DSA-LA’s delegation constituted close to a majority of the body – 30 DSA-LA delegates vs. 37 non-LA delegates. CA DSA uses a misleading framing of its statewide endorsements, political messaging, and campaigns as broadly representative of California chapters’ politics with little substantive input from inland, rural, or lower-density regions. With less than a week to go until election day, only six California DSA chapters/OCs have taken up the Prop 50 campaign, representing only a quarter of the DSA chapters and OCs in California.

As a general warning sign of the health of the formation, it is unknown to the authors whether California DSA is quorate according to its bylaws, which outline the quorum conditions as: “One or more delegates representing 50% plus one (1) of the local affiliates shall constitute a quorum, provided there be a minimum of one-third (1/3) of the registered delegates present at the meeting.”

Since we know that several California chapters do not participate at all in CA DSA, it is an open question to us whether these CA DSA quorum conditions are being met during deliberation sessions. In order to know the answer, we’d need access to attendance records, but attendance is not recorded (or at least is not made public). As a general rule, delegates change over annually and chapters aren’t required to send delegations, so it is very possible that CA DSA has gone out of quorum in the past. This is not a technical quibble; it is a sign that there is a trend among California chapters to withdraw energy and consent from a state formation that can’t justify its existence.

Hazel W raised alarm bells of dysfunction earlier this year, and the disconnection between the State Committee and individual CA chapters has only deepened, further eroding the legitimacy of the body. The ambition in the founding vision to facilitate skill-shares, seed new chapters, or liaise with YDSA never took root in a meaningful way, and has instead given way to CA DSA leaders deriding the growth of rural California chapters and its cochair attacking comrades as “fascist collaborators” for expressing concerns about Prop 50. None of this helps us with the formation’s stated goals of “unit[ing] and in unity strength[ing] the power and influence of its affiliated locals”.

CA DSA has become an endorsement shop that focuses on high-visibility, low-leverage endorsements, and fails in its attempt to portray itself as representative of a broad consensus among California chapters. If CA DSA can issue endorsements on legislative propositions across the state but overwhelmingly reflects the political views of only a small percentage of the state’s chapters, then what value is the formation really adding to our project?

We call on chapters throughout California to reckon with whether California DSA is representative of their politics. If the State Council cannot be made functional, transparent, and responsive, chapters have a responsibility to intervene, including by pulling delegations. The state body must prove it has the support of California chapters in the form of quorum by publishing its delegation attendance records, and it must cease hollow top-down campaigns in favor of amplifying the work that chapters are already doing.

If California DSA cannot reform, it risks becoming a redundant progressive NGO that insists it speaks for California chapters, while it undermines the work those chapters are doing. We must knit together the work that has actual support at the chapter level, not impose political priorities on chapters with an email list. California DSA must reset, or we’ll continue to waste time and energy on lending symbolic consent for the Democratic party’s priorities.

Image: LA County Sample Ballot for Prop 50 in the 2025 Special Election. (Public domain)

We are excited to announce our endorsement of Ayah Al-Zubi of Boston DSA, running for Cambridge City Council! Despite a narrow loss in her council race in 2023, Ayah has remained a tireless organizer for justice in the Cambridge community. When the city announced the closure of a 58-bed homeless shelter, she worked directly with the impacted residents and empowered them to advocate for their needs at several crucial council meetings.

Ayah is a young Muslim woman and renter with a lived experience that uniquely positions her to understand the struggles of immigrants in Cambridge, young people, renters, and more. She does not accept real estate or corporate money because she believes in people over profit.

Ayah is running on an ambitious platform to support the working class in a variety of areas like housing, transportation, climate, education and childcare, and racial and economic justice.

Ayah’s campaign centers mechanisms such as the Affordable Housing Trust, investing in the Community Land Trust, and retaining the 20% inclusionary zoning requirement to build permanently affordable housing. For transportation, Ayah has a focus on making the #1 bus free, as well as improving access to services for elderly in Cambridge. Finally, Ayah’s campaign is dedicated to making food more accessible especially in light of Daily Table closing to create Cambridge’s first city-run grocery store. Everyone deserves to live in this city with dignity and Ayah will work hard to bring this vision to life.

Support Ayah with a donation!

Who are our other candidates?

DSA’s Nationally-endorsed socialist candidates are running for local office in Washington, Minnesota, Colorado, Michigan, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Massachusetts!

Our candidates are incredible fighters for the working class, championing rent stabilization and higher minimum wages, while also protesting ICE’s human rights violations.

This year, we launched a rotating fundraising slate and held phonebanks to foster cross-chapter solidarity. And we’ve raised over $100,000!

Donate to the Slate!