DENVER - A restaurant dishwasher would have to clock 61 hours a week to afford to live in the Mile High City. Things aren't much better for housekeepers, who'd need to put in 59 hours - or janitors, who'd need to work 51 hours a week, according to a new Colorado Fiscal Institute study of wages versus the cost of living in Denver.

Chris Stiffler, an economist and the report's author, said those numbers are just for single workers.

"So, the typical fast-food worker has to work 62 hours a week to afford to live in Denver as a single individual," he said, "but if they are a single parent, those numbers jump up to 114 hours."

The study used a "Family Budget Calculator" developed by the Economic Policy Institute to measure the cost of housing, food, transportation and other necessities, and added Denver-specific wage data. Stiffler said the results show that more than 30 percent of Denver's workforce isn't paid enough to afford living within the city limits. He said many get by working multiple jobs, living with roommates and enrolling in public-assistance programs.

The study also found that Denver, like the rest of Colorado, has seen a rise in the share of low-wage jobs - or what Stiffler called "economy-busting jobs." He said since 70 percent of the economy is driven by consumer spending, when workers don't earn enough to cover basic needs, thousands of Coloradans can't spend much and the economy overall takes a hit.

"We're developing a whole legion of low-income workers who don't have enough disposable income to even make ends meet and afford the basic necessities," he said, "and that forces them to rely on public assistance just to get by."

It isn't that the money's not out there, it's just not being circulated downward, Stiffler said. Nationally, he said, corporate profits are at a record high, while the share that goes to wages is at a 50-year low.

The study is online at coloradofiscal.org.


get more stories like this via email

Almost 1,000 University of Michigan Health-Sparrow nurses and other health-care professionals, as well as union supporters, rallied outside the hospital in Lansing this week. The picket comes amid growing concerns over expired contracts.

They've been negotiating for better wages and benefits as well as safe staffing levels. As University of Michigan Health invests nearly $130 million in new buildings, the picketers say a strong contract is needed to recruit and keep skilled staff.

Emergency-room nurse Jen Ackley said one of the biggest issues is prioritizing which patients to see first when many need attention.

"And then, you're constantly revisiting those choices in your mind - not only during that shift, but afterwards," she said. "Did I make the right choices? Did I prioritize my care in the right way? Did any decision that I made, or didn't make, have a negative outcome for a patient?"

University of Michigan Health has not yet publicly responded to the picketers. However, it confirmed the construction of a $32 million health-care facility near Grand Ledge, in addition to plans for a $97 million psychiatric hospital in Lansing.

Ackley said inadequate staffing and what the union sees as unfair wages have led to what she called "moral injury" - a daily erosion of ethics and integrity at work. She said it's become an unsustainable situation for frontline health-care workers.

"And the hospitals like to say that there's a nursing shortage - that, 'We've tried the best we can but we just cannot staff' - and that's not the case," she said. "There's no shortage of nurses. There's a shortage of nurses that can tolerate this type of moral injury."

The picket was not a work stoppage. The nurses and other staff members participated during their off-work hours. The union represents about 2,000 nurses and health-care professionals working at the hospital.


get more stories like this via email

Changes in leadership at the federal level are likely to have some effect on the labor movement.

In Minnesota, election results have spurred thoughts about topics like the future of OSHA's worker safety standards. It may be too early to get a firm read on what will happen under a second Trump administration.

Meanwhile, at the state level, Democrats still control the Minnesota Senate but the House is locked in a tie between both parties. Democrats bolstered labor laws in recent sessions.

Mike Wilde, executive director of the Fair Contracting Foundation of Minnesota, which he said has a nonpolitical stance, said moving forward, no matter the policy, enforcement is key.

"We can have all the laws we want on the books but unless they're enforced and meaningful, they don't do anybody any good," Wilde contended.

While campaigning, President-Elect Donald Trump made attempts to appeal to unions but his first term saw a big cut in the number of federal safety inspectors for job sites, and analysts expect his staff to curtail a proposed heat safety rule.

Wilde acknowledged OSHA is not the only tool available but noted it plays a big role in protecting rooftop construction teams. He argued more resources and flexible enforcement options are needed.

Wilde added Minnesota has a strong approach to helping carry out apprenticeship programs but pointed out it is not the case in all states.

"Some employers utilize substandard apprenticeship programs that aren't very well regulated," Wilde asserted.

He suggested a robust, coordinated approach could help more people find stable careers with strong pay, benefiting the economy. Another aspect labor leaders will monitor is appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and how they affect rules directly tied to workers' rights.

Roughly 30% of Minnesota's private-sector employees do not have a work-sponsored retirement plan but some business owners and consumer advocates hope a soon-to-launch state program will improve access.

In mid-to-late 2025, Minnesota is expected to roll out its Secure Choice Retirement Program. For employers who are not in a position to provide a savings plan for their staff, they will be required to ensure a portion of a worker's paycheck is transferred to a state-sponsored retirement account.

Erik Forsberg owns a handful of restaurants in the Twin Cities area and said for hospitality workers, the benefit usually is not in their orbit when they are first hired.

"When you start a typical corporate position, you sit down with HR and they explain your benefits package," Forsberg noted. "Most of our employees just don't have access to that."

Economic data show wage growth has been strong for service workers, and Forsberg emphasized tacking on a retirement plan could convince more of them to stay longer. He added it helps small-business owners reduce hiring costs. Employers do not have to contribute to the fund and Forsberg hopes the program maintains a mission of not overburdening businesses as they prepare for other mandates, such as Minnesota's Paid Leave Law.

Next Wednesday, AARP Minnesota will host a webinar to provide more details to business owners about the new retirement program.

Mary Jo George, associate state director of advocacy for the organization, said those involved in shaping the effort want to keep this simple for employers.

"One of the things we keep hearing is that small employers, all employers, they really do want to offer a reinterment plan," George pointed out. "But it's been very costly, it's been an administrative burden."

In addition to not having a match requirement, legislative researchers said there are no fees for employers, except for any incidental costs in modifying payroll systems.

Similar programs have taken shape in nearly 20 states and Oregon officials said early success resulted in strong public backing via polling data. George stressed in Minnesota, they hope to give more people the chance to retire with dignity if they start saving much earlier in their working career.

"We know that when you can do it automatically out of your paycheck, workers are 20 times more like to save," George reported.