SEATTLE – Public employee union members in Washington state will be closely watching the U.S. Supreme Court case Janus v. AFSCME on Monday.

Greg Devereux, executive director of the Washington Federation of State Employees (WFSE), says if justices side with Illinois worker Mark Janus, it would undermine a 40-year-old court decision – and labor unions in general.

Janus is challenging a 1977 case that created a two-tier system for union membership, with full members and non-members who pay what are known as "fair-share" fees for representation and collective bargaining.

Devereux says if Janus wins, public unions could work on behalf of people who aren't paying for that representation.

"Even the ACLU has filed an amicus brief against this, saying in effect, it's reverse compelled association,” says Devereux, “because now, members will be paying for non-members, under this scheme."

Supporters of Janus say he shouldn't have to pay fair-share fees on First Amendment grounds.

This Saturday, unions across the country will hold what they're calling a "Working People's Day of Action." WFSE, which is part of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) also are planning an event on Monday at Harborview Medical Center in Seattle.

Revenue to public employee unions could be take a hit if the courts rule against AFSCME. In 28 so-called "right to work" states, people who are covered under public-employee contracts don't have to pay the fair-share fee for representation.

This case would in essence extend that policy to public employees in the other 22 states – including Washington – which collectively represent about five million workers. Supporters of Janus have equated collective bargaining with lobbying, but Devereux insists that is a false comparison.

"In terms of safety, working on workload, determining health care benefits for individuals,” he says, “there are a tremendous number of issues in our union contracts that make a huge difference in people's lives at the workplace."

In a similar 2016 case, justices ended in a 4-to-4 deadlock over the fate of fair-share fees.


get more stories like this via email

Solving North Dakota's child-care crisis is taking another turn, with adoption of a new tax credit.

The incentive is geared for employers who make contributions toward their employee's child-care costs.

Gov. Kelly Armstrong has signed a bill that allows employers to claim a tax credit of 50%, for child-care stipends they might offer as part of a benefits package.

Bill supporters say it might convince more businesses to meet the needs of staff members with young kids.

Bill Bauman, CEO of the Missouri Valley Family YMCA in Bismarck, said he hopes it'll be effective in removing stress on the child-care system by keeping parents in the workforce.

"It's so vital to our economy," said Bauman, "our community, our workforce and our families."

The YMCAs are collectively the largest provider of child-care services in North Dakota, and Bauman said they've seen progress in closing gaps based on 2023 investments from the state.

Other organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce agree that previous steps have helped.

But officials note some solutions have limitations, pointing to age and income eligibility levels under the Working Parents Child Care Relief Program.

Bauman credited policymakers for continuing to monitor how these efforts are playing out, and whether they need to try something new.

He suggested it's going to take additional time to measure the effectiveness of new programs and incentives.

"Some are highly utilized and others maybe not as utilized," said Bauman, "so you have to be able to adjust."

According to a 2024 North Dakota business survey from the Chamber of Commerce, 69% of respondents indicated that child care was an issue for their organization.

A similar percentage indicated support for this type of incentive to help recruit and retain workers.



get more stories like this via email

Thousands are expected to rally in Harrisburg on Monday for a "Raise the Wage and Immigrant Rights Day of Action."

More than 47,000 Pennsylvania workers earn the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour or less.

Jarrett Smith, legislative director for the Service Employees International Union, said Pennsylvania hasn't raised its minimum wage in more than 15 years, while more than 30 other states and Washington, D.C., have all moved toward $15 an hour.

Smith said this makes it harder for the state to stay competitive.

"We are demanding that we raise the wage in Pennsylvania to $15 an hour," he said, and "that we include a cost-of-living adjustment so that we don't have to keep coming back, year after year."

Smith said the coalition Pennsylvania Stands Up is leading the protest, backed by labor and community groups and some lawmakers.

Two years ago, the House passed a bill to raise the state minimum wage to $15 by 2026, but the Senate hasn't acted. Smith said Gov. Josh Shapiro has pointed out it could bring in up to $60 million a year in tax revenue.

Smith said it's key to distinguish low-wage from minimum-wage workers. Nearly 1.2 million Pennsylvanians earn wages less than $15 an hour, and many are single moms. He added that these workers often support families, pushing the state to cover gaps with programs such as SNAP and Medicaid.

"When we talk about how do we actually lift workers out of poverty," he said, "one of the things that you can do is raise that floor and give families the financial independence to actually earn a wage that's going to allow them to not have to make decisions between paying a grocery bill or getting health care."

Smith noted that Pennsylvania is losing workers to neighboring states with higher minimum wages, making it hard to keep a strong workforce.

"We are one of the fastest-shrinking states in the Northeast," he said. "New Jersey, across the border, they have a $15 minimum wage to start, and they're already increasing it for certain workforces, like health care and education."

He added that SEIU represents around 80,000 service workers in the state, across industries such as government, health care and food service. The union is also negotiating its first national Starbucks contract.


get more stories like this via email

New national rankings out this week show South Dakota jumped a few spots higher in teacher pay for each state. However, there are questions about whether the shift will be temporary.

The National Education Association puts South Dakota at 46th in the U.S. for compensation offered to educators around the state. The current rank is the highest South Dakota has achieved since reporting began. Teachers in the state now earn an average salary of more than $56,000.

Loren Paul, president of the South Dakota Education Association, credits higher bumps in state aid the past few years.

"That extra effort from our state gets us out of the bottom rankings," Paul explained. "It also is supportive in recruiting teachers and also retaining teachers in the profession."

In this year's legislative session, education got a smaller funding increase of 1.25%, falling behind inflation. Paul cautioned it could mean South Dakota will slide back in future rankings. The smaller bump came as part of a "belt tightening" mood at the State Capitol this year, with uncertainty over federal funding and declines in sales tax revenue.

Educators said they understand the budget challenges facing South Dakota but Paul contended taking the foot off the accelerator only puts the state in a troubling pattern it has been trying to shake off.

"It has to be year after year," Paul stressed. "It's not a, 'Oh, we're going to address this for a year or two, and then we're going to fall back into very small increases,' or no increases, or actually going backwards."

He added when shrinking investments cause a state to tumble in rankings, public pressure goes back up because no state wants to be seen as holding the last spot.

The union noted when adjusted for inflation, teachers in many parts of the country still make less than they did a decade ago, and if they cannot afford to cover basic expenses, some will choose to leave the profession.