ST. PAUL, Minn. – The future of unions could hang on a case being argued Monday before the U.S. Supreme Court.

It's called Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), and an Illinois man who says it’s unconstitutional to charge him for belonging to a union workplace brought it.

AFSCME, the union that represents 1.6 million people, will argue that all workers benefit from a collectively bargained contract.

"Our union delivers a lot of services for people,” says Kathleen Farber, an AFSCME retiree who came to a rally in St. Paul over the weekend. “We do the contract negotiations, grievance processing, and those things cost money.

“If people don't have to pay anything, we're going to end up underfunding our unions, and eventually they'll be crippled by it."

Hundreds of union supporters including faith leaders, elected officials and immigrant rights groups attended the rally at the State Capitol.

It was part of a national event called the Working People's Day of Action, timed to coincide with the Janus arguments.

Destiny Dusosky came from St. Cloud with her mother, also an AFSCME member and her daughter, who plans to attend college next year with some financial help from the union.

"Because of my union, I'm able to afford good health care for my children,” she points out. “I'm able to one day hopefully retire with dignity.

“Those are really important benefits to me, and if we didn't collectively bargain for those, I wouldn't have them right now."

In 2016, the Supreme Court heard a similar case from California, but voted 4-4 and never decided the case because of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. This time, all eyes will be on the new justice, Neil Gorsuch.

Because President Donald Trump appointed Gorsuch, union members are worried that the court will rule against them.

Dave Snyder, an ironworker on construction jobs statewide, came to St. Paul to defend what he says is the middle class life unions have helped to provide.

"We are destroying the very fabric of America,” he insists. “So we have to stand strong and we have to support our local unions."

The court is expected to decide the case by the end of June.


get more stories like this via email

State officials in Maine said they are working to expand the number of registered apprenticeship programs to help counter a persistent worker shortage.

The state hopes to add 75,000 workers to the economy over the next five years by growing career pathways in clean energy, health care, and construction.

Joan Dolan, director of apprenticeship and strategic partnerships for the Maine Department of Labor, said the number of available programs has doubled over the past few years and all are currently full.

"There is huge interest and huge need," Dolan observed. "We've been working hard for years to expand our programming and it's really started to take hold and take off."

Dolan said 90% of apprentices who complete their programs are still working for their employer a year after graduation. Studies show they'll earn at least $300,000 more over their lifetimes compared to their peers.

The majority of apprentices in Maine are in the construction industry as federal dollars continue to boost the clean energy sector. The state has worked to recruit more women into the trade along with a growing number of new Mainers. Dolan pointed out even high schoolers are taking advantage, including in the town of Skowhegan, where a group of students is earning income and skills through electrical apprenticeships after class.

"We also have developed bank teller apprenticeship programs," Dolan explained. "There's banks right in the school, so the kids are getting high school graduation credit as well as earning a paycheck and learning a job skill."

Dolan stressed apprenticeships offer lucrative career pathways for students not interested in attending college or for the many rural students who simply cannot afford it. She added anyone can become an apprentice as long as they're at least 16 years old and are committed to furthering their education both in the classroom and on the job.


get more stories like this via email

Ohio is among the many states where a majority of workers lack access to paid family leave. A new report by Groundwork Ohio finds three in four Ohioans are employed in jobs without the possibility of paid family leave. This means many parents of young children face difficult choices between work and family. Even other conservative states, like Florida and Texas, have developed voluntary systems allowing private market benefits.

Lynanne Gutierrez, president and CEO of Groundwork Ohio, said the need for policies that support families and their workforce participation has never been clearer.

"There is currently a mismatch in policy, and the desires of both policymakers and the people of Ohio, when it comes to both the needs of their young children and families and the workforce," she explained.

The report was supported by grant funding from the Annie E. Casey Foundation. While some people may take advantage of accrued vacation or short-term disability benefits, access to these options remains uneven. Nationwide, only about half of full-time employees have short-term disability benefits, and only one in five part-time employees.

The report also highlights the economic and developmental stakes for young children in families without paid leave. Research shows that nearly 23% of new mothers in the U.S. return to work within 10 days of giving birth, driven by financial need and limited options that support newborn care. Gutierrez stresses the impact on childhood development when families lack adequate support.

"We know that one in four children under the age of five across the state of Ohio live in poverty; they're among our most vulnerable. And so, the more support we can get to children and families in that unique period of time really sets a foundation for their lifelong success," she continued.

Ohio is one of 29 states without a state-administered paid family leave law, but public support for a national policy is high. The report says 94% of Democrats, 83% of Independents, and 74% of Republicans favor a federal paid family leave policy.


get more stories like this via email

Researchers at Colorado State University have been able to link the economic stress experienced by 78% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, to behavior that is bad for workers and company bottom lines.

Keaton Fletcher, assistant professor of industrial organizational psychology at Colorado State University and the report's co-author, said people who supervise other workers, at all management levels, are unleashing their economic frustrations on their direct reports.

"When they feel financially stressed, they are more likely to be abusive, berating or belittling, demeaning, sometimes yelling or cursing at subordinates," Fletcher outlined.

The findings, published in the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, showed financial stress is experienced by bosses regardless of their salary levels, and men are more likely than women to be abusive toward subordinates. The research was done in collaboration with the Anderson School of Management at the University of New Mexico.

When bosses cannot pay their bills, Fletcher explained they feel like they are not in control of their lives. Bullying a subordinate is one way to try and regain a sense of personal agency. Gender expectations may also play a role. Fletcher pointed out women are more likely to be punished socially for "aggressive" behavior than men.

"Both men and women feel this lack of control in response to financial stress," Fletcher observed. "The data show that men are more likely to engage in those abusive behaviors when they have this feeling of a lack of control."

Companies tolerating abusive bosses are vulnerable to costly lawsuits and Fletcher added even workers who do not report abuse or sue can hurt a company's bottom line. They are more likely to show up late for work, be less productive, steal or talk badly about the company to other people.

"They are also more likely to quit," Fletcher stressed. "It is so expensive to replace employees. Pretty much across the board, having abusive supervisors just is financially costly to organizations."