NASHVILLE, Tenn. - The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote Thursday on the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018, more commonly referred to as the Farm Bill. While the name might imply it will influence only the country's agriculture industry, the impact extends far beyond that.

At stake in this year's legislation are measures that would institute work requirements for SNAP recipients, but the changes would impact more than just them. Beth Messersmith, a campaign director for MomsRising, said the change also would dip into the bottom line of Tennessee businesses.

"It's also going to be undermining our local economies because SNAP dollars go directly to grocery stores, to local stores. They go back into the local economy," she said. "When we see SNAP cuts, we're actually seeing local cuts as well."

Forty percent of those in Tennessee households receiving SNAP benefits are children, according to Feeding America, a network of food banks.

More than half of SNAP recipients aleady work, Messersmith said, and those who do not often are incapable of working. Without the benefits, many will rely on community food pantries, already struggling to meet the needs of their communities.

Messersmith said the new work requirements don't take into account fluctuating hours of many service-industry jobs and related needs that come from working, such as child care and transportation.

"If they saw their hours cut at work, they could be at risk of losing their SNAP benefits for up to a year," she said. "Seniors, for example; if they can't meet the minimum number of work requirements because of age discrimination, they would be at risk of losing the SNAP benefits they rely on."

While the legislation starts at the federal level, Messersmith said it will fall to the states to find funding to enforce the legislation.

"States are going to have to provide increased job training and employment, but it doesn't provide meaningful funding to help states do that," she said, "and it's going to say that states have to track the work hours of these 6 million to 7 million SNAP recipients every month, but it really doesn't provide the funding to make that happen."

The Farm Bill would cut SNAP funding by $17 billion, a savings partly needed to cover the cost of the tax cuts passed by Congress last year. Its text is online at agriculture.house.gov.


get more stories like this via email

A case before the U.S. Supreme Court could have implications for the country's growing labor movement. Justices will hear oral arguments in Starbucks versus McKinney today to determine if the bar should be raised for the National Labor Relations Board when it seeks to impose court-ordered injunctions on companies.

David Groves, communications director with the Washington State Labor Council, said the Supreme Court could further undermine the power of the NLRB, the independent federal agency that protects employees' rights.

"We already have weak labor laws in this country that have such minor penalties for breaking union organizing laws that companies routinely do it, and this is another opportunity for them to weaken labor laws even further," he argued.

The case involves Starbucks' firing of seven employees in Memphis during their union campaign in 2021. The coffee company says it rehired the workers and denies wrongdoing. If the justices rule in favor of Starbucks, it could make it harder for the NLRB to seek court orders.

Groves said the law states that workers have a right to organize unions in their workplace without coercion or retaliation from their employers.

"That's all fine and good but if the penalty's not significant enough, then they'll just go ahead and break that law and consider it the cost of doing business if they have to pay a fine two years down the road," he explained.

Groves said his and other labor organizations support the passage of the Protecting the Right to Organize or PRO Act in Congress, which would strengthen labor laws, including providing greater authority to the NLRB.


get more stories like this via email

The U.S. House has approved a measure to expand the Child Tax Credit. It would help 16 million children from low-income families in Indiana and nationwide. Despite bipartisan support, the bill is stalled in the Senate. Advocates praise the credit's pivotal role in combating child poverty, pointing to its effectiveness in the past, and especially during the pandemic, when it was broadly expanded.

Candace Baker, an Indianapolis mother of 4, said the previous tax-credit expansion worked for her family, and she wants it reinstated.

"Having a child, and I had to get on some government-assistance programs. My grandmother never did because she just didn't want that stigma over her, but I utilized those services when I had a child. I didn't want to either, but I'm like, I need this support," she explained.

Congress approved expanding the Child Tax Credit in 2021. However, the expansion has expired, leaving families without vital assistance. As the Senate deliberates, pressure mounts on lawmakers to prioritize the needs of struggling families and secure passage. Opponents believe taxpayers who don't work should not be eligible. Some Republicans also contend the provision may incentivize parents to leave the workforce.

Families reeling from the pandemic received between $300 and $360 per month per child from the expanded tax credit. It lifted 3.7 million children from poverty. Baker currently works for a food bank in Indianapolis where she says she is able to help neighbors in need and give back to the community.

"Being able to be a voice for those who have no voice - that is my motto. Even though where you start, you don't have to stay there. So, that is my biggest motto that I stand on: You may start here, you may be on government assistance, you may be in poverty, but that does not have to be your end game," she said.

Families who benefited from the increased aid were more than twice as likely to pay their overdue rent during the initial stages of the pandemic. The Child Tax Credit did not pass in time for this year's tax deadline, and its prospects for the future are uncertain.


get more stories like this via email

Washington joins a handful of states to do away with mandatory meetings for employees on political or religious matters.

Sometimes known as captive audience meetings, the gatherings were seen as a way for employers to give their opinions on subjects like unionization, and held potential consequences for employees who didn't attend. Lawmakers passed a bill this session allowing workers to skip the meetings without repercussions.

Sen. Karen Keiser, D-Des Moines, a sponsor of the bill, said we live in a divided society where emotions run high on political topics.

"This bill simply protects employees to have a real choice on whether or not to attend a meeting called by their boss to be told about some political or religious issue," Keiser explained.

Keiser pointed out the legislation is nonpartisan. For instance, employers could not force employees to attend anti-union meetings, but also could not force them to attend a meeting about the importance of reproductive rights. The bill takes effect June 6.

Keiser noted the bill likely got across the finish line this session because of the uptick in union organizing and support for labor. She added there are widely known stories of Starbucks managers, for example, requiring employees to attend anti-union meetings while the employees organized the workplace.

"Employees have been forced to attend meetings to listen to the boss or the employer basically tell them why they shouldn't join a union," Keiser observed.

Washington is the sixth state to pass a law prohibiting attendance at captive audience meetings. Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota and New York have passed similar laws in recent years. Oregon passed a law allowing workers to skip such meetings without repercussions in 2010.


get more stories like this via email