JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — On the surface, "right to work" policy sounds like something beneficial to Missouri workers, but opponents say it's a misnomer. Contrary to what the name may indicate, the policy does not aim to provide a general guarantee of employment to people seeking work.

On August 7, the state's voters will decide on Proposition A, which would establish the state as a "right to work" state, but worker advocates want voters to understand the impact. Lindsey Baker, director of research with the Missouri Budget Project, explained.

"What that does is, it effectively limits the collective power of workers to negotiate for higher wages and more benefits by limiting union resources,” Baker said; “while at the same time, it still requires those unions to extend the benefits of those negotiated contracts to those who don't contribute financially."

The Economic Policy Institute estimates that wages in right-to-work states are 3 percent lower than those in states such as Missouri that don't have such laws - even when accounting for differences in cost of living and variances in industry. Supporters of right to work say the policy offers employees more access to jobs.

The institute and the Missouri Budget Project also assert that employees in right-to-work states have access to fewer benefits such as health insurance and retirement plans, since unions don't have the resources to advocate for those benefits. Baker said lower wages and fewer benefits have a statewide impact.

"Right-to-work legislation would further erode the middle class in Missouri by lowering wages and reducing access to affordable health insurance,” she said. “But there are also some pretty serious implications for Missouri's state budget. Lower wages in Missouri would reduce our already diminished tax base."

Baker added a reduced tax base would provide less funding for public services such as education and infrastructure. Nationwide, there are 28 right-to-work states.


get more stories like this via email

As families across the country prepare to celebrate the holiday season, the joy of decorating a Christmas tree is a time-honored tradition.

But the story behind the trees is often overlooked, revealing a labor-intensive industry supported by immigrant workers who face difficult conditions to bring a holiday centerpiece into our homes.

Virginia ranks as one of the nation's top producers of Christmas trees, with thousands of workers tending to the trees year-round.

Manuel Gago Silcox, co-director of the Worker Justice Program at the Legal Aid Justice Center, said many workers are on H2A agricultural visas, traveling from Mexico and Central America for seasonal work.

"The conditions are, in the workplace, dangerous," Gago Silcox emphasized. "There's a lot of accidents because the tools they use are sometimes - like the area, like on the hills - they're moving like a big tree sometimes, so it's a lot of that."

Compounding the challenges is a systemic issue: Virginia's farmworkers are excluded from the state's minimum wage laws. In March, Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin vetoed a bill which sought to extend minimum wage protections to farmworkers, a policy many view as a relic of the Jim Crow era. Youngkin argued the legislation was unnecessary.

Gago Silcox pointed out the dangers for migrant workers do not end in the field, as many workers are isolated in the hills, disconnected from their families for the months they arrive for temporary work and living in substandard housing.

"You need to share the kitchen with 10, 13 people and sometimes you don't even need to have a real bathroom," Gago Silcox observed. "You can use a portable toilet outside and that's OK for the regulations, so the housing conditions are very hard for the workers."

Gago Silcox hopes for future policy changes to ensure migrant farmworkers receive proper protections and fair wages. In the meantime, he encouraged consumers to make informed and intentional choices when selecting a Christmas tree.

He recommended researching tree farms and choosing smaller operations where you can observe their processes and learn how they treat their workers.

"Be thankful for the work that the farmworkers that came to this country, the sacrifice they have, not only for their families," Gago Silcox urged. "Because, at the end, those sacrifices end in having our Christmas tree in the living room this year."


get more stories like this via email

With winter underway, outdoor construction workers in North Dakota are likely wearing safety vests over their heavy coats and a new federal rule was announced to ensure gear fits all crew members, helping maintain diversity in this sector.

This week, a new OSHA rule was finalized with language requiring employers to provide personal protective equipment such as hard hats to properly fit each construction worker on a given site. It is aimed at accommodating unrepresented populations in this field, including women.

Jason Ehlert, president of North Dakota's Building Trades Unions, called it is a commonsense approach to letting women know their workplace needs are prioritized.

"We want them to experience these great career paths, but if the equipment doesn't fit them right, are we putting our money where our mouth is?" Ehlert explained.

According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 41% of women say their protective equipment fits them poorly. Supporters said the change could also benefit workers with disabilities or those with larger or much smaller body types. Federal officials said the move should not be an issue for employers worried about added costs in making the investments.

Ehlert noted the new rule coincides with efforts in North Dakota to diversify the construction trades, including an apprenticeship program geared for Native Americans.

Regardless of race, gender or body type, he said properly protecting all workers helps ensure they will not have to abandon their career due to injury.

"If we don't get the helmets fitting correctly, that could lead to other issues down the road," Ehlert outlined. "CTE, concussions, those kinds of things."

Federal officials noted properly fitting gear allows workers to carry out their tasks more confidently. The rule change is scheduled to go into effect in mid-January.


get more stories like this via email

The tragedy surrounding UnitedHealthcare has brought renewed focus on cost barriers within the health care system.

A group of Minnesota unions said a nonconfrontational but organized front paid off in recent talks to limit cost hikes for members.

This fall, unionized state workers in northwest Minnesota, who receive care through Essentia, were notified the provider would increase out-of-pocket expenses Jan. 1. In a tiered system, they would move from Level Two to Level Three.

Amanda Stegmaier, information technologist at Minnesota State University-Moorhead, said she was caught off guard, noting the change could have boosted co-pays by roughly $30 per visit.

"I was personally looking at supplemental health insurance," Stegmaier explained. "What could I do to stay at a lower cost level, because being a single mom and one-income household, there's only so much money that goes around."

Stegmaier, a member of the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees, urged colleagues to contact Essentia about the situation. Regional members of other unions like the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees did too, and the coalition convinced the provider to keep the cost hike temporary. It goes back to Level Two March 1. Stegmaier acknowledged the issue will likely resurface a year from now but a strong unified message can have an effect.

State employees have the benefit of union negotiators but those involved said voices working together, no matter where their insurance comes from, and can reasonably articulate the plight of health consumers might be able to turn some heads.

Adam Kamp, business agent for the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees, feels it is a key strategy in the current landscape.

"Health care's becoming increasingly corporate, we're seeing more mergers, more buyouts," Kamp observed. "In that instance, it took peaceful, collective action in order to pressure the provider to do the right thing."

Stegmaier stressed keeping costs in check is important in her part of the state, because it allows members to keep going to the clinics that work best for them.

"Good health care in this area is hard to come by," Stegmaier emphasized. "When you find your care team that you're happy with, you wanna stick with them."