ST. PAUL, Minn. -- Job cuts in Minnesota and across the country have ignited calls from labor groups to lift a federal ban on electronic voting in union elections. They say the pandemic is limiting options for workers to fight for their jobs and better working conditions.

Several national unions want Congress to adopt a bipartisan bill that would no longer prevent their members from casting votes electronically on labor issues.

Dan Mauer, director of government affairs for the Communications Workers of America, said the move also would help front-line workers who are considering unionizing as a result of the crisis.

"Workers are facing threats, like furloughs and layoffs; being forced to go to work without PPE; sometimes facing not having the paid leave that they need," he said.

In March, the National Labor Relations Board temporarily halted voting by unions because of health concerns from the pandemic. It has since issued safety guidelines, but unions have said they don't provide assurances that votes held in COVID-19 hot spots will be safe for participants.

The Board has said it used a wide range of input for the guidelines, but unions have said they were left out of the process.

Mail-in voting is an option for unions, but labor leaders say some companies, such as media giant Gannett, have resisted that approach during the crisis. Gannett has disputed those claims.

The unions fear that companies will use the pandemic to delay votes, or force in-person elections where workers might be reluctant to attend. Mauer said he thinks remote elections are a better course of action.

"We think it's just time for the NLRB to get in the 21st century and use all the tools available to it," he said.

Mauer said there's proven technology that can be implemented. The National Mediation Board, which handles labor issues for the airline and railroad industries, uses electronic voting.

The proposal in Congress calls for $1 million for the National Labor Relations Board to develop its own infrastructure, or use the Mediation Board's system if that can't happen. The NLRB hasn't taken a stand on it.

The text of HR 7485 is online at congress.gov.

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."