RICHMOND, Va. - As the pandemic reinforces the value of caregivers, groups in Virginia are urging state lawmakers to pass a trio of bills they're calling the Domestic Workers' Bill of Rights that would help more than 60,000 nannies, cleaners and home-care workers gain worker protections.

Ingrid Vaca, an undocumented housekeeper from Bolivia, said this kind of support is especially important during the pandemic, as she and her colleagues have lost clients over concerns about spreading the virus. Last fall, she and her two children contracted COVID-19. Vaca said she and others desperately need support, such as paid time off and unemployment insurance.

"It's really hard because we don't have any protections at all, and we have to eat, we have to pay the rent," she said. "We pay our taxes, but what happens with the government, with the state, they don't give to us maybe a little bit because we give a lot for many people."

Senate Bill 1310, proposed by Sen. Jennifer McClellan, D-Richmond, would add domestic workers to all Virginia's existing worker-protection laws. Companion measures House Bills 1864 and
2032 also seek to include them in workplace discrimination protections and the state's Worker's Compensation Act.

Last year, Virginia lawmakers passed a historic bill securing the first wage protections for domestic workers in the South. Alexsis Rodgers, Virginia state director for the nonprofit Care in Action, said it was an important first step but more needs to be done. She pointed out that only now is the state attempting to undo discriminatory laws from the Jim Crow era that left out protections for jobs mostly performed by Black and Brown workers such as housekeepers.

"The General Assembly did take some action on removing Jim Crow exemptions related to newsboys and shoe shiners," she said, "but domestic workers are also a very important part of our economy. We have to make sure that these workers are also protected."

Research has shown that more than 90% of Spanish-speaking domestic workers lost jobs because of the pandemic. The majority didn't apply for unemployment insurance because they didn't believe they qualified.


get more stories like this via email

Labor groups representing thousands of Minnesota state workers find themselves at serious odds with Gov. Tim Walz over his move this week to reduce remote work options.

Walz announced that, starting June 1, most state-agency employees have to carry out their duties in person at least 50% of the time. That has drawn swift criticism from the unions that negotiate for nearly 40,000 state workers, including the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 5 is another, and at a Thursday news conference, its executive director, Bart Andersen, expressed frustration about having no input in the decision.

"If we are going to be considered a labor-friendly state, we need to have conversations," he said, "not dropped at the last minute and told that all these people have to go back to work in a month and a half, with no means to get there."

MAPE officials have said this also disrupts the lives of workers with children, citing day-care demands and long waiting lists for those facilities.

The governor has pointed to an exemption for people who live more than 75 miles from their primary work location. He also has said the change should help downtown businesses in the Twin Cities by spurring more foot traffic.

These debates have been happening in the private sector, too, since the constraints of the pandemic have faded. But Andersen suggested to anyone who believes remote workers are "slacking off" to think again.

"They're not in a bubble. They're not isolated," he said. "They're working with their teams and they're getting the work done."

Andersen said they know tasks such as road maintenance can't be done from home. But he highlighted the effectiveness of telework in recruiting and attracting people for the public-sector jobs that have that flexibility. The mounting tension between these labor groups and the administration comes as talks on a new contract take shape.


get more stories like this via email

Kansas City transit riders and workers are fighting proposed cuts, warning of a looming public transit crisis.

Hundreds of advocates of the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority gathered on the steps of City Hall last week over threats to cut 13 bus routes, eliminate up to 175 transit jobs and shut down the Immigrant and Refugee Integration Services microtransit program.

Protesters warned the cuts could strand thousands, cost hundreds of jobs and leave misclassified IRIS drivers without unemployment benefits.

Ashley Ball, a leader with Stand Up KC and the Missouri Workers Center, relies on public transit for work.

"I was living in a hotel with my kids in North Kansas City and the buses weren't always reliable, so I got IRIS early to be able to get to my shift," Ball explained. "I work in the city now, overnights at Taco Bell. It's very beneficial to have IRIS when I get off work."

Supporters argued the cuts are needed to address KCATA's budget shortfall, as the city's $71 million allocation falls far short of the $117 million needed. Officials also cited high administrative costs and call for more efficient transit operations.

In 2024, KCATA reported 1.1 million riders, a four-year high, averaging more than 35,000 people daily. Couple that with KC Streetcars, and Kansas City's transit served more than 40,000 people per day last year.

For Ball, its significance goes beyond just transportation.

"Our public transportation is the heart of the city," Ball emphasized. "It allows us, no matter where we are from or what we look like, to move around, accomplish our goals and try to live a better dream."

The budget cuts are being discussed by the City Council Finance Committee after talks were delayed in a previous session.


get more stories like this via email

Minnesota's up-and-coming doctors say in order to better care for patients down the road, they need collective bargaining power.

A large group of them has filed to form a union, reflecting an industry shift. This week, a supermajority of nearly 1,000 University of Minnesota resident physicians and fellows submitted their union-creation plans. It follows a similar move by peers at Hennepin Health earlier this month.

Dr. Thomas Schmidt, infectious diseases fellow at the University of Minnesota, said the current work environment for providers advancing through their training in hospitals and other settings is pretty grueling, with up to 80-hour workweeks in some cases.

"It's us making sure that we're having some breaks and making sure that we're able to have some life outside of training," Schmidt explained. "To ensure that we can be good doctors when we're there with our patients."

Schmidt cited burnout, still lingering from the COVID-19 pandemic, as one factor behind doctors embracing unionization. Researchers say the number of newly union-represented doctors could soon double, compared with the past two decades.

Because of consolidation in health care, more physicians are now employees of larger systems, as opposed to independent practitioners. The university said it will be responsive to all necessary parties as the process takes shape.

Doctors still getting their training say the residency system leaves little room to advocate for changes or request a new location. And while established medical professionals might make good money, Schmidt said it is not the case for residents, who are often in the $15 to $20 per-hour range.

"That is not a substantial amount of money to be able to take care of your housing, to take care of your family," Schmidt pointed out. "I'm a parent of two young kids, so it has not been easy to be a trainee."

He added some peers are delaying starting a family because of the limited pay and long hours.

Skeptics fear the union push among doctors will reduce the earnings of specialists. Meanwhile, the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees, which has members working on infectious disease control in the state health department, recognizes the need for providers to have a bigger voice. It said it is vital as public health concerns, such as the bird flu, add to the work demands for the young professionals.