COLUMBUS, Ohio - A new report makes the case that Ohio workers deserve a higher minimum wage.

According to Policy Matters Ohio, nearly 30% of Ohio's workforce - or 1.5 million people - would benefit from raising the state's minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2026. Ohio's current minimum wage is 8.80 an hour.

Michael Shields, a researcher for Policy Matters Ohio, said people working on the front lines of the pandemic stand to benefit the most.

"Grocery-store clerks, who keep the shelves stocked. Direct-care workers, who take the risk on themselves to care for our loved ones during the pandemic. Child-care workers, caring for our kids so we can go to work," he said. "We've all benefited from the work of folks who are doing these jobs, and we've got to start valuing that work by paying a living wage."

Ohio's minimum wage was tied to inflation in 2006, but Shields explained that it never made up for the value lost as productivity has risen in the previous three decades. According to the report, minimum-wage workers today can purchase 28% less than they could have in 1968, when Ohio's minimum wage was at peak value.

Many arguments against raising the wage to $15 have said it would hurt small businesses. However, Holly Sklar, chief executive of Businesses for a Fair Minimum Wage, disputed that claim.

"Raising the minimum wage saves businesses money in lower turnover, reduced hiring and training costs, less product waste and lower error and accident rates," she said. "Businesses also benefit from better productivity, a better product quality and better customer service."

Shields added that increasing the minimum wage also would help address racial pay inequality.

"Black Ohioans have faced barriers to fair pay, from neighborhoods that remain segregated to outright discrimination; 44% of Black working Ohioans would benefit from a $15 minimum wage in Ohio by 2026," he said. "That's along with a quarter of white workers as well."

The report showed that a full-time worker in Ohio who is paid the current minimum wage falls roughly $3,600 short of the federal poverty guideline for a family of three.

---

This story was produced in association with Media in the Public Interest and funded in part by the George Gund Foundation.

A Montana legislative committee this week heard a bill to revise workers' compensation laws. Among opponents were workers who have navigated the system themselves. If a Montana worker were to get hurt on the job today, law requires insurance providers defer to the person's "treating physician." But Senate Bill 345 would remove that policy.

Sen. Greg Hertz, R-Polson, says that helps insurers get the "best available evidence."

Amanda Frickle, political director of Montana AFL- CIO, a state federation of unions, said workers' compensation claims and cases are "meant to be deliberative."

"This bill is fundamentally tipping the scales against the injured worker and in favor of the insurance company when it comes to these workers' compensation claims," she said.

The bill would allow insurers to require an independent medical examination from a provider of the company's choosing, even if that means someone out-of-state. In that case, the insurer would cover expenses such as travel, lodging and child care. But opponents say travel is not conducive to healing.

Niki Zupanic, owner of the Montana Trial Lawyers Association, says that adds to workers' up-front costs.

"Many of these costs, whether or not they will eventually be reimbursed, are likely to be coming out of pocket ahead of time from the injured worker, while they're also working most likely reduced hours and trying to juggle other expenses with their families," she explained.

According to the Montana Department of Labor and Industry, of all Montanans covered by a workers' comp policy, about 4% report an injury in a given year, or 23,000 people.

South Dakota's new governor is making an active pitch regarding economic opportunities for the state. The renewable-energy sector said it continues to build a strong case, including manufacturing jobs.

Gov. Larry Rhoden spent much of March crisscrossing South Dakota on his "Open for Opportunity" tour to hear about promising development, workforce needs and trade issues. It has not received a visit yet but officials with the Marmen Energy plant in Brandon said they are keeping busy. Nearly 300 people there construct towers to hold turbines for wind energy.

Dan Lueders, plant manager for Marmen Energy, called it the very definition of "American-made" products.

"It's fully American made with American steel," Lueders explained. "We're contributing to the American independence on energy and also providing good-paying manufacturing jobs."

The Clean Grid Alliance said the plant produces roughly 1,000 tower sections each year for shipment throughout the upper Midwest. Lueders noted with data centers and other factors driving up electricity demand, he sees more opportunities for his operation. Nationally, enthusiasm has been somewhat dampened by the Trump administration's push to roll back renewable-energy funding, with a stated desire to focus more on fossil fuels.

But utilities are increasingly turning to renewables to diversify their output as demand spikes.

Waylon Brown, president of Rushmore State Renewables and regional policy manager for Clean Grid Alliance, said if South Dakota keeps the welcome mat out for wind and solar development, other industries will want to set up shop here.

"They're looking for nearby energy generation when deciding what states to do business in," Brown pointed out.

In addition to the manufacturing upside, the Energy Information Administration said South Dakota ranks second nationally for wind energy generation. Brown said, for example, having a healthy power supply could be attractive to the health care sector, noting advancement in medical technology is one of the many other things requiring more energy use.

More jobs could be coming to Arkansas as companies interested in bringing manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. consider the Natural State, according to a study by the Reshoring Institute.

Rosemary Coates, executive director of the nonprofit, said the state's low minimum wage is cost-effective for companies requiring a large labor force.

"What we generally encourage our clients to do is look at the major metropolitan areas and set up manufacturing just outside of that area so you can pull from the labor pool there," Coates explained. "Or to look at the metropolitan areas in places like Arkansas."

She noted although manufacturing remains cheaper in other countries, supply-chain problems experienced during the pandemic are making U.S. companies explore options for reshoring. The study did not address the financial effects of possible Trump administration tariffs on materials manufactured abroad.

Twenty states across the country, mainly in the South, pay the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. If labor is a high percentage of a company's costs, it could be less expensive to reshore operations. Coates added some companies opt to have plants in multiple countries.

"Bringing some manufacturing to Mexico and some to the U.S. and keeping some in Asia," Coates outlined. "Companies are really rethinking the whole idea and strategy about where in the world they're manufacturing."

She stressed labor rates vary between rural areas and major cities in every state. Other costs associated with reshoring include local and state taxes, training, tax credits and logistics.


get more stories like this via email