NEW YORK - City and state elected officials will join workers for a rally at John F. Kennedy International Airport today to demand a new contract and health care for 10,000 workers at three major airports. They are baggage handlers, wheelchair attendants, cabin cleaners and security officers - essential workers who keep the airports running.

Contracts with most of the 23 companies they work for at JFK, LaGuardia and Newark airports expired April 1. A new contract must adhere to the Healthy Terminals Act, a recent law passed in New York and New Jersey requiring that airport workers receive an additional $4.54 an hour toward health care.

However, Rob Hill, vice president of SEIU Local 32BJ, the union representing the workers, said contract talks have gone nowhere.

"We need to see progress on this," he said. "We're not going backwards. These workers are going to have health care and things need to move at the table, or we'll have to make decisions from there."

The contractors are demanding concessions from the union, including a lower uniform allowance and eliminating Martin Luther King Jr. Day as a paid holiday. Vladimir Clairjeune, a union member and passenger service representative at JFK, pointed out that the MLK holiday in particular was something that airport workers fought long and hard to win.

"It's unconscionable to want to take away a holiday like MLK Day, just remembering everything that MLK stood for," he said. "The Healthy Terminals Act would bring racial justice to a predominantly Black and Brown workforce."

Every year, airport workers hold marches in memory of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to honor his legacy of racial and economic justice.

Hill noted that airlines received $65 billion of government support through the COVID stimulus packages, and the contractors received a portion of those funds.

"Five billion, so far, of that $65 [billion] went to the contractors," he said, "and these workers fought very hard to make sure that some of that money went to cover them."

Contract negotiations are set to resume on Friday.

An annual report shows Minnesota now tops 62,000 clean-energy jobs, a new state record. Federal and state policies are fueling growth. However, project developers signal a need for a robust pipeline of workers. Clean Energy Economy Minnesota's latest summary says that in 2023, jobs tied to non-fossil fuel energy sources grew nearly five times faster than the state's overall economy.

Gregg Mast, Clean Energy Economy Minnesota executive director, credits the federal Inflation Reduction Act, as well as a state law requiring carbon-free electricity by 2040, for helping the sector move further past pandemic disruptions.

"The future looks very bright with jobs in the sector, and we expect to see these numbers grow by another 6% or more this year," he explained.

Industry leaders say solar, wind and similar projects also are doing a better job in providing strong wages and benefits to those hired to construct these systems. But some firms hope for more training opportunities so they can have enough engineers and other experts design projects in the development queue. While election outcomes could impact certain government incentives, advocates remain optimistic about future growth.

Andy Kim, president of EVS Engineering in the Twin Cities-area, which specializes in the solar-energy substation and battery-storage markets, said over the past decade, they've grown from about 35 staff members to nearly 200. The hard part is finding enough people to fill the accelerated pace of openings.

"It's an industry where people want to go," he said. "It's also an industry where our educational system doesn't have the track record of putting those people out because it's a new industry."

Roughly 40 colleges around the country now offer renewable-energy engineering degree programs. But Kim suggested that many more need to follow suit to meet future demand. Other institutions and technical schools are adding other courses tied to the clean-energy sector.

Arizona workers, retirees and small business owners say they'll be left to pick up the slack when the wealthy and big corporations don't pay their fair share in taxes. They argue that'll be the case if former President Donald Trump's 2017 tax code gets extended in 2025.

Linda Somo, president of the Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans, contends the tax code is not balanced and favors the rich. Workers in 2016 who made less than $114,000 a year saw no change in earnings, while top executive salaries increased , according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Somo added the issue needs to be revisited before it gets renewed in 2025. She was in D.C. last month and spoke to Arizona lawmakers.

"Once we have a new Congress in session, after January, they could start closing some loopholes, even if it's not the actual tax law," Soto explained. "There are some things they could do to tweak that law ahead of time."

Republicans argue the tax plan would lead to economic growth. In 2017, the Department of Treasury claimed the law would increase tax revenues by $1.8 trillion over ten years. But Somo said she views the tax code as something damaging to the middle class, and wants to see a more equitable tax code be considered.

Somo, a retired teacher, says a more just tax code would translate to better funding for public education, better access to health care and a stronger social net for all Americans.

"It really ticks me off when I think, 'OK, I pay 15% and someone who is a billionaire probably is paying a far less percent because they can take advantage of all kinds of loopholes,'" she continued.

Somo encouraged all Arizonans to get informed and voice their opinions on the tax code to their state legislators. She said if lawmakers are only hearing from those who can donate big money to their campaigns, they'll forget about those who are impacted the most.

A new study by the Missouri Budget Project calls out some opposing views to the ballot measure known as Proposition A and included data to debunk them as "myths."

If it passes next month, Proposition A would raise Missouri's minimum wage from $12.30 an hour to $15 by 2026. Opponents said the increase would mostly affect young adults and teenagers.

Lindsey Baker, director of research for the Missouri Budget Project, disagreed. She said debunking the myth of whom the minimum wage increase affects is one of her organization's top priorities.

"One thing that people are often unaware of is just how many kids and families would benefit from this," Baker pointed out. "Often people have a stereotypical image of who 'minimum wage workers' are and really, they are all kinds of people."

The report shows one in four Missouri children lives in a household that would see its income rise with an increase in the minimum wage. Proposition A would also guarantee paid sick leave for more 700,000 Missouri workers who currently do not have it.

Opponents have said increasing the minimum wage would be bad for businesses and the economy, with the potential for job loss. Baker stressed it is also a myth.

"Consistently, when you look at before and after Missouri's own minimum wage increase that was implemented in 2019, we see that all of those things that were predicted by opponents that would happen -- job loss, all of those things -- really didn't happen," Baker outlined. "In fact, we did very well as a state after that."

The study indicates Missouri's unemployment rate went down faster than the national average and faster than each of the neighboring states not increasing their minimum wage. Baker added it is consistent with prior data suggesting a hike in the minimum wage increases employment, in part by reducing turnover among workers.


get more stories like this via email