Nearly 300 Nebraska business owners and executives across the state have gone on record in support of ballot Initiative 433, which would gradually raise Nebraska's minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2026.

Dave Titterington, owner of the Wild Bird Habitat Stores in Lincoln and Omaha, said it is tough enough to find employees in the current marketplace, and even harder if all you can offer is $9 an hour.

"When you got child care, you got food to put on the table, you got increased fuel costs for home heating and automobile, how can anybody make it on the minimum wage?" Titterington asked.

Critics of Initiative 433 claim the minimum wage was never meant to be a "living wage" but an "entry level" wage for young people or first-time workers. Others warn small businesses operating on thin profit margins would pass increased labor costs along to consumers.

Steph Terry, director of operations for Morrow Collision Center in Lincoln, said workers are also customers, and raising Nebraska's minimum wage will be good for business. When workers are paid more, they can spend more at local businesses.

She added 75% of minimum-wage workers are age 20 and over, so it's not like they don't have bills to pay.

"Any individual deserves to have the ability to care for themselves and care for their families," Terry contended. "I think raising the minimum wage in Nebraska is the right thing to do, the fair thing to do, for the people of our state."

Titterington noted low pay typically means higher turnover when workers look elsewhere to make ends meet, and higher training costs for businesses. Titterington believes small businesses ought to move employees out of the expense column and into the investment column, because they are the first people customers meet when they come in the door.

"We consider our employees an investment, just like our radio advertising," Titterington explained. "If you can't pay your employees a living wage, and still run a business, maybe you need to be in another profession."

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 commissioned by 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."

Advocates for paid family leave in Michigan are urging lawmakers to pass the Michigan Family Leave Optimal Coverage before the 2024 legislative session ends.

Introduced last year, the measure aims to create a 15-week paid family and medical leave program.

Danielle Atkinson, founder and national executive director of the advocacy organization Mothering Justice, a nonprofit empowering mothers of color to drive family policy change, outlined key points her group has presented to lawmakers at a virtual news conference hosted by the Michigan League for Public Policy.

"This is the issue that we see again and again presented by new moms, people who are cancer survivors, and people who are saying goodbye at the end of life to their loved ones, that they can't afford it," Atkinson pointed out. "That they're making choices between loving and making a living."

According to a report from Michigan's Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity, 71% of Michiganders are in favor of the bill. This year's legislative session ends December 19th.

One state labor department report said if Michigan adopted the strongest plan, a worker earning the median wage of around $47,000 a year would pay about $180 a year and someone making minimum wage would pay about $80 a year, as payroll deductions for their leave.

Atkinson believes the Nov. 5 election clearly demonstrated the people's voices were heard.

"We know that in this last election, people voted with their financial restraints and interests at heart," Atkinson observed. "We know this policy is overwhelmingly popular, because it's overwhelmingly needed."

Thirteen states and Washington, D.C., have already passed paid leave policies, including New York and California.


get more stories like this via email