About one in three Indiana workers now works remotely, according to the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University, and some companies are growing frustrated with those who refuse to come back to the office.

Some businesses are offering incentives such as a relaxed dress code, onsite dry-cleaning service, or free meals. But workers are not biting; not even for a hybrid schedule. Managers concerned about morale and productivity are exploring their legal options.

Kenneth Dau-Schmidt, employment law professor at Indiana University, said the question is whether companies will get the same employees to do the jobs.

"This is bound to a negotiation between the employer and the employee, and it depends on how much the employer wants the employees to be there, and how much the employees would rather look for a different job," Dau-Schmidt explained. "There's no legal obligation on the part of the employer to allow employees to work from home."

Information technology, health care, education, sales and human services are Indiana's top remote work industries, according to the job watchdog site "Virtual Vocations." And Forbes Advisor magazine ranks Indianapolis as second among 100 U.S. cities as the best for remote workers, citing low cost of living and an abundance of good Wi-Fi spots as factors.

Business Insider reports top companies like Amazon, Apple, Salesforce and Twitter all are facing backlash from employees who want to continue their work-from-home status. As a last resort, some employers are threatening to fire those who resist the back-to-office mandates.

In response, some workers have quit, while others wonder if they have any rights in this tug-of-war. Dau-Schmidt said not really.

"If you are an employee at will, which is what the vast majority of American employees are, the employer can change those terms and conditions of employment whenever they want to," Dau-Schmidt pointed out. "Your choice is to either stay and continue to work under the new working conditions, or to go find another job."

He noted companies insisting their people work at the office are simply going to lose out on some good employees. The greater flexibility, time and money saved on commuting, and fewer childcare costs are the common reasons staffers prefer remote work.


get more stories like this via email

Florida's public employees face twin crises as federal collective bargaining rights suddenly disappear and state government jobs are cut, leaving workers uncertain about their futures and the stability of essential services.

A new White House executive order eliminating collective bargaining rights for federal workers has hit Florida particularly hard, as home to major military installations and thousands of federal employees.

Rich Templin, director of politics and public policy for the Florida AFL-CIO, described the situation as "chaos of the highest order."

"When the Transportation Security Administration was set up, that was a big issue. They agreed to extend collective bargaining rights to those employees," Templin recounted. "This is a big deal, but I think what's most important is to understand is, we don't know the implications, just like we don't know the implications of mass layoffs."

The order has drawn fierce backlash from labor groups, including the national AFL-CIO, which called it an attack on key labor rights. Unions representing federal workers are weighing legal challenges, as the White House defends the order as necessary for national security.

Meanwhile, Gov. Ron DeSantis' plan to eliminate 700 state jobs through a Musk-like government efficiency task force has drawn criticism. DeSantis' office said the cuts would improve efficiency.

Templin argued Florida's workforce, which is already the nation's smallest per capita, cannot absorb further reductions.

"This has been happening for 20 years: two decades that we've been asking our state workforce to do more with less," Templin pointed out. "What the governor's doing right now, he's not cutting fat, he's not cutting meat, he's cutting bone."

The proposed cuts include 142 positions at the Department of Health and 89 at the Agency for Health Care Administration, according to state workforce documents. Teachers, health care workers and transportation employees said the reductions come as they are already struggling with staff shortages.


get more stories like this via email

More than 70% of West Virginians polled said they opposed privatizing or abolishing the state's health insurance agency for public employees, according to a new poll by RABA Research.

The agency is responsible for providing health coverage for around 200,000 police officers, teachers and other public employees but is struggling financially and premiums are expected to rise by at least 14%. Now, some Republican lawmakers are floating the idea of abolishing it.

Del. Mike Pushkin, D-Kanawha, said if the state wants its roads and bridges maintained and a robust first-responder, educator and law-enforcement workforce, privatizing the agency is the worst course of action.

"We often tell them the pay is not great but the benefits will be," Pushkin explained. "Over the years, the benefits have gotten a lot less great; their premiums keep going up without pay raises to match those. That's effectively a pay cut."

House Bill 2623 would abolish the West Virginia Public Employees Insurance Act and subsequently provide health, dental and vision coverage for state workers through private contracts beginning next Jan. 1.

Supporters of the legislation say the move will help the state save money.

Among West Virginia voters polled, 67% said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who wanted to cut the amount of health insurance benefits public employees receive. Pushkin believes privatizing the agency will create more administrative costs. Amid rising prescription drug prices, he suggested the state should instead come up with a solution for a permanent funding source.

"That means a designated funding stream, whatever that may be," Pushkin added. "We have to set money aside that's coming in, designated revenue that goes in to keep that agency solvent."

The agency's finance board said public-sector retirees also will see premium increases next year.


get more stories like this via email

New research showed when employers struggle with personal money problems, they do not always leave their stress at home, and can instead take it out on their employees.

Trevor Spoelma, associate professor of management at the University of New Mexico, said in general, people experiencing financial stress are less satisfied with their jobs and less productive. But when the boss also is under financial strain, it can affect everyone they supervise.

"For instance, when leaders are experiencing financial stress, that spills over to affect how they treat their subordinates, how effective their teams are," Spoelma explained. "We're finding that the costs are a lot more widespread than we might have initially thought."

Spoelma found when leaders were more financially stressed, they felt less in control. To try to regain control, some engaged in abusive workplace tactics including hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, like ridiculing or demeaning their subordinates.

The number one stressor across the globe is reported to be money and Spoelma said New Mexico is no stranger, with one of the highest poverty rates in the nation. Like the rest of the country, he noted, housing takes a big chunk of every paycheck.

"Places like Albuquerque, Santa Fe, I know like the costs of housing have really increased," Spoelma observed. "Whereas in the rural areas, maybe it's financial stress due to jobs that aren't paying as much, or limited hours."

Despite the challenges, New Mexico is among the top states where money goes the farthest. The minimum wage and cost of living are about 6% below the national average.

The state's minimum wage is $12 per hour and higher in the City of Santa Fe, at $15 per hour. Spoelma added statewide, what is known as the "livable wage" is $21 per hour for an adult without children.