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

Michigan legislators are tackling predatory lending practices, aiming to set standards for payday loans and maximum interest rates.

In Kent County alone, with a payday loan volume of $60 million, the House Insurance and Financial Services Committee discussed Senate Bill 632, sponsored by Sen. Sarah Anthony, D-Lansing, which seeks to cap annual interest rates at 36% compared to current rates reaching nearly 400%.

The bill has passed the Senate and is part of a legislative effort including House Bill 5290, sponsored by Rep. Abraham Aiyash, D-Hamtramck.

Dallas Lenear, founder and executive director of Project GREEN, a grassroots economic empowerment network, highlighted concerns about the exploitative nature of these loans.

"Payday loans inevitably are designed in a fashion that is unaffordable for the majority of people who use those loans," Lenear contended.

Lenear pointed out many other states have already capped their interest rate or totally outlawed payday loans because of the financial damage they can cause their citizens and argued it is time for Michigan to do better.

Lenear noted while the payday loan industry believes it offers hope to borrowers in times of need, a study by project GREEN found 78% of respondents said payday loans either prolonged or worsened their financial situation.

"If they've had any experience with it, they'll start to shake their head and they'll say those things are terrible and I was caught in the trap and I would never use those things again. I'd use it out of desperation," Lenear reported.

Advocacy groups such as the Michigan League for Public Policy and the Michigan Catholic Conference testified in support of the bills, to end the predatory practices.

A case before the U.S. Supreme Court could have implications for the country's growing labor movement. Justices will hear oral arguments in Starbucks versus McKinney today to determine if the bar should be raised for the National Labor Relations Board when it seeks to impose court-ordered injunctions on companies.

David Groves, communications director with the Washington State Labor Council, said the Supreme Court could further undermine the power of the NLRB, the independent federal agency that protects employees' rights.

"We already have weak labor laws in this country that have such minor penalties for breaking union organizing laws that companies routinely do it, and this is another opportunity for them to weaken labor laws even further," he argued.

The case involves Starbucks' firing of seven employees in Memphis during their union campaign in 2021. The coffee company says it rehired the workers and denies wrongdoing. If the justices rule in favor of Starbucks, it could make it harder for the NLRB to seek court orders.

Groves said the law states that workers have a right to organize unions in their workplace without coercion or retaliation from their employers.

"That's all fine and good but if the penalty's not significant enough, then they'll just go ahead and break that law and consider it the cost of doing business if they have to pay a fine two years down the road," he explained.

Groves said his and other labor organizations support the passage of the Protecting the Right to Organize or PRO Act in Congress, which would strengthen labor laws, including providing greater authority to the NLRB.


get more stories like this via email

The U.S. House has approved a measure to expand the Child Tax Credit. It would help 16 million children from low-income families in Indiana and nationwide. Despite bipartisan support, the bill is stalled in the Senate. Advocates praise the credit's pivotal role in combating child poverty, pointing to its effectiveness in the past, and especially during the pandemic, when it was broadly expanded.

Candace Baker, an Indianapolis mother of 4, said the previous tax-credit expansion worked for her family, and she wants it reinstated.

"Having a child, and I had to get on some government-assistance programs. My grandmother never did because she just didn't want that stigma over her, but I utilized those services when I had a child. I didn't want to either, but I'm like, I need this support," she explained.

Congress approved expanding the Child Tax Credit in 2021. However, the expansion has expired, leaving families without vital assistance. As the Senate deliberates, pressure mounts on lawmakers to prioritize the needs of struggling families and secure passage. Opponents believe taxpayers who don't work should not be eligible. Some Republicans also contend the provision may incentivize parents to leave the workforce.

Families reeling from the pandemic received between $300 and $360 per month per child from the expanded tax credit. It lifted 3.7 million children from poverty. Baker currently works for a food bank in Indianapolis where she says she is able to help neighbors in need and give back to the community.

"Being able to be a voice for those who have no voice - that is my motto. Even though where you start, you don't have to stay there. So, that is my biggest motto that I stand on: You may start here, you may be on government assistance, you may be in poverty, but that does not have to be your end game," she said.

Families who benefited from the increased aid were more than twice as likely to pay their overdue rent during the initial stages of the pandemic. The Child Tax Credit did not pass in time for this year's tax deadline, and its prospects for the future are uncertain.


get more stories like this via email