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

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

Almost 1,000 University of Michigan Health-Sparrow nurses and other health-care professionals, as well as union supporters, rallied outside the hospital in Lansing this week. The picket comes amid growing concerns over expired contracts.

They've been negotiating for better wages and benefits as well as safe staffing levels. As University of Michigan Health invests nearly $130 million in new buildings, the picketers say a strong contract is needed to recruit and keep skilled staff.

Emergency-room nurse Jen Ackley said one of the biggest issues is prioritizing which patients to see first when many need attention.

"And then, you're constantly revisiting those choices in your mind - not only during that shift, but afterwards," she said. "Did I make the right choices? Did I prioritize my care in the right way? Did any decision that I made, or didn't make, have a negative outcome for a patient?"

University of Michigan Health has not yet publicly responded to the picketers. However, it confirmed the construction of a $32 million health-care facility near Grand Ledge, in addition to plans for a $97 million psychiatric hospital in Lansing.

Ackley said inadequate staffing and what the union sees as unfair wages have led to what she called "moral injury" - a daily erosion of ethics and integrity at work. She said it's become an unsustainable situation for frontline health-care workers.

"And the hospitals like to say that there's a nursing shortage - that, 'We've tried the best we can but we just cannot staff' - and that's not the case," she said. "There's no shortage of nurses. There's a shortage of nurses that can tolerate this type of moral injury."

The picket was not a work stoppage. The nurses and other staff members participated during their off-work hours. The union represents about 2,000 nurses and health-care professionals working at the hospital.


get more stories like this via email

Changes in leadership at the federal level are likely to have some effect on the labor movement.

In Minnesota, election results have spurred thoughts about topics like the future of OSHA's worker safety standards. It may be too early to get a firm read on what will happen under a second Trump administration.

Meanwhile, at the state level, Democrats still control the Minnesota Senate but the House is locked in a tie between both parties. Democrats bolstered labor laws in recent sessions.

Mike Wilde, executive director of the Fair Contracting Foundation of Minnesota, which he said has a nonpolitical stance, said moving forward, no matter the policy, enforcement is key.

"We can have all the laws we want on the books but unless they're enforced and meaningful, they don't do anybody any good," Wilde contended.

While campaigning, President-Elect Donald Trump made attempts to appeal to unions but his first term saw a big cut in the number of federal safety inspectors for job sites, and analysts expect his staff to curtail a proposed heat safety rule.

Wilde acknowledged OSHA is not the only tool available but noted it plays a big role in protecting rooftop construction teams. He argued more resources and flexible enforcement options are needed.

Wilde added Minnesota has a strong approach to helping carry out apprenticeship programs but pointed out it is not the case in all states.

"Some employers utilize substandard apprenticeship programs that aren't very well regulated," Wilde asserted.

He suggested a robust, coordinated approach could help more people find stable careers with strong pay, benefiting the economy. Another aspect labor leaders will monitor is appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and how they affect rules directly tied to workers' rights.