Staff at a Starbucks location in downtown Iowa City voted to unionize but so far, no contract talks are scheduled.
The workers gathered last month with labor organizers to mark their decision. The store joins more than 360 Starbucks locations nationwide where workers have voted to join a union.
The issues in the Iowa City location are not unique to the labor movement. Workers want better wages, beefed-up staffing, better health care benefits and work-life balance.
Jennifer Sherer, president of the Iowa City Federation of Labor, said the workers also have safety concerns being located downtown.
"There were active shooter alerts downtown, and they've been told by management in the past that they're not allowed to lock the door during those active shooter alerts," Sherer explained.
The employees have also expressed concern over sanitation problems in their store. Employees of the Iowa City Englert Theatre also unionized this year and agreed on a contract, which went into effect in June.
A recent Gallup poll showed 67% of Americans support labor unions, a movement gaining momentum across the country among companies big and small.
While the move to unionize is widespread among Starbucks locations nationwide, not a single store has reached a contract agreement with company management. Sherer argued Starbucks is using what she describes as a typical corporate stall tactic.
"The company is continuing to refuse to sit down and negotiate with them in good faith," Sherer contended. "That's what the law said the company is supposed to do after workers have taken this vote to unionize."
Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz has claimed the company has not broken labor laws and is willing to bargain with workers who have voted to unionize. The U.S. Senate has been critical of Schultz and the company's tactics, saying no one is above labor law.
Disclosure: The Iowa Federation of Labor contributes to our fund for reporting on Environmental Justice, Livable Wages/Working Families, Social Justice, and Urban Planning/Transportation. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
A Montana legislative committee this week heard a bill to revise workers' compensation laws. Among opponents were workers who have navigated the system themselves. If a Montana worker were to get hurt on the job today, law requires insurance providers defer to the person's "treating physician." But Senate Bill 345 would remove that policy.
Sen. Greg Hertz, R-Polson, says that helps insurers get the "best available evidence."
Amanda Frickle, political director of Montana AFL- CIO, a state federation of unions, said workers' compensation claims and cases are "meant to be deliberative."
"This bill is fundamentally tipping the scales against the injured worker and in favor of the insurance company when it comes to these workers' compensation claims," she said.
The bill would allow insurers to require an independent medical examination from a provider of the company's choosing, even if that means someone out-of-state. In that case, the insurer would cover expenses such as travel, lodging and child care. But opponents say travel is not conducive to healing.
Niki Zupanic, owner of the Montana Trial Lawyers Association, says that adds to workers' up-front costs.
"Many of these costs, whether or not they will eventually be reimbursed, are likely to be coming out of pocket ahead of time from the injured worker, while they're also working most likely reduced hours and trying to juggle other expenses with their families," she explained.
According to the Montana Department of Labor and Industry, of all Montanans covered by a workers' comp policy, about 4% report an injury in a given year, or 23,000 people.
Disclosure: Montana AFL-CIO contributes to our fund for reporting on Livable Wages/Working Families, Public Lands/Wilderness, Rural/Farming. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
South Dakota's new governor is making an active pitch regarding economic opportunities for the state. The renewable-energy sector said it continues to build a strong case, including manufacturing jobs.
Gov. Larry Rhoden spent much of March crisscrossing South Dakota on his "Open for Opportunity" tour to hear about promising development, workforce needs and trade issues. It has not received a visit yet but officials with the Marmen Energy plant in Brandon said they are keeping busy. Nearly 300 people there construct towers to hold turbines for wind energy.
Dan Lueders, plant manager for Marmen Energy, called it the very definition of "American-made" products.
"It's fully American made with American steel," Lueders explained. "We're contributing to the American independence on energy and also providing good-paying manufacturing jobs."
The Clean Grid Alliance said the plant produces roughly 1,000 tower sections each year for shipment throughout the upper Midwest. Lueders noted with data centers and other factors driving up electricity demand, he sees more opportunities for his operation. Nationally, enthusiasm has been somewhat dampened by the Trump administration's push to roll back renewable-energy funding, with a stated desire to focus more on fossil fuels.
But utilities are increasingly turning to renewables to diversify their output as demand spikes.
Waylon Brown, president of Rushmore State Renewables and regional policy manager for Clean Grid Alliance, said if South Dakota keeps the welcome mat out for wind and solar development, other industries will want to set up shop here.
"They're looking for nearby energy generation when deciding what states to do business in," Brown pointed out.
In addition to the manufacturing upside, the Energy Information Administration said South Dakota ranks second nationally for wind energy generation. Brown said, for example, having a healthy power supply could be attractive to the health care sector, noting advancement in medical technology is one of the many other things requiring more energy use.
Disclosure: Clean Energy Economy Minnesota and the Clean Grid Alliance Coalition contribute to our fund for reporting on Climate Change/Air Quality, Energy Policy, and Environment. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
More jobs could be coming to Arkansas as companies interested in bringing manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. consider the Natural State, according to a study by the Reshoring Institute.
Rosemary Coates, executive director of the nonprofit, said the state's low minimum wage is cost-effective for companies requiring a large labor force.
"What we generally encourage our clients to do is look at the major metropolitan areas and set up manufacturing just outside of that area so you can pull from the labor pool there," Coates explained. "Or to look at the metropolitan areas in places like Arkansas."
She noted although manufacturing remains cheaper in other countries, supply-chain problems experienced during the pandemic are making U.S. companies explore options for reshoring. The study did not address the financial effects of possible Trump administration tariffs on materials manufactured abroad.
Twenty states across the country, mainly in the South, pay the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. If labor is a high percentage of a company's costs, it could be less expensive to reshore operations. Coates added some companies opt to have plants in multiple countries.
"Bringing some manufacturing to Mexico and some to the U.S. and keeping some in Asia," Coates outlined. "Companies are really rethinking the whole idea and strategy about where in the world they're manufacturing."
She stressed labor rates vary between rural areas and major cities in every state. Other costs associated with reshoring include local and state taxes, training, tax credits and logistics.
get more stories like this via email