A new report finds some Missouri laws and prospective laws are perceived as discriminatory regardless of their actual intent - and it outlines some big, negative economic implications for the state.

When events are scheduled in places with policies that are considered non-inclusive or discriminatory, that place is often assumed to support these initiatives.

Dr. M. Ray Perryman, founder and CEO of The Perryman Group, who conducted the independent analysis, said some potential visitors will choose to go elsewhere rather than support places they think are less open to diversity and equity. He said this avoidance risks millions for the Missouri economy.

"Travel and tourism losses in Missouri and Kansas could total hundreds of millions of dollars per year," he said, "with an associated loss in revenue to the states and local governments."

Measures now under consideration include Senate Bill 1314, which would limit state funding for diversity, equity and inclusion programs, and SB 980, which would prohibit state agencies from doing business with companies unless they'd agree not to be part of economic boycotts. With these types of policies, the Perryman research says, the state would risk losing nearly $2.6 billion in annual income and almost 24,000 jobs by 2030.

Perryman also pointed out that controversial public policies are discouraging to skilled workers seeking long-term employment and young workers as they consider where to begin their careers. He said it also plays a role for organizations in Missouri that are concerned about retaining employees.

"At a time when the U.S. economy is facing major challenges and uncertainty, the competition for quality corporate locations and expansions, as well as skilled workers, is particularly intense," he said, "and anti-DEI measures can be particularly damaging for future prosperity."

The report warns of similar negative financial consequences for the state of Kansas.


get more stories like this via email

Ohio voters are facing significant challenges at the ballot box, with some groups expressing concerns over voter roll purges and gerrymandering affecting representation, particularly in Black and other communities of color.

The issues draw attention to Ohio's "use it or lose it" policy.

Molly Shack, executive director of the Ohio Organizing Collaborative, said the policy affects marginalized groups more than others. She explained some voters, especially in underserved communities, may feel disappointed by a system when it does not meet their needs, resulting in fewer people voting and a higher chance of them being removed from the voter rolls.

"Ohio has purged literally millions of voters over the last decade and most recently, close to 160,000," Shack pointed out. "Those are policies that allow voters to be removed from the rolls not because they are ineligible citizens who can't constitutionally cast a ballot but because they haven't voted in a while."

Critics like Shack argued Ohio's current electoral practices contribute to voter suppression, disproportionately affecting low-income individuals, working-class citizens, voters of color and young voters, especially in districts already burdened by participation barriers.

Advocates also expressed concern about Ohio's persistent gerrymandering issues.

Bria Bennett, communications director for the Ohio Organizing Collaborative, asserted such practices dilute Black voter influence by packing and splitting urban areas, a tactic known as "cracking and packing."

"When we're thinking about gerrymandering, many times, that dilutes the Black vote," Bennett observed. "So think of your urban centers, you're packing all your votes into one area so that, yes, that voting block is together. However, it is diluting it everywhere else."

As Ohio voters prepare to decide on Issue One, supporters see the measure as a crucial step toward a fairer, more representative democracy.

Advocates for a voter bill of rights, currently stalled in the Supreme Court, continue to raise awareness about the barriers faced by some communities, emphasizing the need for comprehensive voting reforms to ensure access across the state.


get more stories like this via email

Through this Saturday, Minnesota is recognizing Workplace Rights Week.

From COVID precautions to emerging technology, labor voices said there is key information some workers might not be aware of. Over the past year, Minnesota has phased in new laws such as earned sick-time requirements, which mandate one hour of fully paid sick time for every 30 hours worked.

Jeff Ambroz, director of development and communications for the Minnesota Training Partnership, said as COVID activity continues to circulate and with the cold and flu season almost here, workers should know the requirement is expansive.

"This isn't only sick time for yourself," Ambroz pointed out. "It's time that you can use to care for a sick family member, to get help if you are a victim of domestic abuse or stalking."

Workers are also encouraged to see if they can use their earned time for things such as vaccination appointments. Ambroz noted workplace environments are constantly changing with new equipment and technology. He recommended staff should maintain conversations among each other, elected officials and, if applicable, union representatives in the event such changes harm a workplace setting.

Over the summer, Minnesota also implemented a change to expand penalties and legal options in cases where a company misclassifies an employee as an independent contractor.

John Swanson, political coordinator for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 343, said these have long been pervasive issues, especially in the construction trades.

"(These are) some things that should be common sense," Swanson contended. "But we have to have laws now to protect people from being taken advantage of."

Labor leaders said a misclassified worker can miss out on things such as health coverage and overtime pay. Other misclassification provisions specifically dealing with the construction sector go into effect next March.


get more stories like this via email

A legal expert has issued a warning that artificial intelligence tools could lead to discriminatory practices in hiring and firing.

Algorithms and AI are increasingly used by businesses through Automated Employment Decision Tools.

But Hardeep Rekhi, partner at the Seattle law firm Rekhi & Wolk, said these tools can be programmed with data that can train them to be inherently biased.

He noted that Amazon, for example, developed one of these tools to review resumes - but had to abandon it in 2018 because it was eliminating female candidates.

"This tool is only as good as the data that it's being trained on," said Rekhi, "and if that data is tainted by individuals that have bias, I worry that the tool itself will be mis-trained."

Rekhi said it's also hard to know how AI is using data to make its decisions - and claimed these tools are essentially "black boxes" that could be discriminating against certain classes of people, without the user knowing.

Rekhi said there are ways to protect people against this. During this year's legislative session in Olympia, House Bill 1951 was introduced to prohibit "algorithmic discrimination" by automated tools.

The bill didn't pass, but Rekhi said it was on the right path.

"You have to put the onus on developers of the tool and users of the tool," said Rekhi, "to make sure that whatever tool they're using isn't discriminating, and that's what the Legislature has proposed."

Rekhi said automated tools for business decisions like hiring and firing threaten the many gains made in employment practices in recent decades.

"We've worked so hard, and we've made significant progress in the field of trying to eliminate discrimination in the workplace," said Rekhi, "and I don't want this to, kind of, undo that or to hide that."




get more stories like this via email