A new study by the Missouri Budget Project calls out some opposing views to the ballot measure known as Proposition A and included data to debunk them as "myths."

If it passes next month, Proposition A would raise Missouri's minimum wage from $12.30 an hour to $15 by 2026. Opponents said the increase would mostly affect young adults and teenagers.

Lindsey Baker, director of research for the Missouri Budget Project, disagreed. She said debunking the myth of whom the minimum wage increase affects is one of her organization's top priorities.

"One thing that people are often unaware of is just how many kids and families would benefit from this," Baker pointed out. "Often people have a stereotypical image of who 'minimum wage workers' are and really, they are all kinds of people."

The report shows one in four Missouri children lives in a household that would see its income rise with an increase in the minimum wage. Proposition A would also guarantee paid sick leave for more 700,000 Missouri workers who currently do not have it.

Opponents have said increasing the minimum wage would be bad for businesses and the economy, with the potential for job loss. Baker stressed it is also a myth.

"Consistently, when you look at before and after Missouri's own minimum wage increase that was implemented in 2019, we see that all of those things that were predicted by opponents that would happen -- job loss, all of those things -- really didn't happen," Baker outlined. "In fact, we did very well as a state after that."

The study indicates Missouri's unemployment rate went down faster than the national average and faster than each of the neighboring states not increasing their minimum wage. Baker added it is consistent with prior data suggesting a hike in the minimum wage increases employment, in part by reducing turnover among workers.


get more stories like this via email

A Colorado law passed in 1943 amid intense big-business and white-supremacist campaigns to block worker organizing has suppressed unionization in the state, according to a new report.

Jennifer Sherer, deputy director of state policy and research at the Economic Policy Institute and the report's co-author, said state lawmakers have an opportunity to level the playing field at a time when a growing number of workers are looking to unions to improve working conditions, wages and address rapidly growing economic inequality.

"Colorado is one of the states in the country that still has a very old law on the books that creates obstacles for workers who want to form unions," Sherer pointed out. "This year, the Legislature is looking at finally repealing that very old law."

Under current law, if Colorado workers vote to unionize, they must then call a second election and win by a supermajority of 75%, in order to negotiate a contract with their bosses. Senate Bill 5 to repeal the old law has 392 registered lobbyists and fewer than one in four support the bill that cleared the Senate and now heads to the House.

Sherer noted requiring two elections means Colorado workers face extra obstacles to unionizing, on top of opposition from what has become a union-busting industry. Employers have been charged with violating federal labor laws in four out of 10 union elections.

"Too often, employers are stepping over the line and illegally disciplining, firing, threatening or retaliating against workers when they try to organize," Sherer explained. "There are very few consequences when employers do that."

Colorado's union membership is now 22% below the national average, in line with antiunion states with so-called right-to-work laws in place. Sherer added the effects of low unionization rates on Colorado workers are also similar.

"Workers end up with lower wages, fewer benefits, less safe workplaces," Sherer outlined. "As union membership has declined in recent years, income inequality across the state is increasing at a really rapid pace."


get more stories like this via email

This Sunday, most of the United States will "spring forward" for daylight saving time, which means losing an hour of sleep.

Dr. Deepa Burman, associate professor of pediatrics and co-director of the Pediatric Sleep Evaluation Center at the University of Pittsburgh, said the time change disrupts the body's internal, social and natural clocks, and can lead to irritability and mood issues. She pointed out research also links the shift to workplace and economic effects.

"Studies have shown that in the United States, we actually lose anywhere from $400 million to $600 million a year because of not only loss of workplace productivity, because people are more tired at their workplace, but also increased calls of absenteeism," she said.

Burman noted the American Academy of Sleep Medicine supports permanent "standard time," arguing it is better for people's internal clocks. Some describe "springing forward" for daylight saving time as like shifting to a new time zone without traveling.

Burman emphasized daylight saving time may also be harmful to some people's health, as research has shown the chances of heart attack go up by 6% when people lose that hour of sleep.

"There is an increased risk of stroke by around 8%," Burman added. "Motor vehicle accidents actually increase by 6% in the week following the time change."

Burman recommended Pennsylvanians try adjusting to time changes with small steps, such as shifting your bedtime by 15 minutes each night before the time change, update nondigital clocks the night before, get plenty of morning light and dim screens in the evening.

Advocates for people with disabilities in Tennessee are concerned about the potential impact of a lawsuit challenging Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

The Texas-led case, Texas v. Becerra, could weaken protections against discrimination for people with disabilities in federally funded programs.

Donna DeStefano, assistant executive director of the Tennessee Disability Coalition, warned that rolling back these protections could lead to widespread exclusion for people with disabilities. She emphasized that Section 504 has been a key Civil Rights law ensuring equal opportunities for individuals with disabilities.

"If somebody comes into a school situation or a health-care situation and has a disability, they're not automatically denied," she explained. "Pre-Section 504, there was no legal reason that people could not be discriminated against, and they were."

DeStefano noted that Section 504 was one of the first laws to support disabled civilians, thanks to Judy Heumann and fellow activists. Their record-breaking sit-in helped secure protections against disability discrimination in federally funded programs.

DeStefano noted anyone receiving federal funding cannot discriminate based on disability. During COVID, some people with disabilities were denied treatment at medical facilities, which violates Section 504. This led some states to update their crisis care standards to prevent discrimination.

"This law protects that, and this law looks now at increasing accessibility in medical equipment," she continued. "There are things like examination tables that are accessible, that can go up and down. There are weight scales that people could roll onto, if they were in a wheelchair."

DeStefano said Section 504 bans discrimination against people living with a disability by the federal government. This law, which predates the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act, ensures equal access. Eliminating Section 504 would remove key protections and allow disability-based discrimination.