Roughly 30% of Minnesota's private-sector employees do not have a work-sponsored retirement plan but some business owners and consumer advocates hope a soon-to-launch state program will improve access.

In mid-to-late 2025, Minnesota is expected to roll out its Secure Choice Retirement Program. For employers who are not in a position to provide a savings plan for their staff, they will be required to ensure a portion of a worker's paycheck is transferred to a state-sponsored retirement account.

Erik Forsberg owns a handful of restaurants in the Twin Cities area and said for hospitality workers, the benefit usually is not in their orbit when they are first hired.

"When you start a typical corporate position, you sit down with HR and they explain your benefits package," Forsberg noted. "Most of our employees just don't have access to that."

Economic data show wage growth has been strong for service workers, and Forsberg emphasized tacking on a retirement plan could convince more of them to stay longer. He added it helps small-business owners reduce hiring costs. Employers do not have to contribute to the fund and Forsberg hopes the program maintains a mission of not overburdening businesses as they prepare for other mandates, such as Minnesota's Paid Leave Law.

Next Wednesday, AARP Minnesota will host a webinar to provide more details to business owners about the new retirement program.

Mary Jo George, associate state director of advocacy for the organization, said those involved in shaping the effort want to keep this simple for employers.

"One of the things we keep hearing is that small employers, all employers, they really do want to offer a reinterment plan," George pointed out. "But it's been very costly, it's been an administrative burden."

In addition to not having a match requirement, legislative researchers said there are no fees for employers, except for any incidental costs in modifying payroll systems.

Similar programs have taken shape in nearly 20 states and Oregon officials said early success resulted in strong public backing via polling data. George stressed in Minnesota, they hope to give more people the chance to retire with dignity if they start saving much earlier in their working career.

"We know that when you can do it automatically out of your paycheck, workers are 20 times more like to save," George reported.

California political analysts say inflation and voter confusion contributed to the failure of propositions to raise the minimum wage and allow stronger rent control.

Proposition 33 would have allowed local governments to pass strict new rent-control ordinances.

Christian Grose, professor of political science and public policy at the University of Southern California's Dornsife College and Price School of Public Policy, said voters may have found the measure to be overly complex.

"We did some polling on this back in September, and we found a lot of people were undecided," Grose said. "I think it's a confusing initiative for a lot of voters, and so often when people aren't certain what the effects are going to be, they'll just vote no."

Opponents of Prop. 33 argued that more rent control would discourage construction of new rental units, thus thwarting attempts to increase the supply of housing.

Proposition 32 would have raised the minimum wage to $18 an hour for companies that have 26 or more employees, and to $17 for smaller companies.

Grose called the defeat surprising, as California recently raised the minimum wage -- but only for fast-food workers.

"With inflation, there's some concerns about raising minimum wage will then lead to increased costs. So people who traditionally would support minimum wage maybe are opposed," he said.

Opponents of Prop. 32 warned it would have hurt California businesses and led to an increase in the cost of goods and services.

Keely O'Brien, policy advocate with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, said Prop. 32 would have helped the working poor at a time when poverty is the highest it has been in years.

"In early 2023, 31% of California residents were either poor or near poor, and nearly 76% of poor Californians lived in families with at least one working adult. So these are not, these are families who are working. They're often working really hard, and they're still not. They still don't have the resources that they need," O'Brien said.

Voters in Massachusetts have passed a first of its kind ballot measure allowing rideshare drivers to unionize as independent contractors.

Question 3 narrowly passed with just 54% of the vote after a yearslong grassroots effort to gain greater protections for these gig workers.

Roxana Rivera, assistant to the president of the Service Employees International Union 32BJ in New England, called it a historic win.

"This victory will set the stage for other rideshare drivers in other states to actually have a hope to potentially change their working conditions," Rivera explained.

Rivera pointed out the ballot measure now requires at least one-quarter of current rideshare drivers to vote in favor of creating a union, which would be managed by the state legislature, much like the state's home health care workforce. There are an estimated 70,000 rideshare drivers in the state.

A majority of rideshare drivers are immigrants and people of color and Rivera argued there is no greater time for them to unionize. She noted the return of former President Donald Trump to the White House in 2025 could potentially have dire consequences for gig workers, who she stressed deserve higher pay and safety on the job.

"The drivers will be able, once they build their union, to negotiate with the app companies around better pay, around a better process for deactivations, around the working conditions they face," Rivera outlined.

Rivera added the drivers with whom she spoke are "ecstatic" about the chance to unionize. The app-based companies, Uber and Lyft, however have remained silent.

The measure also divided the labor community with some of the largest unions in the state concerned organizing as independent contractors could eventually prevent workers from attaining full-time employee status.


get more stories like this via email

As Pennsylvania voters head to the polls Tuesday, a new report takes a deep dive into how the economic policies of former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris would affect Pennsylvania families.

The report showed the two campaigns differ significantly on policies proven to affect inequality, like labor unions, the minimum wage and taxation.

Gillian Kratzer, deputy director of the advocacy group Better PA, said when comparing a possible Harris administration to a potential Trump administration, you have to consider Project 2025, as the Trump campaign has remained silent on many key policy issues, such as minimum wage.

"The Democratic platform, which Kamala Harris endorses, proposes to enact a federal minimum wage of $15 an hour by 2026," Kratzer pointed out. "The phrase minimum wage is not in the Republican platform. It's not mentioned by the Trump campaign, and it's not in Project 2025 either."

A recent Gallup poll showed 70% of Americans support labor unions. Kratzer noted while the Republican platform and Project 2025 do not address unions broadly, they advocate removing union rights for national security-related jobs and question the role of public sector unions altogether.

Kratzer added the report compares the tax policies of Trump and Harris, highlighting how extending the 2017 Trump tax cuts would benefit the wealthy, while higher import tariffs and a lower corporate tax rate would mostly burden Pennsylvania's everyday consumers.

"Kamala Harris supports tax proposals that benefit families and workers raising children to pay for health care and housing affordability," Kratzer observed. "She wants to reform Medicare to raise taxes on those with incomes over $400,000. Where Donald Trump, we're looking at, you know, policies that would help basically the top 5%."

The report also found the Democratic platform supports attaching strong labor standards, such as prevailing wage laws and project labor agreements, to federal infrastructure and climate investments. Meanwhile, Project 2025 favors eliminating prevailing wage laws and use of project labor agreements on federally funded construction projects.