Pennsylvanians will rally in Harrisburg today to call attention to the urgent child care teacher shortage across the state.
The Pennsylvania Child Care Association is urging lawmakers to support the $55 million proposed in the state budget for early child care educators.
Diane Barber, executive director of the Pennsylvania Child Care Association, said it is important for lawmakers to prioritize early childhood education funding and take action to ensure child care educators are paid fairly and supported professionally.
"In the last three weeks, I know of six child care programs that have closed, and basically it has to do with they can't staff the class," Barber reported. "We have lots of empty classrooms. We have waiting lists for families, and it's really hard to fill those slots when what you're offering is $15.15 an hour."
Barber noted they have several speakers including Rep. Jeannie McNeil, D-Lehigh, who has introduced House Bill 506, which would actually create the recruitment and retention funding. The state House and Senate must pass the budget by June 30.
Barber explained they are in Harrisburg at the Capitol to urge lawmakers to see this not just as an investment in child care teachers but in the families across Pennsylvania who rely on child care.
"The governor and the General Assembly actually passed some bills around tax credits, both for families and for businesses who helped pay for child care," Barber acknowledged. "But if there's no child care to pay for because child care can't find teachers, tax credits don't go very far, so they only work for families who actually have child care."
Barber added The Pennsylvania Child Care Association is a nonprofit and part of the Start Strong PA campaign. A survey found more than 3,000 child care teacher vacancies across Pennsylvania, based on responses from just 1,100 programs. Advocates will meet with lawmakers and hold a news conference. The rally is to start at 1:30 p.m.
get more stories like this via email
As Congress pushes for Medicaid cuts and new work requirements for the program, experts have warned more Tennesseans could lose their health coverage through TennCare.
The U.S. House reconciliation bill would slash federal Medicaid spending by at least $700 billion to fund a tax-cut extension and other Trump administration priorities.
Jane Dimnwaobi, attorney and Equal Justice Works fellow at the Tennessee Justice Center, said tying Medicaid eligibility to work requirements is the biggest potential threat for Tennesseans. She added most would have to work or volunteer at least 80 hours a month to stay covered.
"We know there are about 1.4 million people on Medicaid, on TennCare here in Tennessee, and 300,000 of them are the kind of adults that would be affected by the work requirements provision in the bill," Dimnwaobi explained.
According to KFF in one recent year, nearly two-thirds of working-age adults on Medicaid were employed, and close to three in 10 were not working due to caregiving duties, health conditions, disabilities or school attendance, circumstances which have qualified as exemptions from Medicaid work requirements.
Dimnwaobi noted Tennessee attempted to add work requirements to Medicaid in 2018 but the waiver was not approved by federal officials. She added today, it is essentially "lying in wait" and could be approved if the big budget bill passes in the Senate. She pointed out the proposed work rule targets able-bodied adults without young children and it ignores caregiving duties and barriers like job access or transportation.
"For Tennessee, there was a projection that about 68,000 people would lose coverage under the state work requirements proposal," Dimnwaobi underscored. "We have a state that's already wanting to implement work requirements at a very strict level and now the federal budget reconciliation bill has opened the door to our state doing that."
She noted similar work requirement policies in Georgia and Arkansas dropped eligible workers, putting them and their families at risk. If the bill passes, the policy would take effect in December 2026, just after the November midterm elections.
get more stories like this via email
Ukrainians who fled the war in their home country for temporary roots in North Dakota are waiting with worry about their ability to keep working in the U.S., as the future of a key support program is up in the air.
Separate from refugees or asylum-seekers, humanitarian parole gives people escaping a global conflict a chance to work and live temporarily in an American community. As reported by North Dakota News Cooperative, several hundred Ukrainians in North Dakota fall under that status, taking on a range of local jobs the past two years.
Yaroslav Riazanov is one of them, and with the Trump administration trying to roll back immigration relief, he is living day-to-day.
"My work permit expires in a couple of days," Riazanov explained. "I need to work because I have a lot of bills to pay, you know, it's a big stress for me."
Legal wrangling continues over humanitarian parole, with the U.S. Supreme Court recently allowing programs with four other countries to be suspended. Supporters of the Ukrainian designation said there is still too much uncertainty about applications for those folks, renewing concerns they will be forced back to a war-torn region. The White House insists the programs do not have strong enough vetting.
Michael Southam, cofounder of FM Volunteers for Ukraine, a volunteer group in North Dakota sponsoring Ukrainians approved for work status, said although it is not meant as a pathway to citizenship, some participants want to stay in stable settings longer, seeing the opportunity to better their own lives and those around them.
"They've come here at the expense of their sponsor or themselves, not the government," Southam pointed out. "They work, they contribute locally; they have their children going to our schools, they contribute through volunteer activities."
He hopes elected leaders realize the local effects and see the benefit of maintaining the programs.
While a humanitarian parolee cannot apply for a green card, they could qualify for another visa, which potentially opens doors to longer-term residency.
get more stories like this via email
By Kaleb Clark / Broadcast version by Farah Siddiqi reporting for the Kent State NewsLab-Ohio News Connection Collaboration.
Ohio Senate Bill 11 would eliminate noncompete agreements at most workplaces. Proponents say this would allow workers more freedom to go from one job to the next. But others warn that non-compete clauses are in place so that individuals don’t go to a competing workplace or company and reveal valuable assets.
In general, noncompete agreements restrict the ability of workers to go to work for their employer’s competitors for a certain amount of time after leaving their jobs.
“These are hurting my constituents disproportionately because they're getting their first jobs out of college and they're trying to pay for school, and these noncompete agreements are being used to stifle them, moving up into the ranks of employment," said Senator William Demora, D-Columbus, a co-sponsor of the bill with Sen. Louis Blessing, R-Colerain Township.
“If somebody offers them more wages or better working conditions to work the same job…to pay them more and give them better benefits, they should be able to go take that job to provide better for their family,” Demora added.
Four states — California, Minnesota, North Dakota and Oklahoma — ban all noncompete agreements, according to the Economic Innovation Group, a national organization that advocates against them. Many other states have some restrictions on how they can be used.
“Non-competition agreements hurt workers, employers and the public without doing anything more to prevent unfair competition than existing tools,” wrote Neil Klingshirn in testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Klingshirn is a partner at Employment Law Partners, a firm in Independence, who has represented workers and businesses that have had trouble with non-compete agreements for 40 years. He explains that non-competes do little good but mostly harm.
“While non-competes may battle unfair competition, it’s like using a lawnmower to weed a garden," Klingshirn wrote.“When you’re done, you don’t have weeds, but you don’t have much of a garden, either.”
Tony Long, General Counsel at the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, said the change could be “harmful… for some employers that rely on these to protect information and technology.”
He doesn’t believe Ohio should ban all noncompete agreements. Instead, he’d like to see more of a “balanced approach,” and said he is working with Chamber of Commerce member companies to try to get the bill amended.
“We just feel that more conversation has to be held on, ‘how do you protect with a non-solicitation agreement, a trade secret agreement, a confidentiality agreement, those types of things?’”
Demora, the bill’s co-sponsor, says the bill’s pros still outweigh these drawbacks.
“I think the Chamber is a little short-sighted, because in the end, this is helping. If you help workers, you help the business,” he said. “If workers are happier, they're more productive, and they're more willing to stay on longer.”
This collaboration is produced in association with Media in the Public Interest and funded in part by the George Gund Foundation.
get more stories like this via email
Contact
