INDIANAPOLIS – One in three Hoosiers struggles to afford the basic necessities, and those also are the workers least likely to have access to paid family and medical leave.

A new report by the Indiana Institute for Working Families looks at what other states and countries are doing for working families. The report said in states where there are strong family-leave policies, employers report less job turnover, especially with female employees.

The Institute's policy analyst, Erin Macey, said Indiana welcomes about 85,000 new babies into the world every year, yet many parents don't have paid time off, so they either lose pay or go back to work early.

"We're seeing estimates that as many as one in four women are going back to work two weeks after giving birth," she said. "And we know that a car accident or a cancer diagnosis can just sink a family financially, in the absence of access to these kinds of support."

The report's recommendations include setting up job protections for those who take leave, replacing lost wages, and creating more flexible time-off policies. The Indiana Commission for Women got a federal grant to come up with proposals for paid family leave in the state. That will likely result in some legislation, but Macey said it probably won't be until 2018.

Macey added lack of paid leave also affects people who have sick or elderly parents. She said some are losing, or leaving, their jobs so they can take care of them.

"And that's a problem that's only going to get worse as our communities continue to age and we sort of cap out of the resources we have to support them," she added.

The Council for Disability Awareness suggests one in four of today's 20-year-olds will experience a disabling event, such as a back injury, cancer, or heart disease, before they retire. It also said those who drop out of the workforce due to illness or to care for family lose an average of $300,000 in wages and benefits over their lifetime.


get more stories like this via email

This week's debt ceiling deal saw federal policymakers compromise on budget-related matters, but a new awareness campaign from a Wisconsin grassroots group calls into question the voting patterns of two members of the state's Congressional delegation.

Opportunity Wisconsin contends Rep. Bryan Steil, R-Wis., and Rep. Derrick Van Orden, R-Wis., are not putting the needs of their constituents first.

Meghan Roh, program director for Opportunity Wisconsin, said many Wisconsin families are still struggling with financial pressures, such as higher consumer costs. She feels their elected representatives need to be held accountable if their votes are seen as creating more barriers for household budgets.

"And their actions beg the question: Are they fighting for everyday working people they represent, or are they prioritizing corporations?" Roh asked.

The bipartisan debt ceiling deal was touted as a way to avoid an economic disaster amid steep budget cut demands from House Republicans. Both Steil and Van Orden supported the compromise plan, but the campaign noted they endorsed an earlier House version opponents said was full of harmful cuts.

In a response, Steil's campaign pointed to a recent op-ed where he stated he wants to balance helping consumers while limiting large spending bills.

He was directly responding to ads calling out the lawmakers for opposing the Inflation Reduction Act, which caps the price of insulin for those receiving Medicare. Roh hopes the campaign creates a pathway where voters can stay focused on important matters and not have to wade through a lot of the political rhetoric emanating from Washington.

"Our mission is to make sure they're aware of how their elected representatives are voting and how that will impact their daily lives," Roh explained.

For his part, Van Orden laid out why he supported the compromise debt-ceiling deal in a recent news conference.

"It protects the people that defended this nation, those are our veterans, and it defends the people that feed this nation, those are our farmers," Van Orden said. "It also protects the people who are most in need - the folks that get SNAP benefits."

The debt ceiling deal expands work requirements for some recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, but added exemptions for others who rely on the support.

A coalition of Wisconsin groups is asking Gov. Tony Evers to reject bills it contends would make it harder for people struggling to get by to bounce back with the help of certain public assistance programs.

More than two dozen organizations from around the state want the governor to veto a bill requiring BadgerCare recipients to renew their health coverage twice as often. They also want to see him veto a measure limiting unemployment benefits.

William Parke-Sutherland, senior health policy analyst for the group Kids Forward, argued the plans unfairly target people who need some type of public assistance. He added seven of 10 Medicaid recipients are already employed.

"And so, if state policymakers want to support workers, they need to address the real factors that make it difficult and sometimes impossible for workers to take more hours, and to get and keep better jobs," Parke-Sutherland urged.

For example, he noted expanding child care access would be a big help. Business groups supporting some of the bills said they would be more effective in addressing worker shortages. And GOP legislators point to a nonbinding referendum from the April election showing Wisconsin voters agree with the idea of work requirements for certain public benefits.

But skeptics like Parke-Sutherland pointed out there are already checks and balances built into many public assistance programs. He feels it is an attempt to avoid empowering low-income workers who are not getting the necessary benefits from their employers.

"They don't want to pay their workers fair wages, and offer lifesaving benefits like health insurance," Parke-Sutherland contended.

He added most people enrolled in Wisconsin's public assistance programs are white, but restrictions disproportionately affect people of color. In the last legislative session, similar bills were advanced by the Republican-led Legislature and were subsequently vetoed by Evers.


get more stories like this via email

Groups working to fight poverty in Alabama are urging state senators to approve a bill aimed at lowering food costs for families.

House Bill 479 proposes a gradual reduction in the state sales-and-use tax on grocery items from 4% to 2%, starting Sept. 1.

Carol Gundlach, senior policy analyst for the group Alabama Arise, emphasized the way Alabama taxes food products puts a disproportionate burden on lower- and middle-income working families.

She pointed out recent months of high inflation have made it an even more urgent issue.

"We estimate that people, just on the state sales tax alone, could buy an extra two weeks' worth of groceries if they were not paying the state sales tax for the groceries they do buy.," Gundlach reported.

Alabama, Mississippi and South Dakota are the only states still charging their full state sales tax rate on groceries, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Rep. Danny Garrett, R-Trussville, sponsored the bill, which has passed in the House and awaits a Senate vote.

Gundlach stressed although the measure would not entirely eliminate taxes on groceries, lowering them would be a positive step.

She acknowledged the challenge of completely eliminating taxes on food, since they're currently used to cover state education expenses. However, Gundlach's group thinks the bill presents an opportunity for Alabama lawmakers to responsibly reduce food taxes and explore alternative options for funding schools.

"So, we would like to either get rid of or reduce the federal income-tax deduction in such a way that if anybody gets that tax break, it's going to be the people who are kind-of middle income and need it the most," Gundlach explained.

Alabama is the only state allowing a full deduction for federal income taxes, which reduces taxes for the state's wealthiest population. Gundlach suggested eliminating the deduction could raise millions of dollars for public schools and replace the revenue from the current food tax, without imposing any additional tax burden on low- or middle-income residents.