CONCORD, N.H. – The Family and Medical Leave Act marks its 25th anniversary this week.

Some New Hampshire moms say it's an opportunity to reflect on how the legislation could be updated to better serve all families.

The law guarantees certain employees up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave a year, without the threat of losing their job.

But Christina D'Allesandro, New Hampshire director of the group Moms Rising, notes only about 60percent of workers are eligible – either because their employers aren't covered by the law or they can't afford to take time off without pay.

"The anniversary is significant because 25 years ago, we all saw it as a great first step, but we're stuck in the same place, 25 years later,” she states. “It's time to move these policies out of this Jurassic era and move them forward."

Meanwhile in New Hampshire, House lawmakers are expected to vote soon on House Bill 628, which would create a state program with up to 12 weeks of paid medical leave for workers who are new parents, have a serious health problem or are providing care for a relative.

D'Allesandro says the state legislation is an important step forward, but contends a federal policy is needed to ensure all workers are covered.

Jacqueline Sillvani of Newmarket says job security is crucial for families during medical leave. Her son needed 18 months of pediatric cancer treatments, so she took a year off work.

Sillvani was surprised to find her position was not renewed when she returned.

"I was left trying to find a job with a sick kid,” she relates. “So, it would have been really helpful for us to have had some protections that extended past the 12 weeks as it is right now. No cancer treatment is 12 weeks long. And even for having a baby, 12 weeks isn't really enough."

D'Allesandro adds that paid family leave policies should be flexible enough to address various family situations, and accessible to parents and all caregivers.

"In a state like New Hampshire, where the opioid epidemic is having a huge impact on the state and on caregivers, this is something that could really be a benefit to grandparents who suddenly are thrown into providing care for grandchildren," she points out.

President Donald Trump called for supporting paid family leave during his State of the Union address last week.

The U.S. is the only developed nation without a paid family leave policy.





get more stories like this via email

A case before the U.S. Supreme Court could have implications for the country's growing labor movement. Justices will hear oral arguments in Starbucks versus McKinney today to determine if the bar should be raised for the National Labor Relations Board when it seeks to impose court-ordered injunctions on companies.

David Groves, communications director with the Washington State Labor Council, said the Supreme Court could further undermine the power of the NLRB, the independent federal agency that protects employees' rights.

"We already have weak labor laws in this country that have such minor penalties for breaking union organizing laws that companies routinely do it, and this is another opportunity for them to weaken labor laws even further," he argued.

The case involves Starbucks' firing of seven employees in Memphis during their union campaign in 2021. The coffee company says it rehired the workers and denies wrongdoing. If the justices rule in favor of Starbucks, it could make it harder for the NLRB to seek court orders.

Groves said the law states that workers have a right to organize unions in their workplace without coercion or retaliation from their employers.

"That's all fine and good but if the penalty's not significant enough, then they'll just go ahead and break that law and consider it the cost of doing business if they have to pay a fine two years down the road," he explained.

Groves said his and other labor organizations support the passage of the Protecting the Right to Organize or PRO Act in Congress, which would strengthen labor laws, including providing greater authority to the NLRB.


get more stories like this via email

The U.S. House has approved a measure to expand the Child Tax Credit. It would help 16 million children from low-income families in Indiana and nationwide. Despite bipartisan support, the bill is stalled in the Senate. Advocates praise the credit's pivotal role in combating child poverty, pointing to its effectiveness in the past, and especially during the pandemic, when it was broadly expanded.

Candace Baker, an Indianapolis mother of 4, said the previous tax-credit expansion worked for her family, and she wants it reinstated.

"Having a child, and I had to get on some government-assistance programs. My grandmother never did because she just didn't want that stigma over her, but I utilized those services when I had a child. I didn't want to either, but I'm like, I need this support," she explained.

Congress approved expanding the Child Tax Credit in 2021. However, the expansion has expired, leaving families without vital assistance. As the Senate deliberates, pressure mounts on lawmakers to prioritize the needs of struggling families and secure passage. Opponents believe taxpayers who don't work should not be eligible. Some Republicans also contend the provision may incentivize parents to leave the workforce.

Families reeling from the pandemic received between $300 and $360 per month per child from the expanded tax credit. It lifted 3.7 million children from poverty. Baker currently works for a food bank in Indianapolis where she says she is able to help neighbors in need and give back to the community.

"Being able to be a voice for those who have no voice - that is my motto. Even though where you start, you don't have to stay there. So, that is my biggest motto that I stand on: You may start here, you may be on government assistance, you may be in poverty, but that does not have to be your end game," she said.

Families who benefited from the increased aid were more than twice as likely to pay their overdue rent during the initial stages of the pandemic. The Child Tax Credit did not pass in time for this year's tax deadline, and its prospects for the future are uncertain.


get more stories like this via email

Washington joins a handful of states to do away with mandatory meetings for employees on political or religious matters.

Sometimes known as captive audience meetings, the gatherings were seen as a way for employers to give their opinions on subjects like unionization, and held potential consequences for employees who didn't attend. Lawmakers passed a bill this session allowing workers to skip the meetings without repercussions.

Sen. Karen Keiser, D-Des Moines, a sponsor of the bill, said we live in a divided society where emotions run high on political topics.

"This bill simply protects employees to have a real choice on whether or not to attend a meeting called by their boss to be told about some political or religious issue," Keiser explained.

Keiser pointed out the legislation is nonpartisan. For instance, employers could not force employees to attend anti-union meetings, but also could not force them to attend a meeting about the importance of reproductive rights. The bill takes effect June 6.

Keiser noted the bill likely got across the finish line this session because of the uptick in union organizing and support for labor. She added there are widely known stories of Starbucks managers, for example, requiring employees to attend anti-union meetings while the employees organized the workplace.

"Employees have been forced to attend meetings to listen to the boss or the employer basically tell them why they shouldn't join a union," Keiser observed.

Washington is the sixth state to pass a law prohibiting attendance at captive audience meetings. Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota and New York have passed similar laws in recent years. Oregon passed a law allowing workers to skip such meetings without repercussions in 2010.


get more stories like this via email