President Joe Biden is calling on oil and gas companies to start steering record profits away from shareholder pockets to give Americans some relief at the pump.

A new economic analysis suggests the approach could be key to lowering prices across the board.

Josh Bivens, research director for the Economic Policy Institute, recently deconstructed each major component impacting prices over the past year, including wages, corporate profits and supply-chain issues.

"It's overwhelmingly profits, it's not wages," Bivens reported. "Normally profits are about 11% to 12% of the final price of any good. But they contributed more than 50% to price growth over the 2020-21 period."

Normally, wages contribute about 60% to the price of goods, but last year labor came in at just under 8%. Supply-chain disruptions accounted for 38% of rising costs. Calls for a windfall profits tax have been largely absent in debates on how to tackle inflation, with some economists noting the drive to increase corporate profits is just business as usual.

Analysis by the group Accountable.US found top corporations producing food, energy, commodities, health care and housing delivered more than $140 billion to shareholders after raising prices.

Bivens argued a temporary tax on profits could help counterbalance the pricing power companies currently have over consumers.

"If the policy recommendation is to just ask them politely not to raise prices, that would be silly," Bivens contended. "But it really does put some policy options on the table, like an excess profits tax. You reduce the incentive to raise prices, you're not harming the economy's ability to move resources around in the long run."

Recent polling by Global Strategy Group suggests Americans are not buying the argument inflation is being driven by aggregate demand racing ahead of supply.

Seven in 10 Republicans, eight in 10 Independents, and nine in 10 Democrats blame corporate greed for rapidly rising prices.

Minnesota is two years away from enacting its new paid leave law and while the debate over costs has resurfaced, some in the small business community are not worried.

The law was adopted in the most recent legislative session with plenty of fanfare, following debate over the potential effects on businesses. It allows up to 12 weeks of paid family leave or 12 weeks of medical leave. It's capped at 20 weeks for those needing both, and will be funded through payroll premiums split between employers and employees.

A new state-commissioned analysis suggested the expected rates should be slightly higher to cover costs.

Dan Swenson-Klatt, owner of the Butter Bakery Café in Minneapolis and member of Main Street Alliance, still backs the law.

"It's still about 10 times less than I pay when I'm paying out of pocket to be able to pay that kind of premium level," Swenson-Klatt explained.

Organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce, as well as Republican lawmakers, said the new findings underscore their concerns about the law being a costly endeavor. But Democratic sponsors welcomed the new analysis, saying the new projections are still in line with what they had envisioned when pushing through the plan.

In trying to compete with larger chains and other big businesses, Swenson-Klatt argued the new law gives smaller operations a recruiting resource they lack.

"I'll be able to have money that I'm not spending out of my pocket to do other things for my business and have a benefit that's valuable to my staff," Swenson-Klatt pointed out.

He also disagreed with fears workers will take advantage of the law by consistently maxing out the benefit. While some smaller businesses are unfazed by the latest projections, the National Federation of Independent Business called on Minnesota lawmakers to revisit the issue next year and implement caps and reductions to reduce costs.

The analysis showed overall program cost increases could exceed $600 million.


get more stories like this via email

A lawsuit challenging Wisconsin's collective near-total bargaining ban for most public workers is by some seen as a way to bolster the state's beleaguered educator workforce.

A coalition of unions filed a lawsuit last week seeking to overturn Act 10, which places heavy limitations on negotiating rights for public-sector unions. The law has been in place a dozen years and was a major priority for conservative lawmakers.

The latest lawsuit comes as Wisconsin, like other states, grapples with teacher shortages.

Madeline Topf, co-president of the Teaching Assistants Association, which represents graduate students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and is a plaintiff in the case, said restoring rights could make the state an attractive place for future educators and researchers.

"Having really strong education through academia, as well as in public schools, is really important for training the next generation but also recruiting people," Topf explained.

The controversial law has been able to stay in place despite past efforts to have it thrown out. A recent report from the Wisconsin Policy Forum noted the state's teacher turnover rate has climbed from 8% in 2010 to more than 15% in the last school year.

Topf noted at the graduate student level, she and her peers are very passionate about what they are studying. She feels not having the right to bargain for extra support erodes at their enthusiasm to carry out a public mission.

"We have people who have to live with many roommates, or don't have enough money to get groceries," Topf observed.

She pointed out at the university, her union is in the midst of a major campaign citing the need for paid leave benefits.

The lawsuit was filed after the Wisconsin Supreme Court flipped to a liberal majority. Legal analysts said it could take time for it to reach the high court, and there is the possibility the newest liberal justice would recuse herself from the case. Meanwhile, Republican leaders say overturning the law would result in budget harm for schools.


get more stories like this via email

Workers at the Tacoma Art Museum are celebrating a unique union victory that could be a model for other museums.

The 26 members of Tacoma Art Museum Workers United voted unanimously in favor of the union in November.

It's Washington state's first cross-department union in an art museum, although they're still seeking to include two security workers.

Museum Institutional Giving Manager Eden Redmond said they fought for an inclusive union because workers were experiencing similar issues museum-wide.

"The issues that workers were facing permeated across departments," said Redmond, "and they permeated across experience levels and tenure, and they permeated across different generations of leadership - and so we began looking to each other and saying, hey, we've got a systemic problem and we need a systemic solution."

The union is joining the Washington Federation of State Employees. Redmond said they'll start working on a contract in 2024.

Museum leadership said they will work with the union going forward in this process.

Steve Rue is a preparator at the museum. He said he sees their unionization drive as part of a larger movement.

"The problems that are happening in other museums are the exact same problems that we have here," said Rue, "which goes to show that it's more than just a few bad apples in a few places. The museum industry as a whole is outdated and broken."

Redmond said Tacoma Art Museum workers have been connecting with staff at other museums around the country who are facing the same issues, and sees energy behind unionization elsewhere too.

"If you're going to be protecting and preserving culture through arts objects or historical objects," said Redmond, "you can also be creating positive culture by protecting your workers."