Michigan groups advocating for a minimum wage hike and paid leave say they'll finally see their day in court next month.
Petitioners are expected in State Supreme court following the Michigan Legislature's 2018 adoption of a citizen-initiated petition mandating paid sick time.
An "adopt and amend" approach taken by the Legislature altered provisions in the original law.
Chris White, director of Restaurant Opportunities Centers of Michigan, said the legislation is unconstitutional - but remains optimistic Michigan's high court will rule in favor of Michiganders who need the benefits most.
"We feel hopeful that the court will rule in favor of both 'adopt and amend' as well as the minimum wage question," said White. "The time that's lost, the wage will probably increase to about $13.65 an hour, but we have to be able to pay our workers more."
Other Michigan groups, like One Fair Wage, have proposed an increase in the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2027. The current minimum wage is $10.10 an hour, and is due to increase to $10.33 an hour under current law.
Crystal Coleman, a former restaurant worker and current food-service business owner, said she understands the need for higher wages - and acknowledged that some small businesses might face challenges with having to pay more.
But she said many employers have already raised wages to remain competitive and maintain quality.
"Raising my children in the city of Detroit, I've been evicted from rental properties twice," said Coleman. "Having to go to certain public agencies to get assistance when you're working. You should be able to earn enough money to take care of your basic needs."
Should the court rule in favor of petitioners, the minimum wage would jump to nearly $14 immediately.
Several states, including California, are also raising their minimum wages next year where fast food workers would earn at least $20 an hour.
Disclosure: Restaurant Opportunities Centers United contributes to our fund for reporting on Civil Rights, Human Rights/Racial Justice, Livable Wages/Working Families, Social Justice. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s decision to cut a cut a majority of jobs at the federal agency responsible for worker health and safety is seen as a direct attack on Kentucky workers by labor unions in the state.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health could be trimmed from around 1,400 employees to fewer than 150. At the state level, House Bill 398 would also have dismantled Kentucky's worker protection standards and requirements.
Dustin Reinstedler, president of the Kentucky AFL-CIO, said similar proposals down the road are now more concerning.
"To think that Kentucky was supposed to fall back on the federal OSHA guidelines, and to think that it's under attack now, it's pretty alarming," Reinstedler stressed.
The federal cuts are expected to include the agency's 9/11 firefighter program, also known as the World Trade Center Health Program. The American Industrial Hygiene Association, the AFL-CIO and Laborers' International Union of North America have all launched campaigns to urge the feds to restore the agency's staff and funding.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reinstedler explained Kentucky relies on its data, research and recommendations to protect workers. He cited personal protective equipment, respirators, and HEPA vacuum systems as standards the agency set to protect workers from silica exposure.
"Myself, as a bricklayer, any time that you're cutting masonry or anything, or cutting concrete, you're throwing up silica into the air," Reinstedler pointed out. "There are guidelines against that."
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health scientists also study Black Lung disease, which affects an estimated 20% of coal miners in Central Appalachia. The agency's mine safety research is regularly used by coal country's key regulatory agency, the Mine Safety and Health Administration.
get more stories like this via email
West Virginia lawmakers continue their inaction on improving access to child care.
House Bill 2026 would have allocated $32 million toward child care subsidies, but ultimately did not make it into the budget.
Parents of more than 25,000 kids across the state have no child care options, and at least 100 providers have closed statewide in the past year.
The $32 million would have maintained family eligibility policies and paid child care providers based on enrollment numbers, explains Kristy Ritz - the executive director of the West Virginia Association for Young Children.
"Just in the past two weeks, we've heard about a program that was closing in Whitehall," said Ritz, "another program closing in Weirton, and a program in Bridgeport closing their infant room."
The West Virginia Chamber of Commerce says more child care centers would help increase the state's workforce participation rate, which is among the lowest in the nation - at around 54%.
According to a 2024 report by the Chamber, in 29 counties, more than half of children under age six lack access to child care.
Ritz said there are plenty of opportunities across the state for public-private investments in child care.
She noted that care costs are most expensive for infants, at around $10,000 per year. That's about the same as in-state tuition at West Virginia University or Marshall University.
"I feel like businesses need to support their workers and contribute to their child care costs," said Ritz, "or support families who are having difficulty finding child care providers."
Legislation introduced earlier this year aimed to create the Employee Child Care Assistance Partnership.
It would have connected the state with child care providers to offset employees' child care costs.
An estimated 2,000 Mountain State families could lose access to child care when pandemic-era federal subsides to day care centers end on July 1.
get more stories like this via email
Texas is the number one exporting state in the nation - and although tariffs with Mexico and Canada have been delayed, Texans are still uneasy about their financial future. President Donald Trump has levied a 145% tariff on products from China, with all other countries subject to a 10% tariff.
Ray Perryman, economics professor at the International Institute for Advanced Studies says as the trade wars continue, Texans can expect to pay higher prices for everything.
"When steel and aluminum cost more and lumber costs more, that means houses cost more. There's a lot of cars that are made in Texas, where various pieces of it cross the border five or six times. So, when you start levying a 25% tariff every time something crosses the border, that's when you start adding thousands of dollars to the price of a car," he said.
Mexico is the top import-export market for the Lone Star State. And Texas companies imported almost $160 billion in goods last year.
A report by the Perryman Group estimates if the tariffs with China remain in place, and tariffs with Mexico and Canada are unfrozen, Texas would lose more than $50 billion a year and more than 400,000 jobs. Perryman adds the uncertainty of the markets is crippling.
"One of the worst things for an economy is uncertainty, because if you're not sure what's going to happen, you don't know what to do. And most people respond to that by not doing anything. You don't want to bring out a new product, you don't want to build a new plant, you don't want to hire more people, you don't want to make a big purchase if you're uncertain about the future," he continued.
Perryman predicts if tariffs with Mexico and Canada go into effect, all the tariffs combined would cost each American household an additional $1,500 a year.
get more stories like this via email