Labor groups representing thousands of Minnesota state workers find themselves at serious odds with Gov. Tim Walz over his move this week to reduce remote work options.

Walz announced that, starting June 1, most state-agency employees have to carry out their duties in person at least 50% of the time. That has drawn swift criticism from the unions that negotiate for nearly 40,000 state workers, including the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 5 is another, and at a Thursday news conference, its executive director, Bart Andersen, expressed frustration about having no input in the decision.

"If we are going to be considered a labor-friendly state, we need to have conversations," he said, "not dropped at the last minute and told that all these people have to go back to work in a month and a half, with no means to get there."

MAPE officials have said this also disrupts the lives of workers with children, citing day-care demands and long waiting lists for those facilities.

The governor has pointed to an exemption for people who live more than 75 miles from their primary work location. He also has said the change should help downtown businesses in the Twin Cities by spurring more foot traffic.

These debates have been happening in the private sector, too, since the constraints of the pandemic have faded. But Andersen suggested to anyone who believes remote workers are "slacking off" to think again.

"They're not in a bubble. They're not isolated," he said. "They're working with their teams and they're getting the work done."

Andersen said they know tasks such as road maintenance can't be done from home. But he highlighted the effectiveness of telework in recruiting and attracting people for the public-sector jobs that have that flexibility. The mounting tension between these labor groups and the administration comes as talks on a new contract take shape.


get more stories like this via email

Florida's public employees face twin crises as federal collective bargaining rights suddenly disappear and state government jobs are cut, leaving workers uncertain about their futures and the stability of essential services.

A new White House executive order eliminating collective bargaining rights for federal workers has hit Florida particularly hard, as home to major military installations and thousands of federal employees.

Rich Templin, director of politics and public policy for the Florida AFL-CIO, described the situation as "chaos of the highest order."

"When the Transportation Security Administration was set up, that was a big issue. They agreed to extend collective bargaining rights to those employees," Templin recounted. "This is a big deal, but I think what's most important is to understand is, we don't know the implications, just like we don't know the implications of mass layoffs."

The order has drawn fierce backlash from labor groups, including the national AFL-CIO, which called it an attack on key labor rights. Unions representing federal workers are weighing legal challenges, as the White House defends the order as necessary for national security.

Meanwhile, Gov. Ron DeSantis' plan to eliminate 700 state jobs through a Musk-like government efficiency task force has drawn criticism. DeSantis' office said the cuts would improve efficiency.

Templin argued Florida's workforce, which is already the nation's smallest per capita, cannot absorb further reductions.

"This has been happening for 20 years: two decades that we've been asking our state workforce to do more with less," Templin pointed out. "What the governor's doing right now, he's not cutting fat, he's not cutting meat, he's cutting bone."

The proposed cuts include 142 positions at the Department of Health and 89 at the Agency for Health Care Administration, according to state workforce documents. Teachers, health care workers and transportation employees said the reductions come as they are already struggling with staff shortages.


get more stories like this via email

More than 70% of West Virginians polled said they opposed privatizing or abolishing the state's health insurance agency for public employees, according to a new poll by RABA Research.

The agency is responsible for providing health coverage for around 200,000 police officers, teachers and other public employees but is struggling financially and premiums are expected to rise by at least 14%. Now, some Republican lawmakers are floating the idea of abolishing it.

Del. Mike Pushkin, D-Kanawha, said if the state wants its roads and bridges maintained and a robust first-responder, educator and law-enforcement workforce, privatizing the agency is the worst course of action.

"We often tell them the pay is not great but the benefits will be," Pushkin explained. "Over the years, the benefits have gotten a lot less great; their premiums keep going up without pay raises to match those. That's effectively a pay cut."

House Bill 2623 would abolish the West Virginia Public Employees Insurance Act and subsequently provide health, dental and vision coverage for state workers through private contracts beginning next Jan. 1.

Supporters of the legislation say the move will help the state save money.

Among West Virginia voters polled, 67% said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who wanted to cut the amount of health insurance benefits public employees receive. Pushkin believes privatizing the agency will create more administrative costs. Amid rising prescription drug prices, he suggested the state should instead come up with a solution for a permanent funding source.

"That means a designated funding stream, whatever that may be," Pushkin added. "We have to set money aside that's coming in, designated revenue that goes in to keep that agency solvent."

The agency's finance board said public-sector retirees also will see premium increases next year.


get more stories like this via email

New research showed when employers struggle with personal money problems, they do not always leave their stress at home, and can instead take it out on their employees.

Trevor Spoelma, associate professor of management at the University of New Mexico, said in general, people experiencing financial stress are less satisfied with their jobs and less productive. But when the boss also is under financial strain, it can affect everyone they supervise.

"For instance, when leaders are experiencing financial stress, that spills over to affect how they treat their subordinates, how effective their teams are," Spoelma explained. "We're finding that the costs are a lot more widespread than we might have initially thought."

Spoelma found when leaders were more financially stressed, they felt less in control. To try to regain control, some engaged in abusive workplace tactics including hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, like ridiculing or demeaning their subordinates.

The number one stressor across the globe is reported to be money and Spoelma said New Mexico is no stranger, with one of the highest poverty rates in the nation. Like the rest of the country, he noted, housing takes a big chunk of every paycheck.

"Places like Albuquerque, Santa Fe, I know like the costs of housing have really increased," Spoelma observed. "Whereas in the rural areas, maybe it's financial stress due to jobs that aren't paying as much, or limited hours."

Despite the challenges, New Mexico is among the top states where money goes the farthest. The minimum wage and cost of living are about 6% below the national average.

The state's minimum wage is $12 per hour and higher in the City of Santa Fe, at $15 per hour. Spoelma added statewide, what is known as the "livable wage" is $21 per hour for an adult without children.