American Family Children's Hospital, part of the UW Health complex on Madison's west side. Nurses in the UW Health system have been seeking to restore union representation since 2019. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

This report has been updated with reactions from UW Health and SEIU.

Five and a half years after nurses launched a campaign to restore union representation at UW Health, the state’s highest court ruled Friday that the Madison-based hospital system has no obligation to collectively bargain with employees.

Act 10, the 2011 state law that stripped most union rights from public employees, also removed legal guarantees of union representation for University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics Authority’s employees, Justice Brian Hagedorn wrote for a unanimous Court.

“When we examine the statutory language along with the statutory history, it is clear that Act 10 ended the collective bargaining requirements formerly placed on the Authority,” Hagedorn wrote.

The Court rejected the argument from Service Employees International Union (SEIU) that with the Act 10 changes, the hospital authority as a corporation fit the definition of “employer” under the Wisconsin Employment Peace Act.

The Peace Act defines an employee as anyone working for hire other than an independent contractor and an employer as a person — including partnerships, corporations and some other legal entities — that engages the services of an employee.

The hospital authority doesn’t automatically meet that definition, however, Hagedorn wrote.

Hospital, nurses union respond

The hospital system affirmed the Court’s ruling “that the Wisconsin Peace Act does not apply to UW Health” in a statement Friday, adding, “UW Health appreciates the court’s deliberate, diligent and final review.”

In a statement, SEIU and the UW Health nurses said they would continue to seek union recognition.

“While we are disappointed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision, which found that UW Health nurses are not covered under the Wisconsin Employment Peace Act, we are not deterred,” SEIU and the UW Health nurses seeking union recognition said in a statement.

“Our fight to restore collective bargaining rights doesn’t end in the courtroom,” the union statement added. “We will continue to explore all possible pathways to restoring our full collective bargaining rights, including seeking voluntary recognition and passing legislation, to ensure that all of us, no matter who we are or where we work, have a seat at the table and a voice in our workplace.”

A 2022 agreement between the hospital and the union to discuss issues of concern is continuing, according to the nurses’ union statement.

Over the last three years, “hundreds of nurses have become official union members and have been meeting with top administrators to address critical issues around retention, safe staffing, and quality patient care,” the statement said. “Earlier this year, UW nurses and management mutually agreed to extend this agreement through 2027. All the while, we continue to leverage our collective voice to elect pro-worker leaders at every level of government.”

UW Health has in the past made statements declaring that Act 10 prevented the hospital system from engaging with the union.

“Based upon legal advice received from both internal and external counsel, UW Health is concerned about the lawfulness of engaging in collective bargaining, which is not authorized under any statute,” the hospital system’s press secretary, Emily Greendonner, told the Wisconsin Examiner in an email message Friday.

“While today’s decision provided final clarity that we are not required to collectively bargain, the question of whether we are legally allowed to do so has not been decided by the courts,” Greendonner said.

Ruling relates Act 10, hospital system history

The hospital system was spun off from the University of Wisconsin in 1996 into a new “public body corporate and politic,” the UW Hospital and Clinics Authority. The hospital system’s employees were state employees represented by unions and with collective bargaining rights under Wisconsin’s state employment relations law.

The hospital authority “is not defined as a corporation,” Hagadorn wrote, “it is a ‘public body corporate and politic.’” He cited the Peace Act’s definition of “employer” that states the term does not include “the state or any political subdivision thereof.”

The 1996 law creating the new hospital authority removed its employees from the state employment relations law and added language specifying that the hospital authority was an employer under the Peace Act.

Act 10 changed that, Hagedorn wrote — repealing the hospital authority’s collective bargaining duty that was in the 1996 law as well as all other references to collective bargaining.

“In sum, Act 10 purged references to the Peace Act from the Authority Statute,” Hagedorn wrote.

“When it created the Authority, the legislature added the Authority as an employer under the Peace Act and imposed numerous other collective bargaining provisions. In Act 10, the legislature eliminated the Authority as a covered employer along with other collective bargaining requirements. We therefore hold that the Authority is no longer covered by the Peace Act and is not required to collectively bargain under the Peace Act.”

Friday’s ruling was the final stop for a case that started in September 2022. In an agreement brokered to avert a planned three-day strike by nurses demanding union recognition at UW Health, the hospital system and SEIU agreed to a joint petition to the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (WERC).

In the petition, the union argued that the hospital should be considered an employer under the Peace Act, while UW Health argued that Act 10 eliminated collective bargaining at the hospital system. WERC sided with UW Health, and Dane County Circuit Judge Jacob Frost subsequently affirmed the employment commission’s conclusion.

2025-06-27_SCOWI-SEIU v WERC

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Group Health Cooperative of South Central Wisconsin's East Side Madison clinic. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

A union organizing campaign has turned into a contentious conflict at a Madison-based health care nonprofit.

The organizing drive at Group Health Cooperative of South Central Wisconsin has gotten mired in a mountain of litigation before the National Labor Relations Board.

There have been disputes over who should be included in a union representation vote as well as dozens of unfair labor practice charges that the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has filed against Group Health management.

Most recently, the NLRB’s regional director has issued an order blocking the election after the union argued that the charges against the co-op would taint the outcome. Group Health is denying the charges, and co-op executives say they want a vote to take place as soon as possible.

The Group Health co-op was founded nearly 50 years ago as a health maintenance organization. Members, who include its employees, say the nonprofit’s focus on primary care and wellness has been central to its appeal. Those who support the union contend that the co-op’s response to the union drive is betraying its progressive roots.

“Everyone involved are gut-wrenched by the animosity that has developed,” said Susan McMurray, a former public employee union lobbyist and Group Health member for nearly 20 years. McMurray spoke at  a union rally outside Group Health’s clinic on Madison’s far East Side on June 20.

“There’s a multitude of reasons many of us chose a cooperative model over a for-profit shareholder model for our health care and insurance over the past almost 50 years,” said retired state employee Ruth Brill, a Group Health member, at a May 13 rally for the union.

“Some of our fellow GHC members have chosen to form a union. A union is like a cooperative in almost every way,” Brill said. “I’m calling on GHC to uphold the cooperative principles that it was founded on.”

In an interview, Marty Anderson, Group Health’s chief strategy and business development officer, rejected the accusation that the co-op has engaged in union-busting.

“GHC is not opposed to a union here at the cooperative,” Anderson said. “I think our position all along has been that we want our employees to have a voice — all of our employees, to have a voice in that choice.”

But Group Health co-op members who support the union see the management’s response — challenging the union’s proposal for who would vote as well as distributing messages to workers criticizing the union — more critically.

Paul Terranova, a community organizer, said he got involved in trying to persuade the co-op’s board to take a different approach earlier this year after a conversation with his Group Health doctor.

Terranova put together a group of members and asked for a board meeting in March.

“They gave us 20 minutes on the agenda to speak,” he told the Wisconsin Examiner. “It was just us making a presentation to them and them saying ‘thank you.’”

Terranova said his group asked the board and the management to “stop the anti-union messaging [and] anti-union activity” and to “get a second opinion” from other nonprofits that work cooperatively with union-represented employees.

“They refused to engage and they denied that there was any anti-union activity or messaging going on,” he said.

Terranova is also part of a member campaign that has endorsed, with the union, four candidates for the Group Health board in elections that concluded this week.

Update: All four were elected to the board. Election results were announced at the co-op’s annual meeting Thursday evening. 

Staffing struggles

The pro-union employees and SEIU filed a petition in December 2024 for a union representing Group Health clinic doctors, physician assistants, nurse practitioners and nursing staff in three departments: primary care, urgent care and dermatology. They also included physical therapists, occupational therapists and health educators.

According to union supporters, nearly 70% of the workers in those jobs and departments had signed cards asking for union representation.

Union supporters say that in those departments, issues including employee turnover and increased workloads prompted the campaign.

“We’re calling for equitable wages, safe provider-to-nurse ratios, meaningful ways to ease the crushing workloads we face and real strategies to improve retention,” said Dr. Ira Segal at the June 20 rally.

“There’s been a lot more turnover in our staffing, and that has increased over the years, which negatively impacts our ability to provide excellent care,” said Dr. Nisha Rajagopalan, a family physician. “The increasing turnover in our staff is unsustainable.”

Staffing crunches in health care have been widespread in the last five years, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

“There just aren’t enough care providers and folks that assist those care providers within the [health care] system in total,” said Anderson, the Group Health executive. “We’ve had to flex with the changing health care environment.”

Julie Vander Werff, a physician assistant and union supporter, said she understands the health care workforce challenge. Despite that, she said, she’s experienced a shift in the co-op’s culture that is contributing to the problem.

“They used to be a very respectful employer, and they’ve really gotten off track in terms of how respectful they have been,” Vander Werff said in an interview. “And they’re being really punitive, and we’re losing staff as a result with high, high turnover rates.”

Who’s in, who’s out

The bargaining unit called for in the union’s original petition did not include other Group Health departments: optometry, behavioral health, radiology and pharmacy. It also did not include physical therapist techs, lab techs and interpreters, social workers, receptionists and maintenance staff.

Addressing the June 20 rally, Vander Werff explained that “other departments who are not under primary care leadership are happy with their jobs” and not interested in unionizing. “But primary care is not.”

From the start, Group Health challenged the bargaining unit described in the petition, according to a letter that employees leading the union drive sent to the Group Health board of directors on Feb. 10.

“Federal labor law says that to form a union, workers need petition only for ‘an’ appropriate bargaining unit — not ‘the’ most appropriate bargaining unit (however that would be determined), and certainly not the unit their employers would most prefer,” the employees wrote. “Rather than accepting a unit of GHC workers’ rightful choice, however, administration and counsel have chosen to contest our bargaining unit.”

Still at an impasse after two days of hearings before an NLRB hearing officer, the union amended its election petition to focus on a single Group Health facility, the Capitol Clinic on Madison’s near West Side. The employees wrote in the Feb. 10 letter that the change was made at the NLRB official’s suggestion.

Group Health challenged that, too. After an additional hearing, the Minneapolis-based NLRB regional director rejected the union’s petition for a single-clinic vote. The decision directed an election covering all clinical departments at Group Health — the bargaining unit that the co-op management sought.

Group Health’s position is that the bargaining unit the employees sought “didn’t include classes or employees that do go between our clinics,” Anderson said. “And because we are an integrated care delivery system, we need to make sure that all the appropriate employees are in the bargaining class.”  

While some Group Health members see the response to the union drive as a turn from the co-op’s roots, Anderson defended it. 

“We were formed by a vote of our members, our board is elected by our members, and I think this goes right along with our ethos as a cooperative to allow our employees the opportunity to vote,” he said.

Pro-democracy, or diluting support?

Employees involved in the union campaign and their allies among the co-op’s members argue that the management claim is disingenuous, however.

“While the administration claims they’re fighting us in order to give everyone a voice, this is a union-busting tactic to prevent workers from winning in a fast and fair election of our choosing,” the Group Health workers wrote. “Anti-union organizations do this to flood the unit with people that they hope will vote against our union.”

According to an NLRB report on union representation elections in 2023, 89% of employers didn’t challenge the workers’ proposed bargaining unit. 

Group Health member Paul Terranova rejected the idea that expanding the vote to include people in jobs and departments who weren’t interested in the union was “just trying to be democratic.”

 “If folks in Madison decided we wanted to put something on a referendum, and the state Legislature said ‘No, everyone in the state has to vote on it,’ everyone would know right away what they were doing,” Terranova said. “People would call BS. It’s the same thing here, right?”

“The right of workers to unionize and to decide what our union looks like . . .  doesn’t belong to administration,” Sarah Spolum, a physician assistant, said at the May union rally. “It doesn’t belong to lawyers. It belongs to us, the workers.”

Anderson said Group Health stands by its position. “We have no idea how our employees are going to vote,” he said. “That’s why we want to get to a vote — because we want that certainty and we want to know what our employees are feeling.”

Unfair labor practice charges

Throughout the campaign, the union has filed charges with the NLRB accusing Group Health management of numerous unfair labor practices. The allegations include changes in pay practices due to union organizing, surveillance of employees for union activity, prohibiting employees from displaying union-related materials, firing union supporters and a variety of other actions.

Group Health has denied all the charges.

After the co-op management’s bargaining unit petition was granted, however, the union petitioned the NLRB to block an election. The agency’s regional director granted the petition, ordering the election to be suspended until all the unfair labor practice charges are resolved.

The union, wrote regional director Jennifer Hadsall, “provided sufficient offers of proof which describe evidence that, if proven, would interfere with employee free choice in the election.”

Group Health, through its lawyer, has demanded a hearing on the allegations in the blocking charge, contending that it’s a smokescreen for diminished support.

At the union’s June 20 rally, Susan McMurray read from a letter she sent to Group Health’s CEO.

“Nothing good will come of this decision,” she said of the co-op’s stance during the union campaign. “It will in my view ruin GHC’s reputation in our community, cause irreparable harm to staff, as well as jeopardize patient care.

“And it didn’t and it doesn’t have to be like this,” she added. “In the past few weeks, I have communicated to management repeatedly that we could find a way through the strife and give everyone a graceful way out, a path going forward and something positive to announce at the annual meeting.”

This report was updated Friday, 6/27/2025, with the outcome of board elections at Group Health that were announced Thursday evening.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Immigration officials questioned and detained contractors working on apartment buildings in Tallahassee, Fla., on May 29. Construction employs more immigrant laborers, many likely living here illegally, than any other industry, and the industry is starting to draw more attention — even in conservative states — as the Trump administration pushes for more deportations. (Photo by Jay Waagmeester/Florida Phoenix)

As President Donald Trump sends mixed messages about immigration enforcement, ordering new raids on farms and hotels just days after saying he wouldn’t target those industries, he has hardly mentioned the industry that employs the most immigrant laborers: construction.

Nevertheless, the Trump administration is going after construction workers without legal status to meet its mass deportation goals — even as the country has a housing shortage and needs new homes built. A shortage of workers has delayed or prevented construction, causing billions of dollars in economic damage, according to a June report from the Home Builders Institute.

Almost a quarter of all immigrants without a college degree work in construction, a total of 2.2 million workers as of last month, before work site raids began in earnest. That’s more than the next three industries combined: restaurants (1.1 million), janitorial and other cleaning services (526,000) and landscaping (454,000), according to a Stateline analysis of federal Current Population Survey data provided by ipums.org at the University of Minnesota.

Within the construction industry, immigrant workers are now a majority of painters and roofers (both 53%) and comprise more than two-thirds of plasterers and stucco masons. U.S. citizens in construction are more likely to work as managers and as skilled workers, such as carpenters.

Many immigrant workers are likely living here illegally, although there are some working legally as refugees or parolees, and others are asylum-seekers waiting for court dates. There’s also a small number of legal visas for temporary farmworkers, construction workers and others.

The pool of immigrant workers Stateline analyzed were employed noncitizens ages 18-65 without a college degree, screening out temporary workers with high-skill visas.

About half of the immigrant laborers in construction are working in Southern states, including conservative-leaning Florida, North Carolina and Texas, where there is more building going on, according to the Stateline analysis. Another 584,000, or one-quarter, are in Western states, including Arizona, California and Nevada.

In recent months, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, better known as ICE, has conducted construction worksite raids in Florida in Tallahassee and near Ocala, and in South Texas and New Orleans, as well as more immigrant-friendly California and Pennsylvania.

Roofers may have been the first targeted by new workplace raids because of their visibility, said Sergio Barajas, executive director of the National Hispanic Construction Alliance, a California-based advocacy group with chapters in five other states.

“That’s the first place we heard about it. Roofers are right out there where you can see them,” Barajas said. He added that all segments of construction work have been targeted for ICE raids, and that even some legal workers are not showing up for work out of fear.

“Six or eight weeks ago, I would have said we weren’t affected at all. Now we are. There’s a substantial reduction in the number of workers who are showing up, so crews are 30%, 40% smaller than they used to be,” Barajas said.

In residential construction, a system of contractors and subcontractors opens the door to abuses, said Enrique Lopezlira, director of the Low-Wage Work Program at the University of California, Berkeley Labor Center. Lopezlira said contractors hire workers, often immigrant laborers, for low-wage jobs and pay them in cash, to save money on benefits and make the lowest possible bid for projects.

“It becomes a blame game. The developers can say, ‘I hired this contractor and I thought he was above board and paying people a decent wage.’ And the contractors can say, ‘I rely on subcontractors,’” said Lopezlira. “It becomes a race to the bottom.”

In many places, residential construction draws more immigrant labor because of looser state and local regulations and lower pay. But in some states with weaker unions and rules that are less strict, such as Texas, the commercial construction industry also employs many immigrants who are here illegally.

Commercial construction labor costs are 40% lower in Texas than they are in large Northeastern cities where unions are more powerful, said David Kelly, a lecturer in civil and environmental engineering at the University of Michigan.

“The large difference [in cost] suggests workers and their employers in some regions are not paying for income taxes, overtime, Social Security or unemployment insurance,” Kelly said in an email. “Since undocumented workers have limited employment options they may be more willing than others to accept these conditions.”

Despite political claims that Democratic policies result in immigrants taking jobs others need, noncitizen immigrant laborers were about 7% of jobholders nationally as of May — about the same as 2015, according to the Stateline analysis.

That share has hardly budged over the past 10 years, including in 2019 under the first Trump administration, dipping to 6% only in 2020 and 2021.

In construction, however, the share of jobs held by immigrant laborers has increased from 19% in 2015 to 22% in 2024, according to the analysis. Immigrant laborers have gotten more than a third of the 1.5 million jobs added between 2015 and 2024, as home construction reached historic levels.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated with the full name of  the University of California, Berkeley Labor Center and to clarify David Kelly’s remarks on regional labor costs. Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org.

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.

The U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., is pictured on Monday, April 15, 2024.  (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

The United States could default between Aug. 15 and Oct. 3 if Congress doesn’t act to raise or suspend the debt limit before then, according to a projection the Bipartisan Policy Center published Wednesday.

The new estimate from the centrist Washington, D.C., think tank would give Congress slightly more time to address the issue than the center’s last analysis that projected the so-called X-date could hit as early as July.

Quarterly taxes received in April were higher than expected, while the economy has remained stable, which combined to help push the date later, the center said in a Wednesday news release.

The projection aligns with the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimate this month that the X-date would come between mid-August and the end of September. 

The Bipartisan Policy Center analysis does not change the recommendation from the center, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and others that Congress deal with the debt limit sooner rather than later.

“Congress must address the debt limit ahead of the August recess,” Margaret Spellings, president and CEO of the center, said in the Wednesday release. “Congress can’t afford to inject any additional uncertainty into the mix. They need to act soon to prioritize our nation’s financial stability and reassure global markets that we take this responsibility seriously.”

Both the House and Senate are scheduled to be in recess Aug. 4 through Sept. 2.

Global crisis looms

If Congress does not act, the U.S. would default on its debt for the first time, likely leading to a global financial crisis.

As of June 18, the federal treasury had $384 billion in cash on hand and could save another $89 billion through “extraordinary measures,” the term for accounting tricks the government can use to save cash in an emergency.

The exact date will depend on how much the government spends in July and August — months that typically see large deficits, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center.

If the government can avoid the debt limit until quarterly taxes are due on Sept. 15, those receipts would likely give more breathing room until early October, the center said.

Other factors that could influence the X-date include fluctuating tariff revenue and the potential for costly hurricanes this summer.

Big beautiful debt limit increase

The reconciliation package Republicans in Congress are racing to send to President Donald Trump’s desk by July Fourth includes a raise in the debt limit. The version that passed the House would raise the debt ceiling by $4 trillion, while the Senate version would increase it by $5 trillion.

Republican senators are scrambling this week to revamp several pieces of the legislative package as the chamber’s parliamentarian rules that some do not meet the strict rules for what can be considered under the fast-track procedure known as budget reconciliation.

The process allows the Senate to pass the bill with a simple majority, meaning Republicans could pass it without Democratic votes. But Republicans are still haggling among themselves over provisions to aid rural hospitals amid changes to Medicaid, sell off public lands and others.

Once passed in the Senate, either the House would have to approve that version or both chambers would have to vote on some kind of compromise language before Trump could sign the bill.

Children watch popcorn pop at their child care program operated by the Dodge County YMCA. (Photo courtesy of the Dodge County YMCA)

For months child care providers and their allies campaigning for direct financial support from Wisconsin lawmakers have highlighted employers and the economy as central to their pitch.

Child care providers are “the workforce behind the workforce” in one of the rallying slogans of the provider-parent coalition Wisconsin Early Childhood Action Needed (WECAN).

Employers and business owners themselves, however, have largely stayed in the background — from time to time offering testimonials about their employees’ need for child care, but rarely weighing in on policy alternatives.

Last week more than 75 business leaders broke that pattern, sending a letter to members of the Wisconsin Legislature.

“Wisconsin’s lingering child care crisis … cannot go unaddressed any longer by state legislators, because Wisconsin remains at a workforce crossroads that presents significant, pressing challenges for businesses and the economic vitality of the state,” the group wrote.

“We therefore ask you to advance a significant long-term state investment in child care in the 2025-27 state budget because inaction will further shutter child care programs and continue to hamper efforts to stabilize and grow Wisconsin’s workforce.”

The letter was distributed with the help of the Wisconsin Early Childhood Association (WECA), which provides advocacy and professional services for child care providers and also conducts policy research.

Campaign continues for direct subsidy

The letter embraces what Gov. Tony Evers, child care providers and their allies have been seeking in the 2025-27 Wisconsin budget this year: A direct state subsidy for child care providers. Evers and providers have warned that without that kind of support there’s likely to be a drastic shutdown of child care centers across the state in the coming months.

“Child care programs operate on razor-thin margins with budgets balanced on parent fees, which, despite being costly for families, do not cover the full cost of programs providing high-quality care,” the letter states.

“As employers, we have explored and implemented different local initiatives to help grow access to care,” it adds. Nevertheless, “those solutions are limited and must be complemented with a long-term, significant investment of state revenue.”

Tracy Propst, the executive director of the Beaver Dam Chamber of Commerce, helped organize support for and signed the business letter.

“I really do believe child care is part of an economic strategy,” Propst told the Wisconsin Examiner. “If you don’t have access to abundant and economical child care, you are going to lose workforce.”

Mary Vogl-Rauscher, a human resources consultant in Beaver Dam, joined the letter along with businesses she works with.

Prospective fee hikes are “enough of an increase, if we don’t get the subsidies, to take people out of the workforce,” Vogl-Rauscher said. “From an employer perspective and a business perspective, if [the cost of care] goes up and we don’t continue with the state subsidies, it’s going to make an even bigger economic impact.”

Vogl-Rauscher is active in the local and state chapters of the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) and organized a community discussion of the issue this spring. 

Propst and Vogl-Rauscher both say they’ve sought to persuade their local Assembly member, state Rep. Mark Born (R-Beaver Dam), the Joint Finance Committee’s co-chair, that the lawmakers should add the subsidy program into the budget. 

“I’ve had conversations with Mark,” Propst said, adding that he told her that the committee was “doing something,” although not what she had asked for. “He will listen to his constituents,” she said. 

Middle-class squeeze

Both Propst and Vogl-Rauscher said their conversations with Dirk Langfoss, CEO of the Dodge County YMCA and a board member at the Beaver Dam chamber, were instrumental in clarifying the problem.

The Dodge County Y has the largest child care program in the county. Langfoss told the Wisconsin Examiner that competition for employees with other businesses has produced “upward pressures” on wages. The average weekly rate for infant and 1-year-old care is $253 — which adds up to $13,000 for all 52 weeks in the year. Rates are lower for older age groups.

“The middle-income families are the ones that are getting squeezed,” he said, with some telling him now that “they are strapped.”

If subsidies end entirely and the Y has to raise its rates, “those families are going to have to make some very hard decisions,” Langfoss added.

Propst views a direct investment now as a step toward something more comprehensive. “It’s really about child care stabilization,” she said, allowing providers to get their footing.

She also considers the immediate situation to be urgent, and fears the urgency hasn’t gotten through to many people.

“I just think this has snuck up on the businesses,” Propst said. “Like they weren’t aware this is happening, and here we are. And they don’t realize the ramifications of what’s going to happen — and that’s child care closures, child care price increases, and we’re not going to have enough providers.”

Direct investment divisions persist

While child care advocates have been arguing for a direct investment for years, the argument hasn’t fully caught on with the broader public or in the business community.

Among business leaders and the public, “there is a general recognition that child care is essential for workers, especially those that are taking care of young children,” said David Celata, vice president of policy and research for the Greater Milwaukee Foundation. But the true cost of care and why most working families can’t afford it is “an incredibly complex issue,” Celata told the Wisconsin Examiner.

“The numbers really don’t add up until we recognize that there is a social and economic good related to child care that we are failing collectively to truly maximize,” he said. “That then requires some sort of a public investment to strengthen the infrastructure of our child care sector.”

In Wisconsin the campaign for a state child care subsidy has been underway since the 2023-25 budget after monthly grants from federal COVID-19 pandemic relief funds helped child care providers raise wages without having to increase the fees families paid.

The Legislature’s Republican majority turned aside attempts to continue the subsidy program, Child Care Counts, with state money in the 2023-25 budget. Evers subsequently redirected other federal funds to extend the program at reduced rates through the middle of 2025.

The last of those funds will run out by early July. A survey that the University of Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty released in April found that as many as one in four child care providers said they might shut down without the continued support. Anywhere from half to two-thirds of programs forecast fee increases.

Evers put a $480 million proposal for a state-funded Child Care Counts program in his 2025-27 budget. Republicans on the Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee removed it from the budget along with more than 600 other proposals Evers included before beginning work on their own version of the document.

After visiting a child care center in Waukesha County on Monday to highlight his subsidy proposal, Evers told reporters that he would not sign a budget this year without direct child care support. Evers said the provision was part of his ongoing budget negotiations with the Legislature’s GOP leaders.

Direct funding is still a sticking point, however.

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) told reporters Tuesday that Republicans are open to working with Evers on child care but remain firmly opposed to “writing checks out to providers.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Mike Leslie, 66, helps manage the fleet of staff vehicles at the Top of Alabama Regional Council of Governments, a support services agency in Huntsville, Ala. Leslie got the job through a workforce development program for older adults that could see its funding eliminated by Congress. (Photo by Anna Claire Vollers/Stateline)

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. — Mike Leslie, 66, sits at a desk beneath the buzz of fluorescent office lights, his fingers hovering over his new laptop keyboard. He smiles, eyes crinkling beneath a worn baseball cap. It’s a place he never imagined he’d be sitting.

Before last year, he’d never used a computer.

For most of his life, Leslie hadn’t needed one. He spent 36 years in pipe manufacturing near his North Alabama hometown, in jobs that included welding, driving forklifts, mixing concrete and running crews as a foreman. The work was hard and physical, but he didn’t mind.

Then the COVID-19 pandemic hit. Layoffs followed.

Leslie found himself looking for a job to make ends meet, at an age when more affluent men might think of retiring. He was no longer suited for manufacturing work. But he also lacked experience with the technology that now powers even the most basic tasks in nearly every modern workplace, such as the internet, email and Microsoft Office.

“A lot of people think old people are obsolete, but they’re not,” he said. “There’s a lot of knowledge in their heads. They just need the opportunity to get it out and learn new things.”

His life’s unexpected second act began in late 2023, thanks to an obscure state-federal initiative called the Senior Community Service Employment Program. For people ages 55 and older with low incomes, it provides paid part-time work at local nonprofits and government agencies such as libraries, senior centers and the Red Cross. Its on-the-job training is meant to prepare participants to transition into permanent jobs.

But 700 miles away in Washington, D.C., Congress is considering axing the funding for the very program that has made this new chapter of Leslie’s life possible. In his budget for the coming fiscal year, President Donald Trump has recommended eliminating this and some other programs that fall under the Older Americans Act, a landmark 1965 law that provides social and meal services for older people. The U.S. House also proposed eliminating the employment program’s funding, while the Senate proposed keeping it.

At this point, experts say, anything is possible.

Advocates fear that the loss of this program, which serves about 50,000 older adults nationwide, could affect not just participants like Leslie, but also stretch further into communities, removing tens of thousands of employees from local libraries, city recreation facilities and senior centers.

Isolated and unsure

Sitting at home post-layoff, Leslie felt isolated and unsure about what to do next. A friend told him about the job program, and he eventually decided to apply. He got in.

Now he helps manage the fleet of vehicles at the Top of Alabama Regional Council of Governments, a multicounty agency based in Huntsville that provides support services to older Americans and people with disabilities. As part of the program, he enrolled in a digital certification program that provided him with a laptop, prepaid internet access and a 10-week education course that taught him the basics of the Microsoft Office suite, email, internet, social media and other skills.

For Leslie, it’s been a foothold into a workforce that felt like it had moved on without him.

“You’ve got purpose,” he says, “getting up every morning, coming to a job you like.”

He’s a favorite around the office, where everyone calls him “Mr. Mike.”

In April, he wore a three-piece suit to the officewide celebration where he received a graduation certificate for acing his digital skills courses. He made his co-workers cry as he told them about how the program had given him his confidence back.

‘Lost in D.C.’

On a recent Wednesday afternoon, in a conference room not far from Leslie’s desk, some of his managers at the Top of Alabama Regional Council of Governments, known as TARCOG, were sitting around a table discussing what to do.

It had been a chaotic few months. TARCOG is responsible for administering many services for older people, from Meals on Wheels to transportation, caregiver support to services that prevent abuse and exploitation.

Earlier this year, the Trump administration began to dismantle the federal agency responsible for overseeing such services, while his proposed federal budget recommended cutting or freezing spending on them, including the employment program.

Michelle Jordan, TARCOG’s executive director, had been fielding questions from local leaders who were aghast that Meals on Wheels might be canceled. Across the country, national and local advocates at similar agencies sounded the alarm. In some states, local groups like TARCOG have reported delays in receiving federal funds they were promised.

Earlier this month, the Trump administration reversed course and recommended that most of the programs for older adults continue under a new federal agency.

But a few of the Older Americans Act programs would be left without funding. One of the largest is the senior employment program.

“These are real people, and I think that gets lost in D.C.,” said Sheila Dessau-Ivey, who directs the aging programs at TARCOG. “They just see programs and dollars, and say, ‘Well, we don’t need these.’ But those dollars are actually attached to a human life.”

The Senior Community Service Employment Program is a tiny fraction of the size of budgetary behemoths such as Medicaid and Medicare. Its budget is about $400 million and it serves about 50,000 older people nationwide each year. Eighty-six of those slots — including Leslie’s — are in the five-county swath of North Alabama served by TARCOG.

To qualify under the nationwide Senior Community Service Employment Program, a person must be at least 55 years old, unemployed, and have a family income of no more than 125% of the federal poverty level. For an individual, that’s currently $19,562 a year. Veterans are given priority in the program, as are people with disabilities, rural residents, people over age 65 and those experiencing homelessness. Funding comes mainly through the U.S. Department of Labor.

“We’ve had workers who were homeless when they started this program,” Jordan said. Past research found about 3 in 5 participants nationally reported being homeless or at risk of homelessness.

“You forget there are people living with us, sitting next to us in church, going to the grocery store with us, who just don’t have those skills or that confidence,” she said.

And it has an outsize impact on other vulnerable groups. In 2019, about two-thirds of participants were women, and about 44% were Black, according to research. A majority of participants reported having a high school diploma or less.

“These are people who worked hard all their lives, but they can’t pay the heating bill,” said Nancy Robertson, TARCOG’s retired former executive director, who’d come into the office to lend her experience to the group discussing how to advocate for funding.

“They have to decide between medicine and groceries.”

The program participants aren’t the only ones that would be hurt by the loss of the program, she said.

Participants can stay in the program up to four years. While they’re there, they provide more than 40 million hours of work to public and nonprofit agencies across the nation. The agencies and community groups that hire the participants — with salaries paid by the program — would lose those employees. An employee working in a small-town library, for example, might be the only reason the library is able to remain open for certain hours.

In Huntsville, the local senior center would lose 14 of its employees if the employment program closes. Across town at a community rec center, a beloved 91-year-old receptionist would lose the job she trained for.

Congressional chaos

The U.S. population is aging rapidly. In 2003, about 1 in 7 people in the U.S. labor force was 55 or older. By 2023, that share was nearly 1 in 4. One of the looming challenges for lawmakers and community advocates is how to keep older people healthy and thriving.

As Republicans consider adding work requirements to programs like Medicaid, cutting funding for a work program designed to help older people doesn’t make sense, said Marci Phillips, director of public policy and advocacy at the National Council on Aging, a nonprofit organization focused on issues that affect older adults.

“If people age 55 and older have to show they’re working to qualify for Medicaid, but [lawmakers] are cutting the federal program to help workers age 55 and older, there’s a disconnect there,” she said.

Some lawmakers question the usefulness of the program. In 2019, only about 38% of participants who exited the program were employed a few months later, according to a 2022 study. That share was below the U.S. Department of Labor’s goal of 42%. Median earnings were also below federal goals.

Phillips said the program shouldn’t be judged by the metrics that are used to measure whether a traditional workforce development program is succeeding.

“These are older adults who have to work, but the realities of their health and their caregiving situations aren’t changing,” she said. “It’s a standard that doesn’t really recognize the population we’re trying to serve.”

Programs that are funded under the Older Americans Act are discretionary, meaning Congress can’t cut or eliminate them in the reconciliation bill that’s currently before the Senate and that has generated public outcry over potential cuts to programs including Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps.

Trump has recommended eliminating funding for the employment program, but ultimately its fate lies in the hands of Congress.

The U.S. House is scheduled to take up the appropriations bill that provides funding for these programs the week of July 20. The Senate’s plans are less certain, as its members remain focused on Trump’s reconciliation bill, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. And it’s conceivable, Phillips said, that Congress may instead pass a continuing resolution, a temporary measure that keeps the government funded at current levels.

For his part, Leslie would like to travel to Washington to testify before Congress. If anyone understands the needs of older Americans, he figures, it’s them.

“Society looks at older people as not useful, but if you look at the people in Congress, they’re old folks too,” Leslie said. “If you’re old, why would you not want another older person to have something, to learn something?”

Future possibilities

Leslie is studying to earn his license as a private investigator. It’s a job he’s always wanted, and now he feels like he has the skills he needs to chase that dream.

He’s also trying to organize a workshop this fall to be held at his church, Beaver Dam Primitive Baptist, where he hopes he and some of his TARCOG co-workers can share about services and programs available to help older adults.

“We’ve got 26 churches in our association, so we’ve reached out to all of them, saying there’s these things you need to know about,” Leslie said. “If I had known about some of this stuff when my dad was living, he may have had a better quality of life.”

He doesn’t know if his own program will be one of those still available by then, but he’s hopeful.

He believes the biggest reward has been less tangible than the modest paycheck and newfound computer skills, but more profound: The sense that his life has opened back up, full of possibilities.

“Senior citizens have a purpose in this world, and we can’t think that because they’re old we can just throw them away,” Leslie said. “They’ve still got knowledge. I think we should give them every chance to succeed.”

Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at avollers@stateline.org.

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.

Wisconsin Public Radio's offices are located in UW-Madison's Vilas Hall. (Photo Courtesy of UW-Madison)

Wisconsin Public Radio announced last week that it was laying off at least 15 staff members and cancelling four radio programs as the station faces budget shortages and the looming prospect of cuts to its federal funding. 

The staff members were notified of the layoffs on Friday and the cancelled programs include the nationally syndicated “To the Best of Our Knowledge,” the arts and culture show “BETA,” the health show “Zorba Paster On Your Health” and the local “University of the Air.” 

Republicans in control of the U.S. Congress have been considering a proposal to rescind federal money previously allocated to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which distributes federal funds to local stations across the country. Earlier this month, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to take $1.1 billion from CPB and the Senate has until mid-July to pass its own version of the provision. 

About four percent of WPR’s budget comes from federal CPB funds. 

But WPR’s financial troubles were looming prior to the Republican cuts, with the station facing a budget deficit in recent years. WPR itself reported that the prospect of layoffs was raised almost a year ago and there is a plan to merge WPR with the more financially stable PBS Wisconsin in the works. 

“We’re saddened to say goodbye to these valued colleagues and shows that have been an important part of our recent history,” Sarah Ashworth, WPR director, said in a letter announcing the changes. “This is a difficult decision and WPR must prioritize its capacity to provide what no other media outlet can: unique Wisconsin content from a decidedly Wisconsin point of view. A focus on creating Wisconsin content for Wisconsin audiences is our obligation to — and our richest opportunity for — public service.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A bill that passed both the Assembly and the Senate Wednesday would automatically classify ride-share and certain delivery drivers as independent contractors. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

Legislation that would declare that drivers for app-based ride-share and delivery businesses are independent contractors will go to Gov. Tony Evers after clearing both houses of the Legislature Wednesday.

The legislation also authorizes the affected companies to offer drivers benefit plans without classifying them as employees.

After two previous attempts to pass the bill, in the Legislature’s 2021-22 and 2023-24 sessions, the Senate and Assembly votes Wednesday — mostly along party lines — marked the first time the measure will get to the governor’s desk.

The bill — AB 269 — applies to drivers for delivery and transportation businesses such as Uber, Lyft and DoorDash who are hired by customers using online apps or similar technology.

It defines those drivers as independent contractors who are not subject to laws guaranteeing minimum wage, unemployment compensation and workers compensation.

Update: The bill passed the Assembly on a vote of 56-36, but as of Friday, the Assembly’s official journal of the session reported that three of four Assembly Democrats who were recorded as voting “yes” for the bill asked that their votes be registered as “no,” and their requests were granted, resulting in a new tally of 53-39. One Democrat supported the bill. 

WisPolitics.com reported the changed votes on Friday. WisPolitics.com also reported that according to the office of Assembly Majority Leader Tyler August, Assembly chief clerk’s office and the Legislative Technical Services Bureau “conducted a thorough testing” of the Assembly’s electronic voting system and found no problems.

In the Senate, the bill passed 16-15, with no Democratic support and one Republican, Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater) voting in opposition.

As of Wednesday the Wisconsin Ethics Commission had no public reports on money spent lobbying for or against the legislation. But since early this year DoorDash has been running digital ads on WisPolitics.com and elsewhere promoting the legislation’s “portable benefits” provision.

DoorDash issued a statement Wednesday lauding the bill’s passage. “Dashers and customers in Wisconsin have sent hundreds of letters to the governor, urging him to sign the bill into law,” the company stated.

If Evers signs the measure, Wisconsin would be the first state in the country to enact such legislation. DoorDash has pilot benefit programs without legislation in Pennsylvania, Maryland and Georgia, the company said.

While the bill authorizes the companies to offer the benefit plans, it does not require them to do so. It sets the standards of coverage for such plans if they are offered. It also allows the businesses to establish deferred compensation retirement plans for their drivers.

“This bill will provide meaningful, affordable benefit opportunities for these independent contractors,” said Rep. Alex Dallman (R-Green Lake) at an Assembly press conference before Wednesday’s floor session. “They’ll be able to solidify that they get to choose when and where they want to work, the freedom that they have to be able to earn benefits through the work that they provide for these different companies, and be able to really set themselves up for a future of success by having things such as health insurance.”

A new independent contractor standard

The legislation lists four practices that would exclude a ride-share or delivery company from the independent contractor protections: If it requires drivers to be logged into the service on certain dates, certain times or for a minimum number of hours; if it terminates a driver’s contract for not accepting a specific service request; if it bars drivers from working with other such businesses; and if it bars drivers from working in any other occupation or business.

A company would have to flunk all four of those provisions to be disqualified.

In both the Senate and the Assembly, critics said the bill would serve the contracting companies, not their drivers.

“We don’t need to create a new category of workers with fewer protections, which is what this bill does,” said Sen. Melissa Ratcliff (D-Cottage Grove) on the Senate floor. “The sad realization is that all of the so-called benefits talked about in this bill may never come to fruition for any gig driver. And yet the bill makes mandatory the loss of employee status for every single app-based driver.”

Sen. Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin), said drivers testified in favor of the legislation that “they don’t want to be employees.” Bradley is the lead author of the Senate companion legislation. 

“If you watch any of the hearings, they’ll tell you, ‘We love the flexibility of being an independent contractor.’ They chose to be independent contractors because of the flexibility.”

Under state law and regulations, the state Department of Workforce Development (DWD) uses a nine-part test to determine if workers are employees rather than independent contractors, said Rep. Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee) during the Assembly debate.

“The big problem with this bill, though, is that it actually allows the executives of these companies to dictate their own test to fit their own needs,” Sinicki said.

‘Difficult way to pay the bills’

“Driving for ride-sharing services like Lyft or Uber is a grueling, difficult way to pay the bills,” said Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee), who said he’s a ride-share driver.

He said the industry’s claims that a driver collects $25 or $30 an hour are based on the travel time alone.

“So in an hour, if I take two people on rides which cost them $7 each and I get about $3.50 from each of those, Lyft might report that I got $30 an hour because they don’t count all the minutes between the rides. But I actually gross $7 that hour,” Clancy said.

The bill allows a company to contribute up to 4% of a driver’s earnings to the proposed benefits account. He said Uber drivers have an average weekly revenue of $513, so 4% “would come out to just $267 a quarter” — too little to cover a health insurance premium.  

The bill aims to keep drivers from being classified as employees because “it’s far easier to exploit an independent contractor than it is an employee,” he said.

Clancy said drivers across the U.S. have been “trying to get recognized as the employees they are, and to try to get access to basic benefits and workplace protections and access to unemployment insurance, just like the vast majority of employees in Wisconsin.”

Rep. Sylvia Ortiz-Velez (D-Milwaukee), a co-sponsor of the bill was the only Assembly Democrat to support, although three other Democrats were initially recorded as voting “yes” before being granted a request to change their vote to “no.”

“I heard countless testimonies from drivers who wanted the flexibility of being independent contractors,” Ortiz-Velez said, adding that she has received “a ton of emails, a ton of support” for the bill this year as well as in the last two-year session.

“This bill offers portable benefits that right now don’t exist,” Ortiz-Velez said. “It won’t exist if we don’t pass this bill.”

Dallman, the bill’s lead Assembly author, said on the Assembly floor that critics of the bill can simply choose not to work for the companies it covers.

“This is for the independent contractor and the freedom that they have to get ahead in life by working a couple extra jobs, a couple extra trips on a weekend to make a little bit of extra cash,” Dallman said. “While at the same time, voluntarily partnering with one of these companies . . .  to pay for their benefits, to pay for their retirement. Again, the opportunity for workers to make choices on their own to get ahead in life.”

This report was updated Friday, 6/20/2025, to update the Assembly vote on SB 269 after the Assembly journal reported on a request by three Democrats to change how their vote had been recorded.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, April 18, 2024. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Republicans and backers of President Donald Trump’s Make America Great Again platform support the party’s “big, beautiful bill” as passed by the U.S. House, though Americans overall view the legislation unfavorably, according to a poll released Tuesday by the nonpartisan health research organization KFF.

The survey shows that nearly two-thirds of those polled, or 64%, don’t support the tax policy changes and spending cuts Republicans have included in the sweeping House version of the bill that the Senate plans to take up this month.

When broken down by political affiliation, just 13% of Democrats and 27% of independents view the legislation favorably. Those numbers are in sharp contrast to Republicans, with 61% supporting the bill and 72% of those who identify as MAGA supporters.

But those views fluctuated when the people surveyed were asked specific questions about certain elements of the package and the real-world impacts of the legislation:

• The overall percentage of those surveyed with an unfavorable view of the bill increased from 64% to 67% when they were told it would lower federal spending on Medicaid by more than $700 billion, an estimate by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
• Dislike of the legislation rose to 74% when those polled were told policy changes would lead to 10 million people losing their health insurance coverage, another estimate from the CBO analysis.
• Opposition rose to 79% when people were told the legislation would reduce funding for local hospitals.

“The public hasn’t had much time to digest what’s in the big, beautiful, but almost incomprehensible bill as it races through Congress, and many don’t have a lot of information about it,” KFF President and CEO Drew Altman wrote in a statement. “Our poll shows that views toward the bill and its health-care provisions can shift when presented with more information and arguments about its effects, even among MAGA supporters.”

Senators wrestling with what to do

The House voted mostly along party lines to approve its 11-bill package in late May, sending the legislation to the Senate.

GOP senators have spent weeks internally debating which parts of the House legislation to keep, which to change and which to remove, while also conducting closed-door meetings with the parliamentarian to determine which parts of the bill comply with the rules for the complex reconciliation process.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., plans to bring his chamber’s version of the package to the floor next week, though that timeline could slip. Before the Senate can approve the rewritten bill, lawmakers will spend hours voting on dozens of amendments during what’s known as a vote-a-rama.

Significant bipartisan support for Medicaid

The KFF poll released Tuesday shows that 83% of Americans support Medicaid, slated for an overhaul and spending reductions by GOP lawmakers.

That support remains high across political parties, with 93% of Democrats, 83% of independents and 74% of Republicans holding a favorable opinion of the state-federal health program for lower-income people and some with disabilities.

Those surveyed appeared supportive of a provision in the House bill that would require some people on Medicaid to work, participate in community service, or attend an educational program at least 80 hours a month.

The change is supported by about two-thirds of those surveyed, though the numbers shift depending on how the question is asked.

For example, when told that most adults on Medicaid already work and that not being able to complete the paperwork associated with the new requirement could cause some to lose coverage, 64% of those polled opposed the new requirement. 

Planned Parenthood

There was also broad opposition, 67% overall, to language in the House bill that would block any Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood for routine health care. There is a long-standing prohibition on federal funding from going toward abortion with exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the pregnant patient.

Opposition to the Planned Parenthood provision increased to 80% when those polled were told that no federal payments to Planned Parenthood go directly toward abortion and that ending all Medicaid payments to the organization would make it more challenging for lower-income women to access birth control, cancer screenings and STD testing.

Republicans are more supportive of that change, with 54% backing the policy and 46% opposing the new block on Medicaid patients going to Planned Parenthood. But 78% of independent women and 51% of Republican women oppose the change.

Food assistance program

Those surveyed also had concerns about how changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, would impact lower-income people’s ability to afford food, with 70% saying they were either very or somewhat concerned.

Democrats held the highest level of concern at 92%, followed by independents at 74% and Republicans at 47%.

Overall, Republicans hold the highest share of people polled who believe the dozens of GOP policy changes in the “big, beautiful bill” will help them or their family.

A total of 32% of Republicans surveyed believe the legislation will benefit them, while 47% said it will not make much of a difference and 21% said it will hurt them or their family.

Thirteen percent of independents expect the legislation will help them, while 39% said it likely won’t make a difference and 47% expect it will harm them or their family.

Of Democrats polled, just 6% said they expect the GOP mega-bill to help them, while 26% said it wouldn’t matter much and 66% expected it to hurt them or their family.

When asked whether the bill would help, not make much of a difference, or hurt certain groups of people, the largest percentage of those polled expect it to help wealthy people.

Fifty-one percent of those surveyed said they expect wealthy people will benefit from the bill, 21% believe it will help people with lower incomes and 20% said they think middle-class families will benefit.

Seventeen percent think it will help immigrants, 14% expect it to help people who buy their own health insurance, 13% believe it will help people on Medicaid, 13% think it will help people on SNAP and 8% expect it will benefit undocumented immigrants.

KFF conducted the poll June 4 – 8, both online and by telephone, among a nationally representative sample of 1,321 U.S. adults. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the full sample size. 

The Milwaukee Job Corps Center is pausing operations after June 6, leaving some participants at risk of homelessness. (NNS file photo by Sue Vliet)

Republished from Milwaukee Neighborhood News Service.

A week ago, Khalil Shanklin was introducing newcomers to the Milwaukee Job Corps Center, 6665 N. 60th St.

Now he is one of 130 students having to change their plans for the future, including many who may now have to scramble to find somewhere to live since room and board are a key component of the program.

“I am fortunate because I have a friend from high school who is offering me a job opportunity,” he said. “But this was a shock to all of us and some people don’t know what’s next.”

Shanklin said he found out online that the Jobs Corps lost its funding and learned earlier this week that the pause would happen sooner rather than later.

On May 29, the U.S. Department of Labor issued a phased pause in operations for Job Corps centers across the country, including the Milwaukee Job Corps location, which is operated by Horizons Youth Services.

According to housing advocates, participants are at risk of being displaced as of Friday, June 6. In addition, 100 staff members at the Milwaukee Job Corps Center will lose their jobs. The center will cease all operations by June 13.

Center officials have not responded to attempts for an interview.

What happened

Shanklin, who practiced welding in the program, said he had expected to complete his certification within two months.

Job Corps is the nation’s largest free residential career training and education program for low-income young adults ages 16 to 24, many of whom have experienced homelessness. Since 1964, the corps has trained people in nursing, manufacturing and the trades.

According to a U.S. Department of Labor press release, the program’s pause is a result of financial challenges and a transparency report done by the department’s Employment and Training Administration that exposed issues like low graduation rates, drug usage, violence and sexual assaults within the program.

According to the report, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act graduation rate at the Milwaukee Job Corps Center in 2023 was 32.6% and there were 125 infractions.

The pause at all contractor-operated Job Corps centers was scheduled to occur by June. 30, but a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order on June 4 that stopped the elimination of the program.

Syreeta Austin, a former full time and current on-call residential adviser, said she understands the pause but is hurt at the impact this will have on the young people.

“I knew something would happen eventually because of the things that were happening,” she said.

She mentioned drug and other issues in Milwaukee.

What’s being done

DeShanda Williams-Clark, chief program officer at Pathfinders, said the group’s youth shelter received a call saying the Job Corps had to stop its work and that there would be a lot of young people, ages 16 to 24, that would be displaced. The nonprofit serves youths in crisis.

“Some of those young people who are minors had no guardian to be released to, and some of those young people just had no other alternative housing arrangement at such a last-minute notice,” she said.

IMPACT, a private nonprofit that provides resources to residents in crisis, Pathfinders and other agencies are now partnering with the Job Corps to help the youths avoid becoming homeless.

These groups are going to the campus to provide vulnerability assessments for impacted participants.

“We are going in hopes of avoiding sending people to emergency shelters,” said Kimberly Liptow, coordinator entry manager for IMPACT. “But we won’t be sure of what exact resources are needed until we assess each situation.”

Williams-Clark said Pathfinders is working within a reduced capacity because of cuts it recently faced, but may be able to assist some students who are homeless, at risk of homelessness or at risk of domestic violence.

“The challenge is that there’s a priority list based on vulnerability – an ever-growing list of 200 young people that could be facing homelessness and now we’ll be adding those people leaving the Job Corps,” she said.

---

How the community can help

An issue that has come up is storage for young people having to uproot their lives, Liptow said.

“People want to know where they’ll put their things, so if you or someone you know has space or resources, that would help,” she said.

Any job or housing opportunities that members can take advantage of would be helpful, Shanklin said.

Austin said, “Remember it takes a village, the kids will need our help more than ever.”

If you know or meet any of the participants, offer them a meal, she said.

Volunteers are needed in the youth shelter or drop-in centers, Williams-Clark said.

There is also a campaign to save the Job Corps. 

This article first appeared on Milwaukee Neighborhood News Service and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Unemployment benefits application (photo by Getty Images)

This report has been updated.

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a Catholic Charities organization in Wisconsin doesn’t have to take part in the Wisconsin unemployment insurance (UI) system.

The ruling rejected a Wisconsin Supreme Court opinion that said the agency’s purpose was essentially secular and didn’t qualify for a religious exemption in state unemployment law.

Advocates who supported Catholic Charities cheered the ruling as a blow for religious liberty and against attempts to define whether or not an organization’s motives are sufficiently rooted in faith.

“We have maintained throughout the process and in an amicus brief that Catholic Charities is in fact a religious institution and is eligible for the unemployment insurance tax exemption offered by the state law,” said David Earleywine, associate director for education and religious liberty at the Wisconsin Catholic Conference.

Organizations that represent workers, however, have raised questions about the decision’s broader implications for employees of other institutions connected to churches, including the large networks of Catholic hospitals across the U.S.

“It is crucial that employees, especially low-wage workers, have the protections of unemployment insurance, regardless of the identity of their employer,” said Larry Dupuis,  director of litigation and advocacy at Legal Action of Wisconsin. The law firm joined with groups including the Economic Policy Institute, the Century Foundation and the National Employment Law Project on a friend of the court brief supporting the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling.

“Unemployment payments help the laid off worker, and the economy as a whole, during a downturn by supporting consumer demand,” Dupuis said.

Thursday’s ruling overturns a 4-3 Wisconsin Supreme Court decision issued in March 2024 that declared the work of Catholic Charities Bureau Inc. of the Superior Diocese of the Catholic Church doesn’t get a pass from Wisconsin’s UI law on religious grounds.

The Wisconsin ruling, written by Justice Anne Walsh Bradley, declared that the Catholic Charities work is “secular in nature” and that the agency and its subsidiary organizations that took part in the case “are not operated primarily for religious purposes” as defined in the UI law’s religious exemption.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote Thursday for the U.S. Supreme Court that the Wisconsin high court majority’s arguments amounted to giving preference to one religious denomination over another.

The Wisconsin ruling held that the agencies’ work was not religious in nature because they didn’t attempt to preach the Catholic faith to participants and did not serve only Catholics.

“Petitioners’ Catholic faith, however, bars them from satisfying those criteria,” Sotomayor wrote. The ruling quoted from the dissent by Justice Rebecca Bradley in the Wisconsin decision.

“Wisconsin’s exemption,” Sotomayor wrote, “as interpreted by its Supreme Court, thus grants a denominational preference by explicitly differentiating between religions based on theological practices. Indeed, petitioners’ eligibility for the exemption ultimately turns on inherently religious choices (namely, whether to proselytize or serve only co-religionists).”

Earleywine said the decision reflected the position of Catholic Charities and its supporters. 

“For Catholic Charities in particular, serving the poor is part of our Catholic mission — that is something that we are called to do,” he said.

Sotomayor’s ruling noted that the church offers its own unemployment compensation program for laid-off workers and dismissed the suggestion that the organizations were “more likely to leave their employees without unemployment benefits.”

Earleywine underscored the ruling’s reference to the Catholic unemployment compensation program as  “essentially equivalent” to the state UI program. 

The employment lawyers’ amicus brief disputed that comparison, however, and also noted that there’s no guarantee other religious employers made exempt would have any kind of substitute benefits program. The brief also argued that in the event an individual diocesesan employer can’t afford to pay benefits for a laid-off employee, the overall program has renounced any obligation to pick up the tab. 

Earleywine said the ruling enables Catholic Charities organizations to sign up with the church system, which is available to employees of Catholic dioceses, including church parishes and schools. Other Catholic-related organizations without a diocesan connection — such as Catholic hospital systems or universities — are not eligible under current rules.  

Justice Clarence Thomas, while joining in the unanimous opinion, wrote a separate concurrence stating that because the Wisconsin ruling did not defer to the Bishop of Superior’s assertion that Catholic Charities and its affiliates are “an arm of the Diocese, the Wisconsin Supreme Court violated the church autonomy doctrine.”

While Thursday’s ruling was emphatic, it also appeared to suggest how Wisconsin’s UI religious exemption might be rewritten to produce a different outcome.

The Wisconsin UI law exempts all churches, church conventions or church associations “without differentiating between employees actually involved in religious works” and those who are not, Sotomayor wrote.

Dupuis of Legal Action Wisconsin pointed to another concurrence, by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who wrote that state UI laws could cover nonprofit employees of religiously associated organizations by focusing on the work involved rather than its underlying motivations to determine who is and who is not exempt.

“As Justice Jackson’s concurrence shows, this ruling still gives states the ability to limit the scope of the religious exemption so large employers that provide services that are not inherently religious, like hospitals, must still cover their employees,” Dupuis said.

When the federal law was revised in 1970 to include nonprofit employees in state UI programs, Congress exempted certain church-affiliated employees. The goal, Jackson wrote, was to avoid the state getting involved in a dispute “over the sufficiency of a fired employee’s prayers or the accuracy of their scriptural teaching.”

The intent of Congress was to exempt “a narrow category of church-affiliated entities” that could produce such an entanglement “precisely because their work involves preparing individuals for religious life,” Jackson wrote.

She concluded: “It is perfectly consistent with the opinion the Court hands down today for States to align their [federally-based] religious-purposes exemptions with Congress’s true focus.”

24-154_2b82

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Children at Mariposa Learning Center in Fitchburg. (2023 file photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

While providers, their supporters and Democratic lawmakers are pressing for a substantial continuing direct state investment in Wisconsin’s child care sector, Republicans in the Legislature are pursuing another route: expanding a child care tax credit for employers.

So far, child care providers and some small business owners aren’t interested.

The legislation circulated in draft form in early May. On Friday, May 30, it was formally introduced in the Assembly (AB 283) and the state Senate (SB 291).

“We really think it’s an important opportunity to reward employers for getting involved in child care,” Neil Kline, who says he encouraged GOP lawmakers to draft the tax credit legislation, told the Examiner.

Kline is executive director of Family Friendly Workplaces, a nonprofit based in Woodville that works with businesses in Burnett, Pierce, Polk and St. Croix counties. The organization certifies employers as family-friendly “to support their recruitment and retention efforts,” Kline said. To that end, one of its missions is focusing on workforce-related problems such as housing and child care access.

In early May Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green) and Rep. Karen Hurd (R-Withee) circulated the proposed bill seeking cosponsors.

The legislation was written “to encourage more businesses to invest in child care in their communities,” Marklein and Hurd wrote in their May 12 cosponsor memo. “These changes will increase the number of available child care slots and provide more options for families.”

Demanding direct support

The legislation has been introduced while child care providers and Democrats are continuing their campaigns to revive direct support for the child care sector.

During the COVID-19 pandemic the Evers administration used federal pandemic relief funds to pay child care providers monthly stipends through the Child Care Counts program. The $20 million a month that the state doled out helped providers stabilize child care, increasing workers’ pay while keeping care more affordable for families.

When Evers tried to use $360 million from the 2023-25 budget to continue Child Care Counts with state money, none of the Legislature’s Republican majority got behind the measure. The governor was later able to reallocate other federal dollars to fund Child Care Counts through June 2025, but at half the original amount: $10 million a month.

With lawmakers now writing the 2025-27 budget, Evers, child care providers and their advocates have been campaigning for $480 million to continue the program for the next two years. A survey commissioned by the state and conducted by the University of Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty forecast closures and tuition hikes if the state payments end.  

At their very first budget vote, however, Republicans on the Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee removed the proposal along with more than 600 other items Evers had included in his budget draft. The GOP outnumbers the Democrats 3 to 1 on the committee.

Democratic lawmakers responded by circulating a draft stand-alone bill to reinstate the Evers proposal.

“Child care providers are facing increasing cost to operate while still making poverty-level wages,” said Sen. Sarah Keyeski (D-Lodi) at a May 22 press conference to announce the Democrats’ bill. “This has made it extremely difficult to hire and retain quality staff. [Meanwhile] providers desperately want to avoid rising costs and rates on families already struggling to afford child care.”

Child care as business investment

As yet no Republican lawmakers have gotten behind the Child Care Counts proposal.

Instead, the bills that Marklein and Hurd have introduced would make changes to the Business Development Tax Credit, which is provided through the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (WEDC).

That tax credit is granted to reward a variety of business investments and reduces the state income tax that a business pays by the amount of the credit.

Currently, a business that spends money on starting a child care program for its employees can get up to 15% of that cost taken off its tax bill. The credit applies only to capital investments, however — building or remodeling the child care facility.

“Unfortunately, we have heard that the current program parameters limit the incentive for businesses to invest in child care programs,” Marklein and Hurd wrote in their co-sponsor memo. “While many businesses may want to provide child care as a benefit to employees, the current credit limitations reduce the incentive for this investment.”

In addition to capital expenditures, the draft bill would extend the tax credit to cover 15% of several other costs:

• An employer’s spending on child care program operations;
• Spending to reimburse employees for their child care expenses;
• Spending to buy or reserve openings for its employees at a child care center;
• Contributions an employer makes to an employee’s flexible spending account for dependent care.

The draft bill also allows the tax credit for “any other cost or expense incurred due to a benefit provided by an employer to facilitate the provision or utilization by employees of child care services.”

The tax credit would be refundable: Even if the credit totals more than the employer pays in taxes, the company would get its full value back from the Wisconsin Department of Revenue. 

It also would give a refund to nonprofit employers, which don’t pay taxes.

“While not a silver bullet, these changes are another step in the right direction to address the child care issue in Wisconsin,” Marklein and Hurd wrote in their memo.

Kline, the Family Friendly Workplaces director, said the proposal would help engage employers more directly in addressing child care shortages.

“We really think it lays the groundwork for ongoing, self-sustaining support of child care in Wisconsin,” he said. “The primary goal is to help introduce new money into the child care — really, the child care ecosystem — by rewarding employers to support the ongoing expenses of child care, because the reality is that the sector needs additional money in it.”

Kline said he understands that “the ongoing operational economics” is a central problem for the child care sector. “That’s why we are so focused on helping employers find avenues and be rewarded for helping defray the expenses that are related to child care and helping support that ongoing operational side of child care.”

Chilly reception

To date the existing child care employer tax credit hasn’t had any takers, according to the WEDC. In January, as part of an overall evaluation of the state’s business development tax credit, an outside consultant told WEDC that “due to the high operational costs of childcare centers, affordability would likely be better achieved through subsidy as opposed to a tax incentive.”

The proposal to expand the tax credit isn’t gaining traction with providers or small business owners.

Main Street Alliance, which organizes small business owners to advocate for state and national legislation, has already announced objections to the bill.

“These kinds of programs and tax credits are often advantageous for employers who can afford compliance and the procedural costs and have economies of scale,” said Shawn Phetteplace, MSA’s national campaign director. That leaves out the typical small business, said Phetteplace, who sent lawmakers a memo calling the proposal “deeply unserious.”

Evan Dannells, a chef and owner of two Madison restaurants, questioned how a relatively small business like his would benefit from the tax credit.

Of his eight full-time employees, one has two children. Most of the others are graduate students. Directly paying for the one employee’s child care, even if receiving a tax credit, doesn’t feel fair to the others who don’t have that expense, Dannells said.

“If you put the onus of taking care of child care on the employer, the employer won’t hire people with children,” he said.

Dannells considers the cost of child care a legitimate use of his tax dollars. “This is why government should be doing this,” he said. He observed that children are required to go to school when they reach the age of first grade. “Why can’t we take care of them from age 1 to 5?”

While the tax credit may make it easier for a particular company’s employees to afford child care thanks to the employer’s support, skeptics of the proposal say that assistance only helps some people — not the system as a whole.

“That doesn’t help keep the doors open,” said Heather Murray, who operates a child care center in Waunakee. “We’re hitting crisis mode and centers are shutting down now, and a quarter of them will be gone if [Child Care Counts] isn’t renewed. We need the investment to go directly to providers to make sure that the doors stay open.”

Child care as a public good

National child care analyst Eliot Haspel is also skeptical. Haspel is a fellow at Capita, a think tank that works in the area of family policy. In February 2024, the think tank New America published his report raising questions about the impact of various employer-sponsored child care benefits.

Haspel views child care as a public good that benefits society broadly. For that reason, he contends, it should serve families regardless of whether they work for an employer able to fund a child care benefit.

“Small business will never be able to offer a really robust child care workplace benefit,” Haspel says. That puts small businesses and small business employees at a disadvantage if supporting child care is primarily an employer’s responsibility, he argues.

The large number of low-wage workers and “gig workers” “also raises the specter of increasing inequalities,” he writes in the New America report.

Haspel says that tying child care to a job also locks people into a job — or strands them from needed care if they lose their job. It also disrupts children’s early education at a time when they need consistent and reliable connections with their caregivers, advocates say.

“It’s really bad for workers and it’s really bad for kids for your child care to be tied to your employment,” Sen. Kelda Roys said at the Democrats’ May 22 press conference.

Tying health insurance to employment has been “a disaster,” Roys said. Health care is “rationed based on the job that you have or the wealth that you have,” she added, “and we do not want to exacerbate the current problems in our child care system by tying it to people’s employment.”

In his New America report and in an interview, Haspel says the problem isn’t providing child care at the workplace.

“I’m not against the idea of onsite child care — that can make all the sense in the world,” he says. “You can have an onsite center as part of a publicly funded system” — one to which employers contribute as taxpayers.

Focusing on the employer, however, carries with it “an opportunity cost,” Haspel says. “The more we say child care should be solved primarily through employers, the harder it is to say we need a fully public system that is universal and reaches everyone.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Members of the group Initiative Urheberrecht (authors' rights initiative) demonstrate to demand regulation of artificial intelligence on June 16, 2023 in Berlin, Germany. The AI regulation later adopted by the European Union is a model for many U.S. lawmakers interested in consumer protection but a cautionary tale for others who say they're interested in robust innovation, experts say. (Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

The European Union’s landmark AI Act, which went into effect last year, stands as inspiration for some U.S. legislators looking to enact widespread consumer protections. Others use it as a cautionary tale warning against overregulation leading to a less competitive digital economy.

The European Union enacted its law to prevent what is currently happening in the U.S. — a patchwork of AI legislation throughout the states — said Sean Heather, senior vice president for international regulatory affairs and antitrust at the Chamber of Commerce during an exploratory congressional subcommittee hearing on May 21.

“America’s AI innovators risk getting squeezed between the so-called Brussels Effect of overzealous European regulation and the so-called Sacramento Effect of excessive state and local mandates,” said Adam Thierer, a Senior Fellow at think tank R Street Institute, at the hearing.

The EU’s AI Act is comprehensive, and puts regulatory responsibility on developers of AI to mitigate risk of harm by the systems. It also requires developers to provide technical documentation and training summaries of its models for review by EU officials. The U.S. adopting similar policies would kick the country out of its first-place position in the Global AI race, Thierer testified.

The “Brussels Effect,” Thierer mentioned, is the idea that the EU’s regulations will influence the global market. But not much of the world has followed suit — so far Canada, Brazil and Peru are working on similar laws, but the UK and countries like Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Singapore, and Japan have taken a less restrictive approach.

When Jeff Le, founder of tech policy consultancy 100 Mile Strategies LLC, talks to lawmakers on each side of the aisle, he said he hears that they don’t want another country’s laws deciding American rules.

“Maybe there’s a place for it in our regulatory debate,” Le said. “But I think the point here is American constituents should be overseen by American rules, and absent those rules, it’s very complicated.”

Does the EU AI act keep Europe from competing?

Critics of the AI Act say the language is overly broad, which slows down the development of AI systems as they aim to meet regulatory requirements. France and Germany rank in the top 10 global AI leaders, and China is second, according to Stanford’s AI Index, but the U.S. currently leads by a wide margin in the number of leading AI models and its AI research, experts testified before the congressional committee.

University of Houston Law Center professor Peter Salib said he believes the EU’s AI Act is a factor — but not the only one — in keeping European countries out of the top spots. First, the law has only been in effect for about nine months, which wouldn’t be long enough to make as much of an impact on Europe’s ability to participate in the global AI economy, he said.

Secondly, the EU AI act is one piece of the overall attitude about digital protection in Europe, Salib said. The General Data Protection Regulation, a law that went into effect in 2018 and gives individuals control over their personal information, follows a similar strict regulatory mindset.

“It’s part of a much longer-term trend in Europe that prioritizes things like privacy and transparency really, really highly,” Salib said. “Which is, for Europeans, good  — if that’s what they want, but it does seem to have serious costs in terms of where innovation happens.”

Stavros Gadinis, a professor at the Berkeley Center for Law and Business who has worked in the U.S. and Europe, said he thinks most of the concerns around innovation in the EU are outside the AI Act. Their tech labor market isn’t as robust as the U.S., and it can’t compete with the major financing accessible by Silicon Valley and Chinese companies, he said.

“That is what’s keeping them, more than this regulation,” Gadinis said. “That and, the law hasn’t really had the chance to have teeth yet.”

During the May 21 hearing, Rep. Lori Trahan, a Democrat from Massachusetts, called the Republican’s stance — that any AI regulation would kill tech startups and growing companies — “a false choice.”

The U.S. heavily invests in science and innovation, has founder-friendly immigration policies, has lenient bankruptcy laws and a “cultural tolerance for risk taking.” All policies the EU does not offer, Trahan said.

“It is therefore false and disingenuous to blame EU’s tech regulation for its low number of major tech firms,” Trahan said. “The story is much more complicated, but just as the EU may have something to learn from United States innovation policy, we’d be wise to study their approach to protecting consumers online.”

Self-governance

The EU’s law puts a lot of responsibility on developers of AI, and requires transparency, reporting, testing with third parties and tracking copyright. These are things that AI companies in the U.S. say they do already, Gadinis said.

“They all say that they do this to a certain extent,” he said. “But the question is, how expansive these efforts need to be, especially if you need to convince a regulator about it.”

AI companies in the U.S. currently self-govern, meaning they test their models for some of the societal and cybersecurity risks currently outlined by many lawmakers. But there’s no universal standard — what one company deems safe may be seen as risky to another, Gadinis said. Universal regulations would create a baseline for introducing new models and features, he said.

Even one company’s safety testing may look different from one year to the next. Until 2024, OpenAI’s CEO Sam Altman was pro-federal AI regulation, and sat on the company’s Safety and Security Committee, which regularly evaluates OpenAI’s processes and safeguards over a 90-day period.

In September, he left the committee, and has since become vocal against federal AI legislation. OpenAI’s safety committee has since been operating as an independent entity, Time reported. The committee recently published recommendations to enhance security measures, be more transparent about OpenAI’s work and “unify the company’s safety frameworks.”

Even though Altman has changed his tune on federal regulation, the mission of OpenAI is focused on the benefits society gains from AI — “They wanted to create [artificial general intelligence] that would benefit humanity instead of destroying it,” Salib said.

AI company Anthropic, maker of chatbot Claude, was formed by former staff members of OpenAI in 2021, and focuses on responsible AI development. Google, Microsoft and Meta are other top American AI companies that have some form of self safety testing, and were recently assessed by the AI Safety Project.

The project asked experts to weigh in on the strategies each company took for risk assessment, current harms, safety frameworks, existential safety strategy, governance and accountability, and transparency and communication. Anthropic scored the highest, but all companies were lacking in their “existential safety,” or the harm AI models could cause to society if unchanged. 

Just by developing these internal policies, most AI leaders are acknowledging the need for some form of safeguards, Salib said.

“I don’t want to say there’s wide industry agreement, because some seem to have changed their tunes last summer,” Salib said. “But there’s at least a lot of evidence that this is serious and worthwhile thinking about.”

What could the U.S. gain from EU’s practices?

Salib said he believes a law like the EU AI Act in the U.S. would be too “overly comprehensive.”

Many laws addressing AI concerns now, like discrimination by algorithms or self-driving cars, could be governed by existing laws — “It’s not clear to me that we need special AI laws for these things.”

But he said that the specific, case-by-case legislation that the states have been passing have been effective in targeting harmful AI actions, and ensuring compliance from AI companies.

Gadinis said he’s not sure why Congress is opposed to the state-by-state legislative model, as most of the state laws are consumer oriented, and very specific — like deciding how a state may use AI in education, preventing discrimination in healthcare data or keeping children away from sexually explicit AI content.

“I wouldn’t consider these particularly controversial, right?” Gadinis said. “I don’t think the big AI companies would actually want to be associated with problems in that area.”

Gadinis said the EU’s AI Act originally mirrored this specific, case-by-case approach, addressing AI considerations around sexual images, minors, consumer fraud and use of consumer data. But when ChatGPT was released in 2022, EU lawmakers went back to the drawing board and added the component about large language models, systematic risk, high-risk strategies and training, which made the reach of who needed to comply much wider.

After 10 months living with the law, the European Commission said this month it is open to “simplify the implementation” to make it easier for companies to comply.

It’s unlikely the U.S. will end up with AI regulations as comprehensive as the EU, Gadinis and Salib said. President Trump’s administration has taken a deregulated approach to tech so far, and Republicans passed a 10-year moratorium on state-level AI laws in the “big, beautiful bill” heading to the Senate consideration. 

Gadinis predicts that the federal government won’t take much action at all to regulate AI, but mounting pressure from the public may result in an industry self-regulatory body. This is where he believes the EU will be most influential — they have leaned on public-private partnerships to develop a strategy.

“Most of the action is going to come either from the private sector itself — they will band together — or from what the EU is doing in getting experts together, trying to kind of come up with a sort of half industry, half government approach,” Gadinis said.

Carol Lemke, a member of the nurses union bargaining team at Meriter hospital in Madison, addresses nurses before they return to work Sunday morning after ratifying a new labor contract. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

Nurses at Meriter hospital in Madison returned to work Sunday with a new contract at the end of a five-day strike, the first in the hospital’s history.

The agreement, reached Saturday and ratified by union members late Saturday night, for the first time gives nurses direct input on staffing concerns at the hospital, said Pat Raes, president of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Wisconsin and also a nurse at the hospital. Raes spoke at a short return-to-work rally Sunday morning outside the hospital.

While it falls short of establishing guaranteed ratios of patients to nurses, Raes said the new two-year contract  establishes a precedent by including  language about staffing concerns.

Wages will go up by 10% over two years, Raes said. She said the wage gain offered “meaningful raises” including 8% across the board and the other 2% for “step increases recognizing our experience and attracting new talent.” 

Raes said the contract also contains  “enforceable language” addressing the safety of health care staff and patients, including a commitment to install a metal detector by the end of the summer.

Staffing concerns and a push for the hospital to guarantee specific ratios of patients to nurses on duty were among the issues that the union stressed in contract negotiations and during the five-day walkout.

In public statements during the contract talks and strike, UnityPoint Health-Meriter officials said they shared the union’s concerns for safe staffing levels but opposed dictating ratios, claiming it would hinder  flexibility to respond to changing conditions.

Raes said the agreement builds on an existing system of committees in which nurses are in charge. “We really felt that was the format for having the staffing discussions and noting where those issues were,” she said Sunday.

The contract also commits the hospital to an annual discussion with the union on staffing concerns and issues, Raes said.

“This was a long and difficult negotiation,” Raes said. “We acknowledge Meriter’s management for ultimately coming to the table and reaching an agreement that prioritizes the needs of our patients and our dedicated professionals. Today, we turn the page.”

The final negotiating sessions were conducted with the aid of a mediator from the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (WERC).

“We did not want to walk,” said bargaining committee member Carol Lemke, “but we felt it was the only thing we could do” to get staffing-related language in the contract.

In a statement distributed by UnityPoint Health-Meriter Saturday night after the agreement was announced, Sherry Casali, the hospital’s chief nursing officer, said, “We are grateful for the dedication and hard work of everyone involved in the negotiations. This tentative agreement represents meaningful progress toward a contract that recognizes the important contributions of our nurses.”

Raes said the union is now turning its attention to state legislation lawmakers have reported they are drafting that would establish a state mandate for the ratios of health care workers to patients in health care institutions. 

After five days of large throngs of picketing nurses, the crowd outside the hospital Sunday morning was smaller. The scene was cheerful and celebratory, accompanied by a sense of relief.

Madison Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway turned out for the 6:30 a.m. return-to-work rally.

“I want to thank you for your courage because I know this wasn’t easy,” she told the nurses.

While she said she was grateful “mostly to the nurses,” Rhodes-Conway also said she was “grateful to management for coming to the table and finally understanding that we are stronger when we collaborate.”

The contract was ratified Saturday night by “a supermajority” of nurses, Raes said. Although the union didn’t release the official vote count, Raes said, “We had more people vote for this contract than we have ever had vote in the past.”

The union pushed to ensure the votes were cast and counted before midnight because the pay increases take effect with the start of the next pay period, Sunday morning.

The timing was also important for another reason. Meriter management told the union and employees that nurses on strike would be removed from the list of active employees effective Sunday, which would end their health insurance coverage.

The union wanted to complete the ratification process Saturday night “so there would not be any issues — there would not be any threat,” Raes said.

“We have nurses that are being treated for long-term health issues that cannot afford to lose their insurance who were out striking, and we have had other ones that felt they had to cross the picket line to not risk their health insurance,” Raes said.

She said she doesn’t expect divisions among members because of those choices, however. “Everybody, all the nurses, will continue to work together and have each other’s back on the floors,” Raes said, “because that is how we have to work.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Participants hold candles at a vigil for striking nurses outside Meriter hospital in Madison Thursday evening. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

Roughly 150 nurses and their allies gathered at dusk Thursday for a vigil to show support for the strike underway at Meriter hospital in Madison.

The crowd was smaller than the throngs that have gathered outside the hospital during daily picketing and rallies, but the feelings they conveyed were no less intense.

“We’re holding this vigil because beneath the charts, beneath the chants, beneath the signs and beneath the daily strength that it takes to strike is something deeply serious,” said emergency room nurse Shelby Davis. “We’re not just here for better contracts. We’re here for safety, for dignity, for the basic right to care for our patients without risking their lives or our own.”

With the vigil, organized with the involvement of two church pastors, the nurses and their union sought to cast the issues that led to the five-day walkout as a matter of moral principle.

“You are doing holy work,” said Pastor Justin Dittrich of Lake Edge Lutheran Church, opening the vigil at Brittingham Park on Madison’s near South Side, a block from the hospital grounds.

“The strike is not the end, but the beginning of a more just health care system for all people, workers and participants,”  Dittrich added. “We stand with the nurses of Meriter because they are healers, truth tellers, and agents of faith and justice.”

UnityPoint Health-Meriter and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Wisconsin are in the midst of negotiations for a new labor agreement for about 1,000 nurses who work at the hospital. The nurses union began a five-day strike Tuesday after a bargaining session May 19 ended without a new agreement, and after the union’s bargaining team said management negotiators were not responding adequately to their concerns about staffing levels, hospital security and compensation.

Negotiations resumed Thursday, during which union bargaining team members reported some progress, and continued on Friday.

Among the union’s primary issues in negotiations has been a demand for specific ratios of nurses to patients.

“Even though I work in the ER and not on the floor, I see how staffing levels affect every part of the hospital,” said Davis. “I’ll never forget the one moment during my nurse residency, a new grad was recognized for taking care of seven patients on their own. Seven. That wasn’t a badge of honor, that was a red flag.”

The hospital management has said dictating ratios would interfere with its need for flexibility to respond to changing conditions.

Speakers said the demand is not just in the interest of nurses, but a matter of concern for patients as well.

“Ratios are for us — yeah, absolutely,” said nurse Dara Pierce. “But they’re also for everybody else and I think sometimes that goes unnoticed.”

The fear of violence in the workplace has driven nurses to demand a stronger role in formulating security policy, speakers said, along with measures such as metal detectors.

“We’ve had violent or unpredictable situations come through our doors with just one security guard assigned to ER and no metal detectors,” said Davis. “No one should have to feel unsafe when they’re coming to a hospital and no nurse should be expected to risk their life just to do their job.”

The lingering impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which began five years ago, continues to weigh on health care workers, nurse Annette Bernas told vigil participants.

“We were considered essential, but let’s be honest, we were expendable,” she said. “We didn’t complain. We showed up. We held hands when family members couldn’t.”

As the pandemic laid bare the importance of health care and health care workers, “we were hopeful that everything we gave would open the eyes of the world to the importance of nurses and support staff,” Bernas said. “But here we find ourselves in a deeper crisis. The burnout is real. Nurses are leaving in waves. PTSD from those years is something we still carry, and yet we’re being asked to do more with less.”

After the speeches the crowd walked behind a large yellow banner, carrying flickering candles from the park to the hospital entrance on Brooks Street.

There Pastor Raymond Monk of Milwaukee offered a benediction. 

“This new course has caused many of you all to make a decision to make sure that your voices are heard and the voices of those who are hurting, their voices are heard also,” said Monk. “I want to encourage you at this pivotal moment in history to continue to defy the norms and to make known to the world that things must change and that things must change right now.”

Faith upholds their cause, he suggested, adding that God “is always on the side of the oppressed.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

State Sen. LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee) argues Thursday in the Legislature's Joint Finance Committee for including the full budget request from the state Department of Safety and Professional Services in the 2025-27 Wisconsin state budget. (Screenshot/WisEye)

Republicans on the Legislature’s budget committee rejected a proposal Thursday to add permanent staff to the state agency responsible for ensuring that a range of professionals have licenses they need to do their jobs.

Instead, the Joint Finance Committee voted along party lines to extend five contract positions for three more years as well as add a handful of other positions.

The 2025-27 state budget marks the fourth one in which Gov. Tony Evers has been rebuffed after urging lawmakers to increase staffing at the Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) to speed up the agency’s license and permit administration.

There was no debate during the 45-minute meeting Thursday.

All four Democrats on the committee spoke up, either to advocate for their proposal for the agency or to criticize the GOP proposal as inadequate. None of the Republicans, however, made arguments for their plan for DSPS or against the Democrats’ alternative.

In addition to issuing professional licenses in health care, personal services, professions such as accounting or architecture and for skilled tradespeople such as plumbers and electricians, DSPS also oversees a variety of building and other public safety licenses and permits.

Starting more than three years ago, Republican lawmakers raised criticism of the agency amid heavy backlogs in the licensing process for a wide range of professionals.  

Democratic lawmakers — as well as some outside groups representing licensed professionals — have charged the backlog was a result of the Legislature’s failure to authorize more positions at the department.

The department is almost entirely self-funded through the fees it collects from license applications, but the size of its staff requires the approval of the Legislature.  

In the 2023-25 draft state budget, Evers requested 74 new positions at DSPS, but the final spending plan drafted largely by the Republican majority on the finance committee added 17.75 positions.

Evers redirected pandemic relief funds to DSPS to hire more contract workers to help manage the licensing process. In the last couple of years, the backlog has been reduced so that on average a license is issued in two weeks, according to state Rep. Deb Andraca (D-Whitefish Bay), a finance committee member.

In his 2025-27 budget draft, Evers requested 30 new positions at the agency. On Thursday, Democrats on the finance committee proposed adding 31 positions, including 14 to staff the department’s call center serving license applicants and nine additional employees to process license applications.

Authorizing fewer people than DSPS has requested “has a tremendous risk of causing significant delays or or even just making it a little bit harder for people to be able to get their license,” said Rep. Tip McGuire (D-Kenosha). “We want people to be able to get the licenses that they need so they can go to work. We want people to get the renewals that they need so they can continue working.”

State law requires about 10% of the fee revenue from professional licenses in health and business professions to be transferred to the state budget’s general fund.

“We have been pulling funds out of an agency that’s almost basically self-sufficient and dumping the money into the general fund, all while the demand for licenses is exploding,” said Sen. LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee).

Johnson warned the committee that if the licensing process gets bogged down again, shortages in fields such as health care in particular are likely to worsen.

Falling short of funding the department’s full request “impacts every single person in the state, whether you’re a licensee or not,” said Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison). “What we are doing is starving that system and making it harder for every single one of us to access needed professional services.”

The Democratic proposal failed on a 4-12 vote, with all the Republicans on the 16-member committee voting against it. 

The Republican measure passed 12-4, with only Republicans’ support.

It extends five contract call center positions that expire Sept. 30 for another three years.

The GOP motion omits three lawyers and three paralegals the department had requested for professional regulation compliance and for the state’s Prescription Drug Monitoring Program.

The motion also transfers $5 million from DSPS revenues to the state budget’s general fund, in addition to the annual 10% from license fees. 

The Republican measure authorizes a consultant for pharmacy inspections that was part of the original budget draft. It also includes funding to continue a youth firefighter training grant that was in the original request and the Democratic proposal.

The committee’s co-chairs, Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green) and Rep. Mark Born (R-Beaver Dam), released a joint statement later Thursday declaring that “Joint Finance Republicans voted to invest in important government services while holding the line on spending.”

The statement cited funding for DSPS call center staff “to help credential holders and the public navigate licensure platforms” and said the funding “ensures the department can operate effectively and provide these critical services to professionals.”

Immediately after the final vote, however, Andraca told her colleagues that the outcome was a missed opportunity.

“We could be sitting here claiming a bipartisan success story, because today the median time to get a license is only 15 days,” Andraca said. “We should be continuing the success story and taking a victory lap, and instead we’re chipping away the progress that we’ve made — and that’s very disappointing.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Sen. Ron Johnson at the Newsroom Pub on Wednesday, May 28, 2025 | Photo by Ruth Conniff/Wisconsin Examiner

You have to hand it to Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson. As Republicans across the country run in fear from their constituents, refusing to hold town halls lest they be asked to answer for brutal federal budget cuts and threats to health care, nutrition assistance and Social Security, Johnson showed up at a Milwaukee Press Club event Wednesday and appeared cheerfully unperturbed as he took questions from journalists and a skeptical crowd. Not that his answers made sense.

People sitting in front of the podium at the Newsroom Pub luncheon crossed their arms and furrowed their brows as Johnson explained his alternative views on everything from global warming to COVID-19 to the benefits of bringing the federal budget more in line with the spending levels of 1930 — i.e. the beginning of the Great Depression, before FDR instituted New Deal programs Johnson described as “outside [the president’s] constitutionally enumerated powers.”

A handful of protesters chanted in the rain outside the Newsroom Pub, but overall, the event was cordial and reactions muted. In part, this was attributable to Johnson’s Teflon cockiness and the barrage of misinformation he happily unleashed, which had a numbing effect on his audience. 

Johnson fancies himself a “numbers guy.” In that way he’s a little like former House Speaker Paul Ryan, his fellow Wisconsin Republican who was once considered the boy genius of the GOP. Ryan made it safe to talk about privatizing Medicare by touring the country with a PowerPoint presentation full of charts and graphs, selling optimistic projections of the benefits of trickle-down economics, corporate tax cuts and the magic of the private market. But Ryan couldn’t stomach Trump and he’s been exiled from the party. Johnson is the MAGA version. While he doesn’t dazzle anyone with his brilliance, he does a good job of baffling his opponents with a barrage of B.S. that leaves even seasoned journalists scrambling to figure out what question to ask. Where do you begin?

Back in 2021, YouTube removed a video of Johnson’s Milwaukee Press Club appearance because he violated the platform’s community standards by spreading dangerous lies about COVID, the alleged harm caused by vaccines and the supposed benefits of dubious remedies. 

But this week he was back, proudly endorsing DHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr.’s decision to eliminate federal COVID vaccine recommendations for pregnant women and healthy children. While he hopes Kennedy goes further in rolling back vaccinations, he said, “at least we’re not going to subject our children to them anymore.”

A woman in the audience who identified herself as a local business owner seeking “common ground” thanked Johnson for saying “we don’t want to mortgage our children’s future,” but expressed her concern that besides the deficit spending Johnson rails against, there’s also the risk that we’re mortgaging the future by destroying the planet.

Johnson heartily agreed that everyone wants a “pristine environment.” “I mean, I love the outdoors,” he declared. But then he added, “We shouldn’t spend a dime on climate change. We’ll adapt. We’re very adaptable.” 

He claimed that “something like 1,800 different scientists and business leaders” have signed a statement saying there is no climate crisis. (The overwhelming consensus among scientists is that climate change is real and caused by people and the statement he referred to has been debunked.) “So if it’s climate change you’re talking about, we’re just at cross-purposes,” he added. “I completely disagree.”

Most of Johnson’s talk consisted of a fusillade of hard-to-follow budget numbers and nostrums like “the more the government spends the less free we are.” Charles Benson of TMJ4 News tried to get the senator to focus on what it would take to get him to go along with Trump’s “big, beautiful” budget bill. “So, a lot of numbers out there,” Benson said. “Can you give me a bottom line? Do you want 2 trillion? 3 trillion?”

“Your reaction is the exact same reaction I get from the White House and from my colleagues,” Johnson chided, “too many numbers. It’s a budget process. We’re talking about numbers. We’re talking about mortgaging our kids’ future.” 

Like his alternative beliefs about vaccination and climate science, Johnson’s budget math is extremely fuzzy. He asserted, repeatedly, that Medicaid is rife with “waste, fraud and abuse.” But the Georgetown University School of Public Policy has published a policy analysis dismantling claims that there is rampant waste, fraud and abuse in Medicaid that concluded, “This premise is false, and the thinking is dangerously wrong.”

More broadly, Johnson claims that balancing the budget and reducing the federal deficit is his No. 1 concern. But he’s committed to maintaining historic tax cuts for the super rich. The only way to reduce deficits, in his view, is to enact even deeper cuts than House Republicans passed, increasing hunger, undermining education and rolling back health care — because he’s totally unwilling to increase revenue with even modest tax increases on corporations and the very wealthy. Those cuts, not a deficit that could be resolved by making the rich pay their share of taxes, are the real threat to our children’s future.

“I’m just a guy from Oshkosh who’s trying to save America,” Johnson said at the Press Club event. He recapped, in heroic terms, his lone stand against the 2017 tax cut for America’s top earners, which he blocked until he was able to work in a special loophole that benefitted him personally.

He told the panel of Wisconsin journalists he will also block Trump’s “big, beautiful” budget bill unless he sees deeper cuts, which he insisted would be easy to make. The 40 states that have taken the federal Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act (which Johnson still calls “Obamacare”) are “stealing money from federal taxpayers,” he declared. Slashing Medicaid will be easy, he suggested, since “nobody would be harmed other than the grifters who are sucking down the waste, fraud and abuse.”

Grifters?

Wisconsin has 1.3 million Medicaid recipients. One in three children are on BadgerCare, as Medicaid is called here, along with 45% of adults with disabilities and 55% of seniors living in nursing homes. Our state program faces a $16.8 billion cut over 10 years under the House plan. During the Q&A session, I asked Johnson about this — not just the numbers, but the human cost. I brought up Shaniya Cooper, a college student from Milwaukee and a BadgerCare recipient living with lupus, who spoke at a press conference in the Capitol this week about how scary it was to realize she could lose her Medicaid coverage under congressional Republicans’ budget plan. 

“To me, this is life or death,” she said. She simply cannot afford to pay for her medicine out of pocket. When she first learned about proposed Medicaid cuts, “I cried,” she said. “I felt fear and dread.”

What does Johnson have to say to Cooper and other BadgerCare recipients who are terrified of losing their coverage?

“I’ll go back to my basic point,” Johnson replied. He quoted Elon Musk, whom he said he greatly admires for his DOGE work slashing federal agencies. “If we don’t fix this, we won’t have money for any of this [government in general],” he said Musk told him.

“Nobody wants the truly vulnerable to lose those benefits of Medicaid,” Johnson added. “But again, Obamacare expanded the waste, fraud and abuse of Medicaid, you know, expanding the people on it when, you know, when a lot of these people ought to be really getting a job.”

Some of Johnson’s Republican colleagues are worried about withdrawing health care coverage from millions of their constituents. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri called it immoral and “political suicide.” He said he won’t vote for the Medicaid cuts that passed the House because they will put rural hospitals out of business, and because too many hard-working, low-income people rely on the program for health coverage and simply cannot afford to buy insurance on the private market. 

But Johnson remains untroubled. He’s pushing for bigger and more damaging cuts. And when asked what he can tell his constituents who are afraid they’re about to lose life-saving health care, his answer is simple and unapologetic: Get a job.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Striking nurses picket outside UnityPoint-Health Meriter hospital Wednesday. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

Nurses at Meriter hospital in Madison and the hospital’s management team are returning to the bargaining table Thursday, the third day of a five-day strike over a new labor agreement covering nearly 1,000 union-represented nurses.

The nurses, represented by Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Wisconsin, went on strike Tuesday after their last negotiating session with UnityPoint Health-Meriter on May 19 ended without an agreement.

As nurses rallied and picketed in front of the hospital Wednesday, the issue of staffing requirements was at the forefront of arguments offered by both the nurses and the hospital’s management.

“Let me be very clear, it is not unreasonable to want safe staffing guaranteed in our contracts,” said Carly Dickmann, a Meriter obstetrics, labor and delivery nurse.

“It is not unreasonable to want to feel safe at work and to have a voice in the procedures that impact us and our patients,” Dickmann continued. “It is not unreasonable to want fair compensation for our labor. It’s long past time for management to take us seriously. It’s time that Meriter listen to nurses and come to the table ready to make real, tangible changes to improve the hospital we love so dearly.”

A management position paper distributed Wednesday by the hospital’s communications department asserted that the hospital and the union both “agree that staffing levels are a critical component to safe patient care.”

The paper stated that the hospital’s approach to staffing assignments needed “to remain flexible” so it could move personnel in response to “patient needs and census changes.” It said the hospital would review “the staffing matrix” in four units the union identified as having problems, and that nurses and support staff in the affected units would be included in the process.

At the union’s picket line rally on Tuesday, bargaining team member Amber Anderson said the management proposal fell short.

“Meriter management refuses to put staffing solutions in our contract,” Anderson said, calling the management proposal “a vague promise to review staffing with no timelines, no accountability and no enforceable standards. That is not enough.”

The union has also focused on security and on wages. Union proposals have sought  increases particularly for nurses with the longest tenure, as well as metal detectors in certain areas.

The management paper said average wages would go up by $4.67 an hour over the life of the agreement under the hospital’s proposal, and that Meriter had plans to install weapons screening equipment in its emergency department this summer.

At Wednesday’s picket line rally, striking nurses heard messages of support from Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley and U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Black Earth).

Pocan recalled his visit to Meriter for three clogged arteries seven and a half years ago.

“And I got time to spend in the ICU and other rooms here at Meritor, and I received excellent health care,” Pocan said. “Not because of the comfort of the bed or the colors of the wall, not because of the profitability of the hospital, but because of the staff and the nurses at Meriter.”

Johnson came to Madison because he sees issues in the strike as important “not just for nurses in Madison, but really for nurses all across the state of Wisconsin,” he said in an interview. “When you stand with labor, it’s not just a sometime thing, it’s an all the time thing.”

Strikers also got support from union activists organizing at other area health care employers.

“The people who own the health care industry are running a race to the bottom, where executives try to lower quality of care, increase ratios as much as they possibly can get away with,” said Colin Gillis, who has been active in the effort begun more than five years ago to win union representation for nurses at the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics in Madison.

“And when they do it here, at the hospital next door, they look at their nurses and they say, ‘Hey, they take six patients at night, so can you,” Gillis said. “Well, you and your nurses are here to say, ‘Heck, No!’”

Dr. Ira Segal, who has been among the employees at Group Health Cooperative in Madison organizing a union, said his coworkers see the Meriter nurses as allies.

“Together, we will persevere and we will shape a future where workers and patients come before profit, and where every voice is heard,” Segal said.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Striking nurses and supporters circle the UnityPoint Health-Meriter hospital in Madison on the first day of a five-day walkout Tuesday. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

With a spirited rally, a picket line march around the building and a small brass band, nurses at UnityPoint Health-Meriter hospital in Madison launched a five-day walkout Tuesday, reiterating their demands for changes in safety practices, minimum ratios of nurses to patients and improved pay.

The strike — the first ever by nurses at Meriter hospital — is scheduled to run through Saturday. It follows the end of bargaining on Monday, May 19, when the nurses’ union bargaining team turned down the hospital management’s latest proposal.

Services Employees International Union (SEIU) Wisconsin and UnityPoint Health-Meriter have been in negotiations since earlier this year on a new contract covering about 950 nurses. The nurses’ most recent two-year agreement expired in late March and they have since been working without a contract.

The nurses’ contract demands include establishing required ratios of nurses to patients, improved safety for hospital employees and pay increases — particularly for senior nurses, according to union officials.

“Time and time again, Meriter’s management refused to meet us halfway,” said nurse Lindsey Miller, one of three bargaining team members who spoke at the strike’s opening-day rally Tuesday morning. “At our last bargaining session, it was management, not nurses, who walked away from the bargaining table.”

Miller said the most recent management officer included “an unacceptable raise that doesn’t cover the cost of living” and made “no progress” towards the nurses’ union’s demands for staffing commitments or security improvements.

“I am striking because I love working here,” said Madison Vander Hill, a birthing center nurse and one of six union speakers at the rally. “I love getting to walk alongside and care for families as they go through one of the most transformative experiences of their lives.”

Vander Hill said she and other nurses were striking “because we must see tangible change from management in order to ensure that safety and security are prioritized and the things we love about the work that we do are protected.”

Her coworker, Audrey Willems Van Dijk, said the nurses’ concerns extended to concerns for the hospital’s patients.

“We are fighting for every single person who walks through Meriter’s doors,” she said. “Yes, we deserve adequate compensation, but more than that, we deserve safety and security for ourselves and our community. We deserve respect.”

Dane County Executive Melissa Agard declared her support for the nurses and connected their dispute with former Gov. Scott Walker’s signature legislation after he took office in 2011 — Act 10, stripping most public workers of most union rights.

“It was his mission to crack the foundation of union rights in the state of Wisconsin. And that crack has continued not only in Wisconsin but across our nation, and you guys are here to say, ‘No more,’” Agard said.

As the strike got underway this week, Meriter told nurses that health benefits — including health insurance — would be cut off as of June 1 for nurses who do not report for their first scheduled shift during the strike this week.

A union spokesperson said the effect of the order would be to cut off benefits for strikers for the month of June if the two sides don’t reach a tentative agreement on Thursday, when their next bargaining session is scheduled.

Meriter spokesperson Nicole Aimone confirmed in an email message Tuesday that nurses who do not report for their first shift during the strike will be put on “inactive status” through Sunday, June 1, with their benefits ending as of that date.

Nurses whose benefits are cut off would have to use the federal law known as COBRA to maintain their coverage, paying for their insurance out of pocket. The law, enacted in the 1980s, enables fired or laid-off workers to maintain their employer’s health insurance temporarily at their own cost.

“They will have the ability to re-enroll once they are placed back into active employee status,” Aimone said.

The union has filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board over the hospital’s action.

“It is outrageous and it is disgusting,” said Ben Wikler, the outgoing chair of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, addressing the rally. Wikler went on to lead hundreds of sign-carrying nurses and supporters in chanting, “Union busting is disgusting!”

“When management says you’ll lose your health insurance if you insist that there [should be] enough nurses on the floor to make sure that everyone is taken care of — it is disgusting,” Wikler said.

He described the dispute in the larger context of President Donald Trump’s return to the White House.

“They think that the Trump administration and the National Labor Relations Board that this administration has gotten is going to turn its back on working people,” Wikler said.

“They will still have to come back to the negotiating table and they will have to do what’s right, because you are building the power to make them do what’s right,” he added.

The hospital is continuing to operate during the strike. Aimone said that the hospital has contracted with an outside agency for replacement “travel nurses” to support ongoing patient care.

She said she did not have information on the cost for the contract nurses who are filling in during the walkout.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A House committee met this week to discuss possible federal AI legislation, and debated a pending measure to preempt states from enacting their own regulations. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

In one of the first major steps in discussing widespread regulations for artificial intelligence legislation at the federal level, members of the House subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade met Wednesday to discuss the United States’ place in the global AI race.

The hearing took place amid a push from House Republicans to put a stop to state-level AI legislation for the next decade. The measure was advanced last week as a part of the House Energy & Commerce Committee’s budget reconciliation proposal, part of House Republicans “big, beautiful bill” aiming to cut hundreds of billions in government spending, including safety net programs, over the next decade.

“We’re here today to determine how Congress can support the growth of an industry that is key for American competitiveness and jobs without losing the race to write the global AI rule book,” said Florida Rep. Gus Bilirakis, a Republican and chairman of the Innovation, Data, and Commerce subcommittee.

In a two-and-a-half hour hearing, subcommittee members discussed how to keep America’s leadership in AI, the European Union’s landmark AI Act that went into effect last year, the growing patchwork of state laws on AI and the proposed moratorium on those laws.

Support for federal guidelines or regulation around AI technologies received bipartisan support in the last congress, and the Bipartisan House Task Force on Artificial Intelligence released its research and findings in December. But many Republicans who supported these efforts in the past are changing course, arguing that a moratorium on state laws could allow Congress the time to pass a unified, federal set of guidelines.

Rep. Jay Obernolte, a Republican from California, said the more than 1,000 state laws relating to AI that have been introduced this year have created urgency to pull together federal guidelines. The states currently have “creative agency” over AI regulations, he said.

“The states got out ahead of this. They feel a creative ownership over their frameworks, and they’re the ones that are preventing us from doing this now,” Obernolte said. “Which is an object lesson to us here of why we need a moratorium to prevent that from occurring.”

Critics of the moratorium questioned why legislation at the state level would prevent the creation of federal guidelines.

Rep. Kim Schrier, a Democrat from Washington, said that stripping the states’ ability to legislate AI without a federal framework first would be “Republicans’ big gift to big tech.” The moratorium on state AI laws proposes to stop any in-progress legislation and nullify existing legislation.

“This pattern of gifts and giveaways to big tech by the Trump administration, with the cooperation of Republicans in Congress, is hurting American consumers,” she said. “Instead, we should be learning from the work our state and local counterparts are doing now to deliver well-considered, robust legislation, giving American businesses the framework and resources they need to succeed while protecting consumers.”

House members opposing AI legislation often cited a lack of regulations for one of the reasons the United States currently leads the global AI marketplace. The U.S. ranks first, testified Marc Bhargava, director at global venture capital firm General Catalyst, though China follows closely behind in computing power and its AI models.

Sean Heather, senior vice president for international regulatory affairs and antitrust at the Chamber of Commerce, testified that legislation that too closely mirrors the European Union’s AI Act, which went into effect last summer, could bump the U.S. out of its top position. The EU’s AI Act is comprehensive, and puts regulatory responsibility on developers of AI to mitigate risk of harm by the systems. It also requires developers to provide technical documentation and training summaries.

The EU’s AI Act is one of the factors in why Europe is not a stronger player in AI, Bhargava said, but it’s not the only one. The U.S. has a history of investing in science and innovation, being founder-friendly to tech startups, and to immigrant founders, he said. 46% of Top Fortune 500 companies in 2024 were founded by immigrants, as well as 65% of top AI companies. Europe has not pursued these business-friendly policies, Bhargava said.

“The reason we’re ahead today is our startups. We have to think about how to continue to give them that edge, and giving them that edge means giving them guidelines, and not necessarily a framework, or patchwork of state regulations or over regulating,” Bhargava said. “We need to come up with that right balance.”  

AI companies in the U.S. currently self-govern, meaning they test their models for some of the societal and cybersecurity risks that many lawmakers would like to see written into law. Most investors also follow their own strategy of due-diligence, Bhargava said. At General Catalyst, they assess data sets and training models as well as the output of the models. They also ask AI companies to identify the potential downstream implications that could come from their models.

Bhargava and a handful of members on the committee said they fear that overly strong regulations, especially ones that put regulatory burden on developers like in the EU, could squash the next great tech startups before they can get their footing.

But a lack of legislation all together puts Americans in a dangerous place, said Rep. Kathy Castor, a Democrat from Florida. She cited concerns about minors’ interactions with unregulated AI, like the case of one 14-year-old from her state who took his life after forming a close relationship with a chatbot, and another 14-year-old who was engaging in sexual conversations with a Meta chatbot.

“What the heck is Congress doing?” Castor said. “What are you doing to take the cops off the beat while states have acted to protect us?”

Amba Kak, co-executive director of the AI Now Institute, which studies the social implications of AI, said she is skeptical of allowing the industry to self-govern or for AI to grow unfettered. She said that during the hearing, members have asserted that existing agencies or general rules will protect Americans from the harms of AI.

“But if that was true, then we wouldn’t see the reckless proliferation of AI applications that are predicated on exploiting children in this way,” she said.

Though Congress is in the early stages of considering a federal framework, Bhargava said states passed their existing AI laws with “the best intentions” in mind.

“People want to protect consumers. They want to create frameworks,” he said. “And partially, it’s because the federal government has not stepped up to have a framework that we’re leaving it to the states to regulate.”

Bhargava “strongly” encouraged the members of the committee to work together on a bipartisan framework, and incorporate the findings of last year’s Bipartisan House Task Force.

“I really think that if we can turn this into policy and enact it on the federal level, rather than leaving it to the states,” Bhargava said. “It would be in the best interests of the startups that we represented.”