People gather for a "Save the Civil Service" rally hosted by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) on Feb. 11, the day President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling on DOGE to cut federal jobs. The Supreme Court said Tuesday those cuts could proceed, for now. (Photo by Kent Nishimura/Getty Images)

The U.S. Supreme Court late Tuesday lifted lower court injunctions that had blocked attempts by  President Donald Trump and his DOGE Service to restructure the federal government.

Labor unions, advocates and local governments that sued to block the cuts said the president exceeded his authority with the executive order by moving to dismantle the federal government without congressional approval.

A U.S. District Court judge in Northern California agreed and issued preliminary injunction to stall the executive order while the case was heard. A divided 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision.

But the White House pressed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that Trump’s executive order did not restructure the government but merely called for reductions in force, which it said is within the president’s power.

The Supreme Court agreed in a one-page order Tuesday, saying the government was likely to prevail on its claim and the injunction should be stayed while the case proceeded.

In a sharp, 15-page dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the district court judge had determined that the administration plan would not just cut jobs but would “fundamentally restructure” the federal government. He made a “reasoned determination” that the order should be stayed while the case was heard, she wrote.

“But that temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo was no match for this Court’s demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President’s legally dubious actions in an emergency posture,” she wrote.

“At bottom, this case is about whether that action amounts to a structural overhaul that usurps Congress’s policymaking prerogatives — and it is hard to imagine deciding that question in any meaningful way after those changes have happened,” she wrote. “Yet, for some reason, this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President’s wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a brief concurrence, said she agreed with Jackson that the president does not have the authority to remake government without congressional approval. But she said the executive order and an implementing memo from the Office of Management and the Office of Personnel Management call for the changes to be “consistent with applicable law,” and it’s for lower courts to determine if they are.

A White House spokesperson called the decision a “another definitive victory” for the Trump administration.

“It clearly rebukes the continued assaults on the President’s constitutionally authorized executive powers by leftist judges who are trying to prevent the President from achieving government efficiency across the federal government,” the spokesperson, Harrison Fields, said in a written statement.

But labor unions, advocates and political leaders say that the decision undermines the value of federal employees, threatens the operation of federal services, and could even endanger American citizens.

In a statement Tuesday evening, the American Federation of Government Employees, along with the rest of the coalition of unions, nonprofits and municipalities bringing the suit against the administration, decried the Supreme Court’s decision as a “serious blow to our democracy.”

The coalition said the decision put “services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy.”

“This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution,” the statement read. “While we are disappointed in this decision, we will continue to fight on behalf of the communities we represent and argue this case to protect critical public services that we rely on to stay safe and healthy.”

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore (D) said that as a state with a high concentration of federal workers, “any action against our federal employees is a direct strike against Maryland’s people and economy.”

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling on AFGE v. Trump will embolden President Trump in his mission to dismantle the federal government and threatens to upend the lives of countless public servants who wake up every day to deliver essential services and benefits that people rely on,” Moore said in a written statement. He noted that thousands of Maryland residents have already been laid off from federal agencies under the Trump administration.

In a post to X on Tuesday evening, U.S. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-5th) wrote that Trump and OMB Director Russell Vought are continuing to “vilify and traumatize the patriots serving our nation, unconstitutionally reorganizing the federal government.”

“The Supreme Court’s decision today demonstrates that federal employees, their families and livelihoods, and the vital services they provide to the American people are of no concern to the Trump Administration,” Hoyer wrote. “I stand with our federal employees against these attacks.”

U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-8th) said in an X post that the ruling “will give Trump’s wrecking crew more awful ideas about sacking critical federal workers,” referencing layoffs at the National Weather Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who help notify state and local agencies about impending dangerous weather.

U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) added that layoffs could also put Americans at risk by “decimating essential public services” like food inspections and Social Security.

“As Justice Jackson put it in her dissent, ‘this was the wrong decision at the wrong moment, given what little this Court knows about what is actually happening on the ground,’” Van Hollen said in a statment. “She is right. The Court’s decision to allow this damage to be done before ruling on the merits shows how detached they are from the reality of the moment.”

Van Hollen said the administration’s plan “isn’t about efficiency, it’s about rigging the government to only benefit the wealthy and powerful special interests.”

“We are not done fighting in Congress, in the courts, and in our communities to defend the dedicated public servants who go to work on behalf of the American people day in and day out,” he said.

The Feb. 11 executive order directed federal agencies to prepeare for “large-scale reductions in force” and to work with members of the Department of Government Efficiency — the DOGE Service that was run at the time by billionaire Elon Musk — to develop a plan to reduce the size of the workforce. Military personnel were exempted, but virtually every other federal agency was affected.

The order was quickly challenged in court by labor unions, taxpayer and good government groups and by a hafl-dozen local governments: Harris County, Texas, Martin Luther King Jr. County, Washington, and San Francisco City and County, California; and the cities of Chicago, Baltimore, and Santa Rosa, California.

They argued that the goals of the executive order far exceeded the president’s authority to reduce the size of agencies. Under the DOGE plan, they argued to the Supreme Court, “functions across the federal government will be abolished, agencies will be radically downsized from what Congress authorized, critical government services will be lost, and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will lose their jobs.”

“There will be no way to unscramble that egg: If the courts ultimately deem the President to have overstepped his authority and intruded upon that of Congress, as a practical matter there will be no way to go back in time to restore those agencies, functions, and services,” their court filing said.

That was echoed by Jackson, who said the district court judge was in the best position to determine if the president’s order consisted of “minor workforce reductions” or whether it was a massive reorganization that overstepped executive authority.

“With scant justification, the majority permits the immediate and potentially devastating aggrandizement of one branch (the Executive) at the expense of another (Congress), and once again leaves the People paying the price for its reckless emergency-docket determinations,” she wrote.

Maryland Matters is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Maryland Matters maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Steve Crane for questions: editor@marylandmatters.org.

Local leaders reached a tentative deal to move Green Bay’s century-old riverfront coal piles last month. Local leaders reached a tentative deal to move Green Bay’s century-old riverfront coal piles last month. But the downtown home of the mounds of coal likely won’t be development-ready for several years. 

The post Despite deal to move Green Bay coal piles, downtown site is still years away from redevelopment appeared first on WPR.

Senate Republicans hauled President Donald Trump’s big tax breaks and spending cuts bill to passage Tuesday on the narrowest of votes, pushing past opposition from Democrats and their own GOP ranks after a turbulent overnight session.

The post Senate passes Trump’s big tax breaks and spending cuts bill as Vance breaks 50-50 tie appeared first on WPR.

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

We Energies says the decision comes in response to tightened energy supply requirements and in an effort to boost reliability.

The post We Energies will delay Oak Creek coal plant retirement by one year to 2026 appeared first on WPR.

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

Wisconsin home sales were down for their third straight month in May, while the median home price continued to climb, according to a new report.

The post Wisconsin home sales slump for third straight month, new report says appeared first on WPR.

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

Wisconsin’s labor shortage is a major barrier to growing the state’s economy, and worker productivity also lags behind neighboring states, a new report finds.

The post Wisconsin’s labor shortage is a barrier to economic growth, report says appeared first on WPR.

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.

A former Hormel Foods employee allegedly attempted to share trade secrets with Wisconsin-based competitor Johnsonville, according to a new lawsuit.

The post Johnsonville sued by competitor over alleged effort to poach employees, share trade secrets appeared first on WPR.

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

As the federal government resumes its collections for student loan debts, the head of a Wisconsin student debt help group says there are ways to manage repayments. 

The post Wisconsin student loan borrowers could now face debt collection appeared first on WPR.

After more than 100 years in its south side location, a Milwaukee metal manufacturer might close its doors for good this August.

The post Century-old Milwaukee metal forge faces closure, mass layoffs appeared first on WPR.

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

Lawmakers in both chambers of the Wisconsin Legislature approved a bill Wednesday that would formally classify gig drivers for transit apps — such as delivery drivers and rideshare operators — as independent contractors, rather than employees.

The post Wisconsin gig workers could become independent contractors under bill headed to governor’s desk appeared first on WPR.

The Joint Finance Committee is in the midst of biennial budget decision making. Democratic Rep. Tip McGuire, who sits on the committee, criticized Republican priorities.

The post Wisconsin Democratic legislator criticizes Republican priorities on the budget appeared first on WPR.

Facing financial difficulties following the COVID-19 pandemic and new expenses, the local sundries stores launched a GoFundMe page to save the stores from closure.

The post An eclectic 88-year-old science store has raised $170K from customers in fight to stay open appeared first on WPR.