Nebraska Republicans sought to weaken voter-backed paid sick leave. A Democrat helped them do it.
Backers of the bill overcame a filibuster on Wednesday with the exact number of votes needed — 33 — thanks to the support of a Democrat in the officially nonpartisan Legislature, Sen. Jane Raybould of Lincoln.
Raybould, whose family owns several grocery store chains in the state, was also the main sponsor of another bill that sought to restrict a voter-backed minimum wage law. That bill suffered an unexpected defeat earlier this session when a freshman lawmaker failed to show up for a vote on it. Raybould's attempt to attach it to the paid sick leave measure on Wednesday also failed.
By a nearly 3-to-1 margin, Nebraska voters in November approved a ballot measure that requires all Nebraska employers to provide at least some paid sick leave to their employees.
The ballot language, which had been set to take effect Oct. 1, required businesses to provide workers with one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked, up to seven days at businesses with more than 20 employees. Employees at smaller businesses could accrue up to five days' worth of paid sick leave a year. The leave could be used for the employees themselves or to tend to a family member.
But the bill passed Wednesday and expected to be signed into law by Gov. Jim Pillen carves out exceptions. It allows businesses to withhold paid sick leave from 14- and 15-year-olds, as well as from temporary and seasonal agricultural workers. Businesses with 10 or fewer employees would not need to provide paid sick leave at all.
More concerning, opponents say, is a provision that strips from the new law the ability of workers to sue employers who retaliate against them for using paid sick leave. The removal of that enforcement language would 'essentially gut' the paid leave measure, said Sen. John Cavanaugh, who opposed the bill. Cavanaugh reiterated that paid sick leave received nearly 75% approval — more support than most lawmakers got at the polls.
'The voters wanted this more than they wanted you here,' he said, addressing fellow lawmakers. 'This is about respect for the will of the voters.'
Nebraska joins other states leading efforts to counter voter-approved policies on everything from paid sick leave to abortion. Some states are seeking to limit the voter initiative process itself, leading to pushback from voters.
Supporters of the Nebraska paid sick leave rollback say they're seeking to protect both workers and businesses. Raybould has said throughout debate this session that teens under 16 will find themselves unable to get an after-school or summer job without changes to both minimum wage and paid sick leave measures. She says no one will hire teens with limited experience and federal child labor restrictions at $15 per hour — the minimum wage set to take effect Jan. 1.
Monday Mornings
The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week.
'We have to find that balance between business and labor,' Raybould said during debate Wednesday. 'We have to be competitive, and we have to be flexible.'
Others went further, with Republican Sen. Mike Jacobson saying that government telling businesses what wages and benefits they must offer employees 'threatens democracy.' If employees don't like the terms of their employment, he said, it's incumbent on them to find a different job.
Sen. Robert Hallstrom is another Republican who supported restrictions on both the minimum wage and paid sick leave. He said the Legislature has the right to make changes to voter-backed measures, asking if young or seasonal workers who would be affected by those changes would 'rather have a $10-an-hour job or no job?'
The Paid Sick Leave for Nebraskans coalition, which was behind the effort to get paid sick leave on the Nebraska ballot last year, said the bill passed Wednesday would remove paid sick leave protections for 140,000 workers in the state.
'Despite thousands of Nebraskans demanding that our Legislature honor the clear will of voters, 33 senators ignored those calls yet again today,' the coalition said in a statement. 'It will prevent thousands of Nebraskans from being able to access the good life.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
2 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Defamation case against Fox News highlights role of its hosts in promoting 2020 election falsehoods
NEW YORK (AP) — Court papers in a voting technology company's $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News point to Maria Bartiromo, Lou Dobbs and Jeanine Pirro as leaders in spreading false stories about election fraud in the weeks after Democrat Joe Biden's victory over President Donald Trump in 2020. Arguments for summary judgment by Smartmatic were filed in lightly redacted form this week at the New York Supreme Court. It's like a bad rerun for Fox: Similar revelations about its conduct following the 2020 election came in a lawsuit by another company falsely accused of doctoring votes, Dominion Voting Systems. Fox agreed to pay Dominion $787 million in a 2023 settlement after the judge found it was 'CRYSTAL CLEAR' that none of the claims against the voting system company were true. In short: Fox let Trump aides spread conspiracy theories despite knowing they were false because it was what their viewers wanted to hear. Fox was trying to hold on to viewers who were angry at the network for saying Biden had won the election. Fox said it was covering a newsworthy story. It accuses the London-based company, which had only Los Angeles County as a client for the 2020 election, of exaggerating its claims of damages in the hope of receiving a financial windfall. Pirro now working in the second Trump administration The focus on Pirro is noteworthy because the former Fox personality now serves in Trump's second administration as U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C. Smartmatic, relying on emails and text messages revealed as part of the case, said Pirro was using her position as a Fox host in 2020 to help Trump and persuade him to pardon her ex-husband, Albert Pirro, who was convicted of conspiracy and tax evasion. Trump pardoned him before leaving office in 2021. In a text to then-Republican National Committee chairwoman Ronna McDaniel in September 2020, Pirro said, 'I'm the No. 1 watched show on news cable all weekend. I work so hard for the President and the party,' Smartmatic said in court papers. One of her own producers, Jerry Andrews, called Pirro a 'reckless maniac,' Smartmatic said. He texted after one of her shows in November that it was 'rife (with) conspiracy theories and bs and is yet another example of why this woman should never be on live television.' The court papers said Pirro also suggested 'evidence' of supposed fraud to Trump lawyer Sidney Powell that she could use on a television appearance — material that also was spread by Bartiromo. Bartiromo still works at Fox, and in 2020 had shows on both the news channel and Fox Business Network. The court papers uncovered messages showing her desire to help Trump: 'I am very worried. Please please please overturn this. Bring the evidence, I know you can,' she texted to Powell. Dobbs, whose business show was canceled by Fox in February 2021, texted to Powell four days after the election, saying 'I'm going to do what I can to help stop what is now a coup d'etat in (its) final days — perhaps moments,' a reference to Biden's victory. Dobbs died in 2024. A central figure in Fox's 'pivot' Smartmatic portrayed Pirro as a central figure in Fox's 'pivot' to deemphasize Biden's victory because it angered Trump fans. Instead, the network found that ratings jumped whenever claims of election fraud were discussed, it said. As in the Dominion case, the discovery process helped Smartmatic find messages and statements that seem embarrassing in retrospect. For example, in early December, Fox's Jesse Watters texted colleague Greg Gutfeld that 'Think of how incredible our ratings would be if Fox went ALL in on STOP THE STEAL.' Fox, in a response to the newly-revealed court papers, pointed to an ongoing corruption case involving Smartmatic and its executives, including a claim by federal prosecutors that it used money from the sale of voting machines to set up a 'slush fund' for bribing foreign officials. 'The evidence shows that Smartmatic's business and reputation were badly suffering long before any claims by President Trump's lawyers on Fox News and that Smartmatic grossly inflated its damage claims to generate headlines and chill free speech,' Fox said. 'Now, in the aftermath of Smartmatic's executives getting indicted for bribery charges, we are eager and ready to continue defending our press freedoms.' Smartmatic has already settled similar defamation claims against Newsmax and One America News Network in relation to their post-2020 election coverage. ___ David Bauder writes about the intersection of media and entertainment for the AP. Follow him at and
Toronto Star
2 hours ago
- Toronto Star
California Gov. Newsom signs legislation calling special election on redrawn congressional map
SACRAMENTO, Calif (AP) — California voters will decide in November whether to approve a redrawn congressional map designed to help Democrats win five more U.S. House seats next year, after Texas Republicans advanced their own redrawn map to pad their House majority by the same number of seats at President Donald Trump's urging. California lawmakers voted mostly along party lines Thursday to approve legislation calling for the special election. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has led the campaign in favor of the map, then quickly signed it — the latest step in a tit-for-tat gerrymandering battle.
Winnipeg Free Press
3 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Here's where all the legal cases against Trump stand since his return to the White House
Before he battled his way back to the White House, President Donald Trump was in court battling a slew of civil lawsuits and criminal charges that threatened to upend his finances and take away his freedom. Those cases have mostly abated since his return to office, albeit with some loose ends. On Thursday, Trump declared 'total victory' after an appeals court threw out a massive financial penalty in New York Attorney General Letitia James' lawsuit alleging that he exaggerated his wealth and the value of marquee assets like Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago. Other punishments affecting Trump's business still apply, but they can be paused pending further appeals. Since Trump's reelection in November, four separate criminal cases — including his hush money conviction and allegations of election interference and illegally hoarding classified documents — have either been dropped, resolved or put aside. On the civil side, several high-profile lawsuits against Trump have been quietly working their way through the appeals process. Here's a look at some of Trump's criminal and civil cases and where they stand now: New York Hush Money Case Trump became the first former U.S. president convicted of felonies when a New York jury found him guilty in May 2024 of falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment to a porn actor who said the two had sex. Though Trump could have faced jail time, Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan in January sentenced him instead to what's known as an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction on the books but sparing him any punishment. Trump is appealing the conviction. Trump was set to take office just days later, and Merchan said he had to respect Trump's upcoming legal protections as president, even wishing him 'Godspeed as you assume your second term in office.' Georgia Election Interference Case In August 2023, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis charged Trump and 18 others with participating in a scheme to illegally try to overturn his narrow loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election in Georgia. Willis cited Trump's January 2021 phone call to Georgia's secretary of state, an effort to replace Georgia's Democratic presidential electors with ones who would vote for Trump, harassment of a Fulton County election worker and the unauthorized copying of data and software from elections equipment. But the case stalled over revelations Willis had been in a relationship with the man she appointed to prosecute it. A state appeals court in December removed Willis from the case. She has appealed that decision to the Georgia Supreme Court, but even if the high court takes the case and decides in her favor, it's unlikely she can pursue criminal charges against Trump while he's in office. Federal Election Case Special counsel Jack Smith charged Trump in August 2023 with conspiring to overturn the results of his election loss to President Joe Biden in the run-up to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. Prosecutors allege Trump and his allies knowingly pushed election fraud lies to push state officials to overturn Biden's win and pressured Vice President Mike Pence to disrupt the ceremonial counting of electoral votes. But Smith moved to drop the case after Trump won reelection in November. Longstanding Justice Department policy says sitting presidents cannot face criminal prosecution. Classified Documents Case In a separate prosecution, Smith charged Trump in June 2023 with illegally retaining classified documents he took from the White House to Mar-a-Lago after he left office in January 2021, and then obstructing government demands to give them back. Prosecutors filed additional charges the following month, accusing Trump of showing a Pentagon 'plan of attack' to visitors at his golf club in New Jersey. Smith also moved to drop that case after Trump's election victory. Sexual Assaults Lawsuits In May 2023, a federal jury found that Trump sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s and later defamed her. The jury awarded Carroll $5 million. In January 2024, a second jury awarded Carroll an additional $83.3 million in damages for comments Trump had made about her while he was president, finding that they were defamatory. Trump is appealing that decision. He also appealed the first jury decision, but a federal appeals court in December upheld it and then declined in June to reconsider. Trump still can try to get the Supreme Court to hear his appeal. New York Civil Fraud Lawsuit On Thursday, a five-judge panel of New York's mid-level Appellate Division overturned Trump's whopping monetary penalty in James' lawsuit while narrowly endorsing a lower court's finding that he engaged in fraud by padding his wealth on financial statements provided to lenders and insurers. The judges ruled that the penalty — which soared to $515 million with interest tacked on each day — violated the U.S. Constitution's ban on excessive fines. At the same time, they left in place other punishments, including a bans on Trump and his two eldest sons from serving in corporate leadership for a few years. The decision will almost certainly be appealed to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, and the upheld punishments can be paused until that court rules.
