Key takeaways

• The label “right to work” is intentionally misleading. RTW laws provide no job protections. What they do is make it harder for workers to form and sustain strong unions.
• RTW laws are intended to weaken unions. They are linked to lower unionization rates, lower wages and benefits, and worse safety outcomes for all workers.
• RTW laws have racist, anti-union origins dating to the 1940s. For decades, big business and white supremacist groups promoted RTW laws to diminish workers’ collective bargaining rights and block multiracial organizing.
• RTW laws don’t boost job growth but do erode job quality and increase inequality.
• Trends on RTW are reversing. No state has adopted a new RTW law since 2017, and multiple states have repealed or rejected RTW.

Key takeaways:

• The U.S. is the only OECD country that does not provide a national paid family and medical leave program, leaving it to states to ensure workers are protected when they need to take time off from work to care for themselves or a family member. 
• Some states—including eight across the South—have adopted voluntary private insurance models of paid leave that allow private insurance companies to sell insurance policies directly to employers and/or workers themselves. 
• But this approach provides less coverage, covers fewer workers, widens already large disparities in access, and is likely to be more expensive than comprehensive state paid family and medical leave (PFML) plans. 
• Other states should follow the model of proven success from 13 states and Washington, D.C. that have implemented comprehensive PFML programs. 

Comprehensive, universal Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) programs are powerful tools to safeguard and improve the economic well-being and overall health of workers and their families. Research shows that PFML improves health for both mothers and infants, reduces poverty and economic insecurity for low-income families, and increases labor force participation rates for mothers for up to five years after the birth of their child. In states that do not have a PFML program, workers lose an estimated $34.3 billion annually in wages due to leave-related absences from work, including $18.8 billion lost by women. 

PFML programs also benefit employers and the broader economy, in part by improving recruitment of talented workers, especially among small businesses, reducing turnover, and increasing worker productivity. The National Partnership for Women and Families estimates that U.S. women’s lower labor force participation—due in part to a lack of paid leave—has cost the broader U.S. economy more than $6.7 trillion in economic activity over the last decade. This is economic activity the U.S. economy would have experienced if American women’s labor force participation rates were the same as those of women in Canada.

Despite PFML’s clear benefits, the U.S. is the only OECD country that does not provide a national paid family and medical leave program—leaving it to states to ensure workers are protected when they need to take time off from work to care for themselves or a family member. 

Lawmakers in 13 states and D.C. have met this responsibility by passing comprehensive paid family and medical leave programs that guarantee coverage. Lawmakers in 10 other states have chosen weaker, much less effective voluntary approaches that defer to employers, leaving many workers uncovered. Vermont and New Hampshire, for example, have implemented public-private voluntary paid leave models where the state contracts with private insurance companies to provide paid leave for public-sector workers and private-sector employers may opt in voluntarily.1 

Across the South, Alabama (2023), Arkansas (2023), Florida (2023), Kentucky (2024), South Carolina (2024), Tennessee (2023), Texas (2023), and Virginia (2022) have adopted voluntary private insurance models of paid leave that allow private insurance companies to sell insurance policies directly to employers and/or workers themselves. 

While the private insurance model has been embraced by the insurance industry—the National Conference of Insurance Legislators adopted a voluntary paid family leave model bill in 2022 at its annual meeting—it fails workers and families. Not only do these programs fail to require employers to provide any coverage to their workforce, but the relevant laws in these states also typically provide few, if any, requirements for what types of leave are covered, the duration of coverage, or wage replacement rates.

This approach to paid family and medical leave provides less coverage, provides it for fewer workers, increases already large disparities in access, and is likely to be more expensive than comprehensive state PFML plans. 

Less coverage 

State PFML programs typically provide workers with 8–12 weeks of paid, job-protected leave to bond with a new child (birth, adoption, or foster), to care for themselves or a family member with a serious illness or injury, or for military caregiving and exigency leave. Wage replacement rates are typically at 90% or higher, at least for low-wage workers, in most states with a paid leave program, including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and the District of Columbia. Maine and Maryland will also pay out at this rate when they begin paying benefits later in 2026. 

Because voluntary models do not require employers to provide coverage for their workers, there is no guarantee that they will. And when employers do purchase paid leave insurance for their workforce, they are unlikely to provide the same level of coverage as comprehensive state programs. The amount of leave provided, the wage replacement rate, and even what life events are covered depend on the employer and/or the insurance company. The New Hampshire plan, which does provide details on requirements for paid leave coverage, only requires 6 weeks of paid leave with wage replacement of just 60%. 

Finally, in direct contrast to comprehensive, universal state paid leave programs, it is unclear how voluntary insurance models of paid leave could provide a job guarantee for workers taking paid leave. In the public-private model offered in New Hampshire, workers are not provided with job protection but may qualify for protection under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), so long as they meet the requirements of FMLA (i.e., they must work at a firm with 50+ employees, and must have worked for the employer for 1,250 hours over the preceding 12 months). 

Covering fewer workers

An estimated 46.2 million workers—almost one-third (32%) of the private-sector workforce in the U.S.—are eligible for coverage under one of the 14 PFML programs in the country. That leaves tens of millions of workers without a guarantee of paid time off when they need to provide for their family’s needs. This reflects, in large part, the lack of a federal universal, comprehensive PFML program and the failure of most states to implement such a plan. Unfortunately, when participation is voluntary, many employers are unlikely to offer this benefit to their workers. 

For example, in the New Hampshire voluntary program, public-sector workers are automatically covered, and private employers and individual workers can voluntarily participate. After three years, just 2.3% of private-sector workers are covered by this PFML plan through their employer. And in the eight states that authorize private insurance paid leave, researchers are unable to determine whether employers are actually purchasing insurance coverage for their workers, but it appears that few insurance companies are even selling policies in these states. It is therefore not surprising that fewer than 1 in 4 workers are covered by PFML through their employer in most of these states, including Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, South Carolina, and Tennessee. In contrast, the 14 state PFML programs cover 93% of all workers in their jurisdictions. 

Increasing disparities

It is not just that fewer workers are covered by voluntary paid leave models, but coverage rates vary dramatically by income, occupation, race and ethnicity, and other characteristics. According to the Department of Labor, 95% of the lowest-wage workers—mostly women and workers of color—lack access to paid family leave. Many of these workers are in occupations with low access to paid leave, including jobs in leisure and hospitality (8%), accommodation and food service (7%), and transportation and warehouse work (9%). 

American Indian/Alaska Native (18%) and Black (23%) workers have some of the lowest PFML coverage, while Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (55%) and Hispanic (41%) workers have some of the highest coverage rates. Racial differences reflect, in part, differences in where workers live. For example, more than half of the Black population lives in one of the 16 Southern states or the District of Columbia, where only two states and D.C. have a state paid leave program.

Higher costs

In states where PFML is voluntary, there is little transparency, especially related to costs. We know from the private health insurance model, however, that introducing a profit motive into the provision of care is a terrible way for policymakers to provide workers with the protection they need at affordable costs. A profit-seeking insurance company is going to look for ways to reduce its costs and maximize profits; this inevitably means seeking to reduce payouts, whether through claim denials or other means. There is no scenario in which the profit-seeking model results in both high-quality, comprehensive leave coverage and low costs for workers, employers, or the public. 

In New Hampshire, for example, only one insurance company bid for a contract to provide paid leave benefits, and its estimated rates were generally higher than the payroll contributions in states with PFML programs. 

Further, an insurance industry stakeholder expressed concern about the lack of incentives for private employers to participate in these plans. In both the New Hampshire and Vermont cases, they reported that the models were unsustainable because most employers did not participate in the plans and individual workers whose costs are capped by the state plans would only participate when they anticipated needing coverage—meaning that the insurance pools would never be adequately financed. 

A better model exists

In recent years, challenges facing workers with care responsibilities have rightfully garnered greater public attention, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many policymakers have taken notice. Unfortunately, in some states—frequently those that have long opposed strong worker protections, a robust safety net, and workplace regulations—lawmakers have opted for voluntary models of paid family and medical leave that are fundamentally flawed. 

Voluntary models allow businesses to decide whether their workers should be paid when they need to take time to care for themselves or their families. Without mandatory coverage, too many workers will not have access to the leave they need, and this is especially the case for those workers who need paid leave the most. 

Instead, we should follow the model of proven success from 13 states and D.C. that have implemented comprehensive PFML programs, including some that have improved programs over time, incorporating lessons and best practices from other states. These programs provide more inclusive coverage for personal illness or injury, bonding with a child, caring for an ill or injured family member, and military deployment.

Universal programs also provide coverage for more workers, including employees, both full- and part-time, both public- and private-sector workers, and in some cases, independent contractors are allowed to opt in. The best programs provide workers with 12 weeks of job-protected leave—i.e., workers are guaranteed their same job or a substantially similar job with comparable pay and benefits when they return from leave and have wage replacement rates of at least 80% of the state median and 100% for low-wage workers. 

These programs have been proven to expand access at a reasonable cost and with a broad range of benefits for workers, businesses, and states overall.

These are benefits that voluntary private insurance models have failed to provide in part because the goal of private insurance is to make a profit, not to ensure the overall well-being of workers and families or their communities. 

1. Lawmakers in New Hampshire introduced a new bill in February 2026 that will extend paid family leave to a full comprehensive state paid leave program, if it is enacted.

Key takeaways:

• Ballot initiatives have enabled voters to advance worker-centered policies—like higher minimum wages—in states with hostile legislatures, particularly in the South.
• A coordinated, right-wing legislative attack on ballot initiative processes is attempting to reverse ballot initiative wins, scare advocates out of using the ballot process, and make it harder to get future measures on the ballot that improve standards for workers.
• Despite these barriers, advocates and voters are fighting back to protect pro-worker ballot access and advance new progressive ballot measures.

In recent years, state ballot initiatives have served as powerful tools to advance economic opportunity for working families. Voters directly have raised the minimum wage, secured paid sick leave, protected abortion access, enacted bail reform, expanded Medicaid, and increased funding for public education—all popular progressive economic policies that some state legislatures have failed to enact. However, some conservative state legislatures have responded by overturning or limiting recent wins. And in the few Southern states where voters can access ballot measures—Arkansas, Florida, and Oklahoma—conservative legislators are waging war against the ballot initiative process itself, attempting to obstruct the will of voters and make it permanently more difficult for the public to directly decide on policy choices.

Why ballot initiatives are important for advancing economic opportunity

Ballot initiatives are a form of direct democracy in which voters have the power to decide on a proposed new law or constitutional amendment. Currently, 26 states and the District of Columbia offer voters access to ballot measures in some form, as do many more localities.

While more than half of the country has access to some form of direct democracy, ballot access is heavily concentrated in Western and Northern states. Only three states in the Deep South—Arkansas, Florida, and Oklahoma—effectively have ballot initiative processes. Attacks on the ballot process are intensifying in each of these states.

Ballot initiatives are more important than ever for advancing worker-centered policies that both Congress and state legislatures have failed to enact despite clear voter support. For example, Republican lawmakers have repeatedly blocked legislative proposals to increase the minimum wage (federally and in many states) despite the popularity of increasing the minimum wage and the positive impacts it has on workers and families. In the absence of federal action, 30 states, the District of Columbia, and almost 70 localities have adopted minimum wages above the federal minimum of $7.25 per hour. Of these states, 43% (13 states) used ballot measures to secure the increase. An additional three states used direct democracy to increase minimum wages that already exceeded the federal floor.

Ballot measures have been especially critical to achieving minimum wage increases in Southern states like Arkansas and Florida. Only four other states in the South—Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia—have increased their minimum wages via legislation likely due to higher minimum wages in neighboring states or Democratic legislative majorities.

Paid leave laws have remained similarly scarce across the South. Of the 18 states with some form of statewide paid sick leave, only one—Maryland—is in the South. Attempts to expand paid leave access in Southern states have so far been limited to narrow state legislation covering only some public employees, or local efforts threatened with state preemption, demonstrating the need for ballot initiatives.  

Right-wing attempts to weaken direct democracy in the South

In response to the success of progressive ballot measures, right-wing lawmakers have launched attacks on direct democracy, particularly in the South.  

Opponents of ballot access have especially targeted the signature process to delay or block measures from reaching the ballot. This strategy arose in Mississippi via a court challenge to a 2020 ballot initiative allowing the use of medical marijuana, which 74% of voters approved. As advocates including the Mississippi NAACP were building support for new ballot measures to expand Medicaid, the courts struck down the ballot process. Even though Mississippi’s Constitution guarantees voters access to ballot initiatives, the state Supreme Court ruled that no ballot initiative could be valid because of outdated constitutional language establishing the signature rules. (The old rules do not account for the lower number of congressional districts in Mississippi after redistricting, making it impossible to reach the signature threshold to put a measure on the ballot.)  

Following the Mississippi blueprint, direct democracy opponents in other Southern states have begun to challenge the signature process. After Arkansas voters passed minimum wage increases through ballot measures, the Arkansas legislature passed new state laws that could empower the state attorney general to invalidate a request for signatures because of the title of the measure. If and when the signature process begins, a host of laws make it much more difficult for canvassers to collect signatures. Canvassers must now confirm the voter reads the ballot title, inform voters that petition fraud is a crime, check voter identification, and file an affidavit stating they have complied with all laws. Scare tactics directed at both petition canvassers and signers make it harder to collect signatures out of fear that exercising their constitutional rights may lead to imprisonment.

Following minimum wage increases that passed via ballot measures, the Florida legislature followed a similar strategy of restricting the signature process for citizen-led constitutional amendments. Their legislation excludes people with felonies, people without citizenship, and non-Florida residents from being canvassers. It also requires canvassers to register with the state or face a third-degree felony charge which could be punishable by up to five years in prison. Once the signatures are collected, the law also requires the sponsor to deliver the petitions within 10 days after a voter signs, as opposed to once all signatures are collected. These restrictions deeply limit the number of people who can collect signatures and add burdensome labor to the petition sponsor by requiring frequent trips to deliver the petitions. In 2025, advocates met the signature threshold to put recreational cannabis on the ballot, but the new laws invalidated over 70,000 signatures and prevented the measure from reaching voters.  

Finally, conservative lawmakers in Oklahoma have launched attacks on the ballot process. Oklahoma organizers have already secured the signatures for a 2026 ballot measure to increase the minimum wage. In response, lawmakers attacked the signature process, restricting the share of eligible voters who can sign initiative petitions per county and consequently weakening the influence of voters in the most populous counties like Oklahoma and Tulsa counties. The Oklahoma Policy Institute explains that this new requirement would “exclude 2.2 million registered voters (or 94.4% of registered voters) from signing a petition for statutory amendments.” The restriction also has racial implications with Tulsa County home to 23% of Black Oklahomans and Oklahoma County home to 41% of Black Oklahomans. Compounding the new restrictions, the law also gives the secretary of state the authority to determine the legality of a proposal. The new law also requires that paid petitioners disclose their employer to the secretary of state and prohibits paying canvassers with out-of-state funding or based on the amount of signatures they collect, among other tactics to invoke fear.

Overall, these new petition processes can make signature collection more costly due to administrative barriers that only allow the most well-funded campaigns to have any chance of making the ballot. Consequently, the process now lends itself to causes backed by corporate interests or wealthy supporters which may not reflect the needs of average voters, contradicting the goals of ballot access policies intended to democratize decision-making.

Despite attacks, voters are still fighting to launch ballot initiative campaigns and protect direct democracy

Despite growing attacks on the ballot process, organizing across the country—and in the South—persists. In June 2026, Oklahoma State Question 832 will be on the ballot, proposing to gradually increase the minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2029. In Florida, ballot measures proposing various constitutional amendments are moving forward to expand Medicaid, legalize recreational use of marijuana, and codify the right to clean and healthy water.

Advocates are also organizing to protect the constitutional right to ballot access itself. Arkansas Public Policy Panel and the Protect AR Rights coalition continue to fight back and win against new restrictions on ballot measures, filing lawsuits and proposing a new ballot question that would make ballot access a “fundamental right.” Their new ballot question was approved in July 2025, clearing one of the last barriers for signature collection. In Oklahoma, advocates have filed two lawsuits opposing new restrictions on ballot measures—especially the state’s ability to disrupt the signature collection process—and are awaiting a decision from the state’s Supreme Court.

Voters are similarly fighting back in states where legislators have rolled back successful pro-worker ballot measures. In response to the Nebraska legislature weakening a new paid sick leave law won via ballot measure, the Respect Nebraska Voters coalition is organizing for a new ballot measure to make it more difficult for the legislature to reverse the will of voters. Missouri legislators repealed parts of a successful ballot measure that established paid sick leave and attached a cost-of-living increase to the minimum wage. Voter outrage over the legislative betrayal has “kicked the hornet’s nest,” according to the bipartisan Respect Missouri Voters coalition, which recently submitted over 20 versions of new petitions to protect ballot initiatives. If implemented, these petitions would require an 80% legislative majority to overturn a successful ballot initiative law or constitutional amendment, prohibit barriers to signature collection, allow corrections to misleading ballot language, and add other ballot protections.

The essence of ballot access is the will of the people becoming law. Despite legislative efforts to obstruct direct democracy, Southern advocates and voters continue to push for the voice of everyday people to be heard and for policies that improve the lives of workers and their family members.

Access to paid sick leave is increasing in some areas

On a national level, we’ve seen positive trends in access to paid sick days from 63% of private-sector workers in 2012 to a record high of 80% in 2025, according to the latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These advances are driven by the fact that state and local governments enacted laws to enable workers to earn paid sick leave. In 2024, ballot measures were passed in Alaska and Nebraska. Alaska’s leave policy took effect on July 1, while Nebraska’s took effect just last week (albeit weaker than originally passed). Unfortunately, a paid sick leave measure that Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved by ballot was rolled back by the legislature and is no longer in effect.

Currently 18 states (including Washington, D.C.), 17 cities, and 4 counties have some form of paid sick leave requirements. Given that the existence of state laws varies, it’s no surprise that there are significant differences in access to paid sick time across the country, as shown in Figure A. The share of workers with access to paid sick days ranges from only 63% in the East South Central states (Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, and Tennessee) and 71% in the West South Central (Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas) up to 98% in the Pacific states (California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, and Alaska). The fact that the nearly 30 million workers in the Pacific states have essentially universal access to at least some form of paid sick days highlights that this key labor standard is purely a policy choice—and one that state and local governments can enforce on their own.

Figure A

Notably, many state governments in the East South Central and West South Central Census divisions have passed preemption laws prohibiting local municipalities from passing paid sick leave policies. So not only have legislative majorities failed to enact paid sick leave at the state level, but these states have also blocked cities and counties from passing legislation to provide paid sick leave for their workers.

Access to paid sick leave is greatest for the most highly paid workers

As with geographic variation, access to paid sick leave remains vastly unequal by wage level. As shown in Figure B, the higher the wage, the greater the access to paid sick leave. Among the 10% of private-sector workers with the highest wages, 96% have access to paid sick days. By contrast, among the 10% of workers with the lowest wages, only 41% have access to paid sick days.

Figure B

The unequal access to paid sick days is particularly troubling since low-wage workers are least able to absorb lost wages when they or their family members are sick. Workers may have trouble paying for housing, food, health care, and other necessities (see Table 1 of this report). This unequal access is why state laws are so important: Most of the gains from state and local paid sick provision benefited the lowest-wage workers. Access for the bottom 10% of wage earners increased from 19% in 2012 to 41% in 2025.

There is also huge variation in access to paid sick days within the private sector for workers by work hours and union status. Full-time workers are much more likely to have paid sick days than part-time workers (88% versus 56%). Unionized workers have greater access to paid sick days than nonunion workers (86% versus 80%).

Fortunately, there is a relatively simple way to address some of these inequities: The federal government can pass legislation to mandate paid sick leave for all workers. In the absence of federal action, state governments can move on their own and mandate that employers provide this key labor standard. Paid sick leave not only helps reduce the transmission of disease, it also provides economic security for workers who might otherwise lose income if they have to take time off from work. 

Amid this crisis, states have urgent obligations to shore up basic protections. The crisis also presents states with big opportunities to remedy long-standing weaknesses and exclusions in outdated labor laws and take leadership in addressing major economic challenges like wage suppression, growing income inequality, racial and gender wage gaps, and declining job quality.

Below we summarize some of the actions states have taken so far in 2025 to raise wages, prevent harmful child labor, combat wage theft and worker misclassification, guarantee the right to unionize, expand paid leave, protect worker health and safety, and improve unemployment insurance. These examples from across the country show how state policymakers can assume more expansive, effective roles in enacting and enforcing key worker rights and protections.

Wages

The federal minimum wage—now officially a poverty wage—is just $7.25 per hour and has not increased since 2009. Moreover, federal law continues to allow employers to pay subminimum wages to tipped workers, workers with disabilities, youth under 18, and others, while excluding certain occupations (e.g., farmworkers) from coverage. Resulting wage suppression hurts all workers and is particularly harmful to Black workers and other workers of color. In the absence of federal action, states continue to lead important progress on raising the minimum wage to levels that address inflation and regional costs of living; eliminating subminimum wages; and closing loopholes that deny some groups of workers minimum wage coverage.

This year Rhode Island enacted legislation (H5029) to progressively raise the minimum wage to $17 by 2027. Virginia also passed legislation to increase the minimum wage to $17 by 2027, but it was ultimately vetoed by Governor Youngkin.

Following a years-long campaign, Maine expanded its state minimum wage law to include farmworkers who are otherwise excluded from most federal labor protections. (Maine legislators also passed related legislation [LD 588] to extend anti-retaliation protections to farmworkers, but it was vetoed by Governor Mills). And this year, Georgia joined 26 states that have taken action to prohibit or disincentivize paying subminimum wages to workers with disabilities. Georgia’s new law (SB 55) will phase out the disability subminimum wage by 2027.

Ongoing efforts to eliminate the tipped minimum wage met with setbacks in D.C., Michigan, and Colorado:

• In Washington, D.C.—where voters overwhelmingly supported measures to phase out the tipped minimum wage in both 2018 and 2022—the City Council voted to delay planned 2025 increases, extend the timeline for phasing in future increases to seven years, and eventually cap the tipped minimum wage at 75% of the minimum wage.
• Seven years after Michigan legislators blocked voters from weighing in on a highly popular ballot measure that would have phased out the tipped minimum wage, and a year after the Michigan Supreme Court reinstated the ballot measure’s benefits for low-wage workers, state legislators once again acted against voters’ wishes with compromise legislation (SB 8) that accelerates the schedule of minimum wage increases but maintains the state’s tipped subminimum wage.
• In response to intense lobbying from the restaurant industry, Colorado changed its law to allow localities with higher minimum wage rates to maintain relatively lower tipped minimum wages. Previously, Colorado cities with higher minimum wages were required to maintain a tipped minimum of $3.02 less than the local minimum wage (equivalent to the current $3.02 gap between the state tipped and full minimum wage). The new law allows for gaps larger than $3.02 between a local tipped and full minimum wage (providing that the local tipped minimum remains at least equivalent to the state tipped minimum). This compromise replaced an even worse bill that would have required all localities to lower their tipped minimum wage to match the state tipped minimum.

State prevailing wage standards—which require contractors on public works projects to pay workers at least the local median wage for a given type of work—help ensure that public investments yield good jobs with fair, equitable pay and benefits. This year, New Jersey strengthened its prevailing wage law by expanding prohibitions on public contracts with firms that have previously failed to pay prevailing wage. Oregon enacted HB 2688, extending prevailing wage requirements to some off-site manufacturing. A bill extending the state’s prevailing wage requirement to contractors working on underground infrastructure works passed in Virginia but was vetoed by Governor Youngkin.

Child labor

Despite ongoing federal- and state-level attempts to erode the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, advocates in several states succeeded in blocking new threats to weaken child labor protections. For example, EARN network affiliate Florida Policy Institute helped block two related bills (HB 1225 and SB 918) that would have allowed employers to schedule some 14- and 15-year-olds and all 16- and 17-year-olds for unlimited hours of work without breaks. Florida advocates also stopped passage of a bill (SB 676) that threatened to exempt student internships and work-study programs from the state minimum wage.

Continuing a growing trend, several states passed proactive legislation to shore up child labor protections. New York’s budget bill drastically increases civil penalties and adds criminal homicide charges for employers who cause the death of a child due to negligence on the job, while Washington passed legislation (HB 1644) increasing penalties for child labor violations, limiting an employer’s ability to hire minors following repeated violations, and strengthening state agency oversight of employers seeking permits to supervise student learning that involves potentially hazardous work.

Unfortunately, West Virginia eliminated their youth work permit system for 14–15-year-olds and replaced it with a mandatory age certification process which transfers sole approval authority and recordkeeping responsibilities from schools to the state labor division. Though an improvement on a previous bill, this law means school officials will no longer have the authority to reject work arrangements they believe are not in a student’s best interest.

Preventing wage theft and worker misclassification

State roles in enforcing strong wage payment standards are more important than ever at a moment when the Trump administration is rolling back federal wage and hour standards and the number of federal Department of Labor (DOL) Wage and Hour Division investigators is already at an all-time low. This year, several states passed legislation to prevent wage theft:

• Building on an impressive multi-year initiative to strengthen state labor standards enforcement, Oregon’s SB 426 strengthens protections for construction workers by holding both project owners and contractors liable for unpaid wages. Oregon also passed HB 5015 to strengthen and increase funding for the state agency responsible for enforcing standards, the Bureau of Labor and Industries.
• Minnesota continued progress on combating wage theft with an amendment to existing laws that gives county attorneys authority to subpoena records of employers in wage theft investigations.
• Colorado enacted a new version of legislation (HB 1001) previously vetoed by Governor Polis, that will now expand state agency authority to penalize employers who commit wage theft and publicize violations on a state agency website.
• New York’s budget bill gives the state’s DOL more power to enforce wage theft laws, including the ability to seize a violator’s financial assets following an unpaid wage theft judgment.

Growing recognition of the costs of worker misclassification continued to generate important state policy advances in 2025. Employers who illegally misclassify employees as “independent contractors” skirt payroll tax, unemployment, and workers’ compensation payments, while depriving workers of fundamental workplace rights and increasing the likelihood of wage theft. 

• Though ultimately vetoed by the governor, Virginia lawmakers passed HB2561, which would have extended the timeframe for filing wage and misclassification claims and held employers liable for damages awarded in lawsuits.
• In Delaware, a bill currently awaiting the governor’s signature would hold contractors liable when their subcontractors misclassify workers and allow the state’s DOL to enforce compliance.

Rights to unionize and collectively bargain

Several states acted this year to strengthen workers’ rights to organize and bargain or to hold the line against new attacks on the right to unionize. State policies are especially critical for determining whether workers have the freedom to form unions at a moment when the Trump administration is hobbling the federal government’s ability to adjudicate labor law violations, attacking union rights of federal employees, and eliminating capacities to mediate contract negotiations. Even prior to these escalating attacks, millions of workers interested in unionizing faced daunting obstacles to organizing under weak, outdated federal laws that employers routinely violate.

This year, Washington (SB 5041) and Oregon (SB 916) took steps to encourage fairer labor negotiations by extending eligibility for unemployment insurance to striking workers. Connecticut legislation to do the same passed for the second year in a row but was again vetoed by Governor Lamont. Rhode Island (SB 126) joined the now 13 states protecting employees’ freedom to opt out of employer-sponsored “captive audience” meetings on political or religious matters unrelated to work duties. Such mandatory meetings are frequently used by employers to communicate anti-union views amid highly coercive, retaliatory campaigns to block workers from unionizing.

Several states took affirmative steps to safeguard collective bargaining rights for groups of workers otherwise excluded from federal coverage, or to resist attempts to limit workers’ collective bargaining rights with so-called right-to-work (RTW) laws. Vermont legislators approved placing a constitutional amendment guaranteeing collective bargaining rights on the ballot in 2026. Two other New England states—New Hampshire and Maine—rejected unpopular proposals to pass RTW legislation.

Colorado legislators passed the Worker Protection Act in an attempt to reverse an 80-year-old law that imposes de facto RTW conditions in the state. Unlike any other state, Colorado requires unionizing private-sector workers to undergo a state-sanctioned “second election” in order to gain full bargaining rights. Despite passage by large margins and a robust campaign demonstrating economic benefits of strengthening unions, the Worker Protection Act was vetoed by Governor Jared Polis.

Virginia attempted a significant expansion of collective bargaining coverage for state and local public employees (building on 2021 legislation that lifted a state ban on local government collective bargaining), but Governor Youngkin vetoed the legislation.

In Ohio, a new law curtailing freedom of speech in higher education also stripped faculty of their right to strike. In other states where legislators continued attacking rights of public employees this year, workers largely succeeded in resisting. For example, some Florida legislators attempted to make it even harder for public-sector workers to form or maintain unions, building on an already extreme anti-union law enacted in 2023. But this year, no new anti-union bills (HB 1217, HB 1387, HB 1328, SB 1766) were enacted in Florida. Most notably, after Utah passed unpopular legislation banning public-sector collective bargaining, over 300,000 Utahns successfully petitioned for a ballot measure to repeal the ban. The question will now go before voters in 2026.

Paid leave

Fed up with decades of lawmakers’ failure to enact paid leave legislation, voters approved paid sick leave ballot measures by wide margins in Alaska, Nebraska, and Missouri last November. All three of these ballot measures then came under fire during 2025 legislative sessions. Republican-majority legislatures repealed the paid sick leave portion of Proposition A in Missouri and weakened Nebraska’s paid sick leave program with new exclusions denying coverage to seasonal agricultural workers, young workers, and those working for small businesses. Attempts to do the same in Alaska were unsuccessful, and Alaska workers have now begun to accrue paid sick leave under the new program.

Several states—including Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi—took small but important steps to extend paid parental leave to some public employees, continuing a multi-year trend in the South. Signaling potential for much bigger breakthroughs on paid leave in the South, Virginia legislators passed HB2531, which would have established a statewide comprehensive paid family and medical leave program, if it had not been vetoed by Governor Youngkin.

Workplace health and safety

The Trump administration’s dangerous war on workplace health and safety standards was replicated in some state legislatures this year and actively resisted in others. Two new laws in Kentucky will increase dangers workers face on the job: The first (HB 196) reduces the number of emergency medical technicians required on site at active coal mines. The second (HB 398) cripples the state’s OSHA program by prohibiting the state from enforcing existing safety laws above the federal floor, limiting who can request safety inspections, and restricting the time in which an employee can file a complaint of retaliation after reporting a safety hazard. Florida legislation (HB 6033) threatening to repeal a 1995 state law that extends rights and protections to temporary and day laborers ultimately died in the House after a fierce campaign by grassroots group Beyond the Bars. Its repeal would have left these laborers without a number of health and safety protections not guaranteed at the federal level.

Other states are taking important steps to close loopholes in federal law or to anticipate potential erosion of federal OSHA standards. Maryland established a new state OSHA program to cover public-sector workers (who are otherwise excluded from federal OSHA coverage) and 18 states proposed standards to protect workers exposed to extreme heat. Though none have passed yet in 2025, these bills signal the dire need for heat exposure regulations (which already exist in seven states) as a proposed federal OSHA heat standard currently under consideration could take years to reach approval and is at risk of being weakened or abandoned by the Trump administration.

Unemployment insurance

This year, several states passed positive expansions and improvements to their unemployment insurance (UI) systems, while others weakened theirs.

Virginia enacted two UI improvements. The first, SB 1056, increased UI benefits, while SB 1057 increased the amount of “disregarded” income people can earn from part-time jobs without reducing their benefits. VA legislators also considered—but failed to pass—a related bill that would have allowed unemployed federal contractors to qualify for unemployment insurance. Georgia enacted updates to its UI system with the goal of allowing quicker and more efficient communication with UI recipients, and legislators in Maine created an interest-free loan system to help cover lost income for public employees during government shutdowns. The North Carolina House passed an increase to UI benefits, but the bill stalled in the Senate.

Continuing a long-standing trend of attacks on already fragile unemployment insurance systems, several states further weakened UI despite vocal opposition. West Virginia and Louisiana made it harder for workers to access benefits, passing legislation to require drug tests to qualify for benefits and increasing work search requirements respectively. Louisiana’s bill also slashed overall benefit amounts. After slashing UI benefits in 2023, this year Iowa enacted SF 607, drastically lowering employers’ contribution rates and putting the state’s UI trust fund at high risk for future insolvency. Workers and advocates had to fend off many other harmful UI bills in other states. Texas’s HB 199, for example, would have indexed Texans’ maximum number of UI benefits to the statewide average unemployment rate, slashing up to 12 weeks of unemployment insurance coverage for workers and unfairly punishing rural workers. Thanks to opposition from groups including EPI’s EARN affiliate EveryTexan, this bill was killed in committee.

Conclusion

While the Trump administration’s attacks on workers and unions continue to escalate, some states are stepping in to shore up and expand workers’ rights and protections. While much more remains to be done, 2025 state legislative sessions provide powerful reminders that states can and should, at a minimum, resist threats to erode labor standards and lock in existing worker protections. The national worker rights crisis also calls for more states to push beyond minimum standards, fix gaps and exclusions in weak labor laws, ensure all workers can build power, and lay the policy foundation necessary to rebuild an economy that works for all.

Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) and paid sick leave are essential benefits that help workers maintain their livelihoods while taking care of themselves and their families. Paid sick leave allows workers to take time off from work, while still being paid, to recover from illness or injury. This is not only good for the welfare and productivity of workers but also for employers (and the public at large) because it helps reduce the spread of infectious disease. 

PFML is generally paid leave provided to workers for the birth or adoption of a child, or when they must take more extended time away from work to recover or provide care to loved ones. Studies show that access to PFML improves outcomes for parents and children, workforce participation, and job retention, and that this a beneficial policy for both employees and employers. Access to paid leave also bridges racial gaps in care and pay.

Still, the United States Congress has yet to codify a universal PFML program into law. While the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) provides job protection for workers who need time off for some medical and family circumstances, it does not guarantee pay during leave. Only 27% of workers have access to comprehensive PFML and access is uneven across income levels, occupations, and regions; for example, management and professional occupations are more than twice as likely to have access to this benefit than service workers. Researchers estimate that workers are losing $22.5 billion annually in wages due to a lack of access to PFML.

In the absence of federal action, many states have adopted PFML and paid sick leave policies that have proven to be both effective and popular. But access to PFML and paid sick leave remains especially scarce in the South, reflecting a long history of low wages and limited benefits that are rooted in racist efforts to exploit Black and brown workers and suppress labor costs. Seven of the 10 states with the lowest rates of paid sick leave access are in the South. Within those states, fewer than 70% of workers had access to paid sick days compared with roughly 78% of workers nationwide. Currently, 13 states and the District of Columbia have PFML programs for all workers in the state. As of 2026, along with D.C., the only two states in the South (as defined by the Census) with comprehensive PFML programs will be Delaware and Maryland—neither of which are in the Deep South.

Expanding paid leave access in the South has important equity implications. Workers are paid lower wages in the South than in other regions of the country—even after adjusting for regional cost-of-living differences. And Black and brown workers—who make up a disproportionate share of the low-wage workforce nationally and in the South—are less likely to be offered paid time off than their higher-paid counterparts and less likely to be able to afford unpaid leave. To address this deficiency, 21 Southern organizations affiliated with EPI’s EARN in the South initiative have prioritized paid leave as part of a shared pro-worker agenda Agenda for a Thriving South, advocating for expanded paid leave across several Southern states over the past two years.

This year, in a near breakthrough for Southern paid leave, the Virginia legislature passed comprehensive PFML legislation, but it was vetoed by Governor Youngkin (R). While state employees in Virginia have had access to paid parental leave since 2018 (achieved via gubernatorial action), this still leaves a large share of Virginia workers without access to PFML benefits.  The Commonwealth Institute (a member organization of EPI’s EARN network) reports that over 40% of Virginia workers do not have access to paid family and medical leave. Federal FMLA provides unpaid leave to 56% of workers, but taking time off without pay is not an option for many—particularly for Black and brown workers. According to the Commonwealth Institute, only 34% of Black workers and 23% of Hispanic workers in the state say they could afford to take unpaid leave if it was available to them, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive paid leave program that would support all Virginia workers.

States in other regions of the country are making progress on paid sick leave laws. Currently,18 states plus D.C. have paid sick leave policies. This includes the three states (Missouri, Nebraska, and Alaska) where voters approved ballot initiatives in 2024 to enact paid sick days in states where legislatures had resisted the policy. Workers still need a national paid sick leave policy as court challenges and legislation threaten new state paid sick leave initiatives, even after they were approved by majorities of voters.

Paid parental leave policies covering some public employees are gaining traction in the South

Two Southern states (Mississippi and Alabama) passed laws this year, bringing the total number of states (plus D.C.) that currently provide paid parental leave for certain public employees to 39. Many of the newest Southern paid parental leave policies solely cover state employees, making this limited benefit easy for states to enact as a direct employer. Prior to 2025, several Southern states—including Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia—had passed paid parental leave laws for state employees.

Some states are now looking to build upon their initial law. Notably, a South Carolina bill to expand the definition of covered state employees who would qualify for six weeks of paid parental leave passed the state Senate this year and is making its way through the House Ways and Means Committee. If the bill is enacted, employees of technical colleges and four-year institutions in South Carolina would also receive paid parental leave. In addition, legislation to double the number of weeks of paid leave for state employees passed the House. This bill would guarantee 12 weeks of paid leave for eligible state employees.  

Several other paid parental leave bills have made progress in Southern states in the 2025 legislative cycle. The types of public employees covered include workers in state government, educators in public and charter schools, and employees of public universities or community colleges.

Table 1 shows the status of paid parental leave laws for certain public employees in the deep South. To provide a benchmark for how these paid parental leave bills compare with a strong comprehensive PFML program, the first row of the table lists the key components that comprise a strong PFML law.

Newly passed legislation in both Alabama and Mississippi had broad and bipartisan support. In Alabama, advocates such as Alabama Arise noted the strong benefits of paid parental leave for workers, the state economy, and for improving maternal health—which were emphasized by Alabama’s governor, Kay Ivey (R) in her State of the State address.  

Advocates for the Mississippi legislation also uplifted the maternal health gains associated with paid parental leave. As in Alabama, the support of a state-level elected official, Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch, helped propel the bill forward.

Guaranteeing paid parental leave to state employees is a modest step, but it will motivate private-sector employers to provide similar benefits

Southern state lawmakers have historically been opposed to establishing new requirements for private businesses—particularly around job quality and workplace rights. Yet expanding parental leave access to a significant share of public employees will have the effect of raising standards and expectations for individual employers’ paid leave policies across the broader labor market. Private employers who compete with the state to attract and retain staff will feel compelled to offer at least comparable benefits.

As shown in Table 2, state employees represent a meaningful share of the workforce in the Southern states that now provide paid parental leave for state employees. The percentage of state employees in each state’s workforce ranges from 2–9%, with a median of 5.4%.

Focusing on paid parental leave for public employees has allowed Southern states to take a small step toward comprehensive paid leave access. This added benefit can also help improve employee recruitment and retention in state agencies. Since paid leave is widely regarded as a family-supporting policy, recent instances of Southern legislation on parental leave for public employees have encountered little opposition and garnered support across party lines and a wide array of constituencies. It is also one of the easiest forms of paid leave for states to enact; paid parental leave for state employees can in most cases be implemented without legislation, via executive action or state agency personnel policy.

After a state employee paid parental leave bill failed to pass the Kentucky legislature in 2024, Governor Andy Beshear (D) initiated the process to update administrative regulations to provide six weeks of paid parental leave to state employees (with a target date of summer 2025 for implementation). Analysis from the Kentucky Center for Economic Policy research showed that instituting paid parental leave for state employees would help align Kentucky’s employment practices with others in the region and would have minimal fiscal impact on the state budget.1

Other limited expansions of paid leave for public employees have advanced this year in other Southern states. For example, a bill increasing the number of paid sick days for school personnel passed both legislative chambers in Georgia. Also, Tennessee and Arkansas passed paid bereavement leave bills for state employees this year. The Arkansas legislation guarantees 40 hours of leave, while Tennessee provides up to 10 days of leave for grieving state employees depending on the familial relationship.

A good start but a long way to go

Paid leave is an important policy that helps workers, families, and the economy thrive. Yet on paid leave and many other pro-workers policies, the South continues to lag behind other regions of the country. In this context, new Southern laws extending paid parental leave to state employees are a promising development that could help open the door to more expansive paid leave proposals. State employees covered by new paid parental leave policies make up a nontrivial portion of the workforce, and new paid leave policies will allow state governments to demonstrate the positive benefits of one type of paid leave for Southern workers and employers alike. Building on this recent progress, Southern lawmakers should consider more comprehensive paid family and medical leave policies covering all workers in their states.

1. Because this regulation has not yet been confirmed, the author did not include it in Table 2.

Workers will briefly enjoy the benefits of paid sick leave before it is taken away. On May 1, workers started earning one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked, and they will continue to accrue leave until the repeal takes effect on August 28. Within this period, someone working a full-time schedule would have earned 24 hours of sick leave. It is not immediately clear if those hours will be available for a worker’s use after August 28. Additionally, the legislation also amends the part of Proposition A that raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour and indexed it to inflation. While the minimum wage will remain at $15 an hour (where it has been since January 1), it will no longer be indexed to inflation—meaning inflation will eat away at the value of the state minimum wage in future years unless lawmakers (or voters) take action.

This legislation will cause meaningful harm to working families in Missouri. The Missouri Budget Project estimated that 728,000 Missouri private-sector workers did not have paid sick leave prior to the passage of Proposition A. Workers without paid sick days are mostly working in low-wage jobs, and Black and Hispanic workers are disproportionately overrepresented in the low-wage workforce.

The lack of paid sick leave erodes working families’ economic security and needlessly spreads illness. As EPI noted earlier this year, paid sick leave laws improve public health by reducing the spread of illness, and their costs to businesses are extremely modest—generally requiring no measurable change to business practices. Paid sick leave reduces job separation rates among women, which is good for family stability and suggests paid leave creates a more level playing field for all workers. EPI reports that “paid sick leave policies allow workers to not only maintain their employment but also add work hours, suggesting that such policies function as work support for workers earning low wages.”

This is not the first time Missouri’s legislature has rolled back benefits for workers that were already in place. In 2017, legislators undid St Louis’s local minimum wage, which had been set at $10 an hour, meaning the minimum wage reverted to the state minimum of $7.70 an hour after four months. Additionally, in 2021, Missouri legislators tried to block a voter-approved expansion of Medicaid only to be blocked by a judge.

The Missouri legislature’s repeated efforts to thwart the clearly expressed will of the voters is an example of the increasingly common practice of GOP-led states attempting to limit the capacity of voters to enact pro-worker changes through ballot measures. This follows a slew of progressive policy measures passed by referendum in 2024, including minimum wage increases and paid sick leave measures in Alaska and Missouri, expanded abortion rights in seven states (also including Missouri), and rejections of school vouchers in Colorado, Kentucky, and Nebraska.

This decision is a slap in the face to the 1.7 million Missourians who voted for the ballot measure in November 2024, and to all working families in the state. It is bad policy that will harm Missourians, provide no help to businesses, and further demonstrate that the Missouri legislature is not enacting policies that support working people’s interests.  

By the numbers: 

• Voters approved minimum wage increases to $15 per hour in two states (Alaska and Missouri).  

• Voters expanded workers’ ability to earn paid sick leave in three states (Alaska, Missouri, and Nebraska).  

• Voters approved a state constitutional right to abortion in seven states (Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, and New York).  

• Voters rejected school vouchers in three states (Colorado, Kentucky, and Nebraska).  

• Alaska voters opted to ban anti-union captive audience meetings, while Oregon voters passed a measure to protect cannabis workers’ right to unionize.  

In this year’s election, voters given the opportunity to weigh in directly on questions of economic justice showed policy preferences far more progressive than those reflected in many national and state election outcomes. Across the country, voters seized opportunities to approve state or local ballot measures increasing the minimum wage, expanding paid leave, strengthening workers’ rights to unionize, preserving public education, and protecting access to abortion. These ballot measure outcomes reflect a clear ongoing trend of strong voter support for policies that prioritize worker, racial, and gender justice—and illustrate how state and local governments can continue to play important roles in enacting such policies. 

State and local ballot measures 

Minimum wage 

Five states voted on wage-related measures in 2024. The federal minimum wage has not been raised since 2009. In the absence of action at the national level, 30 states and 63 localities have raised their own minimum wages beyond the federal minimum of $7.25.   

Alaska: Voters passed Ballot Measure 1 to increase the state’s minimum wage to $15 per hour by July 1, 2027. We estimate this will increase pay for an estimated 30,000 workers in the state. Additionally, the measure requires employers to provide earned paid sick leave and protect workers’ rights to opt out of mandatory “captive audience” meetings on political or religious topics at work (see below).  

Missouri: In another win for low-wage workers, voters passed Proposition A to raise the state’s minimum wage to $15 per hour. The measure also requires employers to provide earned paid sick leave (see below). The Missouri Budget Project (a member organization of EPI’s EARN network) estimates the measure will raise wages for over 560,000 Missouri workers and provide paid sick leave to nearly 730,000 workers. 

California: As of this writing, Proposition 32 is too close to call. If passed, the proposition would increase the state’s minimum wage to $18 per hour and tie future increases to inflation. In that case, California would have the highest state minimum wage in the nation (though one that still falls short of the state’s average living wage of $32.81). According to the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (a member organization of EPI’s EARN network), the proposed increase would raise wages for about 2 million Californians who currently work full time but earn less than $18 per hour. 

Glendale, Arizona: Proposition 499, an ambitious local proposal to raise the minimum wage for hotel and event center workers to $20 an hour (with annual increases) and set various standards for hotel work hours, did not pass. The proposal would have also created a new city Department of Labor Standards dedicated to investigating employer violations such as wage theft and overtime violations. Though this measure did not succeed, it does provide an innovate policy model for other local governments to consider.  

Tipped minimum wage 

While the federal minimum wage has been stuck at $7.25, the federal “tipped minimum” wage remains $2.13 per hour. As a result, employers of tipped workers can rely on customers to pay the bulk of wages for tipped staff. Even as most states have now enacted minimum wages above the federal $7.25 per hour, many still maintain exceptionally low tipped minimum wages. 

Arizona: Voters rejected Proposition 138 in a win for tipped workers. If passed, it would have lowered the state’s tipped minimum wage, contradicting the national trend toward raising the minimum wage and eliminating gaps between tipped and non-tipped hourly workers.  

Massachusetts: In one exception to the overall trend of voter approval for state measures to raise wages, Question 5 failed in the face of heavy opposition from the restaurant industry. If passed, the measure would have gradually increased the minimum wage for tipped employees to meet the state’s standard minimum wage ($15) over the course of five years. Massachusetts will maintain its tipped minimum wage.  

Paid leave  

Absent federal action, a growing number of states and localities have expanded workers’ ability to earn paid sick leave to care for themselves and their families. This year, voters passed ballot measures to further that expansion in three states.  

Alaska’s successful minimum wage measure (see above) included a provision requiring employers to allow employees to accrue paid sick leave (up to 40 hours per year at businesses with fewer than 15 employees and up to 56 hours per year for larger employers). 

Missouri’s successful minimum wage measure (see above) included a provision requiring employers to allow employees to accrue paid sick leave at a rate of one hour of leave for every 30 hours worked.  

Nebraska: Amendment 436 passed, which requires businesses to offer earned paid sick leave to employees. Small businesses with fewer than 20 employees will be required to allow employees to accrue up to five paid sick days a year, while employees of larger businesses will be entitled to up to seven days. 

Workers’ rights 

Due to longstanding gaps and exclusions in federal labor law, far too many U.S. workers either still lack any legal pathway to a union contract or face daunting obstacles to exercising their rights to unionize. Multiple successful ballot initiatives this year showed that in the absence of federal labor law reform, state and local governments can play key roles in ensuring more workers gain full union and collective bargaining rights. 

Alaska: In addition to regulations on minimum wage and paid sick leave, Alaska’s successful Ballot Measure 1 bans mandatory captive audience meetings. Alaska now joins 11 other states that have enacted laws to prevent employers from requiring employees to listen to political, religious, or anti-union employer views on work time.  

Denver, Colorado: A large majority of voters approved Question 2U, a local ordinance to extend collective bargaining rights to 7,000 municipal workers. While Colorado has enacted legislation granting collective bargaining rights to some state and county employees in recent years, other local government workers still lack this protection in the state. 

New Orleans, Louisiana: Voters passed a “Workers Bill of Rights” amendment to the city charter that articulates rights such as access to fair wages, paid leave and health care, and the right to unionize. The measure sets out an aspirational framework for encouraging (and potentially incentivizing) local employers to improve job quality but does not set mandates to raise wages or improve working conditions since local governments in Louisiana are blocked from enacting such policies under state preemption laws.  

Massachusetts: Voters passed Question 3, which creates a unique state-level framework that rideshare drivers could use to form organizations authorized to bargain with rideshare companies over wages and working conditions, without addressing the question of drivers’ legal status as employees. Rideshare companies have long fought to keep drivers classified as independent contractors as this exempts them from the protections of many state and federal laws, including the right to unionize under the federal National Labor Relations Act. 

Oregon: Voters passed Measure 119, which helps protect cannabis workers’ right to unionize by requiring employers to sign a “labor peace agreement” in order to receive a license to operate in the state. Such agreements stipulate that employers will not interfere with organizing efforts if workers choose to unionize.  

Reproductive rights 

The right to an abortion is a matter of economic security, independence, and mobility for millions of women across the country. People who are denied abortion access are more likely to live in poverty, be unemployed, and face other adverse economic outcomes. 

Ten states had measures on the ballot this November that would provide a state constitutional right to abortion, the majority of which succeeded. Voters in Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, and Nevada passed these measures, enshrining this crucial right in state law.  

In New York, voters passed Proposal 1 to expand the state constitution’s Equal Protection Clause to protect people from discrimination (including in the workplace) regardless of “ethnicity, national origin, age, and disability” or “sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy.” Though the amendment does not include the word “abortion,” it provides safeguards for those who seek them. 

On the other side, voters in South Dakota rejected their proposed amendment for a constitutional right to abortion. Voters in Nebraska faced competing initiatives this year but rejected wins for abortion rights on both counts. Initiative 439 (which would provide a fundamental right to abortion) failed, whereas Initiative 434 passed (which would prohibit abortion after the first trimester with limited exceptions). Finally, in Florida, 57% of voters favored their amendment to enshrine a right to abortion in the state constitution, falling just short of the 60% threshold needed to pass.  

Criminal justice 

Constitutional amendments to abolish slavery 

Many state constitutions retain similar language to the U.S. Constitution’s 13th Amendment, which prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime. The Abolish Slavery National Network and other civil rights advocates argue that extremely low-paid (or, in some cases, unpaid) forced work in U.S. prisons amounts to modern slavery. Incarcerated workers are not only exempt from minimum wage laws but are also denied overtime protection, workplace safety guarantees, and the right to unionize. Closing these loopholes is a first step toward establishing basic rights for the incarcerated workforce.  

Both California and Nevada proposed ballot measures to remove language in their state constitutions permitting slavery or involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime. Voters in Nevada passed Question 4, joining eight other states that have passed ballot measures to abolish slavery in prisons in recent years. A similar proposal in California, Proposition 6, is still too close to call. If passed, it would also directly prohibit prisons from punishing incarcerated people who refuse to work.  

Criminalizing immigration 

Arizona: In a significant loss for immigrants’ rights, Proposition 314 passed. This damaging, anti-immigrant law triggered several changes to the state’s criminal and immigration law, including making it a state crime for noncitizens to enter the state at any location other than official ports or for an individual in the country illegally to submit false information to apply for a job. The changes also empower state courts and law enforcement to initiate and carry out deportation proceedings.

School vouchers 

School vouchers divert public funds to private and religious schools. Despite widespread evidence documenting that vouchers are a failed policy that damage public schools, deepen inequality, and weaken student educational outcomes, state efforts to expand voucher programs remain a central feature of the relentless campaign to defund and then privatize public education. 

Voters rejected school vouchers in every state with a measure on the ballot.  

Colorado: Voters rejected Amendment 80, which would have provided for a state constitutional “right to school choice” for K–12 students and established the groundwork for private school vouchers. The Colorado Fiscal Institute (a member organization of EPI’s EARN network) found that vouchers would have cost the state at least $640 million.   

Kentucky: A majority of voters in every county in the state rejected Amendment 2, which would have allowed the state legislature to provide state funding to K–12 students outside of public schools. The Kentucky Center for Economic Policy (a member organization of EPI’s EARN network) found that passing the amendment and creating a state subsidy program for private schools could have cost the state $1.19 billion, equivalent to the cost of employing 9,869 Kentucky public school teachers and employees. 

Nebraska: Voters approved Referendum 435, repealing a state law that allowed the state to spend up to $10 million a year on subsidizing tuition for K–12 students who attend private schools. 

While these gains are welcome news for millions of working families, access to paid sick leave remains vastly unequal. As shown in Figure A, higher-wage workers have greater access to paid sick days than lower-wage workers. Among the 25% of private-sector workers with the highest wages, 94% have access to paid sick days. By contrast, among the 25% of workers with the lowest wages, only 58% have access to paid sick days. Prior releases have shown that the bottom 10% fare even worse, with only 39% having access to paid sick days in 2023 (though their access has improved, likely from state action).

Figure A

This unequal access to paid sick days is particularly troubling since low-wage workers are least able to absorb lost wages when they or their family members are sick. Workers may have trouble paying for housing, food, health care, and other necessities (see Table 1 of this report).

While federal inaction on paid sick days continues to erode families’ economic security and needlessly spread illness, cities and states are stepping up for working people and serving as models for jurisdictions throughout the country. Minnesota is the latest example of states granting workers the ability to earn paid sick time in 2024. Measures to provide paid sick time are also on the ballots this November in Nebraska, Missouri, and Alaska.

Given variation in state laws, it’s no surprise that there are significant differences in access to paid sick time across the country, as shown in Figure B.

The share with access to paid sick days ranges from only 64% in the East South Central states (Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, and Tennessee) and 65% in the West South Central (Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas) up to 95% in the Pacific states (California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, and Alaska). Notably, many state governments in the East South Central and West South Central Census divisions have passed preemption laws prohibiting local municipalities from passing paid leave and sick day policies.  

Figure B

There is also huge variation in access to paid sick days across the private sector. Full-time workers are much more likely to have paid sick days than part-time workers (87% versus 55%). Unionized workers have greater access to paid sick days than nonunion workers (84% versus 79%).

Fortunately, there is a relatively simple way to address some of these inequities: The federal government can pass legislation to mandate paid sick leave for all workers. Paid sick leave not only helps reduce transmission of disease, it also provides economic security for workers who might otherwise lose income if they have to take time off from work. 

The United States continues to lag behind other industrialized democracies when it comes to a national paid leave law protecting workers. The U.S.’ lack of paid leave policies—family, medical, and sick leave—has a disproportionately harsh impact on low-wage workers, who are predominantly women, immigrants, and people of color. These workers are far less likely to receive paid time off or have flexibility in controlling their work schedules, even though their need for leave is every bit as acute.

Workers with a union are far more likely to have paid time off and schedule certainty. Unions have bargained for paid leave, scheduling flexibility, and other benefits important to workers—particularly workers with familial demands (EPI 2021). The reach of this union advantage is limited, however, given that only 6% of private-sector workers are covered by a collective bargaining agreement (Shierholz et al. 2024).

Policymakers have tried to enact various laws to address workers’ needs for paid time off and flexible and predictable work schedules. Particularly at the state level, policymakers have adopted paid time off requirements, and in a few places, ordinances requiring greater predictability around scheduling—an important reform that gives workers (and particularly low-wage workers) the certainty they need to be able to schedule appointments or even work another part-time job if they need to. However, progress has been slow, and these reforms still do not cover most workers. At the federal level, progress has been stalled as Congress has failed to act on paid leave or scheduling fairness legislation.

Some workers are doing gig or short-term work—including digital platform or app-based gig work—in an effort to have more flexibility and control over their work schedules.1 This is the case despite research showing that the majority of gig and other contingent workers would prefer permanent, full-time employment (NELP 2021).

Moreover, this flexibility is often illusory, given the degree of control employers retain over workers and their schedules. Even more problematic is the effort by some companies, led by digital platform transportation companies like Uber and Lyft, to leverage the flexibility myth in attempts to defend their employment practices. These app-based companies misclassify their drivers as independent contractors, claiming that this is a necessary practice for meeting drivers’ demands for flexibility. However, this practice deprives drivers of crucial workplace protections, including guarantees for paid time off and scheduling certainty, where such laws exist. Moreover, experience has shown that companies can easily meet workers’ need for flexibility while maintaining their status as employees.

Policymakers should reject this Orwellian move by the app-based companies and others to use workers’ desire for flexibility to justify their employment practices. Allowing these practices for app-based workers will not be limited to drivers but will quickly spill over to health care, hospitality, and many other workers, given the growing use of app-based placement services in these industries (Gerstein 2024). Policymakers should focus on enacting legislation to provide workplace benefits and protections that offer employees real flexibility with real protections—including paid leave legislation; scheduling fairness legislation; and legislation to strengthen workers’ ability to form and join unions, so they can bargain collectively for these benefits and protections.

Research on workers’ demand for flexibility and related benefits

Flexibility is often cited as a core reason for individuals seeking app-based and gig work. In a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, 49% of gig workers cited “being able to control their own schedule” as a reason why they enter the gig workforce (Anderson et al. 2021). The same survey found that flexibility is also highly valued among individuals in gig work: 53% of gig workers said being able to control their own schedule was “essential or important” to them. A survey conducted by Morning Consult for the Flex Association found that 42% of respondents said they chose app-based work for their “ability to choose when to work” (2022).2

Research shows that gig workers don’t always find the flexibility and earnings that they are seeking and are more likely to move to another job. A survey conducted by EPI and Harvard’s Shift Project found more than half (55%) of gig workers intended to find a new job in the next three months, compared with 36% of W-2 service-sector workers (Zipperer et al. 2022).

Research shows that in general, workers prefer flexibility in their work arrangements. A 2021 survey by Workable found that 58% of workers surveyed valued the ability to work flexible schedules (Mackenzie 2023). A survey by Future Forum found that 80% of knowledge workers surveyed want flexibility regarding where they work, whereas 94% want schedule flexibility (2022). According to a Morning Consult survey conducted for Zoom, 81% of U.S. respondents said that flexible hours and schedules were top priorities (2023). A Gallup survey of service facing workers found that 31% of respondents valued flextime and the ability to choose when they worked. Further, the survey found that 33% of respondents valued flexible start and end times (Pendell 2023).

Most recent survey data from the Department of Labor (DOL) shows that a significant portion of workers currently have some sort of flexible work arrangement. In a Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) survey, 57% of wage and salary workers had a flexible schedule with the ability to vary start and stop times. Of these workers, 35% of could frequently change their schedule; 46% could occasionally change their schedule; and only 19% rarely had the opportunity to change their schedule (2019). Data from DOL Women’s Bureau (n.d.) find that 57.2% of men have flexibility in the times they begin and end work, compared with 55.8% of women surveyed. Union workers have more input into the number of hours they work (Bivens et al. 2017).

Despite this research showing that workers would like flexibility in their schedules, many workers experience the opposite: a lack of stability and predictability in their schedules. For example, according to research by the Shift Project, the majority of retail and food service workers they surveyed have little advance notice of their schedules; two-thirds have less than two weeks’ notice, among which 50% get less than a week’s notice. Workers’ schedules are also often changed at the last minute, with 14% reporting at least one cancelled shift in the last month and 70% reporting at least one change to the timing of one of their shifts in the past month. Women workers and workers of color are particularly hard hit by these unpredictable scheduling practices. Significantly, 75% of workers in the Shift survey said they would like a more stable and predictable schedule (Schneider and Harknett 2019).

Other research similarly demonstrates that despite valuing flexibility, workers would prefer stable, full-time employment with benefits. According to a report by the National Employment Law Project (NELP), 79% of people surveyed said they would prefer having one stable full-time job instead of having more than one job with schedule and location flexibility—with a variation of only three percentage points across gender, age, and race (NELP 2021). In addition, NELP reported on polling by the global management consultant firm McKinsey & Company, who found that contract, freelance, and temporary workers would overwhelmingly prefer to have permanent employment, with first-generation immigrant (76%), Latinx (72%), Asian American (71%), and Black (68%) respondents most strongly favoring permanent employment. According to a survey of New York City residents, 57% of app-based workers said they would prefer to have an employer that provided benefits (NELP 2021). In the same vein, the majority of app-based workers surveyed by Veena Dubal said they would prefer to be classified as employees (2019).

It is important to point out that Black and Latinx workers provide a disproportionate share of digital labor platform work in the United States. BLS data show that Black and Latinx workers make up almost 42% of workers for Uber, Lyft, and other “electronically mediated work” companies, although they comprise less than 29% of the overall U.S. workforce (NELP 2021).

Moreover, the lack of paid sick time disproportionately harms low-wage workers. While access to paid sick time has grown from 63% to 78% of all private-sector workers since 2010, most low-wage workers—i.e., the workers who need it most and are most harmed by taking unpaid leave—still lack access to paid sick days. Among the 10% of private-sector workers with the highest wages, 96% have access to paid sick days (Table 1). By contrast, among the 10% of workers with the lowest wages, just 39% have access to paid sick days (Gould and Wething 2023).

Table 1

Finally, it is worth noting that paid leave requirements are extremely popular, with large majorities of both Democratic and Republican voters favoring paid family and medical leave policies and viewing them as important to improving workers’ lives (Todaro 2023).

Flexibility is often illusory

The argument that digital platform or app-based work provides drivers with flexibility overstates the amount of control drivers actually have over their work lives. In fact, Uber and Lyft exercise significant control over how drivers handle their work, and drivers are “deactivated”—i.e., fired—if they deviate from company policy. Thus, the so-called flexibility drivers seek is often illusory (Mishel and McNicholas 2019).

Uber advertises to drivers that they will work for themselves. On its website, the company claims that driving for Uber is flexible, with the driver in control. Interested drivers just download the driving app and complete a “sign-up” process, requiring only that drivers have a valid driver’s license and insurance and “complete a background screening.” The company states that drivers set their own hours and may “cash out” after each trip (up to five times per day on the app). Uber brands itself as merely a technology platform that allows drivers to find earning opportunities for their own entrepreneurial endeavors (2019).

However, in reality, Uber drivers’ experiences are a far cry from the company’s marketing narrative. Drivers have no say on setting fares, on what they are paid, or on the commissions the company takes. Drivers are not shown the passenger’s destination or how much they could earn on a fare before being asked to accept a ride request, and they have limited say on whom they choose to have as customers (Rosenblat 2018a). Drivers are not even able to choose the route to take—Uber reserves the right to retroactively adjust the fare if it decides that an inefficient route was taken (Rosenblat and Stark 2016; UK Judiciary 2016). And Uber also exerts control over drivers through an automated passenger rating system. Tools like the fare and rating systems serve as “algorithmic managers,” nudging drivers to act in certain ways and penalizing them when they don’t. For example, in certain services on Uber’s platform, drivers who fall below 4.6 stars on a five-star rating system may be “deactivated”—never “fired.” This pressures some drivers to tolerate bad passenger behavior rather than risk losing their livelihoods because of retaliatory reviews (Rosenblat 2018b). Given that a driver’s low rating (as unilaterally defined by Uber) may lead Uber to deactivate them from the app (i.e., fire them), drivers do not have the independent control typically associated with a small business owner.

Drivers cannot readily turn down short rides; rides that are not close by (note that the time between dispatch and rider pickup costs time and vehicle expense and provides no revenue to the driver); or rides that go to destinations that will make it difficult to obtain a follow-up ride. When the app alerts a driver to a potential ride, the driver has a very short time—about 15 seconds—to respond as to whether they will accept the rider (Rosenblat and Stark 2016; Rosenblat 2018a). There is no other way to provide a ride through Uber (such as picking up someone hailing you on a street corner) other than this process that is governed by the algorithms and the app (Rosenblat and Stark 2016).3

Like digital platform or app-based drivers, workers with flexible or part-time schedules also lack real control over their schedules, with employers making last-minute changes to their schedule, which wreaks havoc with child care, medical appointments, transportation, and other needs (Schneider and Harknett 2019; Waldman 2024). Unless they are protected by a union contract or a local fair scheduling ordinance, workers do not control their schedule or work hours; these decisions rest with their employers. Employers typically use their power to shift schedules and work hours based on production needs—or for less legitimate reasons, such as retaliation for union organizing (Greenhouse 2023). Adjusting workers’ hours according to “just-in-time” scheduling is common in (but not unique to) app-based work and undermines workers’ actual control over their schedules and their scheduling flexibility.

The importance of employee status

The problem of employers misclassifying workers as independent contractors is pervasive and widespread. Employers in the construction industry, building services, and homecare, among other sectors, have misclassified workers as independent contractors to gain a cost advantage over law-abiding employers, which has resulted in the loss of important workplace benefits and protections for workers (Rhinehart et al. 2021). This problem has become even more widespread with the growth of app-based services such as Uber and Lyft, who misclassify their drivers as independent contractors. Other app-based staffing services such as Instawork and Gigpro follow this same practice, often treating hotel, health care, and other workers as independent contractors instead of employees (Gerstein 2024).

Misclassification has significant negative implications for worker protections. Most federal and state labor and employment protections are granted only to those classified as employees—and not to those classified as independent contractors. This includes basic protections such as minimum wage, overtime pay, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation, as well as health and safety protections, nondiscrimination protections, paid sick or medical and family leave, and rights to organize and collectively bargain (Table 2).

Table 2

Misclassification robs workers of income and employment-based benefits because it shifts financial responsibilities for Social Security tax onto workers and deprives them of coverage under labor and employment laws. This is very costly, resulting in lost annual income and benefits of over $10,000 for a typical construction worker and over $6,000 annually for a home health aide (Schmitt et al. 2023).

In addition, misclassification deprives the federal, state, and local governments of important tax revenue and contributions to social insurance programs such as workers compensation and Social Security. These lost revenues amount to billions of dollars each year (NELP 2020). EPI research estimates suggest social insurance programs losses per worker range between $585 per year (security guards) and $1,781 per year (construction workers). Higher estimates put the range of annual per-worker revenue losses between $1,101 (security guards) and $3,031 (truck drivers) (Schmitt et al. 2023).

Not only are these costs shifted onto workers, but they have been shifted onto other taxpayers as well. Because they are (mis)classified as independent contractors, Uber and Lyft drivers are not generally covered by unemployment insurance.4 When demand dropped dramatically at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, drivers were unable to draw on unemployment benefits from the state unemployment insurance system. Congress enacted legislation to provide unemployment benefits to independent contractors, and one in five Uber and Lyft drivers applied for and received these benefits, at taxpayer expense (Iacurci 2021).

The Fair Labor Standards Act does not prevent flexible schedules

One of the myths perpetuated by digital platform or app-based companies and other employers is that workers need to be classified as independent contractors in order to have flexibility in their hours because of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This is incorrect and sets up a false choice.

Enacted in 1935, the Fair Labor Standards Act, is the primary federal law establishing minimum wage and overtime protections. The FLSA requires employers to pay workers at least an established hourly minimum wage—currently stuck at $7.25 per hour due to Congress’ failure to raise the minimum wage for 15 years. The FLSA also requires employers to pay employees overtime at the rate of 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in any given week. Employers must keep records documenting an employees’ work hours to help ensure compliance with the law.

Not all employees are covered by the FLSA’s overtime protections. For example, among others, administrative, executive, and professional employees are excluded from the FLSA’s overtime requirements.5 Still, roughly 140 million workers are covered by the FLSA’s overtime protections.6

Companies and employers incorrectly claim that the FLSA prevents flexible scheduling, but employers control scheduling decisions and can organize work schedules to meet FLSA’s requirements. Employers have long been able to provide flexible schedules and comply with wage and hour laws, and flexible schedules have been negotiated by employers and unions in compliance with the law. Scheduling decisions are the employer’s prerogative (in negotiation with their workers’ union, if there is one), and they can and do set and change schedules in accordance with production demands.

As the Department of Labor states, “The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) does not address flexible work schedules. Alternative work arrangements such as flexible work schedules are a matter of agreement between the employer and the employee (or the employee’s representative)” (DOL Wage and Hour Division 2024a; 2024b).

Nor does the FLSA restrict an employer’s ability to change workers’ schedules according to the employer’s needs. According to DOL, “The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) has no provisions regarding the scheduling of employees, with the exception of certain child labor provisions. An employer may therefore change an employee’s work hours without giving prior notice or obtaining the employee’s consent (unless otherwise subject to a prior agreement between the employer and employee or the employee’s representative)” (DOL 2024). Moreover, FLSA’s requirements are employer specific. If an employee works 20 hours each week for one employer and 25 hours for a second employer, the employee is not entitled to overtime from either employer (unless there is a joint-employer relationship between them).

Thus, as long as the employer retains sufficient records documenting an employee’s work hours; pays employees at least the hourly minimum wage; compensates the employee at the overtime rate for hours worked over 40; and meets any applicable obligations to bargain with the employees’ union, the employer may set and implement flexible scheduling policies without running afoul of the FLSA. The idea that the FLSA prevents flexible scheduling—and that independent contractor status is needed to allow flexibility—is false.

Collective bargaining can yield paid leave benefits and schedule flexibility and predictability

Unionized workers are far more likely to receive various workplace benefits compared with nonunion workers. These benefits include paid leave of various types (sick, family, vacation, personal), employer-provided health care, retirement benefits, and more. Establishing these benefits as part of collective bargaining and including them in a collective bargaining agreement gives unionized workers confidence and security that these benefits will be there when they need them, because a collective bargaining agreement is a legally binding contract (Bivens et al. 2017; Shierholz et al. 2024).

For example, 86% of unionized workers have paid sick time at work, compared with 72% of workers without a union (Gould 2020). Unionized workers have more input into the number of hours they work each week. Unionized workers are far more likely to know their work schedules four weeks or more in advance compared with nonunion workers (Figure A). Thus, unionized workers are far more likely to have the stable jobs with good wages and benefits that workers seek.

Figure A

In addition to providing paid leave and other benefits, unions and employers have created mechanisms through collective bargaining for workers to have part-time, flexible schedules, along with scheduling predictability and certainty that allows workers time to meet their other needs.

For example, the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) International Union’s St. Louis area local unions, Locals 655 and 88 and Schnuck’s grocery recently negotiated a new “Flexforce” program through which workers use an app to create their own schedule from available shifts. Flexforce workers receive the same benefits as other union members. UFCW represents thousands of Schnucks employees in the greater St. Louis area (Schnucks 2024). The program was recently expanded to cover more stores and workers.

Similarly, UNITE HERE has bargained provisions allowing certain hotel and casino employees to bid for shifts and create a schedule that meets their needs. These employees receive employer-paid health insurance, retirement contributions, and other important benefits, in addition to scheduling predictability.7

The Teamsters have tens of thousands of UPS drivers who have a set part-time schedule—leaving time for personal needs—and still receive health care, retirement, and other important benefits (UPS 2023).8 The Teamsters negotiated historic raises for part-time drivers in the most recent negotiations (Teamsters 2023).

These are just a few examples of the collectively bargained approaches to providing schedule flexibility and part-time arrangements that provide workers with the flexibility they need but also with scheduling predictability and certainty and benefits. Strengthening the law to enable more workers to form and join unions and bargain such benefits with their employers would be an important step in addressing workers’ need for flexibility and paid leave.

Policy reforms to support paid leave and scheduling flexibility and predictability

As the research summarized above shows, most workers want stable employment with predictable schedules and wages and benefits that allow them to meet their family’s needs. These needs can be met through promoting various reforms that empower workers and protect flexible work without exploitation and include:

• strengthening workers’ ability to form and join unions;
• preventing misclassification of workers as independent contractors; and
• establishing minimum standards around paid leave and scheduling fairness.

These reforms can be—and have been—pursued at the federal, state and local levels. A brief description of these reforms follows.

Federal reforms

Pass the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act. As explained above, workers with a union are in a much stronger position to negotiate with their employers for paid time off, predictable work schedules, and other important protections. Workers covered by a collective bargaining agreement also have “just cause” protection, meaning that the employer cannot retaliate against them or fire them without a valid reason. This gives workers more confidence to access and use the benefits they have earned, because they have less fear of employer retribution when they do so. Strengthening the ability of workers to form and join unions, as the PRO Act would do, would provide a mechanism for workers to organize and bargain for flexibility, fairness, and related workplace benefits. Current law is too weak to meaningfully assure workers these rights, given employer ability to interfere and the absence of any financial penalties for violating the law. The PRO Act also adopts the ABC test to prevent misclassification of workers as independent contractors. Particularly given the record-high levels of demand for unions among nonunion workers, and especially young workers and workers of color, passage of the PRO Act should be a top priority for lawmakers.

Pass the Healthy Families Act to provide earned sick leave. The Healthy Families Act, first introduced in 2004, includes provisions that would allow workers in workplaces with 15 or more employees to earn at least one hour of paid sick time per 30 hours worked, up to 56 hours or seven days of paid sick time per year. Despite repeated introductions of the Healthy Families Act (most recently in May 2023) federal policymakers have so far not been successful in passing it. The lack of a national standard for paid sick leave places the United States behind its international peers. Passage of the Healthy Families Act is particularly important for low-wage workers, who disproportionately lack paid leave.

It should be noted that the Biden Administration’s proposed budget for 2024–2025 includes paid family, medical, and sick leave (White House 2023).

Pass the Schedules that Work Act to provide scheduling stability and fairness. The Schedules that Work Act would require that workers in designated occupations—including retail, food service, cleaning, and others—be given a minimum of two weeks’ advance notice of their schedules, with pay premiums for late changes (Rep. DeLauro 2023).

State and local reforms

Because of the lack of national standards for paid sick leave and scheduling fairness, several states and localities have adopted laws to provide these benefits. At the same time, rideshare companies and other app-based employers have lobbied state legislatures to classify app-based workers as independent contractors and deprive them of the protections of workplace laws. Reforms to expand protections for workers and prevent erosion of their rights should be prioritized by state lawmakers. These reforms include:

• Repeal state preemption of local labor standards that prohibit localities from developing and implementing policies to raise standards for working people. Over 44 states have preemption laws that prohibit localities from improving labor standards for workers, including minimum wage, paid sick leave, and fair scheduling laws (Sherer and Poydock 2023; EPI 2024).

• Resist or repeal language that excludes app-based workers from coverage under state employment laws or that defines “Transportation Network Company (TNC) drivers,” “marketplace contractors,” or other app-based workers as nonemployees or independent contractors (Sherer and Poydock 2023).

• Adopt strong, protective legal tests, such as the ABC test, for establishing employee status and preventing the misclassification of workers as independent contractors. Strong ABC tests are those that establish a presumption that an individual performing service for an employer is an employee, not an independent contractor, unless the employer can establish three factors: A) The work is done without the direction and control of the employer; B) The work is performed outside the usual course of the employer’s business; and C) The work is done by someone who has their own independent business or trade performing that kind of work (Rhinehart et al. 2021).

• Strengthen enforcement and increase penalties to deter the misclassification of workers as independent contractors. This includes adequately funding and staffing state agencies to strategically enforce the law and crack down on worker misclassification. In addition, states should increase penalties for employers who violate labor law to deter worker misclassification (Sherer and Poydock 2023).

• Pass earned sick time laws. There is no federal law that allows workers the ability to earn paid sick leave. Over the last decade, 15 states and the District of Columbia have adopted earned paid sick time laws. However, millions of workers—especially low-wage workers—lack access to paid leave (Gould and Wething 2023).

• Pass state or local fair scheduling laws. Several cities and more recently the state of Oregon have passed fair workweek laws to give workers more advance notice of their schedules. Some of the laws also require employers to make more hours available to part-time workers before hiring more full-time employees (Wolfe, Jones, and Cooper 2018).

Conclusion

Workers have consistently expressed their desire for good-paying, permanent jobs with scheduling predictability and benefits like paid leave, health insurance, and more. These types of jobs can be (and are being) provided for both full-time and part-time employees through collective bargaining and state and local policy reforms. Nothing in the current law requires workers to give up their rights as employees and be classified—or misclassified—as an independent contractor to enjoy flexibility in their work schedule. Policymakers should reject these arguments and prioritize passage of policies that empower workers and provide the benefits they want and deserve.

Notes

1. In the most basic terms, gig work can be defined as work done by individuals who are classified as self-employed, freelancers, or independent contractors. However, in recent years the term “gig work” has become synonymous with working for digital platform companies, including driving for rideshare apps, making deliveries for restaurants, shopping or delivering groceries, and performing errands or household tasks. 

2. The Flex Association represents app-based and digital platform companies such as DoorDash, Uber, Lyft, and Instacart.

3. Several states have recently enacted legislation or won provisions in legal settlements that provide rideshare drivers with appeal rights when they are deactivated. However, most rideshare drivers currently have no appeal rights from deactivation by the companies.

4. Drivers are covered in Washington State through a new statute, and several states have sought to recover payments for unemployment insurance premiums from the rideshare companies, indicating that they believe drivers are covered by their state’s unemployment law.

5. The Trump administration tried to roll back these protections and the Biden Administration has since finalized a rule that strengthens overtime protections for workers.

6. Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales, and Computer Employees, 89 Fed. Reg. 32842-32973 (April 26, 2024).

7. Interview with Susan Valentine, UNITE- HERE, Feb. 22, 2024.

8. See National Bargaining Agreement Between the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and United Parcel Service Inc. (2023).

References

Anderson, Monica, Colleen McClain, Michelle Faverio, and Risa Gelles-Watnick. 2021. The State of Gig Work in 2021. Pew Research Center, December 2021.

Bivens, Josh, Lora Engdahl, Elise Gould, Teresa Kroeger, Celine McNicholas, Lawrence Mishel, Zane Mokhiber, Heidi Shierholz, Marni von Wilpert, Valerie Wilson, and Ben Zipperer. 2017. How Today’s Unions Help Working People: Giving Workers the Power to Improve Their Jobs and Unrig the Economy. Economic Policy Institute, August 2017.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2019. “Job Flexibilities and Work Schedules Summary” (news release). September 24, 2019.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2023. ”Employee Benefits in the United States Summary” (news release). September 21, 2023. 

U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). 2024. “Fair Labor Standards Act Advisor” (web page). Accessed June 6, 2024.

Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division (DOL Wage and Hour Division). 2024a. “Wages and the Fair Labor Standards Act” (web page). Accessed June 6, 2024.

Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division (DOL Wage and Hour Division). 2024b. “Flexible Schedules” (web page). Accessed June 6, 2024.

Department of Labor, Women’s Bureau (DOL Women’s Bureau). n.d. 2017–2018 Leave and Job Flexibilities Module. Accessed June 20, 2024.

Dubal, Veena. 2019. “An Uber Ambivalence: Employee Status, Worker Perspectives, & Regulation in the Gig Economy.” UC Hastings Research Paper no. 381, November 2019. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3488009.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2021. Unions Help Reduce Disparities and Strengthen Our Democracy (fact sheet). April 23, 2021.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2024. “Workers’ Rights Preemption in the U.S.” (web page). Last updated February 2024.

Future Forum. 2022. Pulse Summer Snapshot, July 2022.

Gerstein, Terri. 2024. “More People Are Being Classified as Gig Workers. That’s Bad for Everyone.” New York Times, January 28, 2024.

Golden, Lonnie. 2015. Irregular Work Scheduling and Its Consequences, Economic Policy Institute, April 2015.

Gould, Elise. 2020. “Union Workers Are More Likely to Have Paid Sick Days and Health Insurance.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), March 12, 2020.

Gould, Elise, and Hilary Wething. 2023. Paid Sick Leave Access Expands with Widespread State Action. Economic Policy Institute, November 2023.

Greenhouse, Steven. 2023. “Will Starbucks’ Union-Busting Stifle a Union Rebirth in the US?” Guardian, August 28, 2023.

Iacurci, Greg. 2021. “1 in 5 Gig Drivers Got Unemployment Benefits at Pandemic Peak.” CNBC, October 21, 2021.

MacKenzie, Keith. 2023. “Flexible Work Hours: It’s Important for 58% of US Workers, Survey Finds.” Workable, September 2023.

Mishel, Lawrence, and Celine McNicholas. 2019. Uber Drivers Are Not Entrepreneurs: NLRB General Counsel Ignores the Realities of Driving for Uber. Economic Policy Institute, September 2019.

Morning Consult, in partnership with Flex Association. 2022. Attitudes of App-Based Workers. September 2022.

National Employment Law Project (NELP). 2020. Independent Contractor Misclassification Imposes Huge Costs on Workers and Federal and State Treasuries. October 2020.

National Employment Law Project (NELP). 2021. App-Based Workers Speak: Studies Reveal Anxiety, Frustration, and a Desire for Good Jobs. October 2021.

Office of U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Rep. DeLauro). 2023. “DeLauro, Warren Reintroduce Schedules That Work Act” (press release). September 19, 2023.

Pendell, Ryan. 2023. “Frontline Workers Want Flexibility Too.” Gallup, December 4, 2023.

Rhinehart, Lynn, Celine McNicholas, Margaret Poydock, and Ihna Mangundayao. 2021. Misclassification, the ABC Test, and Employee Status. Economic Policy Institute, June 2021.

Rosenblat, Alex. 2018a. Uberland: How Algorithms Are Rewriting the Rules of Work. Oakland, CA: Univ. of California Press.

Rosenblat, Alex. 2018b. “When Your Boss Is an Algorithm.” New York Times, October 12, 2018.

Rosenblat, Alex, and Luke Stark. 2016. “Algorithmic Labor and Information Asymmetries: A Case Study of Uber’s Drivers.” International Journal of Communication 10 (2016): 3758–3784.

Schmitt, John, Heidi Shierholz, Margaret Poydock, and Samantha Sanders. 2023. The Economic Costs of Worker Misclassification (fact sheet). Economic Policy Institute, January 25, 2023.

Schneider, Daniel, and Kristen Harknett. 2019. It’s About Time: How Work Schedule Instability Matters for Workers, Families, and Racial Inequality. The Shift Project, October 2019.

Schnucks. 2024. “Schnucks Flexforce” (web page). Accessed June 6, 2024.

Sherer, Jennifer, and Margaret Poydock. 2023. Flexible Work Without Exploitation. Economic Policy Institute, February 23, 2023.

Shierholz, Heidi, Celine McNicholas, Margaret Poydock, and Jennifer Sherer. 2024. Workers Want Unions, but the Latest Data Point to Obstacles in Their Path. Economic Policy Institute, January 2024.

Teamsters. 2023. “We’ve Changed the Game: Teamsters Win Historic UPS Agreement” (press release). July 25, 2023.

Todaro, Rob. 2023. Labor Reforms Proposed by Senate HELP Committee Command Broad Popular Support. Data for Progress, July 2023.

Uber. 2019. “Become an Uber Driver—3 Things to Know About Driving” (web page). Accessed August 6, 2019.

UK Courts and Tribunals Judiciary (UK Judiciary). 2016. Employment Tribunals Between Aslam, Farrar et al. and Uber B.V. et al. (Case No. 2202550/2015 et al.): Reasons for the Reserved Judgment on Preliminary Hearing Sent to the Parties on 28 October 2016. October 28, 2016.

United Parcel Service (UPS). 2023. “Top 5 Things to Know About Working a Part-Time Job at UPS” (web page). September 29, 2023.

Waldman, Adelle. 2024. “It’s Not Just Wages. Retailers Are Mistreating Workers in a More Insidious Way.” New York Times, February 19, 2024.

The White House. 2023. The President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2024 (fact sheet). March 9, 2023.

Wolfe, Julia, Janelle Jones, and David Cooper. 2018. “Fair Workweek” Laws Help More Than 1.8 Million Workers. Economic Policy Institute, July 2018.

Zipperer, Ben, Celine McNicholas, Margaret Poydock, Daniel Schneider, and Kristen Harknett. 2022. National Survey of Gig Workers Paints a Picture of Poor Working Conditions, Low Pay. Economic Policy Institute, June 2022.

Zoom, in partnership with Morning Consult. 2023. Survey: Flexible Work Rises as Top Perk. November 2023.