Key takeaways:

• Misclassification of workers as independent contractors is a pervasive and widespread problem. AAPI workers are overrepresented in three of the 11 commonly misclassified occupations: manicurists and pedicurists, home health aides, and personal care aides. Vietnamese, Bangladeshi, Filipino, Samoan, and other Pacific Islander workers are overrepresented within these occupations.
• Groups with lower median hourly wages also have larger shares of their working populations in the 11 commonly misclassified occupations.
• Federal protections against misclassification are limited and currently under attack by the Trump administration. The state and local landscape for curbing misclassification is varied, which leaves some workers less protected than others.

In March, EPI published updated research highlighting the cost to workers of being misclassified as an independent contractor for 11 commonly misclassified occupations. Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) workers were overrepresented in three of those occupations—manicurists and pedicurists, home health aides, and personal care aides—relative to their share of the overall workforce.

Most federal, state, and local labor laws apply only to employees and not to independent contractors, so misclassification strips workers of key protections such as minimum wage laws or qualifying for employer-provided health insurance and retirement benefits. Additionally, both misclassified workers and social insurance funds lose out on income: the report conservatively estimates that for the three jobs in which AAPI workers are overrepresented, misclassification costs workers at least $7,000 annually and costs social insurance programs $600 to $800 per worker each year.

With the understanding that the umbrella term “AAPI” encompasses an immensely diverse population both in ethnic origin but also in economic outcomes, this piece goes beyond the narrow view that all AAPI workers are high-wage earners. Below, we provide more detail on which groups of AAPI workers are most likely to be employed in lower-wage commonly misclassified occupations.

Disaggregated data shed light on particular AAPI communities that may be vulnerable to misclassification

Across all occupations, AAPI workers comprise approximately 8% of the total workforce. For three of the 11 occupations highlighted in the report—manicurists and pedicurists, home health aides, and personal care aides—AAPI workers make up 67%, 13%, and 10% of employment, respectively, according to Current Population Survey (CPS) data.

Table 1 provides a detailed breakdown of the composition of the AAPI workforce for the three occupations in which AAPI workers are overrepresented. Here, we use the American Community Survey (ACS) as it offers detailed race definitions which the CPS does not offer due to sample size restrictions.

Asian Indian and Chinese populations combined make up over 40% of the working-age AAPI population, thus their relatively large shares of the AAPI workforce in these occupations are not surprising. However, several groups are disproportionately represented across these occupations compared with their share of the overall AAPI workforce.

For example, Bangladeshi workers make up 5.1% of AAPI workers employed as home health aides while only constituting 1.1% of the total AAPI workforce. Chinese workers represent almost half (47.7%) of AAPI home health aides while representing just over one-fifth of the overall AAPI workforce (20.9%). AAPI employment among manicurists and pedicurists is largely held by those of Vietnamese origin (71.4%).

Finally, a majority of AAPI personal care aides are either Filipino (32.8%) or Chinese (20.8%). Filipino workers, however, are overrepresented by twice their share of the overall workforce. While Samoans and other Pacific Islanders comprised a much smaller share of personal care aide employment, they are also overrepresented in this occupation by more than twice their share of the overall workforce.

Table 1

Figure A provides a more comprehensive picture of the share of each detailed group employed across all 11 commonly misclassified occupations, revealing that smaller communities—often overlooked because of their size relative to the aggregate AAPI workforce—may be among the most vulnerable to misclassification. Workers belonging to seven of those groups are more likely than the average U.S. worker to be employed in one of those occupations. Almost 20% of Vietnamese workers are employed in one of those occupations, with over half concentrated as manicurists and pedicurists.

Samoan, Hawaiian, and other Pacific Islanders have the next highest shares working in the 11 occupations, making up 15% or more of their total working-age population. These groups also earn lower median hourly wages than the national median and the aggregate AAPI median hourly wage. Their disproportionate representation in commonly misclassified occupations further exposes these workers to wage suppression due to misclassification.

Misclassification enforcement varies by state—meaning different AAPI populations can be disproportionately impacted

Federal protections from misclassification are limited and are currently under attack by the Trump administration, which has proposed a rule to weaken standards to determine worker classification under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Protection Act. The proposed rule narrows the definition of who is a covered employee under these statutes, encouraging employer schemes to reclassify their employees as independent contractors to evade those obligations.

Broadly, the Trump administration has been actively dismantling long-standing federal worker protections, leaving states to bear the responsibility of ensuring workers are given rights and protections and that they can exercise them. For most states, labor and employment protections only apply to workers classified as employees, meaning workers misclassified as independent contractors are denied their legal rights and protections.

EPI’s 2026 misclassification report outlines state and federal policy recommendations that ensure proper enforcement mechanisms to curb misclassification. One of the recommendations includes implementing the ABC test. Unlike the six-part “economic reality” test or the “common law” test, the ABC test presumes that a worker is an employee unless they can demonstrate they are an independent contractor based on three criteria. Placing the onus on the employer to determine the employment status of a worker provides protections against misclassification and extends proper protections to workers. Many states have adopted the ABC test for unemployment insurance programs and, to a lesser extent, for wage and hour orders and other employment applications.

As shown in Figure B, The AAPI population is highly concentrated across a handful of states. Almost half of the prime-age working Asian population is concentrated in California, New York, and Texas, and a majority of the Pacific Islander population resides in California, Hawaii, and Washington. Overall, 21 states have significant numbers of AAPI residents, and some are home to large shares of specific AAPI communities. For example, the Hmong community in Minnesota and the Burmese community in Indiana are concentrated in states that have smaller total AAPI populations.

The current landscape for state policy protections against misclassification is quite varied. For example, among the states with the largest AAPI populations, California is the only state to adopt the ABC test for both unemployment insurance and employment law, although certain occupations are exempt from the test—including app-based drivers. California also institutes penalties for misclassifying a worker, which can include restitution payments and, if the misclassification was willful, a penalty between $5,000 to $25,000 per violation.

Texas, on the other hand, has significantly less state enforcement. Apart from using the common law test for its unemployment insurance program and providing a definition of an independent contractor for workers’ compensation, Texas mainly relies on federal law for classifying workers as employees. In the last 15 years, Texas lawmakers have introduced several bills that would create penalties for misclassifying workers in the construction industry, but all have stalled or failed.

Figure B

Comprehensive protections are needed to protect workers from misclassification

AAPI workers are facing multi-pronged attacks from the Trump administration through the degradation of federal protections for workers, immigration, and equity. Occupational segregation and other labor market disparities lead women, people of color, and immigrants to be disproportionately represented in occupations that are commonly misclassified. These factors—in addition to historical and current geopolitical relations that shape the flow of labor to the U.S., immigration and citizenship status, and English language proficiency—can contribute to the concentration of AAPI workers in these occupations. Disaggregated data further identify which specific AAPI communities are overrepresented, revealing that smaller, less economically secure groups are often most exposed to the costs of misclassification. Strong policies at the federal, state, and local levels are needed to combat misclassification and to ensure workers can exercise their rights.

Brian D. Pasternak,
Administrator, Office of Foreign Labor Certification
Employment and Training Administration
Department of Labor
Room N-5311
200 Constitution Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20210

RE: Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Improving Wage Protections for the Temporary and Permanent Employment of Certain Foreign Nationals in the United States, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, DOL Docket No. ETA-2026-0001, RIN 1205-AC30 (March 27, 2026)

Dear Brian Pasternak:

The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank established in 1986 to include the needs of low- and middle-income workers in economic policy discussions. EPI conducts research and analysis on the economic status of working America, proposes public policies that protect and improve the economic conditions of low- and middle-income workers—regardless of immigration status—and assesses policies with respect to how well they further those goals. EPI submits these comments on the Department of Labor’s (DOL) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding the updated four-tiered wage structure for H-1B, H-1B1, and E-3 nonimmigrant workers and DOL permanent labor certifications for employment-based permanent immigrant visas (i.e. green cards) in the second and third employment-based preference categories (EB-2 and EB-3). EPI has researched, written, and commented extensively on the U.S. system for labor migration, including in particular, the H-1B program and other temporary work visa programs and green cards. EPI has published extensively on H-1B wage levels and employer usage and abuse of H-1B and other visa programs.1

EPI generally supports the main substance of the NPRM and believes it is an improvement as compared to the status quo for the current four-tiered wage structure for H-1B, and will also improve H-1B1 and E-3 nonimmigrant visas, and permanent labor certifications in EB-2 and EB-3, because the NPRM will make incremental progress towards ensuring that the wages of U.S. workers are safeguarded and that the Labor Condition Application (LCA) and PERM programs are not hijacked by employers as a loophole to underpay migrant workers according to U.S. wage standards. The proposal will also help disincentivize firms from using H-1B visas as a primary tool to outsource professional jobs and send them overseas.

However, as we will detail in this comment, we believe DOL should go beyond what the NPRM proposes by setting the wage floor—i.e. the Level I wage—at the 50^th percentile so that no H-1B, H-1B1, E-3, EB-2, or EB-3 jobs are ever certified at a wage that is below the local median wage for the occupation. If DOL implements such a rule in the final version of the regulation, the rule would address a major critique EPI has long held about the program, and which Members of Congress from both major parties have attempted to address through repeatedly proposed legislation that was first introduced nearly two decades ago.

It must also be noted at the outset of these comments that recent actions taken by DOL with respect to wages for migrant workers in temporary work visa programs have been inconsistent and confusing. While DOL is considering action proposed in this NPRM that will raise wage rates closer to true market rates for migrant workers in the H-1B, H-1B1, and E-3 visa programs, as well as those with labor certifications for EB-2 and EB-3 green cards, it is important to note that in October of 2025, DOL issued a new wage rule for the H-2A program that will cut wages dramatically for the migrant farmworkers in that program and unfairly charge them for lodging2—which, as EPI has estimated—will lead to a pay cut of roughly $2 billion for H-2A farmworkers and $3 billion for U.S. farmworkers per year.3 DOL should issue regulations that lead to improved labor standards and fair wages for all work visa programs, and not treat workers differently based on their education levels, occupations, and nationalities. All temporary migrant workers deserve to be paid fairly for their work, and no work visa programs should operate as loopholes that allow employers to legally underpay migrant workers.

The NPRM is an improvement on the status quo but DOL should amend the proposal to better protect workers

In general, the NPRM improves upon the current wage structure but should be further enhanced to better protect workers and align the program with congressional intent and the goals of the H-1B statute. The principal change made by the NPRM is to update the four prevailing wage levels required in the H-1B, H-1B1, and E-3 visa programs—temporary work visa programs for college-educated migrant workers—setting levels at higher percentiles in the Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) survey distribution of wages, in order to more adequately reflect market wage rates in the U.S. labor market. The NPRM also applies the new wage rates/percentiles to the permanent labor certification requirements for employment-based (EB) green cards in the EB-2 and EB-3 preference categories (sometimes referred to as the PERM process).4

The current and newly proposed wage level percentiles are as follows:

Table 1

As we have detailed in published research,5 the two lowest wage levels in the current wage computation method are below the local median wage according to the occupation and local area based on DOL wage survey data in the OEWS, allowing employers to undercut U.S. wage standards. The NPRM sets the lowest wage level at the 34^th percentile, previously the Level II wage, thereby continuing to permit employers to pay H-1B workers at below-market wage rates—but not at the absurdly low levels allowed by the current Level I wage at the 17^th percentile.

DOL’s faulty prevailing wage computation has cost foreign-born workers at least $6.56 billion annually (see NPRM Exhibit 1). Even that is likely to be a serious underestimate for two reasons. First, it does not account for the losses suffered by U.S. workers and students who have had their wages, job opportunities, and career development suppressed and undermined as a result of the current wage methodology. Second, it does not estimate the costs incurred due to foreign-born workers’ weakened bargaining power vis-à-vis their employment through nonimmigrant visa programs. Employers exert much more control over visa workers than U.S. workers and permanent residents. Foreign-born workers on nonimmigrant visas have less opportunity to, and are far less likely to, switch jobs. Switching jobs, or the threat of switching jobs, is fundamental to any worker’s ability to demand higher wages and better working conditions. Professor George Borjas estimates that, in fiscal year (FY) 2024, visa holders had an annual separation rate of 9.4%, less than half of comparable U.S. workers.6 Workers also face dire circumstances should they be terminated. They must find a new job within 60 days or else leave the United States. All these conditions place foreign-born workers in the H-1B, H-1B1, and E-3 visa programs in a much weaker position than similarly situated U.S. counterparts when bargaining for wages and working conditions. Simply put, foreign-born visa workers have fewer employment rights than U.S. citizens and permanent residents, and employers rationally take advantage of their relatively weak position when setting employment terms. Further, the agency has never enforced the Labor Condition Application’s (LCA) Working Conditions attestation, where employers promise to “not adversely affect the working conditions of workers similarly employed,” so employers disregard it.

In addition, the ability of H-1B workers to become lawful permanent residents and remain in the United States is entirely up to the whims of their employers. Even after working for an employer for six years in H-1B status, the employer has the power to decide if an H-1B worker can remain in the country—in many cases after an H-1B worker has established firm roots in the United States. That power keeps H-1B workers from complaining and asserting their employment rights. That leaves H-1B workers in a difficult position where they might decide, rationally, to abandon any demands for higher wages and better working conditions in exchange for the possibility of being sponsored for lawful permanent residence.

Prevailing wages must be raised sufficiently to compensate for this government-created labor market distortion, to protect both foreign-born workers with nonimmigrant visas and U.S. workers who already reside in the United States. 

DOL’s proposal to increase the wage-level percentiles is the best approach. It is straightforward and understandable to implement. The effects are easily modeled. Employers can respond to it predictably and effectively. It will improve the quality and skill mix of the pool of workers who are issued visas, pay those workers fairer salaries, and have fewer adverse impacts on the domestic workforce and labor supply. Recent results reported by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), from the fiscal year (FY) 2027 H-1B lottery, the first to use the new wage-level weighting process, show that a large majority of H-1B registrations selected met at least the 34th percentile threshold, 82%, while also increasing the share of F-1 advanced degree graduates selected from 57% to 71.5%.7 The latter demonstrates that concerns about this proposal shutting off the foreign student pipeline are overblown and misguided.

However, as noted above, the increases don’t go far enough. We believe that the Level I wage should be set no lower than the median (50th percentile) to effectively adjust for the non-compensated effects of limited job-switching, an absent or ineffective labor market test, weaker bargaining position, and non-enforcement of the actual wage requirement. Recent college graduates, especially those earning degrees in computer science and computer engineering, are facing the highest unemployment rates amongst all majors according to analysis by the New York Federal Reserve Bank, and the worst job market in recent memory according to dozens of media accounts.89 Most analysts and executives predict that artificial intelligence (AI) will only make that labor market segment even worse. Major firms have laid off thousands of workers, citing AI the reason they need fewer workers. Many of those same firms employ thousands of H-1B workers. AI is predicted to reduce labor demand especially of recent graduates, the very U.S. workers competing for Level I jobs. The rules should ensure that workers assigned at Level I wages have truly special skills and will not undercut opportunities for recent university graduates.

Analysis of the NPRM: “Improving Wage Protections for the Temporary and Permanent Employment of Certain Foreign Nationals in the United States”

1. Raising wages for H-1B workers and permanent labor certifications will benefit migrant workers and protect wage standards for U.S. workers

For years, H-1B employers have been allowed to pay their H-1B workers at wage rates that do not reflect local market rates, by having an option to pay them at the two lowest permitted wage levels. Our 2020 report discusses the available data, the mechanics of the current rule, and why it is important to modify the H-1B wage levels to adequately reflect market wages and ensure that H-1B workers are paid fairly, and to preserve U.S. wage standards.10 In the report, we recommend that DOL prohibit any H-1B job from being certified at a wage that is below the local median for the occupation and region. In that respect, by proposing to set the lowest wage level (Level I) at the 34^th percentile, DOL’s NPRM fails to do enough to protect wage standards in H-1B jobs. In the report we also recommend that DOL prohibit downward pressure on wages at the national level by requiring that every H-1B job be certified at a wage that is no lower than the national median wage for the occupation.

Many commentators on this NPRM, especially from the business community, including universities, are likely to claim that raising wages for migrant workers and safeguarding U.S. wage standards will harm the U.S. economy. When the misleading rhetoric is stripped away, the employers who oppose higher wage percentiles for H-1B, H-1B1, and E-3 visas, and EB-2 and EB-3 green cards, are simply claiming, in essence, that employers will only hire workers in the LCA and PERM programs if they are underpaid relative to similarly situated U.S. workers, and portray higher wages as an obstacle to migration or to the hiring of adequate talent that will prevent them from being successful and innovating.

Accepting this argument leads to a race to the bottom in terms of labor standards and excuses the co-optation of the immigration system in order to pad corporate profits. And such a line of argumentation is not supported by the available evidence. In fact, many advocates on all sides of the current H-1B debate now agree that the current H-1B wage rules are undercutting U.S. wage standards and should be updated. Even previous staunch defenders of the status quo, such as those representing or funded by the tech industry, as well as representatives of major employer associations, now admit that U.S. wages and U.S. workers are being undercut via the current prevailing wage rule.11

Adequate labor standards are never a barrier to migration or economic success—instead, they are a prerequisite to fair treatment for the migrant workers who are recruited by employers into the U.S. labor market and similarly situated U.S. workers.

Under the current rule, the wages of H-1B workers are being kept artificially low. The higher wage levels in DOL’s NPRM are more reasonable and closer to reflecting market wages in particular occupations and specific geographic regions. In other words, DOL’s proposal will push wage levels toward market wages, meaning it will increase labor market efficiency. It will also improve the quality and skill mix of the pool of foreign-born workers who are hired, increasing the productivity and innovation spillovers that skilled immigration promises.

2. DOL should raise the wage percentiles so that Level I is set no lower than the 50^th percentile of total wages surveyed in an occupation and region and prohibit any LCA or PERM approval for a wage that is lower than the national average for the occupation

The purpose of the H-1B and related programs is to “help employers who cannot otherwise obtain needed business skills and abilities from the U.S. workforce.”12 Specialized skills should command high wages; such skills are typically a function of inherent capability, education level, and experience. It would be reasonable to expect that these workers should receive wages higher than the local median wage. One would therefore expect most H-1B positions to be assigned as Level IV (the only current wage level above the median), but as DOL and USCIS data show, H-1B employers as a whole assign only a very small minority of H-1B positions as Level IV, usually roughly 15% or less in recent fiscal years, while as DOL notes in the NPRM, 63% of H-1B positions were assigned at Levels I and II. For all LCA programs, DOL notes in the NPRM that in FY 2024, 16% of all LCA positions were certified at Level IV. At the USCIS petition level, Level IV wages are even less common: data disclosed by USCIS shows that in 2019 and 2020, only 4% of approved petitions for new employment under the regular cap were assigned at Level IV and only 2% of approved new H-1B petitions under the advanced degree exemption cap were assigned at Level IV.13 We also know from more recent data from DHS that the five-year average of H-1B registrations at Level IV was just 5% over the FY 2020 to 2024 period.14

The data presented in our reports over the past decade and a half and more recently, the data reported by USCIS on the distribution of H-1B petitions by wage level, all point to the obvious fact that nearly all H-1B employers, but especially the largest employers, use the H-1B program either to hire relatively lower-wage workers (relative to the wages paid to other workers in their occupation) who possess ordinary skills or to hire skilled workers and pay them less than the true market value of their work. Either possibility raises important policy questions about the use and allocation of H-1B visas.

By setting two of the H-1B prevailing wage levels so low relative to the median and not requiring that firms pay at least market wages to H-1B workers, DOL has incentivized firms to earn extraordinary profits by legally hiring much-lower-paid H-1B workers instead of workers earning at least the local median wage. The fact that firms earn those profits through poorly crafted wage rules and by underpaying H-1B workers—instead of by offering a better or more innovative product or service—means DOL has, in effect, made wage arbitrage a feature of the H-1B program. And as the wage-level data we have reported on and cited here clearly shows, nearly all H-1B employers are exploiting these H-1B wage rules in order to pay below-median wages.15 We believe the evidence is clear that these firms are not using the H-1B program sparingly to hire truly specialized workers, nor are they using it only when U.S. workers are unavailable. Given the business models and occupations, it is likely that the H-1B1 and E-3 programs are being abused similarly.

So how should DOL set a wage rule that guards against this and complies with the statutory requirement to prevent adverse effects on wages and working conditions?

The existing statutory language that sets out the H-1B prevailing wage requires four H-1B wage levels, but it does not prescribe specific percentiles, and no law requires DOL to set any of these prevailing wage levels below the local median wage. To ensure that H-1B workers possess specialized skills and are fairly paid, and to protect local wage standards and eliminate wage arbitrage as a feature of the H-1B program, DOL should issue a final rule that sets the lowest (Level I) wage for the LCA programs and EB-2 and EB-3 green cards at the 50th percentile for the occupation and local area, at least, and require that wage offers to workers in the LCA and EB-2 and EB-3 programs never be lower than the national median wage for the occupation, in order to prevent downward pressure on wages nationwide.

Requiring and enforcing above-median wages for H-1B and other LCA and PERM program workers would disincentivize the hiring of workers with nonimmigrant visas and green cards as a money-saving exercise, ensuring that companies will use the program as intended—i.e., to bring in workers who have special skills—instead of using them as a way to hire underpaid indentured workers for jobs that require at least a college degree.

3. DOL should set the updated wage percentiles at the 50^th, 62^nd, 75^th, and 90^th percentiles according to the total surveyed wages for the occupation and local area in the OEWS

As noted and discussed above, the lowest wage level, Level I, should be set no lower than at the 50^th percentile. Instead of the proposed four wage levels in the NPRM, DOL should set the lowest wage level, Level I, at the median wage (at the 50^th percentile), Level II at the 62^nd percentile, Level III at the 75^th percentile, and Level IV at the 90^th percentile—according to the overall distribution of OEWS wages for each occupation and region. (See table below.)

Table 2

These levels would ensure that no LCA or EB-2 or EB-3 positions are certified at a wage that is below the overall local median wage for an occupation, which in turn will prevent downward pressure on U.S. wage rates in such occupations. An additional benefit of using the 50^th, 62^nd, 75^th, and 90^th percentiles, as DOL points out, is “that they are close to dividing the upper half of the distribution equally.”16

4. DOL’s experience benchmarking proposal is inferior to the NPRM’s core proposal on wage levels and should not be implemented

The NPRM requests comments on ‘experience benchmarking’ as an alternative computational method to the core proposal of Level I at the 34^th percentile, Level II at the 52^nd, Level III at the 70^th, and Level IV at the 88^th percentile, based on the overall OEWS wages by occupation and region. We believe that this experience benchmarking alternative is significantly inferior to the core proposal and urge DOL to reject it for four main reasons. First, the methodological description is insufficient to evaluate, with just two pages of text. This is especially troublesome since it is an entirely novel method of setting prevailing wages that has never been rigorously tested or examined. It will impact literally millions of workers and hundreds of thousands of employers. To our knowledge, Mincer equations have never been used to this large an extent for setting wages in any government program. Second, the data necessary to calculate prevailing wages do not exist; they must be synthesized through estimation procedures after marrying two distinct surveys that were never designed for these purposes. Are the sample sizes sufficient? There’s no exploration of these potential flaws in the NPRM. Third, the method biases against women. The method does not directly measure experience; instead, it estimates experience by the age of the candidate. Women are more likely than men to have gaps in their labor force participation. The agency does not provide a method for adjusting the calculations based on gender. Fourth, this method would surely fuel age discrimination by allowing firms to legally pay younger H-1B workers less than U.S. workers doing the same job. Professor Norman Matloff, one of the leading scholars of the H-1B program, has repeatedly expressed concerns that firms prefer to hire H-1B workers because they are younger, and therefore lower-paid, than equivalent Americans.17 The government would be endorsing such behavior by adopting experience benchmarking.

More broadly, adopting benchmarking to set prevailing wages rests on the assumption that labor markets are highly segregated by age and educational attainment. Is it true that a 28-year-old does not compete with a 35-year-old? Is it true that someone with a master’s degree does not compete with someone with a bachelor’s degree? The DOL provides no evidence to test this hypothesis with a single occupation or example, let alone whether it would hold across the roughly 400 occupations eligible for visa programs covered by this NPRM.

The example provided in the NPRM, of an accountant working in Dayton, Ohio, illustrates the difficulty for anyone to assess the accuracy of the procedure.

If ACS data and Mincer wage equation estimated that U.S. accountants with 10 years of experience and a master’s degree typically earn 20 percent more than the median accountant nationwide, the Experienced Benchmarked ratio for that education-experience combination in accounting would be expressed as a wage premia factor of 1.2. Then, to compute the Level I prevailing wage for an employer seeking visa labor certification to employ an alien worker as an accountant in Dayton, Ohio, with 10 years of experience and a master’s degree, the Department would take the OEWS 50th percentile for accountants in the Dayton MSA (currently $78,710) and multiply it by 1.2, yielding an experience-benchmarked Level I prevailing wage of $94,452. The Level II prevailing wage would apply the same 1.2 ratio to the OEWS 62nd percentile; Level III to the 75th percentile; and Level IV to the 90th percentile.18

This hypothetical example presents several shortcomings.

First, we encounter problems with identifying the data. The NPRM reports the OEWS 50^th percentile wage in Dayton MSA of $78,710. We are unable to validate this wage using the OFLC Wage Search page.19 The OEWS 50^th percentile wage (current Level III) for the occupation is shown below, with the results listed for three different years of data available in the database:

Occupations: SOC 13-2011.00 – Accountants and Auditors
Location: Dayton OH BLS Areas Montgomery County
Series: All Industries

7/2023-6/2024 Level III Wage: $77,251.00
7/2024-6/2025 Level III Wage: $82,576.00
7/2025-6/2026 Level III Wage: $86,403.00

Further, based on the absence of data and sparse description of the methodology, there’s no way for us, or anyone else, to test or examine the method used to calculate the wage premia/discount using the Mincer equations. The “hypothetical” example claims a premia of 20%, but it is unclear whether this result comes from real calculation or if it’s a fabrication created to illustrate a point. If it is the latter, that raises serious questions about the agency’s ability to implement experience benchmarking across hundreds of occupations, thousands of locations, four skill levels, and a half-dozen educational levels.

More importantly, is the example, and its wage outcomes, representative of the universe of covered workers and the U.S. workers they compete with? The evidence shows that this hypothetical example is neither typical of H-1B workers nor their U.S. counterparts. The description of experience benchmarking does not investigate its implications, but such testing is fundamental to validating the method across occupations, locations, and skill levels. The hypothetical worker has 10 years of experience, which, if they had no gaps in labor force participation, would put them at 34 years old. A 34-year-old worker is older than most new H-1B workers approved for initial employment, ranking near the 68^th percentile by age.20 We also know that this worker is not typical of U.S. accountants. Most practicing accountants hold no more than a bachelor’s degree, 59%, and are older—with a median age of 45—than this candidate.21 The example raises many more questions than it answers.

The median age of all H-1B workers approved for initial employment is approximately 31, whereas the median age of an American worker in an H-1B eligible occupation is approximately 40, even in STEM occupations.22 H-1B workers are generally significantly younger than the typical U.S. worker with whom they compete. Experience benchmarking would favor H-1B workers by offering them a significant wage discount, based on the Mincer method, over the U.S. workers with whom they compete. The upshot is that experience benchmarking would surely fuel age discrimination in these labor markets.

It is likely that experience benchmarking would yield substantial wage discounts (premia ratios <1.0) for H-1B workers, compared with the NPRM’s core approach. But we simply do not know because DOL has not compared the wage outcomes between experience benchmarking and raising the wage level percentiles. DOL has not published experience benchmarking wage tables for every occupation, geography, skill level, experience, and education.

One think tank, the Institute for Progress (IFP), a supporter of the experience benchmarking alternative, attempted to simulate the method using FY 2024 approved petitions and found that experience benchmarking wages for most H-1B workers are substantially lower than the NPRM’s core proposal. Contrary to IFP, we believe experience benchmarking should be rejected, in part for that reason. See its report, specifically the scatterplot chart “Blind Benchmarking misses underpaid H-1B workers” on page 20, where the number of red dots (i.e., experience benchmarking yields a lower prevailing wage than NPRM core proposal) far outnumbers the green dots (i.e., experience benchmarking yields a higher prevailing wage than NPRM core proposal).23 Even these analysts admit they don’t know whether their calculations are consistent with DOL’s sparse description of experience benchmarking. If this think tank’s analysis is roughly correct or on the right track, then experience benchmarking will yield much lower prevailing wages than the core NPRM proposal. If this is true, then the experience benchmarking method undermines the goals of this rulemaking.

In its justification for considering experience benchmarking, the NPRM states that “the methodology employed under the current rule may allow positions to be classified at wage levels that are less comparable to the actual education and experience of the alien worker.” Experience benchmarking, on the other hand, would “address this limitation by comparing the sponsored alien worker’s wage to the wages earned by U.S. workers with comparable education and experience…”24

But elsewhere, the NPRM undermines the case for experience benchmarking by noting that educational attainment is often a poor determinant of wages:

an examination of the top end of the wage distribution within the H–1B program shows that, for H–1B nonimmigrants with graduate and bachelor’s degrees, the association between education and income level begins to break down to some extent. An analysis of the highest earners within the H–1B program reveals that H–1B workers—particularly those with bachelor’s and graduate degrees—can be among the most skilled and capable in their fields. Interestingly, at this top end of the wage distribution, the typical link between education level and income begins to weaken. Among the most highly compensated H–1B workers, the higher the income level, the more likely the alien worker only has a bachelor’s degree.25 (Emphasis added.)

While skill-level misclassification is a major problem, experience benchmarking is the wrong solution because it creates new, unnecessary loopholes. Instead, as we describe below, we recommend that you require employers document their Prevailing Wage Determination (PWD) aligned with the National Prevailing Wage Center (NPWC) guidance and provide it for inspection.

The NPRM’s core proposal—the 34^th, 52^nd, 70^th, and 88^th percentiles based on the overall OEWS wages by occupation and region—coupled with skill classification oversight and accountability, better achieves the program goals than the experience benchmarking proposal discussed in the NPRM.

5. DOL should calculate an additional amount of compensation based on available data on the cost of benefits for workers in private industry and add a reasonable amount to the required prevailing wage

While we believe utilizing the OEWS data set and wage percentiles within the distribution is reasonable and preferable to other data sources and methods, the OEWS falls very short in terms of providing a holistic and realistic picture of what U.S. workers earn in H-1B occupations, as well as those in other LCA programs and PERM programs, by virtue of not including fringe benefits. We urge that DOL also calculate an additional amount of compensation based on available data on the cost of benefits for workers in private industry. If employers do not have to provide fringe benefits to the college-educated migrant workers they recruit or reasonable compensation that accounts for those fringe benefits, that will result in employers underpaying or undercompensating workers with visas vis-à-vis their U.S. worker counterparts, thereby causing adverse effects on workers in occupations covered by H-1B and the other LCA programs. The fissuring of the U.S. workforce has been abetted in part by employers practicing benefits’ arbitrage—in other words, employers seeking a workforce they do not need to provide benefits for—the H-1B, H-1B1, E-3, EB-2, and EB-3 program should not facilitate it.

Davis Bacon and Service Contract Act wage determinations—which are both valid wage sources for determining H-1B wage rates under current H-1B rules—include an additional hourly monetary value that is owed to the worker in “fringe benefits.” Under both Acts, the employer must pay the fringe benefits either in the form of a permissible fringe benefit listed by the applicable Act, or any combination of benefits thereof, or with an equivalent cash payment.26 The lack of any fringe benefits in OEWS prevailing wage determinations27 constitutes a severe deficiency in the OEWS wage data that conflicts with and undermines the statutory requirement that the H-1B prevailing wage will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers. 

Reliance on the OEWS to determine prevailing wages—without an adjustment for fringe benefits—is not an adequate method to set prevailing wages for LCA and PERM programs. If the prevailing wages and benefits for a particular occupation in a particular Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) are, for example, $30 per hour plus $10 per hour in leave, pension, and health benefit costs, but DOL determines the prevailing wage to be simply $30, U.S. workers will be adversely impacted. Employers will be encouraged to hire H-1B workers instead of U.S. workers, saving themselves $10 in benefit costs per hour and putting downward pressure on the locally prevailing compensation. Hiring H-1B workers at $30 an hour for example, with no benefits, would allow employers to underprice labor by 30%—which is the average benefit share of total compensation costs for private industry workers28—and it could encourage employers to replace U.S. workers with H-1B workers, or hire H-1B workers instead of U.S. workers, since employers are not required to recruit and hire U.S. workers before hiring H-1B workers. H-1B workers and those employed through other LCA programs cannot be expected to complain about this or have the bargaining power to negotiate adequate fringe benefits, because their employers control and have near-total power over their immigration status, and some workers will be also willing to accept the lower compensation, because it will likely be far more than they could earn in their country of origin.

BLS already collects the necessary data to determine the appropriate amount of fringe benefits that should be required as a supplement to the OEWS wages used to set a prevailing wage. The Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC) report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) “provides the average employer cost for wages and salaries as well as benefits per employee hour worked” for workers in the civilian economy.29 The ECEC reports the total average wages and benefits paid by employers and lists these data as they correspond to broad occupational employment categories. These data are also differentiated according to the average amount paid for the major categories of fringe benefits: paid leave, supplemental pay, insurance, retirement and savings and legally required benefits. The ECEC also reports the average total compensation, wages and salaries, and total costs of fringe benefits paid by employers, broken down by geographic region, census division, and locality.30

Using the aforementioned data sets from the ECEC, DOL can determine the appropriate level of fringe benefits that must be offered and paid to LCA and PERM program workers. The ECEC provides data on health and retirement benefits, and wages and wage-related pay such as paid leave and supplemental pay. The wages reflected in the OEWS survey capture the wages and wage-related parts of total compensation. Employers paying wages will already be paying the ‘legally required’ payroll taxes. Therefore, the compensation missing from the OEWS wage rates is the cost of retirement and health benefits, which are about 11% of private sector compensation. The amount of pay reflecting these benefits that employers of LCA and PERM program workers should pay can easily be determined by taking the ratio of the sum of health and retirement benefits to the wages paid (the sum of wages, paid leave and supplemental pay). This can be determined for a broad occupational grouping and perhaps done at a regional level as well. This ratio when multiplied by the OEWS wage shows the amount of benefits that would be comparable to that earned in the private sector or civilian sector.

Although the occupational groups and geographic areas listed and reported in the ECEC are not as numerous and detailed as those in the OEWS’s occupational categories and geographical areas, this should not deter the DOL from utilizing these data to calculate the percentage of wages that should be added on as fringe benefits to the OEWS wage. Only a percentage to be added on must be determined – not an exact dollar amount. 

Thus, the ECEC data are sufficient to provide DOL–by region and broad occupational group–an average level of insurance and retirement benefits received by employees in that job and in that area. Following precedent from the DBA and SCA, the fringe benefits could be paid by the employer through any combination of a variety of options, such as paid leave, health and life insurance, retirement and savings accounts, etc., or the employer could simply pay the benefits in cash.

Unfortunately, there is very little transparency regarding whether employers using the H-1B, H-1B1, E-3, and EB-2 and EB-3 programs are offering fringe benefits, or to what extent. A requirement that these fringe benefits be offered to LCA and PERM program workers would ensure that the wages and working conditions of similarly employed workers are not adversely impacted. 

The current DOL compliance guidance on benefits for H-1B workers encourages benefits arbitrage through outsourcing and fissuring. The Wage and Hour Division fact sheet on the subject (#62L) reads, “The employer must offer benefits to H-1B workers on the same basis, and in accordance with the same criteria, as the benefits the employer provides to similarly employed U.S. workers.”31 By defining similarly employed workers as restricted only to those directly employed by the H-1B employer, DOL is encouraging benefits arbitrage by outsourcing firms, which can offer substandard benefits to all its employees and still comply with this interpretation of the H-1B rules.

6. DOL should prohibit employer-provided private wage surveys from being used as alternative sources of wage data to set prevailing wages

Under the main H-1B prevailing wage regulation language at 20 C.F.R. §655.731, an employer has a number of options at their disposal to determine a prevailing wage for an LCA. In other words, the OEWS wage levels are just one of the available options. The employer may use one of the following sources to establish a prevailing wage: the OEWS wage, the wage set in an applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement, an applicable wage set by the Davis-Bacon Act or McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract Act, an Office of Foreign Labor Certification National Processing Center prevailing wage determination, or a wage set by an independent authoritative source or another legitimate source of wage data. However, if the employer is paying a higher wage to similarly situated U.S. workers that it already employs, then it must pay the H-1B worker same higher “actual wage,” that it is paying the U.S. worker. (Specifically defined as “the wage rate paid by the employer to all other individuals with similar experience and qualifications for the specific employment in question.”)

Therefore, employers do not need to use the OFLC’s calculated levels from OEWS data to determine a prevailing wage for an LCA or permanent labor certification application. The NPRM would improve the longstanding problems in how the prevailing wage is determined when using the OFLC-generated OEWS wage rates, but in the NPRM, DOL states that it considered whether to prohibit—but ultimately decided to permit—the continued use of an independent authoritative source or another legitimate source of wage data, which includes private wage surveys provided by employers and accepted by DOL. Standards for such alternative sources of wage data are described in 20 CFR § 655.731. In our 2020 report, we showed in Table 1 that in 2019, at least 9% of all certified wages for H-1B positions on LCAs were set by a private wage survey or other source accepted by the OFLC as legitimate.32

We strongly urge DOL to eliminate the use of private wage surveys provided by employers for setting wage rates in the LCA programs or for EB-2 and EB-3 green cards. While the share of LCAs approved with wages set by private wages surveys is relatively small at the moment, it is likely that the use, and abuse, of private wage surveys will expand substantially after publication of a final rule that is consistent with the wage level percentiles proposed in the NPRM. This will occur because employers will be motivated to use private surveys as a loophole to avoid paying the new higher wage percentiles.

DOL’s justification for continuing to allow private wage surveys is based on an analysis that is confusing. On the one hand, the agency claims that private surveys yield a wage 20% higher on average than the OEWS equivalent, but also says that wage surveys are necessary for niche or very specialized markets where, “occupations [are] not well represented in OEWS datasets.”33 The two claims are in contradiction. If a private wage survey is used to establish a wage in a niche job market, presumably not covered by the OEWS, then how can DOL feasibly calculate the differences? Footnote 211 in the NPRM does not provide sufficient detail to test this claim.

If DOL does not immediately eliminate the use of private surveys, it should at least ensure that usage of such surveys are rare and approved in only exceptional cases. Employers should be required to provide extensive documentation and justification for why the OEWS is an inadequate data source for determining the prevailing wage.

The recent history of the use of private wage surveys to set wages in the H-2B visa program—a temporary work visa program for lower-wage jobs outside of agriculture including in landscaping, forestry, hospitality, and construction—is instructive and should inform DOL’s review of wage surveys and other sources of wage data for setting H-1B wages. The evidence is clear in the H-2B context that when employers use private wages surveys, they primarily use them to pay lower wages than would otherwise be required.

In 2013 when DOL raised the minimum H-2B prevailing wage from the 17^th wage percentile to the mean wage for the occupation and local area, H-2B employers immediately and en masse, shifted their business model to use private wage surveys to set H-2B wage rates at below-average wage rates. Evidence revealed in federal litigation clearly suggests that the shift to the use of private wage surveys was a systematic response to higher wage rates, and one that was clearly successful. Specifically, in the nine months beginning soon after the H-2B wage rule was updated—between July 1, 2013, and March 31, 2014—employers increased their submissions of private wage surveys for H-2B prevailing wage determinations by 3,182%, as compared with the 12 months leading up to the federal court decision that invalidated the previous H-2B wage rule. In 21.1% of those prevailing wage determinations set by private wage surveys, the certified H-2B wage was lower than the previous prevailing wage system where the Level I H-2B prevailing wage was set at the 17th percentile wage by occupation and local area, according to OFLC-generated OEWS wage survey data, and 94.4% of the determinations were for a wage that was lower than the Level II wage, at the 34th percentile.34 Despite the fact that the H-2B prevailing wage has been set at the local average wage and DOL restricted the use of private wage surveys in 2015, they are still commonly used and successful at lowering wages for H-2B workers. One clear example of this which has been detailed, is a group of H-2B workers employed as crabpickers in Maryland—they earned roughly 25% less per hour than they should have been paid according to the local corresponding OEWS wage.35

The downside risk of continuing to allow private wage surveys—creating loopholes and administrative burdens—outweighs the risk to workers that the OEWS prevailing wage results in lower wages. If DOL’s calculations are accurate, employers should welcome the elimination of private wage surveys because the OEWS provides lower wage requirements and reduced costs in terms of purchasing survey data and/or conducting entirely new surveys.

7. If DOL considers permitting the use of employer provided private wage surveys, it should first conduct a detailed analysis of their usage and impact on H-1B wage rates, make the findings public, and issue a separate NPRM focused solely on private wage surveys

In order to promote transparency and comport with the statutory requirement that H-1B employers “will provide working conditions for [H-1B workers] that will not adversely affect the working conditions of workers similarly employed,”36 DOL should immediately prohibit the use of private wages surveys. However if DOL wishes to still consider their usage, DOL should conduct a study to benchmark the use of alternative wage data and especially private wage surveys against the OFLC-generated OEWS prevailing wages, to identify whether there are any systematic biases in such sources. If such biases are found, DOL could propose a new NPRM with additional guidance and safeguards to ensure that the alternative wage sources are not undermining U.S. wage standards. DOL should also conduct an analysis on the occupations that have been approved for wage setting with private wages surveys, to examine which occupations employers are claiming to be so unique that they do not fit within the definitions of over 800 occupations available in BLS’s Standard Occupational Codes, as well as analyze whether private wage surveys have negatively impacted conditions for H-1B workers and similarly situated workers.

It is important to note that, while in the aggregate, the use of private wage surveys is roughly 6.5% according to the NPRM, we know from our own reviews of LCA disclosure data that some firms rely on private wage surveys extensively. DOL should examine how private wage surveys vary across firms, industries, and occupations. Firms that rely on private wage surveys for more than 3% of the positions in their LCAs should be scrutinized and audited to ensure they are not being utilized to undercut the standards set by OEWS wage data. 

8. DOL must put measures in place that would prevent employer misclassification of H-1B workers at the wrong wage levels

As noted earlier, the NPRM requires that minimum H-1B, H-1B1, E-3, EB-2, and EB-3 salaries are set at more realistic wage rates that reflect the local market rates for the jobs they fill. While each wage level is intended to correspond to the position description, in practice the employer has substantial discretion choosing the skill level and DOL does not verify that a prevailing wage is appropriate unless a lawsuit or a complaint is filed by a worker. Such complaints are unlikely since it would require a migrant worker to blow the whistle on their own employer, the same employer that controls the worker’s visa status and ability to remain in the United States. We are unaware of any cases in which DOL has investigated an LCA-stage misclassification of an H-1B wage level, but there have been reports of, for example, H-1B employers receiving approval for LCAs that certify they will pay employees at the same prevailing wage level despite having job titles that clearly warrant different wage levels.

Simply put, employer selection of skill levels should be anchored to the actual duties of the position and verified by DOL and USCIS. There is no reason to allow employers to identify a skill level on a whim. If DOL does not fix this obvious problem, then the NPRM’s core objective of eliminating wage arbitrage will be undermined.

Skill level misclassification and inconsistencies undermine good governance of the H-1B program. Even a cursory examination of the LCA and I-129 data shows that such misclassifications, whether purposeful or inadvertent, are common. For example, positions with job titles leading with ‘senior’ are frequently misclassified as Level I. And even within the same employer, identical job titles are classified under different skill levels.

Yet the effectiveness of this NPRM hinges on ensuring that employers properly and consistently classify their positions at the correct skill level. DOL should take two actions. First, it should update and expand the NPWC’s Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance.37 Second, it must hold employers accountable for their skill level selections.

The policy guidance should be rewritten and expanded so that it not only serves PWD adjudicators but also all employers, whether they use the OEWS or a private wage survey to determine the prevailing wage. The document should clarify skill level classification and serve as compliance guidance for all employers. The most recent NPWC policy guidance, published in 2009, is obviously inadequate and outdated. Employers are not effectively or consistently interpreting and identifying skill levels. The description of each skill level, Levels I through IV, consists of a single paragraph of ambiguous language. For example, how many years of experience should Level II consist of? Can an employer’s position that requires two to three years of experience ever be classified as Level I (Entry-Level)? If a worker with a master’s degree is filling a position that typically requires only a bachelor’s degree, can they be bumped up in skill level?

All employers should be required to follow the five-step Prevailing Wage Determination process outlined on pages 9 through 13 to identify the position’s skill level. Employers should be required to document and retain those records for inspection by USCIS when the I-129 petition for the LCA is filed. This will ensure consistent skill level identification within and across companies whether the firm uses the OEWS, private wage survey, a CBA, or requests a PWD.

Then USCIS should ensure that the worker being placed in the position is not overqualified in terms of education and experience for the position’s skill level.

Consider this example: A well-known firm received approval for two different LCAs at the same wage level (Level II), even though one LCA had the job title Senior Software Engineer and the other had the job title Software Engineer.38 The firm, a major employer of H-1B workers, is not accounting for differences in skill levels as evident from its own job titles when selecting the wage level for the LCA. Both engineers and senior engineers are receiving the exact same salary and wage level, and they are approved by DOL with zero scrutiny. Using the DOL Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, the LCAs in this case should be instantly flagged by identifying keywords such as senior, head, chief, and lead in job titles, and should be checked to determine whether the prevailing wage levels are appropriate. This example underscores a broader need for DOL to create a more robust compliance system to ensure employers do not misclassify workers at inappropriate wage levels. Our own cursory review has found hundreds of similar examples.

As a result, the LCA and petition process should be updated so that DOL reviews the qualifications of individual workers before USCIS approves a petition, to ensure that wage levels match up with the age, education, and experience of the workers being hired through the LCA and PERM programs. While USCIS currently performs this role to some extent, its adjudicators lack expertise in wage-and-hour issues and do not have the same mandate to protect labor standards as DOL staff. Therefore, these functions should be undertaken by the proper agency. DOL and USCIS already have a mandate to cooperate on H-1B applications and enforcement; a memorandum of understanding between the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Labor could detail a process where DOL plays a prominent role in ensuring that H-1B workers are classified at the appropriate wage levels. Published guidance from DOL on skill levels that is more detailed, clearer, and more realistic would also be helpful for everyone involved—employers and adjudicators alike.

9. DOL has failed to enforce the “actual wage” component of the H-1B prevailing wage rule and should begin enforcing it immediately

Under the prevailing wage statute, although an employer has several options at their disposal to determine a prevailing wage for an LCA, they must offer the higher of either the prevailing wage or the “actual wage,” which the corresponding regulation at 20 C.F.R. §655.731 defines as “the wage rate paid by the employer to all other individuals with similar experience and qualifications for the specific employment in question.”

DOL has not exercised its authority to enforce the actual wage requirement. This is a wasted opportunity for one of the most important tools DOL has at its disposal to hold employers accountable for required wages. In order to ensure that H-1B employers are not undercutting the wage rates they pay H-1B workers, DOL should immediately begin enforcing this requirement.

In late 2021, we published a report detailing how thousands of skilled migrants with H-1B visas working as subcontractors at well-known corporations like Disney, FedEx, Google, and others appear to have been underpaid by one firm to the tune of at least $95 million in one single year.39 The victims likely included not only the H-1B workers but also the U.S. workers who were either displaced or whose wages and working conditions were degraded when employers were allowed to underpay skilled migrant workers with impunity. The workers in question were employed by HCL Technologies, an India-based IT staffing firm that earned $11 billion in revenue in 2020. HCL is consistently one of the top 20 H-1B employers and appears to have engaged in the systematic and strategic wage theft of its H-1B workers by exploiting the lax to nonexistent enforcement of the actual wage requirement. According to its own internal documents, HCL targeted its new H-1B hires expressly based on the spread between what it paid its own U.S. employees versus what it pays its own H-1B workers.

The report discusses our analysis of an internal HCL document, released as part of a whistleblower lawsuit against the firm. The document suggests that HCL—and perhaps other firms with similar business models—are not paying the legally required amount that corresponds to what is being paid to U.S. worker employees at HCL. The HCL document revealed that the large-scale illegal underpayment of H-1B workers that appears to be occurring is a core part of the HCL’s competitive strategy, and likely facilitated $95 million in stolen wages from HCL’s H-1B employees in just one year. Such abuses are surely widespread among H-1B employers because DOL has done virtually nothing to ensure program integrity by enforcing the H-1B wage rules, in particular the actual wage rule.

DOL could easily begin enforcing the actual wage provision by requiring H-1B employers to submit evidence documenting the wage rates paid to U.S. workers who are similarly employed in occupations for which the employer is also hiring H-1B workers. Employers must already “keep records for how they calculate the actual wages.” To our knowledge, DOL has never initiated an investigation regarding compliance with the “actual wage” provision of the law. The DOL Secretary should exercise their authority to inspect the actual wages paid by H-1B employers. The Secretary can do so without a complaint from a worker, under their authority to certify investigations, and should do so if presented with credible evidence of violations. DOL should provide clear compliance guidance for the actual wage provision and then require that H-1B employers attest to the wage rates they pay similarly situated U.S. workers and include them in the LCA documentation, and DOL should conduct audits of employers on a regular basis to ensure compliance. The audits could begin with the employers that hire large numbers of H-1B workers, for example, those that employ more than 25 H-1B workers, as well as H-1B dependent firms.

Secondary employers should also be required to submit LCAs and evidence documenting the wage rates paid to U.S. workers in the occupations that H-1B workers will be hired for through an outsourcing firm. Otherwise, some H-1B outsourcing firms—which almost exclusively pay H-1B workers at the two lowest wage levels, and employ H-1B and L-1 workers almost exclusively—will be able to game the system by using the actual wage paid to their own employees to meet the requirement, and not the employees of the secondary employer, where the H-1B workers will be placed—and where wages paid to the U.S. workforce are likely to be higher.

10. DOL should require secondary employers of H-1B workers to attest that they will not adversely affect wages and working conditions

Outsourcing companies are using the H-1B program to underpay H-1B workers, replace U.S. workers, and send tech jobs abroad. Typically, in this scenario, H-1B workers do computer and engineering work at the office of a U.S. employer but are employed by an outsourcing company, some of which are based abroad or have major operations abroad.40 The many reported cases of U.S. workers being laid off and replaced by H-1B workers have all been facilitated by this arrangement. In multiple incidents, the H-1B workers have been hired with annual wages of around $30,000 to $40,000 less than the workers they have replaced. Before they are laid off, the U.S. workers are often forced to train their own H-1B replacements as a condition of their severance packages; this is euphemistically known as “knowledge transfer.” Major, profitable U.S. employers like Disney and Toys “R” Us—as well as public employers and institutions like the University of California and Southern California Edison—have laid off thousands of U.S. workers who were forced to train their own replacements. Eventually, many of the outsourced jobs filled by H-1B workers get moved offshore.41

Contrary to the popular narrative proffered by corporations that support expanding and deregulating the H-1B visa program—the staffing firms that use H-1B visas are not using them to keep technology jobs in the United States—instead they are using them precisely to facilitate the offshoring of as many of those jobs as they can. That is in fact, the business model of those firms. News reports, including from the New York Times and Bloomberg, have shown that outsourcing companies “game the system” in order to obtain a high share of H-1B visas, which leaves fewer available for the firms that directly employ H-1B workers.42

The outsourcing/staffing model of employment generally may increase the incidence of labor and employment law violations by separating the main beneficiary of the labor provided by H-1B workers—the third-party firm that hires the outsourcing firm, i.e. the “lead” employer—from the H-1B workers who perform the work. Firms that rely on outsourced H-1B workers are a textbook example of what former DOL Wage and Hour administrator David Weil calls a “fissured” workplace, where the relationship between the worker and the lead employer is fissured, or broken, via the use of a temp agency or subcontractor43 (in this case the temp agency or subcontractors are the H-1B outsourcing firms). Research shows that fissuring leads to a wage penalty for workers who are subcontracted, employed as temps, and work for staffing firms,44 in part because the subcontractor keeps a percentage of the wages earned by the workers. It is also common knowledge that employers use this model to avoid paying for benefits like health care, retirement funds, and to avoid liability for labor violations. Because the staffing and outsourcing model contributes to the fissuring of the labor market, it should not be allowed as part of the U.S. immigration system—not in H-1B or in any other temporary or permanent immigration programs.

One way to address the abuses of the outsourcing/staffing firms, which operate as secondary employers, would be to issue policy guidance and update the appropriate DOL ETA application forms so that secondary employers to which H-1B workers are outsourced will be required to file Labor Condition Applications with DOL. Such guidance, which was considered in 2021 but then abandoned,45 would close the loophole that allows firms like Disney and Southern California Edison to replace its U.S. employees with H-1B workers by employing them through an outsourcing firm.46 Using Disney as an example, implementing this rule would require client firms like Disney—that benefit and profit from hiring outsourcers—to acknowledge their employment relationship with H-1B workers who are employed by outsourcers like Infosys and Tata, by requiring Disney to file its own LCA. By doing so, Disney would attest that hiring the H-1B worker through the outsourcer is not adversely affecting the wages and working conditions of the Disney workforce.

11. DOL should publish Labor Condition Application and permanent labor certification data in real-time on a central database

DOL publishes detailed LCA and permanent labor certification (PERM) disclosure data, but it is typically lagged by at least one quarter, and often much longer. The agency should publish LCA and PERM public access file applications in real-time to enable U.S. workers to apply for these positions. This would enhance the integrity of the programs and better align them to their purposes by ensuring that workers hired with temporary visas and green cards are filling true labor shortages.

U.S. workers have long complained loudly that employers hide job openings from them, reserving them for visa holders and PERM applicants. Even when those jobs are advertised, as is required by the PERM labor certification process, they are often placed in obscure locations. Workers call such job advertisements “fake job postings.” A recent ProPublica investigation has referred to the practice as “The Tech Recruitment Ruse.”47

The agency already collects the data and publishes it regularly on the OFLC disclosure data. But even a one-quarter year lag time renders it useless for job seekers. Publishing it in real-time would unlock enormous value for workers at little or no cost to the government or employers.

12. DOL had the requisite legal authority to update the H-1B prevailing wage levels

As discussed in detail in our 2020 report, DOL has the requisite legal authority to change the H-1B prevailing wage levels to an appropriate rate that protects wage standards and prevents adverse effects on U.S. workers in H-1B occupations. No analyst or commentator has credibly argued otherwise. For far too long, the H-1B wage levels have been set at an artificially low level that undercuts U.S. wage standards, therefore, it is reasonable for DOL to increase the minimum wage levels so that Level I is no lower than the local median wage.

13. DOL should expand the LCA process to include a front-end screening process that reviews the labor and employment law records of employers; those that have violated certain laws in the previous five years should be prohibited from hiring through the H-1B program

In a previous comment to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), regarding the 2023 H-1B “modernization” rule,48 we recommended that DHS should expand the H-1B Registration System to include a front-end screening process that reviews the labor and employment law records of employers. If employers have violated certain laws, they should be prohibited from hiring through the H-1B program. We further recommended that DHS should consult with DOL to develop a list of key applicable laws and operate the system jointly with DOL, and ideally, also operate the updated registration process jointly, with DOL screening employer records through the LCA process. We reiterate that recommendation here and urge DOL to take steps to exclude lawbreaking employers that violate labor, employment, and immigration laws. While we realize our comment will only be read by DOL, we nevertheless include our discussion about DHS’s role in this process because we believe DOL and DHS should work in tandem to reduce labor and employment violations in the H-1B program.

In the 2023 proposed rule, Modernizing H-2 Program Requirements, Oversight, and Worker Protections,49 DHS proposed to create or expand several additional bars to approval of new petitions filed by H-2 petitioners who have previously committed legal violations related to the H-2 programs. EPI submitted comments generally supporting the proposed changes, which were adopted as a final rule.50 Although they fail to go far enough on their own, if adequately implemented the provisions will help curb abusive employers’ exploitation of the H-2 programs and will level the playing field for employers that obey the law. EPI additionally commented that employers that commit serious violations repeatedly should be permanently banned from the H-2 programs, as they have demonstrated their inability or unwillingness to comply with the programs’ requirements.

In those comments EPI further recommended that the DHS strengthen section 214.2(h)(10)(iii)(3), which addresses violations of “any applicable employment-related laws and regulations” by expanding it to include a number of other violations and making denial of petitions mandatory—rather than discretionary—if employers have violated any of those laws in the preceding five years.51 

We believe DHS should consider similar provisions for employers seeking to hire through the H-1B program because there have been numerous credible accusations of lawbreaking against H-1B employers, as well as investigations and litigation, finding that H-1B employers and recruiters that have been guilty of wage theft, financial bondage, and even human trafficking. The reality is that DOL has limited resources and has interpreted its authority to investigate H-1B employers as constrained, and it is difficult in practice for H-1B workers to come forward and complain themselves about employer lawbreaking—because they could face retaliation and lose their status, and possibly the opportunity to become lawful permanent residents—which means DOL likely receives fewer complaints than they otherwise would. And even when DOL does receive complaints, as numerous reports have shown, DOL often lacks the resources to investigate and take action against lawbreaking employers.52

Thus, at a minimum, to keep lawbreaking employers out of the H-1B program, DHS should have its own list of legal violations and deny any petition for an employer that has violated any of the laws on the list in the preceding five years. That would act as a backstop to prevent lawbreaking employers from hiring through the H-1B program. At present, as DHS rightly points out in the November 2023 Modernizing H-2 Program NPRM, even some of the worst violators of the law are allowed to recruit and hire H-2 workers. We know that this is also the case in the H-1B program. In fact, in the H-1B program, some of the biggest users of the program are also the most egregious violators, receiving thousands of H-1B petition approvals per year. And then after they violate the law, H-1B employees are afraid to complain to authorities because their immigration status is tied to their employer, and even if they are brave enough to lodge a complaint, as noted above, DOL may lack the resources to investigate violations and hold the employer accountable.

As EPI also recommended in the H-2 NPRM, DHS should go further to implement this by also cooperating with DOL to develop a front-end screening process that takes place at the labor condition application (LCA) stage, to vet the labor and employment law records of employers before they can be allowed to hire through the H-1B program. In multiple EPI reports and in comments in response to NPRMs, EPI has made a similar proposal—namely, that a front-end screening process should be created to prohibit employers with track records of wage and hour, labor, immigration, and other legal violations from hiring through the H visa programs.

To make a front-end screening process a reality, ideally, DOL should require employers to register for eligibility to use the H-1B program at the LCA stage, so employer records on compliance with labor and employment laws can be screened up front, before getting to the registration or petition stage. DOL could set up a registration process in which employers list basic information about their business and the purported need for H-1B workers (as is already done via the DOL temporary labor certification forms). As part of that new process, employers could be required to attest, under penalty of perjury and of being banned from hiring through the H-1B and other visa programs, that they have not been found to have violated any of the listed labor, employment, wage and hour, immigration, civil rights, disability, anti-trafficking, or anti-discrimination laws during the past five years. DOL could then attempt to verify by cross-referencing enforcement data and other relevant records—and could cooperate with other worker protection agencies like the NLRB and EEOC—and ultimately certify employers that have not violated the applicable laws.

To break established patterns of abuse, employers that have violated any labor, employment, wage and hour, immigration, civil rights, disability, anti-trafficking or anti-discrimination laws should be prohibited from submitting an LCA (or having their LCA approved) and ultimately not be allowed to hire H-1B workers. Employers that have clean records and an LCA approved by DOL could then continue on with the petition process at USCIS.

Given the present and likely future reality that WHD and other worker protection agencies will continue to be vastly underfunded and understaffed,53 such a screening process on the front end of the H-1B application process could act as a useful and efficient tool to prevent legal violations without WHD having to go through lengthy and costly investigations on the back end, after workers have arrived in the United States and been robbed or otherwise exploited.

At the petition level, if a new screening process at DOL is not created that takes place before or as part of the LCA process, DHS should, at a minimum and as noted above, build on proposed section 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(10)(iii)(B) for H-2 petitions by creating a list of key labor, employment, wage and hour, immigration, civil rights, disability, anti-trafficking, and anti-discrimination laws, the violation of which would establish strong evidence that an employer does not treat their employees well and is unlikely to follow employment and immigration laws with respect to their H-1B employees. Although this would work best in tandem with a front-end screening process at the LCA stage, DHS could make significant progress in keeping lawbreaking employers out of the H-1B programs by mandating that any employer that has violated any of the listed laws will be prohibited from having a petition approved for hiring H-1B workers.

Another option would be for DHS to modify the existing H-1B Registration System so that it also screens the records of employers. That way DHS could use it to both manage the annual cap and to assess and certify whether employers are eligible to hire through H-1B based on their past legal violations. Employers could be required to attest, under penalty of perjury and of being banned from hiring through the H-1B and other visa programs, that they have not been found to have violated any of the listed labor, employment, wage and hour, immigration, civil rights, disability, anti-trafficking, or anti-discrimination laws during the past five years. USCIS could work to verify the employer attestation, although ideally DOL should partner with to do this, by cross-referencing DOL enforcement data and other relevant records—preferably also in partnership with other worker protection agencies like the NLRB and EEOC—and would then ultimately certify employers that have not violated the applicable laws, allowing them to continue with the registration process.

Conclusion

The H-1B visa program is the largest temporary work visa program in the United States and an important pathway into the U.S. labor market for skilled migrants from around the world—but a pathway that has serious deficiencies when it comes to the workplace rights of migrant workers and for preserving U.S. labor standards. While less is known about the other LCA programs, H-1B1 and E-3, they have even fewer applicable rules in place to protect workers, which likely means they are having similar impacts on worker rights and labor standards. By issuing this NPRM, DOL has taken an important first step towards reversing decades of artificially depressed wage rates for H-1B workers, and for making the prevailing wage methodology rules consistent across the other LCA programs and for EB-2 and EB-3 green cards. This will benefit other similarly situated workers and simplify and streamline the prevailing wage determination process. Nevertheless, as our comment recommends, more must be done—in this rulemaking and other executive actions—to improve the effectiveness of the updated prevailing wage rates and on enforcement in the LCA and PERM programs, in order to safeguard U.S. wages and labor standards.

Daniel Costa
Director of Immigration Law and Policy Research
Economic Policy Institute
Washington, DC

Ron Hira, Ph.D., P.E.
Associate Professor
Department of Political Science
Howard University

Endnotes

1. See for example, Daniel Costa and Ron Hira, H-1B visas and prevailing wage levels: A majority of H-1B employers—including major U.S. tech firms—use the program to pay migrant workers well below market wages, Economic Policy Institute, May 4, 2020; Ron Hira and Daniel Costa, New evidence of widespread wage theft in the H-1B visa program: Corporate document reveals how tech firms ignore the law and systematically rob migrant workers, Economic Policy Institute, December 9, 2021.

2. Employment and Training Administration, Adverse Effect Wage Rate Methodology for the Temporary Employment of H-2A Nonimmigrants in Non-Range Occupations in the United States, Interim Final Rule, request for comments, U.S. Department of Labor, 20 CFR Part 655, DOL Docket No. ETA-2025-0008, RIN 1205-AC24 (October 2, 2025).

3. Daniel Costa and Ben Zipperer, “Trump’s new H-2A wage rule will radically cut the wages of all farmworkers: New estimates show farmworkers stand to lose $4.4 to $5.4 billion annually under DOL’s updated Adverse Effect Wage Rate,” Working Economics blog (Economic Policy Institute) November 26, 2025; for additional discussion and background, see Daniel Costa, “EPI comment on DOL’s 2025 Interim Final Rule modifying the AEWR methodology for H-2A farmworkers,” Public Comments, Economic Policy Institute, December 1, 2025.

4. PERM stands for Program Electronic Management Review, and is the first step for employers who wish to sponsor an employee for permanent residence in the United States through the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.

5. See for example, Daniel Costa and Ron Hira, H-1B visas and prevailing wage levels: A majority of H-1B employers—including major U.S. tech firms—use the program to pay migrant workers well below market wages, Economic Policy Institute, May 4, 2020.

6. George Borjas, The H-1B Wage Gap, Visa Fees, and Employer Demand, NBER working paper 34793, March 2026. See pages 3-4.

7. USCIS, X.com post, May 21, 2026 at 1:37 PM, https://x.com/USCIS/status/2057561453373399339

8. https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/college-labor-market#–:explore:outcomes-by-major

9. Here are just a sample of some of the recent news accounts in major media outlets: Katherine Bindley, “The ‘Great Hesitation’ That’s Making It Harder to Get a Tech Job,” Wall Street Journal, May 18, 2025; Christopher Rugaber, “Unemployment among young college graduates outpaces overall US joblessness rate,” Associated Press, June 26, 2025; Sydney Ember, “Young Graduates Face the Grimmest Job Market in Years,” NY Times, March 24, 2026.

10. Daniel Costa and Ron Hira, H-1B visas and prevailing wage levels: A majority of H-1B employers—including major U.S. tech firms—use the program to pay migrant workers well below market wages, Economic Policy Institute, May 4, 2020.

11. See for example, Connor O’Brien, Jeremy Neufeld, and Amy Nice, A Prescription for Fixing the Prevailing Wage System: Replacing Blind Benchmarking with Experience Benchmarking, Institute for Progress, March 27, 2026.

12. See Overview section in Wage and Hour Division, “H-1B Program,” web page on the U.S. Department of Labor website.

13. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Modification of Registration Requirement for Petitioners Seeking To File Cap-Subject H-1B Petitions, 86 Fed. Reg. 1676, at 1720, Table 7, June 8, 2021.

14. See Table 12 in Department of Homeland Security, Weighted Selection Process for Registrants and Petitioners Seeking To File Cap-Subject H–1B Petitions, Notice of proposed rulemaking, CIS Docket No. 2820-25, DHS Docket No. USCIS-2025-0040, RIN: 1615-AD01 (September 24, 2026).

15. See for example, Daniel Costa and Ron Hira, H-1B Visas and Prevailing Wage Levels: A Majority of H-1B Employers—Including Major U.S. Tech Firms—Use the Program to Pay Migrant Workers Well Below Market Wages, Economic Policy Institute, May 4, 2020.

16. NPRM at 15490.

17. Norman Matloff, “H-1B Visas Are Transforming America,” Compact, October 8, 2025; Norman Matloff, Are foreign students the ‘best and brightest’? Data and implications for immigration policy, Economic Policy Institute, Briefing Paper #356, February 28, 2013.

18. NPRM at 15490.

19. Office of Foreign Labor Certification, OFLC Wage Search, last visited on May 23, 2026.

20. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Characteristics of H-1B Specialty Occupation Workers, Fiscal Year 2024 Annual Report to Congress, October 1, 2023 – September 30, 2024, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, April 29, 2025.

21. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table 5.3 Educational attainment for workers 25 years and older by detailed occupation, 2022–23 (Percent), Employment Projections, U.S. Department of Labor, retrieved May 23, 2026; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table 11b. Employed people by detailed occupation and age, Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey, U.S. Department of Labor, retrieved May 23, 2026.

22. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table 11b. Employed people by detailed occupation and age, Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey, U.S. Department of Labor, retrieved May 23, 2026.

23. Connor O’Brien, Jeremy Neufeld, and Amy Nice, A Prescription for Fixing the Prevailing Wage System: Replacing Blind Benchmarking with Experience Benchmarking, Institute for Progress, March 27, 2026. PDF available here: https://ifp.org/wp-content/uploads/IFP_Prevailing_Wage_Experience_Benchmarking_.pdf

24. NPRM at 15490.

25. NPRM at 15474.

26. For the Davis-Bacon Act, see 40 USC §3141(2); and the Service Contract Act at 41 USC §351(a)(2).

27. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Employment Wage Statistics, Frequently Asked Questions, at Section C, Number 8.

28. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation – December 2025, March 20, 2026.

29. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation – December 2025, March 20, 2026.

30. See tables, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation – December 2025, March 20, 2026.

31. Wage and Hour Division, “Fact Sheet #62L: What benefits must be offered to H-1B workers,” U.S. Department of Labor, Revised July 2008.

32. Daniel Costa and Ron Hira, H-1B visas and prevailing wage levels: A majority of H-1B employers—including major U.S. tech firms—use the program to pay migrant workers well below market wages, Economic Policy Institute, May 4, 2020.

33. NPRM at 15479.

34. See discussion of the 2013 Interim Final Rule setting the H-2B prevailing wage methodology in Daniel Costa, The H-2B temporary foreign worker program: For labor shortages or cheap, temporary labor? Economic Policy Institute, January 19, 2016.

35. Daniel Costa, “H-2B crabpickers are so important to the Maryland seafood industry that they get paid $3 less per hour than the state or local average wage,” Working Economics (Economic Policy Institute blog), May 26, 2017.

36. 8 U.S.C. 1182 (n)(1)(A)(i)(II).

37. Employment and Training Administration, Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagricultural Immigration Programs, U.S. Department of Labor, Revised November 2009.

38. Ethan Baron, “H-1B: Uber snatches up more foreign-worker visas as it lays off hundreds of employees,” Mercury News, October 17, 2019.

39. Ron Hira and Daniel Costa, New evidence of widespread wage theft in the H-1B visa program: Corporate document reveals how tech firms ignore the law and systematically rob migrant workers, Economic Policy Institute, December 9, 2021. See also, news coverage of our report, for example, Lauren Kaori Gurley, “Analysis Claims Migrant Tech Workers Have Been Underpaid by Tens of Millions,” Vice News, December 9, 2021.

40. See for example, Senator Richard Durbin, “How American Jobs are Outsourced,” YouTube.com video, April 16, 2016.

41. See for example, Stef Kight, “U.S. companies are forcing workers to train their own foreign replacements,” Axios, December 29, 2019; Julia Preston, “Pink Slips at Disney. But First, Training Foreign Replacements,” New York Times, June 3, 2015; Julia Preston, “Toys ‘R’ Us Brings Temporary Foreign Workers to U.S. to Move Jobs Overseas,” New York Times, September 29, 2015; Michael Hiltzik, “How the University of California Exploited a Visa Loophole to Move Tech Jobs to India,” Los Angeles Times, January 6, 2017; Patrick Thibodeau, “Southern California Edison IT Workers ‘Beyond Furious’ over H-1B Replacements,” Computerworld, February 5, 2015.

42. Eric Fan, Zachary Mider, Denise Lu, and Marie Patino, “How thousands of middlemen are gaming the H-1B program,” Bloomberg, July 31, 2024; Julia Preston, “Large Companies Game H-1B Visa Program, Costing the U.S. Jobs,” New York Times, November 10, 2015.

43. David Weil, The Fissured Workplace: How Work Became So Bad for So Many and What Can Be Done to Improve It, Harvard, 2014.

44. A number of studies show a wage penalty for subcontracted/outsourced workers. For example, see Arindrajit Dube and Ethan Kaplan, “Does Outsourcing Reduce Wages in the Low-Wage Service Occupations? Evidence from Janitors and Guards,” Cornell University ILR Review. January 1, 2010); Deborah Goldschmidt and Johannes Schmieder, “The Rise of Domestic Outsourcing and the Evolution of the German Wage Structure,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 132(3), 2017, pages 1165-1217; Andres Drenik, Simon Jäger, Pascuel Plotkin, and Benjamin Schoefer “Paying Outsourced Labor: Direct Evidence from Linked Temp Agency-Worker-Client Data,” Econometrics Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, September 2020.

45. Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, “U.S. Department of Labor revises interpretation, issues new guidance clarifying filing, compliance requirements in H-1B visa program,” Press Release Number 21-97-NAT, January 15, 2021.

46. Julia Preston, “Pink Slips at Disney. But First, Training Foreign Replacements,” New York Times, June 3, 2015.

47. Alec MacGillis, “The Tech Recruitment Ruse That Has Avoided Trump’s Crackdown on Immigration,” ProPublica, June 3, 2025.

48. Daniel Costa and Ron Hira, “EPI comments on DHS’s “Modernizing H-1B” proposed rule,” Public Comments, Economic Policy Institute, December 22, 2023; commenting on U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Modernizing H-1B Requirements, Providing Flexibility in the F-1 Program, and Program Improvements Affecting Other Nonimmigrant Workers, Notice of proposed rulemaking, CIS No. 2745-23, DHS Docket No. USCIS-2023-0005, RIN: 1615-AC70, 88 Fed. Reg. 72870 (October 23, 2023).

49. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Modernizing H-2 Program Requirements, Oversight, and Worker Protections, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CIS No. 2740-23 and DHS Docket No. USCIS-2023-0012, RIN: 1615-AC76, 88 Fed. Reg. 65040 (September 20, 2023).

50. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Modernizing H-2 Program Requirements, Oversight, and Worker Protections, Final Rule, CIS No. 2740-23; DHS Docket No. USCIS-2023-0012, RIN 1615-AC76, 89 Fed Reg. 103202 (December 18, 2024).

51. See EPI comment on the H-2 programs in the comment submitted to DHS in November 2023; Daniel Costa, EPI comments on DHS’s proposed rule on “Modernizing H-2 Program Requirements, Oversight, and Worker Protections,” Economic Policy Institute, November 20, 2023.

52. See for example, Rebecca Rainey, “Inadequate Labor Department Resources Stymie Enforcement Efforts,” Bloomberg Law, November 7, 2023.

53. See for example, AFL-CIO, Workers’ Rights Ice’d Out, February 25, 2026; Rebecca Rainey, “Trump’s Federal Workforce Cuts Hit Labor Department Enforcement,” Bloomberg Law, Feb. 24, 2025; Daniel Costa, Josh Bivens, Ben Zipperer, and Monique Morrissey, The U.S. benefits from immigration but policy reforms needed to maximize gains: Recommendations and a review of key issues to ensure fair wages and labor standards for all workers, October 4, 2024 (see Figure J); Daniel Costa and Philip Martin, Record-low number of federal wage and hour investigations of farms in 2022: Congress must increase funding for labor standards enforcement to protect farmworkers, Economic Policy Institute, August 22, 2023; Ihna Mangundayao, Celine McNicholas, and Margaret Poydock, “Worker protection agencies need more funding to enforce labor laws and protect workers,” Working Economics blog (Economic Policy Institute), July 29, 2021.

Introduction

In 2025, unionization in the United States grew to its highest levels since 2009 (McNicholas, Poydock, and Shierholz 2026). This growth is a testament to the fact that Americans increasingly view unions favorably and recognize them as critical instruments for building a just economy. Yet more than 50 million nonunion workers would join a union but are unable to do so because our nation’s labor laws allow employers to derail workers’ unionization efforts (McNicholas et al. 2019).

It is well documented that employers often hire union avoidance consultants to dissuade and weaken workers’ unionization efforts. These consultants work to prevent a union election from taking place—and if that fails, to ensure that workers vote against the union and then stall negotiations over a first collective bargaining agreement. Over the past several decades, large law firms have developed substantial business specializing in union avoidance services. These firms now play a significant role in denying workers their rights to a union and collective bargaining (Kaufman and Stephan 1995).

The role of these law firms in defeating workers’ organizing campaigns and frustrating workers’ attempts to reach a first contract has largely gone unexamined. While employers are required to disclose money spent on lawyers engaged in persuading employees on their union and collective bargaining rights, there is an exemption around reporting money spent on “advice” services, which is ill-defined under the law. Union avoidance law firms have taken full advantage of this reporting loophole and have constructed an industry providing counsel on union busting. Further, many union avoidance law firms provide employers services beyond these persuader activities, including representation at the NLRB and the stalling of first contract negotiations. 

In this report, we examine the union avoidance industry and the law firms that play integral roles in this business. We calculate the revenue law firms generate from employers who try to avoid unions and undermine collective bargaining with their workers. Further, we discuss the impacts of the union avoidance industry on workers’ ability to organize and what it means for workers, our economy, and our democracy.

Employers spend millions on union avoidance consultants

When workers seek to form a union, employers often hire union avoidance consultants to dissuade and weaken workers’ unionization efforts. These consultants include both non-attorney consultants and attorney consultants. Under the Labor–Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), employers and the consultants they hire must file disclosure reports on agreements in which the consultant is engaging in union-busting activities. Table 1 lists just a few of the employers who filed mandatory reports with the Department of Labor during 2025.

Table 1

These reports represent only a fraction of the total money spent on anti-union campaign services, not to mention legal counsel, representation, and litigation aimed at union avoidance. That’s for two main reasons: 1) consultants are not required to report activity that counts as “advice,” which is ill-defined but currently interpreted to exempt nearly all activities that don’t involve direct contact with workers, even though this accounts for the vast majority of work that consultants engage in; and 2) even activities that clearly must be reported very often are not. Research from LaborLab found that 57% of employers who were known to owe a financial disclosure for having hired a union avoidance consultant in 2024 had failed to file their required disclosure by June 30, 2025, three months after the filing deadline (LaborLab 2025). In 2024, a total of 153 employers filed a financial disclosure, according to the LaborLab report. This showcases a significant amount of underreporting from employers when one considers that over 3,200 union election petitions were filed in 2024, and that 71%–87% of employers hire a union avoidance consultant when faced with a union-organizing drive (NLRB 2026; DOL n.d.). If most “advice” provided by consultants were included, EPI estimates employers spend $442 million per year on both attorney and non-attorney consultants for anti-union campaign services.1

However, that still represents only a fraction of what employers spend on union avoidance. The EPI estimate excludes spending on legal counsel, representation and litigation aimed at defeating organizing drives and stalling contract negotiations, as well as strike preparation and strike-breaking services (McNicholas et al. 2019). It further excludes spending on consultants to implement or enhance employee engagement and “positive employee relations” programs that center around “union-substitution” policies (Levine et al. 2025). These programs feature techniques that are deliberately crafted to preempt, detect, and rapidly quash union organizing, including supervisor training, manipulative communication policies, surveillance techniques, “voice” mechanisms (like suggestion boxes), and employee-involvement programs (such as employee committees and teams).

As mentioned, EPI estimates that employers spend at least an estimated $442 million on anti-union campaign services provided by consultants that are designed to persuade or intimidate workers into voting “no” in union elections. Many of these consultants are also practicing attorneys who simultaneously will provide legal counsel and representation services related to NLRB proceedings. These attorneys also will help employers bend the law to their advantage during contract negotiations, prepare for and break strikes, file unfair labor practice charges to weaken unions and defend employers against such charges, sometimes appealing them not just to the NLRB but also into federal courts. Inclusive of all of these services, the traditional labor relation practices of these law firms generate an estimated $1.48 billion on average.2 When we account for overlap (much labor practice revenue comes from providing anti-union campaign services, not just representation and counsel), these two figures suggest that total spending on attorneys (whether for representation, consulting, or both) and non-attorney consultants is roughly $1.7 billion a year.3 Table 2 shows top law firms’ share of cases at NLRB and the estimated revenue the labor relations practices of these firms generated in 2024.

Table 2

Union avoidance law firms

Prominent law firms—such as Littler Mendelson, Morgan Lewis, and Jackson Lewis—have generated substantial business in union avoidance work on behalf of U.S. employers seeking to frustrate worker organizing and collective bargaining. As shown in Table 2, these law firms do a great deal of business before the National Labor Relations Board, the independent agency charged with enforcing the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The NLRA is the nation’s fundamental labor law that guarantees most private-sector workers the right to organize and the right to collective bargaining. However, decades of federal policy and court decisions have weakened the NLRA (Shierholz et al. 2024). Union avoidance consultants and law firms have long exploited the law’s significant loopholes, making it harder and harder for workers to win unions. For nearly 80 years, policymakers have failed to address the NLRA’s weaknesses and restore meaningful union and collective bargaining rights to workers.

These law firms have represented employers in fighting against some of the largest organizing efforts over the last decade, including worker organizing drives at Amazon, Starbucks, and Trader Joe’s (Logan 2025). These law firms have essentially created a specialized practice of union busting and together have generated billions of dollars in revenue, as shown in Table 2. The firms range from exclusively labor and employment firms to full-service corporate firms offering representation in a range of matters. The following are profiles of three law firms that have been at the center of the largest union avoidance campaigns in recent years.

Littler Mendelson

One of the largest union avoidance law firms is Littler Mendelson, a global management-side law firm with more than 1,800 attorneys who can make upwards of $1,700 an hour (Littler Mendelson 2026).4 In Littler Mendelson’s 80-year history, it has represented the likes of Amazon, Delta Airlines, and McDonald’s and has played a predominant role in Starbucks’s anti-union campaign (Logan 2022; Logan 2025). Beyond offering their union-busting services to employers, Littler Mendelson has expanded their services to include promoting anti-worker legislation. For example, Littler Mendelson’s Workplace Policy Institute (WPI) played a predominant role in opposing California’s Assembly Bill (AB) 5, legislation aimed at protecting workers by combatting misclassification (Poydock 2020). WPI also supported the passage of Proposition 22, which exempted gig workers from AB5 (McNicholas and Poydock 2019). WPI is part of the Coalition for Workplace Innovation, which has lobbied for proposals that weaken workers’ rights, including the exclusion of gig/app-based workers from employee status (Pinto 2022).

Morgan Lewis

Morgan Lewis also has a large practice aimed at union avoidance (Morgan Lewis 2026). The firm is a global law firm with nearly 2,000 attorneys, representing the likes of Amazon, REI, and McDonald’s. In addition to being one of the largest union avoidance law firms, Morgan Lewis is also known as one of the most expensive firms, with partners making $1,100 to $1,900 an hour.5 Morgan Lewis is the lead law firm engaged in the legal challenge to have the NLRB declared unconstitutional, despite employing multiple former NLRB officials (Rhinehart and McNicholas 2024).

Jackson Lewis

Another law firm with a significant union avoidance practice is Jackson Lewis, a national labor and employment law firm with a nearly 70-year history in union avoidance (Jackson Lewis 2026). The firm has over 1,000 attorneys who can make upwards of $730 per hour.6 Jackson Lewis has an especially robust presence in the higher education and health care industries but also serves major companies in a wide range of other industries, such as ExxonMobil, Amazon, and Google. As with other union avoidance law firms, Jackson Lewis’s services go beyond legal representation—often providing employers a “full-service” campaign in which they train supervisors and design materials, including speeches, to dissuade workers from organizing a union (Correia 2019).

How union avoidance law firms frustrate worker organizing

The NLRB election process is designed to be straightforward. Workers seeking to form a union file an election petition with the NLRB with signatures of at least 30% of the proposed bargaining unit. If parties cannot agree on a bargaining unit and election logistics, the NLRB will hold a hearing on issues of disagreement and then issue a decision and direct that an election be held. Either party can file post-election objections over the conduct of the election and other issues. Once these issues are resolved, if a majority of workers casting valid ballots in the election vote for union representation, the NLRB will certify the union and direct the parties to begin bargaining. 

While the NLRB election process is supposed to be relatively simple, the strategy of union avoidance law firms follows a standard playbook—they use their overwhelming resources to exploit the NLRB’s administrative processes and sometimes create nearly endless delays. This includes challenging bargaining units and election results and filing endless appeals of adverse decisions (See Appendix Table 1 for examples). The result is to create an unnecessarily complicated and protracted legal process for workers. The NLRB’s own performance objectives aim to ensure that the median age of representation and unfair labor practice cases before the Board is 180 days or less (NLRB 2025). While the NLRB has achieved this goal for many years, the median age for cases is over 100 days and for some workers, it can take years. For example, the NLRB only recently ordered Amazon—an employer known for hiring Littler Mendelson, Morgan Lewis, and Ogletree Deakins—to bargain with workers who voted to unionize over four years ago (Bensinger 2026).

Impact of union avoidance

The roughly $1.7 billion U.S. employers spend each year on anti-union law firms and consultants has an undeniable impact on workers’ ability to organize and bargain collectively. It also contributes to the creation of an economy marked by inequality: It has been well documented that the decline in unionization has contributed to increased income inequality over the last several decades (Bivens et al. 2023). It is no coincidence that the overall decline in unionization follows decades of federal policy neglect that have weakened U.S. labor law. The loopholes in U.S. labor law, which union avoidance consultants and law firms exploit, routinely frustrate workers’ organizing and collective bargaining, enabling wealthy corporations to prosper at workers’ expense.

Why would these corporations want to frustrate workers’ organizing? Consider the benefits unions provide for workers and their communities. When workers join together in a union and engage in collective bargaining, they see higher wages and better benefits (McNicholas, Poydock, and Shierholz 2026). Further, in communities with higher union density rates, working families have higher incomes, greater access to health care, and few voter restrictions (McNicholas et al. 2025). It is clear that when unions are strong, workers have more power and their communities thrive.

Despite the erosion of U.S. labor law and the standard playbook of union avoidance, workers do win unions and union contracts. In 2025, 16.5 million workers in the United States were represented by a union—an increase of 463,000 from 2024 and the highest number of unionized workers in the U.S. in 16 years. The 2025 rise in union density coincides with a high public favorability toward unions, with nearly 70% of people in the U.S. viewing unions favorably (Brenan 2025). Further, research from the Pew Research Center finds that most people in the U.S. see the decline in union density as bad for the country (60%) and bad for working people (62%) (Van Green 2025).

To sustain the modest gains seen in union density in 2025, policymakers must act to restore workers’ rights to a union and collective bargaining. This is critical to the health of our economy and to ensuring that workers receive a fair share of the profits they help produce. Policymakers must pass the Richard L. Trumka Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, which would help restore private-sector workers’ ability to form unions and bargain collectively.7 The PRO Act addresses many of the major shortcomings with U.S. labor law by establishing civil penalties for employers who violate workers’ rights, creating an election process that limits employer interference, and establishing a bargaining process for reaching a first contract in a timely manner. The PRO Act also would shed light on the union avoidance industry by requiring prompt disclosure of union-busting activities and closing the “advice” loophole through which employers and consultants have evaded reporting (McNicholas, Poydock, and Rhinehart 2021).

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Joe Fast and Hannah Faris for their research assistance for this report.

Appendix

Methodology for labor practice revenue estimate

Estimated revenue of company-level labor practices and of U.S. labor practices as a whole was calculated in the following manner. 

First, we divided the number of attorneys listed in a company’s labor practice in 2026 by the number of attorneys that Law.com reported that the firm had in 2024, the most recent year for which Law.com data are available. We treated that figure as an initial indicator of the fraction of the firm’s total revenue that came from its labor practice. We then multiplied that fraction by the company’s total 2024 revenue, as reported by Law.com. Next, we discounted the result by 50%, on the conservative assumption that half of the revenue generated by attorneys in a company’s labor practice was earned for work performed in other areas of law than labor law. (Many labor relations attorneys belong to multiple practices, often practicing both labor law and employment law at the same company.) This calculation yielded our estimate of the revenue generated by a firm’s labor practice in 2024, inclusive of both representation and consulting services. 

We performed this calculation for the six law firms with 1.5% market share or more in 2024, where market share is defined here as a firm’s share of all NLRB cases in 2024. We then estimated the total revenue generated by all U.S. labor practices by dividing the sum of the six firms’ estimated labor practice revenue by the sum of the six firms’ market share.

Market share data were obtained through a custom query of NLRB data compiled by Labor Data (https://labordata.bunkum.us/). The number of attorneys in a company’s labor practice was obtained by tallying the number of attorneys listed on each company’s labor relations practice page in March 2026 and weeding out any attorneys practicing outside the U.S. 

Note: The share of revenue generated by attorneys in a labor practice that comes exclusively from labor relations services (rather than other areas of practice, such as employment law) may vary significantly by each law firm. For example, our labor practice revenue estimate for Littler Mendelson is lower than our estimate for Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, even though the former has greater market share than the latter does. This may be because our 50% assumption is too low in Littler Mendelson’s case. Perhaps attorneys in Littler Mendelson’s labor practice specialize in labor relations more often and more intensively than attorneys in Ogletree’s labor practice, thereby leading to higher labor practice revenue for Littler than our estimate suggests.

Appendix Table 1

Notes

1. See Celine McNicholas, Margaret Poydock, Julia Wolfe, Ben Zipperer, Gordon Lafer, and Lola Loustaunau, Unlawful: U.S. Employers Are Charged with Violating Federal Law in 41.5% of All Union Election Campaigns, Economic Policy Institute, December 2019. To arrive at the $442 million figure, we take the $338 million dollar estimate from McNicholas et al. 2019, which covered the four-year period 2014–2017, and adjust it for inflation to 2025 dollars, according to Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) estimates using the annual average of the BLS CPI-U for 2014–2017 and BLS C-CPI-U for 2025. The estimated rates for consultants are from McNicholas et al. 2019.

2. Full methodology for this calculation can be found in the methodology section in the appendix.

3. We assume about half ($221 million) of the $442 million goes to attorney consultants for anti-union campaign services, which we also capture in the law firms’ labor practice revenue of $1.48 billion. To get to the $1.7 billion, we add the remaining of the $442 million ($221 million) on non-attorney consultants with the law firm revenue estimates ($1.48 billion).

4. Author’s analysis of public court documents and engagement letters sourced from LexisNexis and municipality websites.

5. Author’s analysis of public court documents and engagement letters sourced from LexisNexis and municipality websites.

6. Author’s analysis of public court documents and engagement letters sourced from LexisNexis and municipality websites.

7. Richard L. Trumka Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2025, [H.R. 20], 119th Cong. (2025).

References

Bensinger, Greg. 2026. “Amazon Must Negotiate with Staten Island Warehouse Workers, NLRB Says.” Reuters, April 2, 2026.

Bivens, Josh, Celine McNicholas, Margaret Poydock, Jennifer Sherer, and Monica Leon. 2023. What to Know About This Summer’s Strike Activity. Economic Policy Institute, August 2023.

Brenan, Megan. 2025. “Labor Union Approval Relatively Steady at 68% in U.S.” Gallup, August 28, 2025.

Correia, David. 2019. “Union Busting on Campus: Jackson Lewis and Higher Education Anti-Unionism.” Verso Books, March 11, 2019.

Department of Labor (DOL). n.d. Persuader Agreements: Ensuring Transparency in Reporting for Employer and Labor Relations (fact sheet). n.d.

Department of Labor, Office of Labor–Management Standards (OLMS). 2026. “OPDR–LM-10 Employer” (web page). Accessed May 15, 2026.

Gregg, Forest. 2026. “Labor Data.” Accessed May 15, 2026.

Jackson Lewis. 2026. “About Us” (web page). Accessed May 8, 2026.

Kaufman, Bruce E., and Paula E. Stephan. 1995. “The Role of Management Attorneys in Union Organizing Campaigns.” Journal of Labor Research 16 (December 1995): 439–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02685719.

LaborLab. 2025. One-Sided Transparency: The Growing Gap Between Required Annual Union Versus Employer and Persuader Filings and OLMS Compliance Efforts Continues to Widen. July 2025.

Law.com. 2026. “Fisher Phillips” (web page). Accessed May 15, 2026.

Law.com. 2026. “Jackson Lewis” (web page). Accessed May 15, 2026.

Law.com. 2026. “Littler” (web page). Accessed May 15, 2026.

Law.com. 2026. “Morgan Lewis” (web page). Accessed May 15, 2026.

Law.com. 2026. “Ogletree Deakins (web page). Accessed May 15, 2026.

Law.com. 2026. “Seyfarth” (web page). Accessed May 15, 2026.

Levine, Jonathan O., Tanja L. Thompson, Brooke E. Niedecken, and Brendan Fitzgerald. 2025. Littler’s 2025 Labor Survey Report. Littler Mendelson, September 30, 2025.

Littler Mendelson. 2026. “Our Firm History” (web page). Accessed May 8, 2026.

Logan, John. 2022. “Not Your Father’s Anti-Union Movement: Ten Key Facts About Starbucks’ Union Avoidance Law Firm, Littler Mendelson.” The Labor and Working-Class History Association (LAWCHA), March 7, 2022.

Logan, John. 2025. Corporate Union Busting in Plain Sight: How Amazon, Starbucks, and Trader Joe’s Crushed Dynamic Grassroots Worker Organizing Campaigns. Economic Policy Institute, January 2025.

McNicholas, Celine, and Margaret Poydock. 2019. How California’s AB5 Protects Workers from Misclassification (fact sheet). Economic Policy Institute, November 14, 2019.

McNicholas, Celine, Margaret Poydock, and Lynn Rhinehart. 2021. Why Workers Need the Protecting the Right to Organize Act (fact sheet). Economic Policy Institute, February 9, 2021.

McNicholas, Celine, Margaret Poydock, and Heidi Shierholz. 2026. Workers’ Resolve Drives Increase in Unionization in 2025. Economic Policy Institute, February 2026.

McNicholas, Celine, Margaret Poydock, Heidi Shierholz, and Hilary Wething. 2025. Unions Aren’t Just Good for Workers—They Also Benefit Communities and Democracy. Economic Policy Institute, August 2025. 

McNicholas, Celine, Margaret Poydock, Julia Wolfe, Ben Zipperer, Gordon Lafer, and Lola Loustaunau. 2019. Unlawful: U.S. Employers Are Charged with Violating Federal Law in 41.5% of All Union Election Campaigns. Economic Policy Institute, December 2019.

Morgan Lewis. 2026. “Our Firm” (web page). Accessed May 8, 2026.

National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). 2025. The National Labor Relations Board 2025 Performance and Accountability Report. Fiscal Year 2025. 

National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). 2026. “Case Search” (web page). Accessed May 8, 2026.

Pinto, Maya. 2022. How the ‘Coalition for Workforce Innovation’ Is Putting Workers’ Rights at Risk. Gig Workers Rising, National Employment Law Project, PowerSwitch Action, Service Employees International Union, and Temp Worker Justice, July 2022.

Poydock, Margaret. 2020. “The Passage of California’s Proposition 22 Would Give Digital Platform Companies a Free Pass to Misclassify Their Workers.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), October 22, 2020.

Rhinehart, Lynn, and Celine McNicholas. 2024. “What’s Behind the Corporate Effort to Kneecap the National Labor Relations Board?: SpaceX, Amazon, Trader Joe’s, and Starbucks Are Trying to Have the NLRB Declared Unconstitutional—After Collectively Being Charged with Hundreds of Violations of Workers’ Organizing Rights.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), March 7, 2024.

Shierholz, Heidi, Celine McNicholas, Margaret Poydock, and Jennifer Sherer. 2024. Workers Want Unions, but the Latest Data Point to Obstacles in Their Path: Private-Sector Unionization Rose by More Than a Quarter Million in 2023, While Unionization in State and Local Governments Fell. Economic Policy Institute, January 2024.

Van Green, Ted. 2025. “Majorities of Adults See Decline of Union Membership as Bad for the U.S. and Working People.” Pew Research Center, August 27, 2025. 

Daniel Navarrete, Director
Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation
Wage and Hour Division
U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-3502
200 Constitution Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20210

Comments on RIN 1235-AA46: Employee or Independent Contractor Status under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, and Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act

Dear Director Navarrete:

We submit these comments from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) on the Department of Labor’s (“Department” or “DOL”) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) regarding the standard for determining who is an employee and who is an independent contractor under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (“MSPA”).

The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank created in 1986 to include the needs of low- and middle-income workers in economic policy discussions. EPI conducts research and analysis on the economic status of working America, proposes public policies that protect and improve the economic conditions of low- and middle-income workers, and assesses policies with respect to how well they further those goals.

We strongly oppose the Department’s rule as proposed. We urge the Department to withdraw this rule and instead allow the long-standing test for determining employee status under the FLSA to stand.

EPI has conducted extensive research and analysis over the years on the harms of worker misclassification. As we have outlined, workers classified as independent contractors have no right to earn the federal minimum wage, or to earn overtime pay. They lose eligibility for unemployment insurance if they lose their work, and to workers’ compensation if they are injured on the job. They are less likely to receive employer-provided job benefits, such as health insurance and retirement benefits. They lose the right to paid sick or family leave in states and localities that extend those rights, and they would lose the right to even unpaid, but job-protected, family and medical leave under FMLA. Workers classified as independent contractors also must assume the full financial cost of Social Security and Medicare contributions, rather than split it evenly with their employer.

We attach here an April 2026 EPI report1 estimating the concrete economic costs of misclassification for 11 commonly misclassified types of jobs, among those most likely to be negatively affected by this rule. These include lower-wage, labor intensive jobs such as call center workers, landscaping workers, janitors and cleaners, home health aides, truck drivers, delivery workers, manicurists, housekeeping cleaners, retail sales workers, security guards, and construction workers. Workers in these and other occupations stand to lose wages, benefits, and the basic labor protections they should be owed under the FLSA.

The FLSA has a plain-language definition of “employ,” which “includes to suffer or permit to work.” This is a deliberately broad definition that was intended to provide the FLSA’s protections to most workers. The NPRM also seeks to once again upend the clear, long-standing “economic reality” test, which examines multiple factors to get to the central issue of worker classification: is the worker truly in business for themselves, or do they depend economically on finding work in the business of others, under the control and terms of the employer?

Instead of examining all of the relevant factors in a worker’s situation, the NPRM proposes elevating the factors of the level of control the employer exerts, and the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss, above all others in making a determination about whether someone is truly in business for themselves.

This would fail to account for the economic realities of many working relationships: for instance, would the primary work of the employer be able to get done without the worker? How permanent or exclusive is the work being performed—is there a fixed ending date? Does the worker invest in their own tools and equipment, marketing, or business plan, or is it the employer making those investments? Does the worker rely on the employer for training on how to get the job done? All of these questions fall under the factors that the NPRM would deprioritize—even though they provide important information about whether or not someone is truly in business for themselves, and thus that the employer doesn’t have an obligation to them under the FLSA.

This would narrow the definition of who is a covered employee under these three statutes. DOL’s NPRM will encourage misclassification schemes and a race to the bottom, where employers will be able to reclassify their employees as independent contractors and evade their obligations under these laws. Further, because of occupational segregation and other labor market disparities, people of color, women, and immigrants—and people at the intersections of these categories—are more likely to be in occupations where misclassification is common.

An analysis of the proposed rule’s potential costs to workers

In the proposed rule, the Department egregiously fails to estimate the transfers between employers, workers, and the social insurance system that would occur if this proposal were finalized. The requirements that agencies must follow as a part of the rulemaking process are very clear, and among them is the requirement that agencies must assess all quantifiable costs and benefits “to the fullest extent that these can be usefully estimated.”2 There is no question that DOL could have produced estimates; in what follows, we show that it is straightforward to produce estimates using data researchers routinely use and taking a methodological approach that is in the spirit of estimates the Department of Labor undertakes on a regular basis. One plausible explanation for why DOL left out the required estimate is that any good-faith estimate would have shown this rule will result in a substantial transfer from workers and the social insurance system to employers.

The Department only briefly touches on potential benefits to workers from their proposal. DOL estimates a 1-3% increase in the total number of independent contractors as a result of their proposed rule.3 However, DOL appears to assume that this increase will come entirely from people who were otherwise not engaging in paid work entering the workforce anew as independent contractors. This means the Department also assumes that there will not be significant reclassification of workers who are currently employees to independent contractor status. Given what we know about the scale of misclassification already occurring under current law, this seems to be, at best, a woefully naive understanding of what employers might do when faced with a weaker standard sanctioned by DOL. Further, our analysis of commonly-misclassified occupations shows that the independent contractor version of paid work actually has less value for the worker than the employee-status version that the same worker could find – in other words, the worker still bears costs because the independent contractor version of the work likely offers lower pay, fewer benefits, and fewer protections.

In this comment we will estimate these transfers from workers and the social insurance system to employers. The basic structure of this analysis is to take (1) the estimated change in the value of a job to a worker if they are classified as an independent contractor instead of an employee, and (2) the estimated change in payments to social insurance funds if a worker is classified as an independent contractor instead of an employee, and then multiply these figures by the estimated number of workers who will shift to independent contractor status if this rule is finalized. This approach will yield the aggregate impact of the rule on workers and on social insurance system coffers.

In a recent publication, EPI estimated (1) and (2) above for workers in lower-wage, labor intensive occupations most likely affected by the rule, such as call center workers, landscaping workers, janitors and cleaners, home health aides, truck drivers, delivery workers, manicurists, housekeeping cleaners, retail sales workers, security guards, and construction workers.4

The cost to workers in these occupations of being classified as an independent contractor instead of a payroll employee ranges from $6,294 annually for retail sales workers (under extremely conservative assumptions), to $23,266 annually for truck drivers (under less conservative assumptions). Similarly, the annual cost to social insurance funds if a worker is classified as an independent contractor instead of an employee ranges from $600 for manicurists (again under extremely conservative assumptions), to $3,046 for construction workers (again under less conservative assumptions).

Given that we do not have a way to determine where the average impact for those affected by the proposed rule falls in those broad ranges, we simply take the lower bound in both cases, to be extremely conservative. Thus, we assume that the cost to workers is $6,294 annually, and the cost to social insurance programs is .

It should be noted that these lower-bound estimates assume that workers classified as independent contractors are paid not just the full regular pay of a W-2 employee, but also are fully compensated for the value of health insurance and retirement benefits. This is, however, highly unlikely in these occupations. The theory that businesses will not be able to pay less in total compensation to workers if their status shifts from employee to independent contractor—that their base pay will rise to make up for a reduction in benefits—is based on the assumption of perfectly competitive labor markets. There is broad and growing evidence that perfect competition is rare, and that most labor markets do not function competitively—particularly low-wage labor markets like those under consideration here, where workers are more likely to lack the power to bargain for higher wages to compensate for their loss of benefits and increase in taxes when they become independent contractors.5 Further, very low-wage employees whose wage is elevated by the minimum wage could easily see their wage drop when, as independent contractors, they no longer legally must be paid the minimum wage.

How will the share of the workforce who are payroll employees and the share of the workforce that are independent contractors change as a result of this rule?

To begin to answer that question, we need to know how many independent contractors there currently are. There is a great deal of uncertainty around this number (the Department notes that “there are a variety of estimates of the number of independent contractors, and these span a wide range based on methodologies and how the population is defined”).6 The July 2023 Contingent Worker Supplement finds that there were 11.9 million workers who are independent contractors in their main job. This number, however, drastically underestimates the total number of independent contractors by not including workers who do independent contracting on the side, in addition to a payroll job. The Department makes a correction for this issue and estimates that there are 24.8 million individuals working as contractors at a given time. For the sake of the calculations in this comment, we will limit the analysis to the 11.9 million workers the CWS finds are independent contractors in their main job, since workers who do independent contracting as a side job likely work fewer hours and therefore may lose less than the $6,294 we are conservatively assuming workers whose status changes as a result of this rule lose annually. It should be noted that this means we are leaving out many millions of independent contractors and our estimates will, as a result, be extremely conservative for this reason as well. 

How much will independent contracting increase as a result of this rule?

The Department’s proposal would potentially allow companies to legally argue that workers who are now misclassified as independent contractors, or who are working “off the books,” would be legitimately classified as independent contractors under the narrow terms of the proposal. As such, one approach would be to use the percentage of workers misclassified or working off the books under current law to estimate the number of workers who could be reclassified as independent contractors under the proposed rule. However, due to severe data constraints, estimates of the share of workers who are misclassified as independent contractors or working off the books are limited. A 2020 paper estimates that between 12.4% and 20.5% of workers in the construction industry are either misclassified as independent contractors or working off the books.7 Conservatively assuming that the bottom of this range applies more broadly to the lowest-paid quartile of the U.S. labor market, that is 5.1 million low wage workers who may be affected by this rule.8 Of course, these are workers who are already not getting the benefit of being a payroll employee, so the economic impacts described above would not apply. However, this exercise does provide a broad sense of the potential scope of workers affected. Further, even these workers lose something of value under this rule given the current enforcement regime, namely the legal right to the wages and benefits they would receive if they were properly classified. We do not attempt to quantify this effect.

To be exceedingly conservative, we will simply assume that there will be an increase as a result of this rule of 5% in the number of workers who are independent contractors in their main job.9 This translates into an increase of just 595,000 workers who are independent contractors at their main job, given the conservative CWS estimate of 11.9 million workers who are independent contractors in their main job. Multiplying that by our conservative estimate that these workers would lose $6,294 per year yields an aggregate loss to workers of over $3.7 billion annually. Further, social insurance funds would lose at least $357 million annually (595,000 times $600) in the form of reduced employer contributions, meaning this rule also results in a transfer of at least $357 million annually from social insurance funds to employers.10

The NPRM would also have ripple effects in lost benefits and protections that employees are entitled to under other statues. The proposed rule would also extend the weakened definition of employee status to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the Migrant and Seasonal Worker Protection Act (MSPA). Farm workers are already among the most vulnerable, low-paid workers in the U.S., and often face challenges at worksites including poor workplace safety conditions. If farm employers and farm labor contractors have the ability to offload more of their basic responsibilities under MSPA, more farm workers will be at risk of classification as independent contractors and lose even their basic rights under MSPA11, such as to be paid on time or have their working conditions disclosed. More workers would also be at risk of losing access to the right to take job-protected, unpaid family and medical leave under FMLA, which also references the definition of “employee” under the FLSA to determine eligibility for FMLA coverage. The National Partnership for Women and Families has estimated that 15 million workers took advantage of FMLA leave in 2025 alone.12 Protections for break time for nursing mothers—recently expanded under the PUMP Act—are also tied to FLSA employee status. Losing the right to take job-protected time off for illness or the birth of a child, the right to take a break to pump milk, the right to know when you will be paid and to be paid on time—these all specifically conflict with DOL’s stated interest in improving flexibility and satisfaction for workers. This is false flexibility.

The reality of flexible work

The Department focuses on “flexibility and satisfaction” as important non-pecuniary attributes that workers may trade income to receive. However, it is difficult to imagine that there are a meaningful number of workers who would get more satisfaction from doing the same job for substantially less compensation as an independent contractor than for substantially more compensation as a payroll employee. Many workers indeed may value flexibility, but notably, employers are able to provide a huge amount of flexibility to payroll employees if they choose to; the “inherent” tradeoff between flexibility and payroll employment is greatly exaggerated. Workers also highly value other factors, like income stability, which are much less prevalent among independent contractors and are not taken into account here.

In 2024, EPI published a report reviewing the available research and survey data on worker preferences regarding flexibility, stability, and predictability.13 While workers do often prefer flexibility and control over their own schedules, they also want stable, full-time work with predictable pay and benefits.

Employers often 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. Independent contractor status is hardly needed for employers to provide their workers with flexibility.

In conclusion, we urge DOL to withdraw this rule as proposed. The Department should not be in the business of weakening labor protections standards, and should instead seek to vigorously enforce laws against misclassification.

Sincerely,

Samantha Sanders
Director of Government Affairs & Advocacy
Economic Policy Institute

Heidi Shierholz, Ph.D.
President
Economic Policy Institute

Valerie Wilson, Ph.D.
Director, Program on Race, Ethnicity, and the Economy
Economic Policy Institute

Endnotes

1. Ismael Cid-Martinez et al., Misclassifying workers as independent contractors is costly for workers and social insurance systems, Economic Policy Institute, April 2026.

2. Maeve P. Carey, Cost-Benefit and Other Analysis Requirements in the Rulemaking Process, Congressional Research Service, December 9, 2014.

3. 91 Fed. Reg. 9967.

4. Ismael Cid-Martinez et al., Misclassifying workers as independent contractors is costly for workers and social insurance systems, Economic Policy Institute, April 2026.

5. Alan Manning Monopsony in Motion: Imperfect Competition in Labor Markets (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003); Anna Sokolova and Todd Sorensen, Monopsony in Labor Markets: A Meta-Analysis, Washington Center for Equitable Growth, February 2020; Arindrajit Dube, Jeff Jacobs, Suresh Naidu, and Siddharth Suri, “Monopsony in Online Labor Markets,” American Economic Review: Insights 2, no. 1 (March 2020): 33-46, https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aeri.20180150.

6. 91 Fed. Reg. 9962. 

7. Russell Ormiston, Dale Belman, and Mark Erlich, An Empirical Methodology to Estimate the Incidence and Costs of Payroll Fraud in the Construction Industry, Institute for Construction Economics Research, January 2020. 

8. Data from the Current Population Survey from the Bureau of Labor Statistics find that there were 163.0 million workers in the U.S. in the first quarter of 2026; 5.1 million = 163.0 million * .25 * .124. 

9. A 5% increase is a conservative assumption, given that the Department is proposing to amend the five-part economic realities test—which has always been interpreted by the Supreme Court in its totality, not weighing any one factor more than another—in a way that will place undue weight on two factors and then narrows those two factors further, making it more likely that workers will be classified as independent contractors and as a result likely leading to a substantial increase in the number of independent contractors. 

10. Some might argue that social insurance funds wouldn’t be hurt by not having employers pay into unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation because independent contractors aren’t eligible for those benefits. However, low-paid independent contractors who lose their contracts and are without work, or get hurt on the job, will be likely to need to depend on safety net programs to survive, so the social insurance system as a whole would still be depleted. 

11. Wage & Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, “Fact Sheet #35: Joint Employment and Independent Contractors Under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act,” revised January 2020. 

12. National Partnership for Women & Families. 2026. Key Facts: The Family and Medical Leave Act (fact sheet), January 2026.

13. Margaret Poydock, Lynn Rhinehart, and Celine McNicholas, Flexible Work: What Workers, Especially Low-Wage Workers, Really Want And How Best To Provide It, Economic Policy Institute, July 2024.

Workers misclassified as independent contractors lose out on critical protections, benefits, and labor rights including the minimum wage, overtime pay, unemployment insurance, the right to form a union, and anti-discrimination protections in most states. Additionally, these workers must bear the full financial costs of Social Security and Medicare contributions, rather than split it evenly with their employer.  

Construction workers, truck drivers, and home health aides are some of the commonly misclassified jobs analyzed in the report. A typical construction worker misclassified as an independent contractor would lose as much as $20,399 in annual income and job benefits compared with what they would have earned as an employee. A typical truck driver, if misclassified as an independent contractor, would lose as much as $23,266 annually. 

Lost compensation due to misclassification varies by state. Estimated annual per-worker costs in lost compensation are as high as $31,326 for truck drivers in New Jersey. On average, misclassified workers stand to lose more in higher-wage states and occupations because W-2 earnings are greater, but losses are substantial in all states—as accompanying state fact sheets show.

Misclassification does not just shift the full burden of social insurance to workers—it also reduces the total revenues received by the social insurance system. The report estimates that social insurance systems can lose up to roughly 30% of per-worker revenue when workers are misclassified as independent contractors. This is because independent contractors do not contribute to unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation systems, and because they may earn less than they would as employees (and lower pay translates directly into lower contributions).

Embedding strong legal definitions—like the ABC test—in state and federal law is fundamental to ensuring that employees are not improperly classified as independent contractors. These strong legal tests must also be paired with strong enforcement mechanisms to uphold workers’ rights and deter employers from violating the law. 

“Illegal misclassification of employees as independent contractors deprives workers of their labor rights, slashes their pay, and undermines funding for crucial social safety net programs,” said Nina Mast, EPI economic analyst and co-author of the report. “Policymakers at the federal, state, and local levels should act to curb misclassification and enforce the rights to which all workers should be entitled.” 

Key findings:

• This analysis estimates the cost to workers of being misclassified as an independent contractor for 11 commonly misclassified jobs. We find, for example, that a typical construction worker misclassified as an independent contractor would lose as much as $20,399 in annual income and job benefits compared with what they would have earned as an employee. A typical truck driver, if misclassified as an independent contractor, would lose as much as $23,266 annually.
• Lost compensation due to misclassification varies by state. Estimated annual per-worker costs in lost compensation are as high as $31,326 for truck drivers in New Jersey. On average, misclassified workers stand to lose more in higher-wage states and occupations because W-2 earnings are greater, but losses are substantial in all states.
• Misclassification can happen in any occupation. However, because of occupational segregation and other labor market disparities, people of color, women, and immigrants—and people at the intersections of these categories—are more likely to be in occupations where misclassification is common, like most of the 11 occupations analyzed in this report.
• Misclassification shifts the full burden of social insurance—like Social Security and Medicare—to workers, while also reducing the total revenues received by the social insurance system. We estimate that social insurance systems can lose up to roughly 30% of per-worker revenue when workers are misclassified as independent contractors.
• In 2025 and 2026, lawmakers in at least 12 states proposed or passed legislation to address worker misclassification. Most recent state efforts have focused on increasing accountability of employers that misclassify workers, bolstering remedies for workers subject to illegal misclassification, and strengthening enforcement capacity.

Read fact sheets by state here.

What is misclassification?

The type of misclassification addressed in this report occurs when an employer wrongly classifies an employee as an independent contractor. The problem of workers being misclassified as independent contractors is pervasive and widespread. An analysis from the National Employment Law Project focusing on state-level reports on misclassification estimated that as many as 10–30% of employers misclassify their workers.1

The way a worker is classified has serious implications for their labor rights and economic security. Federal, state, and local labor laws provide extensive protections for employees that are not available to independent contractors. For example:

• When a worker is misclassified as an independent contractor, they are stripped of minimum wage and overtime protections.
• These misclassified workers are no longer eligible for unemployment insurance or workers’ compensation.
• They do not qualify for paid sick or family leave, even in places where those benefits are statutorily prescribed for employees, and they are extremely unlikely to receive employer-provided health insurance or retirement benefits.
• They are no longer protected by the National Labor Relations Act, which ensures workers’ rights to form unions and bargain collectively to improve their working conditions.
• In most states, misclassified workers are not covered by anti-discrimination and sexual harassment protections.2
• Workers misclassified as independent contractors also must assume the full financial cost of Social Security and Medicare contributions, rather than split it evenly with their employer.

Losing these benefits and protections leaves independent contractors in a far more vulnerable position than employees when it comes to their basic rights on the job. Employers have argued that many workers prefer being classified as independent contractors because they value “flexibility” over fundamental labor rights. But this so-called flexibility is often illusory, given the degree of control many employers retain over workers and their schedules.3

Misclassification remains pervasive in part because its costs to individual workers can be hard to quantify and thus easy to obscure. Prior research has estimated the costs of misclassification by quantifying the number of workers misclassified; the amount of wage theft experienced by misclassified workers; and the loss in federal and state tax revenues resulting from employers not paying payroll taxes and workers’ compensation insurance.4 This report presents estimates of two types of costs caused by misclassification for 11 commonly misclassified occupations:

1. What workers lose when they are misclassified—that is, the difference in the value of a job to a worker if the worker is classified as an independent contractor rather than as an employee; and
2. What social insurance funds lose when workers are misclassified—that is, the difference in payments to social insurance funds if a worker is classified as an independent contractor rather than as an employee.

Misclassification can happen to any worker. However, because of occupational segregation and other labor market disparities, people of color, women, and immigrants—and people at the intersections of these categories—are more likely to be in occupations where misclassification is common, such as most of the 11 occupations investigated in this analysis (see Appendix Table 1). Any policy conversations about worker classification status should center these types of occupations, as workers classified as independent contractors in these occupations are often not genuine independent contractors with full control over their work conditions and are more likely to be exposed to the harms of reduced earnings and loss of labor protections.

The cost to workers

Table 1 presents estimates of the cost to workers of being misclassified as an independent contractor for 11 occupations that are highly prone to misclassification.5

For example, when classified as an employee, the typical construction worker had annual earnings of $58,360 in 2025 (column 1, top row of Table 1). This includes the average value of supplemental pay—overtime, shift differentials, and paid time off. When we also include the value of health insurance and retirement plans and subtract the worker contribution to Social Security and Medicare, the full value of the job to the worker when classified as an employee rises to $62,567 (column 2, top row). But when the typical construction worker is misclassified as an independent contractor—and therefore loses access to legal protections, supplemental pay, and employer contributions to Social Security and Medicare—we estimate that the value of that job falls to between $42,169 and $49,382 (columns 3 and 4, top row). That estimated range depends on the assumptions we make about the degree to which the employer increases the base pay of independent contractors, if at all, to offset the fact that the worker does not have access to many rights and benefits.

The estimates in columns 3 and 4 are based on two scenarios, described below, that together define the endpoints of this range and establish plausible estimates of the cost of misclassification to workers. It should be noted, however, that this range is conservative because it does not account for the loss independent contractors face of many rights associated with being an employee—for example, it excludes the impact of the loss of rights guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act, such as the right to union representation.

In both scenarios, we assume that the worker—if classified as an independent contractor—receives the full regular pay of a W-2 employee but does not receive supplemental pay (like overtime or paid time off), must pay the full combined employer and employee contribution to Social Security and Medicare (15.3% of earnings), and must cover paperwork costs like invoicing, bookkeeping, and small business tax filings.

Scenario 1: No compensation for health and retirement benefits

In the first scenario, we assume employers do not compensate independent contractors for the value of health insurance and retirement benefits. This generates our low estimate of the value to workers of independent contractor jobs—along with the high estimate of the cost to workers of independent contractor jobs—in Table 1.

Under this assumption, we conservatively estimate the net value of a construction job done as an independent contractor falls to $42,169 per year. This is $20,399—or 32.6%—less than if that worker were a W-2 employee ($62,567 in column 2). Notably, misclassified truck drivers also see a massive decline in net value of the job. As a W-2 employee, a truck driving job is worth $64,474, while an independent contractor receiving the same wage, but no supplemental pay or benefits, earns $41,208, which is $23,266 less.

Table 1

Scenario 2: Full compensation for health and retirement benefits

In the second scenario, we assume employers fully compensate independent contractors for the value of health insurance and retirement benefits. This generates our high estimate of the value to workers of independent contractor jobs, along with the low estimate of the cost to workers of independent contractor jobs, in Table 1.

Access to these benefits increases the annual earnings of an independent contractor, but not to the level of a W-2 employee. For a construction worker, the net value of the job as an independent contractor is only $49,382, or more than $13,000 below the net value of the same job done as an employee. For a truck driver, the switch to independent contractor status would cost $13,760.

Table 1 also shows estimates for nine other occupations with lower annual earnings than construction workers and truck drivers. As W-2 employees, these workers had median annual earnings between $33,690 and $44,140. Under the estimates in scenario 1 (no compensation for health and retirement benefits), being misclassified as an independent contractor would cost between $8,858 (retail sales workers) and $17,939 (light truck delivery drivers). Under scenario 2 (full compensation for health and retirement benefits), the costs would be $6,294 and $10,634, respectively.

Mapping cost to workers by state

See fact sheets by state.

Because worker pay varies meaningfully across states, we also estimate the cost of misclassification to workers by state. We follow the same methodology we used for our national-level estimates but incorporate state-level data where available.

Figure A maps the financial penalty that workers face when wrongfully misclassified as independent contractors. This figure uses estimates from scenario 1, where we assume employers do not compensate independent contractors for health and retirement benefits. (See Appendix Table 2 and Appendix Table 3 for a detailed breakdown of costs to workers by occupation and state for independent contractors with and without compensation for health and retirement benefits.)

The cost of misclassification ranges from $5,774 annually for housekeeping cleaners in Mississippi to $31,326 for truck drivers in New Jersey. This range of estimates reflects the fact that misclassified workers stand to lose more in higher-wage states and occupations where the W-2 earnings of employees are greater. Even so, losses are substantial across all states.    

Figure A

The cost to social insurance

Social insurance consists of government programs funded by dedicated payroll taxes paid by workers and/or employers, which entitle workers to benefits when they experience qualifying events—such as reaching retirement age (Social Security and Medicare), being laid off (unemployment insurance), or being injured on the job (workers’ compensation). When a worker is misclassified as an independent contractor, the entire cost of Social Security and Medicare contributions is shifted to the worker.6 Misclassification also renders workers ineligible for participation in state and federal unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation programs.

Misclassification does not just shift the full burden of social insurance to workers—it also reduces the total revenues received by the social insurance system. This occurs for several reasons. First, unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation systems receive no contributions from independent contractors—though it is worth noting that this in no way ensures that these workers will not need to rely on public safety net programs if they are laid off or injured on the job. Second, independent contractors in the occupations we analyze may earn less than they would as employees, because, for example, they are no longer legally entitled to the minimum wage, overtime protections, and are highly unlikely to receive any paid time off. Because Social Security contributions are a percentage of earnings (and the taxable maximum is not binding in these occupations), lower pay translates directly into lower contributions.

Table 2 illustrates the impact of worker misclassification on payments to social insurance funds in the 11 occupations analyzed above. For example, the typical construction worker classified as an employee and their employer jointly contributed a total of $10,663 toward these social insurance programs in 2025. When misclassified as an independent contractor, total payments toward social insurance programs fall to between $7,617 and $8,920 per construction worker (using the same two scenarios described above). This represents a decline in social insurance revenues between $1,743 and $3,046 per construction worker per year.

Under our scenario 1 assumptions (where employers do not increase pay to compensate independent contractors for their lack of employer-provided health and retirement benefits), total contributions to social insurance fall from between 21% ($1,220) for manicurists/pedicurists and 29% ($3,046) for construction workers. Under our scenario 2 assumptions (where employers increase pay enough to fully compensate independent contractors for health and retirement benefits), payments to social insurance drop by somewhat less—10% ($601) for manicurists/pedicurists and 16% ($1,743) for construction workers—due to the higher base pay.

Table 2

Mapping the cost to social insurance funds by state

Expanding this methodology to states reveals how misclassification deprives social insurance funds of crucial dollars needed to maintain crucial programs, such as unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation. Figure B maps the difference in contributions to social insurance funds between W-2 employees and independent contractors under scenario 1, where we assume employers do not compensate independent contractors for health and retirement benefits. The median cost to social insurance funds ranges from $654 per person annually for housekeeping cleaners in Mississippi to $4,008 for construction workers in Hawaii. See Appendix Table 4 and Appendix Table 5 for a detailed breakdown of costs to social insurance funds by occupation and state for the full range of estimates for independent contractors with and without compensation for health and retirement benefits.

Figure B

Recent state and federal policy changes

Strong statutory language, like the ABC test, provides the legal foundation for identifying misclassification 

Given the high stakes of misclassification for workers’ access to fundamental rights and protections, embedding strong legal definitions in state and federal law is fundamental to ensuring that employees are not improperly classified as independent contractors.  

The ABC test is the strongest, most protective test for determining employee status. The test establishes a presumption that an individual performing services for an employer is an employee—not an independent contractor—unless the employer can establish three factors: 

1. The work is done without the direction and control of the employer; 
2. The work is performed outside the usual course of the employer’s business; and 
3. The work is done by someone who has their own, independent business or trade doing that kind of work. 

The ABC test differs from other “tests” of employee status such as the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) “common law” test and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) “economic realities” test because the ABC test shifts the presumption to one of employee status, places the burden on the employer to prove independent contractor status, and provides a clear, narrow definition of independent contractor status. In turn, this reduces the likelihood that workers are misclassified and lose protections they should be guaranteed under the law as employees.  

The strength of frameworks used to determine employee status is highly varied across states. At least 18 states and the District of Columbia currently use the ABC test for determining employee status for certain workplace laws. Some states have taken action recently. In addition to pursuing strong, innovative enforcement strategies to combat misclassification, New Jersey’s labor department proposed a new administrative rule in 2025 to codify into state law the agency’s existing ABC test for preventing independent contractor misclassification (the rule has since been paused). This year, a West Virginia bill proposed establishing a new ABC test into state law. 

However, the number of states with ABC tests has decreased in the past decade, with some states weakening or repealing their statutory definitions as a result of lobbying efforts by digital platform companies (e.g. Uber) and other industries whose business models depend on designating large numbers of workers as “independent contractors.” While most states with ABC tests apply them to determine workers’ eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits, only a few states apply them to wage and hour standards like the minimum wage and overtime compensation, and some states have them in place only for workers in certain occupations.

Strong enforcement mechanisms allow lawmakers to protect workers and hold employers accountable 

While strong legal tests provide a basis for determining whether an employee has been misclassified as an independent contractor, they must be paired with strong enforcement mechanisms to uphold workers’ rights and deter employers from violating the law. Many states are taking steps to strengthen enforcement. In 2025 and 2026, lawmakers in at least 12 states proposed or passed legislation to address worker misclassification. For example, Delaware passed a law in 2025 to hold contractors liable when their subcontractors misclassify workers, Colorado enacted a law to penalize employers that willfully misclassify workers, and Minnesota enacted a law requiring the state labor agency to study the impact of misclassification on workers and state revenue. In 2026, lawmakers in at least eight additional states7 have proposed legislation to address worker misclassification, and two states (Virginia and Washington) have sent approved legislation to the governor. 

At the same time, attacks also continued in 2026. Bills in several states proposed weakening existing ABC tests and excluding certain occupations from being subject to the tests. Other bills proposed establishing corporate-backed sham “portable benefits” schemes that promise some limited (but often inaccessible) benefits for gig workers while locking them out of full coverage under standard state programs and protections by treating them as “independent contractors.”8

Strong enforcement is important, and whether a given situation will be subject to enforcement depends on the strength of a state’s statutory definitions of employment. Both strong legal tests and enforcement are critical to protecting workers from being misclassified.  

Policy recommendations 

Policymakers at the federal, state, and local levels should act to curb misclassification and enforce the rights to which all workers should be entitled. Unfortunately, federal protections from misclassification are limited, and recent progress to address misclassification has been undermined. For example, the ABC test is not currently part of any federal workplace laws. In 2024, the Department of Labor finalized a rule to combat misclassification by adopting a six-factor test to determine worker classification under wage and hour laws. However, the Trump administration stopped enforcing the 2024 rule and recently proposed replacing it with a weaker standard. Given federal retrenchment, state lawmakers have an opportunity and responsibility to strengthen existing state standards.

State and federal policymakers should:

• Establish or expand the use of a strong, uniform protective legal test for determining employee status, such as the ABC test;9
• Strengthen enforcement and increase penalties to deter the misclassification of workers as independent contractors; 
• Pass the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act,10 which would make it harder for employers to misclassify employees in order to prevent them from forming a union and bargaining collectively;
• Strengthen enforcement of wage theft and misclassification, and fully fund the federal and state agencies responsible for enforcing workers’ wage and hour rights;
• Require employers to provide workers with transparent statements of their employment status and a justification for their classification;
• Extend basic wage and hour protections, workplace health and safety protections, paid sick leave, and other protections to independent contractors to discourage misclassification as a “race to the bottom” for workers’ rights; and
• Improve coordination among state and federal tax and labor enforcement agencies by establishing interagency misclassification task forces with dedicated resources and staff and strong co-enforcement partnerships capable of effectively cracking down on misclassification in targeted industries.11

Methodology

Since there are no comprehensive private or public data sources on workers misclassified as independent contractors, we apply a methodology that makes use of available employee total compensation and earnings data to estimate the costs of misclassification. For each of the 11 occupations included in our analysis, we begin with the average compensation profile drawn from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC) database. This profile provides a breakdown of average employer costs for employee compensation in the private sector. As an example, Table 3 presents the average hourly compensation profile for construction workers broken into its component parts. We take the ratio of the individual compensation components to regular pay—which includes wages, salaries, supplemental pay, and paid leave—to estimate the ratio of compensation to pay.

Table 3

Next, we apply the ratios of total compensation to pay to median annual earnings obtained from the BLS’ Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics data (OEWS). This gives us estimates of the regular pay, supplemental pay, paid leave, and insurance and retirement benefits for a W-2 employee. We then calculate the net value to the worker as an employee based on the sum of all pay, paid leave, insurance and benefits, minus Social Security and Medicare taxes.

From here, we model two possible ways that the value of a job to a worker can change if the employee is misclassified as an independent contractor. In both scenarios, we assume that the worker, if classified as an independent contractor, receives the full regular pay of a W-2 employee, does not receive supplemental pay (like overtime or paid time off), must pay the full employer and employee contribution to Social Security and Medicare (15.3% of earnings), and must cover paperwork costs like invoicing, bookkeeping, and small business tax filings. We calculate paperwork costs by updating the methodology used in 2020 comments on independent contractor status under the Fair Labor Standards Act.12 The difference in the two scenarios is in our assumptions about the degree to which the employer increases the base pay of independent contractors, if at all, to offset the fact that the worker does not have access to many rights and benefits.

1. In the first scenario, we assume employers do not compensate independent contractors for health and retirement benefits. This generates our low estimate of the value to workers of independent contractor jobs—along with the high estimate of the cost to workers of independent contractor jobs.
2. In the second scenario, we assume that employers fully compensate independent contractors for the cost of health insurance and retirement benefits that employers would have paid to the same worker working as an employee. This generates our high estimate of the value to workers of independent contractor jobs, along with the low estimate of the cost to workers of independent contractor jobs.

State estimates

Estimates of the cost of misclassification by state and occupational group are produced similarly to national estimates, using compensation data from the BLS’ ECEC data and state earnings data from the BLS’ OEWS data.

Compensation profiles can be obtained from the ECEC that detail the total hourly cost of compensating a worker, including the share of total compensation derived from regular pay, insurance and retirement benefits, and legally required benefits. A ratio of compensation to pay can be calculated from these profiles by dividing each compensation component by regular pay, as in Table 3.

The ECEC does not have compensation profiles for occupational groups at the state level. They do, however, have compensation profiles for all workers, for all workers by occupation, and for all workers by census division, which we combine to estimate compensation profiles for occupational groups at the census division level. Table 4 illustrates this procedure using construction workers in New England as an example. First, we create compensation to pay ratios for private-sector workers at the national level, for each occupational group (e.g. construction workers), and for each census division (e.g. New England). Next, we divide the occupation-specific ratio by the national ratio and multiply this quotient by the census division ratio. This yields a unique compensation to pay ratio for New England construction workers, which is then mapped onto all states within this respective census division. This procedure is followed for all occupational groups and census divisions to produce compensation to pay ratios for all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Table 4

We apply the state- and occupation-specific compensation to pay ratios to state and occupation median annual earnings obtained from BLS’ OEWS data. This gives us estimates of total compensation that comes from regular pay, supplemental pay, paid leave, and insurance and retirement benefits for W-2 employees across all states and occupations.

As in the national estimates, the cost of misclassification to both workers and to social insurance funds is calculated by comparing the net value of a job for a W-2 employee with that of an independent contractor under two scenarios: with and without compensation for health and retirement benefits. Appendix Tables 2–5 provide detailed breakdowns of these costs in both net dollar amounts and percentage differences relative to W-2 employees.

Notes

1. National Employment Law Project, Independent Contractor Misclassification Imposes Huge Costs on Workers and Federal and State Treasuries, October 2020.

2. Meghan Racklin, Molly Weston Williamson, and Dina Bakst, “State Leadership on Anti-Discrimination Protections for Independent Contractors,” Future of Work Blog (A Better Balance), April 22, 2020.

3. Margaret Poydock, Lynn Rhinehart, and Celine McNicholas, Flexible Work: What Workers, Especially Low-Wage Workers, Really Want And How Best To Provide It, Economic Policy Institute, July 2024.

4. Françoise Carré, (In)dependent Contractor Misclassification, Economic Policy Institute, June 2015; Government Accountability Office, Employee Misclassification: Improved Coordination, Outreach, and Targeting Could Better Ensure Detection and Prevention, GAO-09–717, August 2009.

5. For discussions of occupations where workers are particularly vulnerable to misclassification as independent contractors, see Annette Bernhardt, Sarah Thomason, Chris Campos, Allen Prohofsky, Aparna Ramesh, and Jesse Rothstein, Independent Contracting in California: An Analysis of Trends and Characteristics Using Tax Data, UC Berkeley Labor Center and California Policy Lab, March 2022; Françoise Carré, (In)dependent Contractor Misclassification, Economic Policy Institute, June 2015; National Employment Law Project, Independent Contractor Misclassification Imposes Huge Costs on Workers and Federal and State Treasuries, October 2020; and Lisa Xu and Mark Erlich, Economic Consequences of Misclassification in the State of Washington, Harvard Labor and Worklife Program, December 2019.

6. When workers are employees, they pay the employee share of Social Security and Medicare (7.65% of W-2 earnings). Their employers also make identical payments to Social Security and Medicare.

7. Arizona HB 2463, Illinois HB 2794, Iowa HB 2385, Kentucky HB 449, Virginia SB 644, Washington SB 6302, West Virginia HB 4571, and Wisconsin AB 1160.

8. See, for example, New Jersey A 1184, California SB 527, and Georgia HB 987.

9. Lynne Rhinehart et al. Misclassification, the ABC Test, and Employee Status, Economic Policy Institute, June 2021.

10. Celine McNicholas, Margaret Poydock, and Lynne Rhinehart, Why Workers Need the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, Economic Policy Institute, February 2021.

11. For more on interagency misclassification task forces, see Rebecca Smith, Public Task Forces Take on Employee Misclassification: Best Practices (policy brief), National Employment Law Project, updated August 2020. For more on co-enforcement partnerships, see Janice Fine, Daniel Galvin, Jenn Round, and Hana Sheperd, “Strategic Enforcement and Co-enforcement of U.S. Labor Standards Are Needed to Protect Workers Through the Coronavirus Recession,” Boosting Wages for U.S. Workers in the New Economy series, Washington Center for Equitable Growth, January 2021.

12. Heidi Shierholz, “EPI comments on independent contractor status under the Fair Labor Standards Act,” comments submitted on behalf of the Economic Policy Institute to Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation (Wage and Hour Division) Director Amy DeBisschop, October 26, 2020.

The IRS estimates that business taxpayers spend 13 more hours than nonbusiness taxpayers doing their taxes. If we conservatively assume that independent contractors spend 30 minutes per week on other (non-tax) paperwork costs that they wouldn’t have to spend if they were a payroll employee, that, plus the additional 13 hours spent on taxes, is an additional 39 hours of paperwork per year. This is equivalent to 1.8% of pay, or $880 annually for an independent contractor who earns $48,887 in regular pay annually.  

Additionally, we estimate these paperwork costs as the annual purchase of basic bookkeeping software ($114 on the lowest end, using FreshBooks, see https://www.freshbooks.com/pricing, accessed October 16, 2024), self-employed tax filing software for federal taxes ($129, using TurboTax, https://turbotax.intuit.com/personal-taxes/online/live/, accessed October 16, 2024) and state taxes ($64, using TurboTax).

Data appendix

Appendix Table 1

Appendix Table 2

Appendix Table 3

Appendix Table 4

Appendix Table 5

Since 1935, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) has provided most private-sector workers the statutory right to join together with coworkers for the purposes of mutual aid and protection, including by forming or joining unions to bargain collectively with employers over wages, hours, and terms and conditions of work.

Under the NLRA, workers can form a legally recognized union in two ways:

1. They can petition their employer to voluntarily recognize their union after a majority signs union cards or petitions, or
2. They can file a petition for a union election administered by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and have their union certified by the NLRB after a majority vote in favor. In practice, the NLRB election process can be lengthy, and workers often face intense employer interference.

The NLRA requires employers to bargain with workers who have won a union election and prohibits employers from retaliating against workers for organizing activity. But NLRA enforcement structures are weak; employers who violate the NLRA face no monetary penalties; and workers whose rights are violated receive no compensatory damages. As a result, millions of workers seeking to unionize face daunting obstacles because the NLRA fails to reliably deter employer retaliation or to require that employers bargain in good faith to reach a contract settlement. Decades of federal policy and court decisions have further weakened the NLRA; most notably, the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act legalized new forms of employer anti-union activity and allowed states to constrain collective bargaining rights through anti-union, so-called right-to-work (RTW) laws.

Moreover, many workers have never been covered by federal labor law. Jim Crow-era occupational carveouts in the NLRA continue to exclude public-sector workers, farmworkers, and domestic workers (including millions of home care and child care workers) from coverage, as well as supervisors and independent contractors. Other federal labor laws cover some other groups of workers: Rail and airline workers’ collective bargaining rights are governed by the Railway Labor Act; U.S. Postal Service employees gained collective bargaining rights in the 1970 Postal Reorganization Act; and collective bargaining rights of most other federal employees are governed by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Act (enacted as Title VII of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act).

What are the threats to workers’ federal rights to unionize and collectively bargain?

Current threats to workers’ union rights include:

• Undermining the NLRB’s ability to enforce labor law: After taking office in January 2025, one of President Trump’s first actions was removing Board member Gwynne Wilcox, attacking the NLRB’s status as an independent agency. This move left the NLRB without a quorum and therefore unable to adjudicate cases until quorum was eventually restored in December 2025. This rendered the NLRB nonoperational for the better part of a year—allowing employers to violate labor law with no immediate legal consequences—and created an enormous backlog of unadjudicated cases for an already underfunded and understaffed NLRB to consider. Even more consequentially, the attack compromised the NLRB’s long-term ability to function independently: Firing Wilcox for “disfavoring employers” made clear that under the current administration, NLRB members must favor employers to keep their jobs—essentially eliminating the independence of the agency.
• Court challenges to the NLRB’s constitutionality: Corporate lawsuits challenging the NLRB’s constitutionality and status as an independent agency may eventually be headed to the Supreme Court—which could effectively repeal the NLRA and end federal protections for private-sector workers’ rights to unionize and bargain.
• Eliminating federal mediation of difficult contract disputes: The Trump administration has attempted to use executive action to eliminate the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS), a federal agency that, since 1947, had provided mediation to resolve labor-management disputes and training to promote productive collective bargaining relationships. This action has so far been blocked by court challenges.
• Rendering the NLRB hostile to workers and further weakening enforcement: One of President Trump’s first actions after taking office in 2025 was the firing of NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo. The new NLRB General Counsel has already begun to rescind key practices implemented by Abruzzo to strengthen enforcement. Likewise, newly appointed NLRB Board members may reverse recent decisions that represented steps toward shoring up workers’ rights to organize and bargain, such as the Board’s 2024 ruling declaring anti-union captive audience meetings illegal.
• Loss of bargaining rights for workers with precarious NLRA coverage: Tens of thousands of student workers at private colleges and universities have organized unions in recent years via successful NLRB elections, but the NLRB’s position on whether student workers at private institutions are covered by the NLRA has fluctuated under different administrations. It is widely anticipated that new Trump NLRB appointees could reverse this key precedent, stripping student workers of NLRA protections.
• Stripping public employees’ collective bargaining rights: The Trump administration has prioritized direct attacks on union rights of federal employees, first by terminating collective bargaining agreements covering Transportation Security Administration employees, then terminating union contracts across several other federal agencies to implement a Trump executive order aimed at eliminating collective bargaining rights for most federal employees. These actions continue to face legal challenges (and could be reversed by legislation passed by the House and under consideration in the Senate), though the administration has often pressed ahead with terminating or ignoring union contracts despite court orders. The attempt to eliminate federal employee collective bargaining advances elements of a broader proposal in Project 2025 (p. 82) that claims public employee unions are “not compatible with constitutional government” and calls on Congress to consider banning them. 
• Narrowing existing legal pathways to unionization: Project 2025 (p. 603) proposes to eliminate the default NLRA process that allows workers seeking to form a union to approach their employer to request voluntary recognition once a majority have signed union cards as verified by a neutral third party via a “card check” process. Several states have also advanced parallel attacks on workers’ NLRA-protected right to organize using this process. So far, Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama have enacted anti-union legislation threatening to deny state economic development funds to any employer who voluntarily recognizes a union, even though voluntary recognition when a majority of workers have signed union cards remains fully lawful under the NLRA.

How can states maintain and strengthen worker rights to unionize and bargain?

States have clearly established authority to legislate in areas of labor law not covered by the NLRA (for example, regarding the collective bargaining rights of groups of workers who are excluded from NLRA coverage), but they have historically been preempted from lawmaking in areas that the NLRA “arguably protects or prohibits” or that address questions Congress intended to leave to “free forces” of the market. Moreover, in 1947 Congress explicitly granted states authority to restrict (but not expand) private-sector workers’ collective bargaining rights by enacting so-called right-to-work laws barring employers and unions from including union security clauses in collective bargaining agreements. Unless otherwise noted, the state policies and practices discussed in this brief are measures that have been previously enacted in multiple states and are not preempted by federal labor law.

Step I: Lock in and shore up existing federal protections

As noted above, the NLRA was enacted in 1935 to protect workers’ basic rights to organize for better working conditions, form unions, and collectively bargain—but current federal and corporate attacks are accelerating a decades-long trend of weakening these protections. This means even workers whose rights are legally protected on paper operate in practice on a highly uneven playing field when trying to organize a union or negotiate a fair contract. States can take several important actions to shore up workers’ existing labor rights, remove state-level constraints and obstacles to unionizing, and ensure that workers can more fully exercise their existing federal rights to organize and collectively bargain.

To lock in current federal union and collective bargaining protections, states should: 

1. Repeal so-called right-to-work laws and other anti-union state measures constraining workers’ organizing and collective bargaining rights:

At a bare minimum, states should avoid diminishing workers’ federal labor rights and refrain from imposing additional obstacles to organizing and collective bargaining.

• 26 states have in place anti-union RTW legislation that constrains collective bargaining rights by barring employers and unions from negotiating union security agreements.{{1}} RTW laws are designed to suppress union membership by making it more difficult for workers to form and sustain unions, and data show they result in lower wages and benefits for all workers. States with RTW laws should follow Michigan’s recent lead and repeal them.
• Colorado should repeal its unique, long-standing anti-union state law that imposes RTW-like conditions on unionizing workers unless they undergo a state-mandated “second election” (and win by a supermajority) in order to win full bargaining rights.
• States (including Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee) should repeal recently enacted anti-union laws intended to penalize employers and workers who exercise NLRA-protected rights to use majority card check and voluntary recognition to form a union, and other states now considering such legislation should reject it.

2. Protect workers’ freedom of conscience and ban mandatory “captive audience” meetings:

Workers’ right to organize without employer interference is spelled out clearly in federal labor law, but employers have long used mandatory captive audience meetings and other tactics to violate these rights in practice to block workers from organizing new unions. In 2024, the NLRB ruled that anti-union captive audience meetings constitute illegal employer interference with workers’ right to organize. Prior to this ruling, at least a dozen states had already enacted legislation to protect workers broadly from the overarching threat of employer coercion, banning mandatory captive audience meetings on political or religious matters including (but not limited to) employer opinions on unionization. Because the NLRB can only address captive audience meetings focused on anti-union speech, and because the new ruling is at risk of reversal by the current labor board, it remains important for states to enact and enforce legislation that broadly protects workers’ freedom of choice and conscience on a wide range of political and religious matters.

3. Extend unemployment insurance to striking or locked out workers:

States can help make sure workers can fully exercise their collective bargaining rights—including the right to strike if necessary—by ensuring that workers whose paychecks stop due to a strike are eligible to apply for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under the same rules as other unemployed workers. In too many states, workers are disqualified from applying for UI when on strike (or even when locked out by an employer during a labor dispute), opening the door for employers to undermine negotiations and attempt to “starve workers out” rather than negotiating to reach an agreement. More states should join New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Washington in ensuring that both striking and locked out workers are eligible to apply for UI. This is an extremely low-cost policy that can help level the playing field in labor negotiations, stabilize local economies during labor disputes, and potentially lead to fewer strikes and lockouts by encouraging parties to seek fair contract settlements.

4. Guarantee organizing and collective bargaining rights in state constitutions:

A handful of states have long had constitutional language in place affirming collective bargaining rights, and other states have been motivated to amend their constitutions to safeguard basic labor rights in the face of growing threats. In 2022, a supermajority of voters approved a constitutional Workers’ Rights Amendment in Illinois declaring that “no law shall be passed that interferes with, negates, or diminishes the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively.” A similar constitutional amendment will appear on the ballot in Vermont in 2026. These amendments affirm the collective bargaining rights of all employees, regardless of occupation or sector, and explicitly prohibit RTW-style legislation that limits bargaining rights. Such constitutional language can help spur legal or legislative action necessary to actualize collective bargaining rights for farmworkers or others excluded from NLRA coverage—as New York and New Jersey have done—and may help states protect the labor rights of student workers and others whose status under federal labor law has been or may in the future become precarious.

5. Enact “trigger laws” to ensure future continuity of rights for workers at risk of losing federal labor law coverage:

Given current threats to the NLRA, some states are enacting policies designed to ensure they are positioned to protect private-sector workers’ rights to unionize and bargain in the event that aspects of federal labor law are repealed, struck down, or go unenforced. Taking such actions in as many states as possible is an important stopgap measure that comes with opportunities to improve and strengthen labor laws in some states. However, it is also the case that many states instead have in place (or could pass) highly restrictive anti-union state labor laws that would take effect if no longer preempted by the NLRA and strip many workers of their collective bargaining rights.

• More states should follow the lead of Rhode Island’s 2025 legislation ensuring collective bargaining rights for student workers at private universities in the event their federal labor rights are revoked by future NLRB decisions. The new law expands state labor law’s definition of “employee” to include “teaching assistants, research assistants, fellows, residential assistants and proctors” “when not already protected” by the NLRB. 
• In 2025, both New York and California enacted trigger laws authorizing their state labor boards to assert jurisdiction over private-sector labor relations in the event the NLRB ceases to do so. Massachusetts is also considering similar legislation. NOTE: These new laws are facing legal challenges from the NLRB based on claims that federal labor law preempts states from taking such action.
  

Step II: Extend organizing and collective bargaining rights to workers who are excluded from federal labor laws

Federal labor law excludes public-sector, agricultural, and domestic workers from coverage, as well as supervisors and independent contractors. This leaves states latitude to set their own policies on union and collective bargaining rights for workers in these occupations (with the exception of private-sector supervisors, where state action has been preempted by federal courts).

1. Ensure full collective bargaining rights for all state and local government workers:

State policies on collective bargaining for different categories of state and local government workers vary widely both across and within states. Currently, many states maintain public employee collective bargaining laws with provisions roughly equivalent to (and, in a few instances, stronger than) those covering private-sector workers under the NLRA. Some other states completely prohibit some or all public employees and employers from entering into collective bargaining agreements or heavily restrict the topics public employees and employers can negotiate and include in a contract. At present, roughly half of states lack robust, comprehensive collective bargaining laws covering all state and local government workers. State collective bargaining laws can vary across several dimensions, including:

• which groups of workers or occupations are covered
• which matters related to compensation and working conditions must be or can be discussed by parties in bargaining (including topics like whether workers can opt to pay their union dues via payroll deduction)
• whether bargaining is purely voluntary or whether employers are obligated to bargain under certain conditions, such as majority support for the union
• what steps a group of workers must take to demonstrate majority support for unionization in order to gain or maintain recognition and/or legal certification for purposes of collective bargaining
• what mediation or arbitration procedures are prescribed if the two parties reach an impasse in bargaining
• whether workers have the right to strike, and
• what recourse is available to workers or unions if employers violate the law.

States should assess the current strength of public-sector collective bargaining statutes across these dimensions and prioritize addressing coverage gaps or weaknesses, looking to states with robust comprehensive frameworks (and enforcement mechanisms) in place—such as Connecticut, Minnesota, Oregon, and others—for models. Examples of states moving to strengthen aspects of existing public-sector collective bargaining laws in recent years include the following:

• Many states with strong public-sector collective bargaining frameworks already in place continue to address coverage gaps and ensure equal collective bargaining rights to occupations formerly excluded or functionally blocked from coverage. Recent examples include legislation extending bargaining rights to university graduate researchers and state legislative employees in California, student employees at public universities in Washington, and various groups of Minnesota public university employees.
• New Mexico overhauled its public-sector bargaining statute in 2020, including restructuring the state’s labor board system to strengthen previously weak or inconsistent enforcement.
• In 2020, Virginia lifted a long-standing ban on public-sector collective bargaining and began to permit local governments to bargain with employee unions. In 2026, Virginia is considering much stronger legislation to create a comprehensive statewide collective bargaining framework covering all state and local government workers.
• In Maryland—where collective bargaining coverage varies by jurisdiction and occupation under a patchwork of highly fragmented laws—lawmakers are repeatedly called on to step in to extend bargaining rights to groups of otherwise excluded workers (most recently including community college employees and library staff). This year, Maryland lawmakers should take overdue steps to enact proposed legislation to ensure similar rights for university graduate assistants and postdocs.
• Nevada, where local government employees have had collective bargaining rights for decades, extended these rights to state employees in 2019.
• Colorado granted limited collective bargaining rights to some state employees in 2020 and to some county government employees in 2022. Because (like many states) Colorado collective bargaining laws still exclude many public employees, other units of government have begun to step in as interest in unionization among Colorado public employees continues to grow. Following a successful 2024 local ballot initiative, Denver City Council adopted a strong collective bargaining ordinance covering municipal employees. And in 2026, university regents are considering a proposal to extend collective bargaining rights to faculty and staff across Colorado’s public universities.

2. Create pathways to collective bargaining for in-home child care and home health care workers:

To begin addressing some of the inequities caused by the NLRA’s exclusion of domestic occupations—work that is persistently underpaid and disproportionately performed by women, immigrants, and workers of color—lawmakers have created pathways to collective bargaining for home-based child care providers in at least a dozen states and/or home health care workers in at least eight states. These state laws classify child care or home care workers as public employees for collective bargaining purposes when providing care supported by public funds (e.g., Medicaid). Under such state laws, child care and/or home care workers who choose to unionize can negotiate legally binding collective bargaining agreements with a designated state entity. Recent examples of states taking important action to extend or restore collective bargaining rights for domestic workers include:

• California, where home care workers first won collective bargaining rights in the 1990s, enacted additional legislation in 2019 to create a pathway to collective bargaining for home-based child care workers. California lawmakers have in recent years also considered proposed legislation to shift its long-standing county-by-county collective bargaining system for home care workers to a more consistent statewide system.
• 2024 Michigan legislation restored home health care worker bargaining rights (which had been previously revoked in 2012), establishing a legal pathway to unionization for over 30,000 Michigan home care workers and creating the Michigan Home Help Caregiver Council to bargain with home care workers on behalf of the state.
• Among other reforms, Vermont’s 2024 PRO Act repealed the previous exclusion of domestic workers from coverage under the state’s labor law.

• If enacted, 2026 proposed legislation to expand public-sector collective bargaining in Virginia will include home care workers, creating a Virginia Home Care Authority to act as the public employer of home health care workers for bargaining purposes.

3. Ensure full collective bargaining rights for agricultural workers:

Agricultural workers in at least 14 states currently have some legally protected collective bargaining rights, though the strength of these rights and state-level mechanisms to enforce them vary widely. California’s 1975 Agricultural Labor Relations Act (ALRA) remains the longest-standing and most robust state law covering farmworkers’ union rights. Like many state labor laws, the ALRA is largely modeled on the NLRA, but it also illustrates how states can learn from weaknesses in federal labor law when legislating in areas not covered by the NLRA. For example, California’s ALRA explicitly allows workers to unionize through majority card check recognition, permits unions to engage in secondary consumer boycotts, and gives its labor board broad authority to enforce the statute as necessary to further state labor policy (rather than requiring it to look to federal precedents established under the NLRA). Examples of other states that have recently pursued action to extend collective bargaining rights to farmworkers include:

• Following a court case affirming the state’s constitutional obligation to protect farmworker collective bargaining rights, New York enacted 2019 legislation amending its existing state labor statute to include farmworkers and granting enforcement authority to its existing state labor board. The New Jersey Supreme Court likewise in 1989 affirmed that employers are constitutionally required to bargain with farmworker unions, though the state has not yet created a statutory framework for farmworker collective bargaining.
• Colorado 2021 legislation removed a long-standing exemption of farmworkers from state labor law and codified farmworkers’ rights to organize and collectively bargain.
• Legislation to extend collective bargaining rights to farmworkers in Maine has been introduced numerous times since 2021, including a bill that was vetoed in 2022.

4. Create pathways to collective bargaining for independent contractors:

A few states have begun to experiment with statutory frameworks to support nonmajority pathways to unionization and unique forms of sector-wide collective bargaining for rideshare drivers. While it is too soon to know what outcomes will result, these policies are intended to create a pathway to a union contract for drivers who have been persistently treated by digital platform companies as “independent contractors” rather than employees (thereby excluding them from coverage under the NLRA and most other labor and employment laws). While app-based workers continue where possible to make claims under various state and federal laws that they should rightfully be considered employees, many have concluded that legal battles to compel tech companies to respect drivers’ employee status under the NLRA have no immediate prospect of success. So far, state-administered rideshare collective bargaining frameworks (developed in part through negotiations with rideshare companies like Uber) have been enacted in Massachusetts and California. Minnesota and Illinois are considering similar legislation.

Step III: Level the playing field for unionizing workers by streamlining organizing and first contract processes, strengthening state labor law enforcement, and educating workers about their rights

1. Strengthen state labor laws by applying lessons from federal labor law’s shortcomings:

Historically, most state labor laws and enforcement systems have been modeled largely on the NLRA. This has in turn meant that most state labor laws reflect some if not all the NLRA’s weaknesses—but this doesn’t have to be the case. When legislating in areas not preempted by the NLRA, states can strengthen labor laws far beyond familiar NLRA frameworks—including by incorporating into state law aspects of previously proposed (but not yet adopted) federal labor law reform. Examples of such opportunities include:

• Require employers to recognize unions once a majority of workers demonstrate interest: Federal labor law provides that once a majority of workers have signed union cards or petitions, they can approach their employer to recognize the union and have a neutral third party “check the cards” to verify majority interest. Indeed, as written, the NLRA assumed “card check” to be the default process for unionizing, with board elections becoming necessary only in instances where an employer had reason to question a union’s majority status. But because the NLRA also allows employers to refuse to recognize a union even where clear majorities exist, today, anti-union consultants nearly always counsel employers to block this pathway to unionization—meaning it is rarely available to workers in practice. State labor laws can however ensure that covered workers can use this process to unionize, as public-sector collective bargaining laws in at least 14 states currently do. For example, in 2003, Illinois amended its public-sector labor law to require employers to recognize unions based on verified majority showings of interest, as did New Mexico in 2020 and Vermont in 2024.
• Give workers and state labor boards stronger tools to enforce labor law: Limited and often ineffective enforcement mechanisms are a long-recognized shortcoming of federal labor law, and decades worth of proposed federal labor law reforms—including the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act considered by Congress in recent years—provide roadmaps for strengthening enforcement. States could, for example, adopt PRO Act-style proposals to strengthen enforcement by authorizing state labor boards to levy civil monetary penalties on employers who violate workers’ rights; award monetary damages (in addition to back-pay) to workers who are illegally fired for organizing; and seek court injunctions to get illegally fired workers back on the job quickly while retaliation cases are pending. State labor laws could also provide workers with a private right of action so they can sue employers for labor law violations in instances where a labor board fails to intervene within a reasonable length of time. The “trigger law” legislation currently under consideration in Massachusetts provides one concrete model for embedding many of these enhanced enforcement measures in state labor laws.
• Ensure timelines and processes for reaching a first contract: Studies show that under weak federal labor law, another common tactic employers use with near impunity to block workers from obtaining a union contract is refusing to bargain in good faith, with no intent to settle a first contract. Many state public-sector bargaining laws ensure timely contract settlements by prescribing that if parties don’t reach agreement within an established timeline, their disputes are submitted to mediation and/or binding arbitration. Illinois, for example, amended its existing public-sector bargaining law in 2025 to set first contract settlement timelines for all newly formed unions regardless of size. Where state labor laws lack timelines for first contracts, lawmakers can adopt proposed PRO Act provisions requiring parties to use mediation and, if necessary, binding arbitration to reach a first contract settlement if they are unable to do so on their own within six months of a new union’s certification.

2. Establish or expand state-level systems to provide mediation and other services that support productive labor-management relations:

Given the Trump administration’s attempts to hobble the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS), states that don’t already provide their own mediation services to assist parties in reaching contract agreements should take steps to do so. For example, Illinois established a new mediation services program in 2025, authorizing its state labor department to appoint a mediator in situations when FMCS is unable to provide one. States should also consider pooling resources to create regional mediation and enforcement services.

3. Ensure all workers can easily learn about their rights to unionize and collectively bargain:

Research shows that worker interest in unionizing continues to grow, but most workers have very little access to information about their labor rights or the steps involved in organizing a union and bargaining a contract. States can play tremendously important roles in ensuring more workers know about and are able to fully exercise their union rights. States can:

• facilitate the ability of existing unions (in sectors governed by state labor laws) to reach all workers they represent with information about their rights under the law and relevant collective bargaining agreements, including via new hire orientation sessions and regular electronic and in-person communication at the workplace. Several states have taken steps to embed these or similar requirements in public-sector bargaining laws. For example, since 2018, Maryland has required public schools to grant unions access to new employee orientation, and New Jersey has required public employers to provide at least 30 minutes for unions to meet with new hires within their first 30 days on the job.
• provide resources for state labor agencies to provide worker rights education programming and/or to replicate online resource hubs such as the Worker Organizing Resource and Knowledge Center created by the U.S. Department of Labor to serve as a “one-stop shop for information and resources on unions and collective bargaining.” Worker rights outreach and training events like those supported by Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industry (often in partnership with labor and community groups) also provide excellent models for more states to emulate.
• require basic worker rights education in high schools and as part of state-funded workforce development training programs. Individual teachers or school districts can and sometimes do provide students with information about workplace rights, including information about rights to unionize and collectively bargain (as do some apprenticeship training programs, especially those jointly sponsored by unions and employers). But to ensure all current and future workers have equal access to basic knowledge of their rights on the job, more states should set minimum requirements for including this content in high schools and workforce development programs. California 2023 legislation requiring worker rights instruction for all high school students during an annual “Workplace Readiness Week” is one model for other states to consider.
• maintain and expand state funding for programs that provide adult worker rights education and equip workers to take on leadership roles in their workplaces, unions, and communities. Examples for more states to follow include California, where starting in 2022, state budgets have designated funds to expand labor education capacity across the University of California system and launch new programs in underserved areas of the state, and Maine, where 2022 legislation appropriated funds to establish a new labor and community education center at the University of Southern Maine.

Additional recommended resources 

• State and local policymakers can raise standards and build power for workers (Center for American Progress American Worker Project) 

• Eight ways states can build worker power (Center for American Progress American Worker Project) 

• Building worker power in cities and states (Center for Labor and a Just Economy) 

• How states can lead the way for workers: A state playbook (The Century Foundation) 

• How state and local government can support workers’ right to form and join unions (NYU Wagner Labor Initiative) 

{{1.}} A union security clause is language included in a collective bargaining agreement—negotiated and jointly agreed to by labor and management—that sets terms under which employees covered by a union contract in a given workplace will either join the union or (for workers who choose not to join the union) contribute an agency fee to cover their share of costs of contract and workplace representation benefits they receive from the union. In the U.S., the ability to bargain over union security has proven critical in establishing the stability and longevity of unions in the context of highly unequal workplace power. Without a union security agreement, any union’s future remains by definition “insecure” and precarious—both because future financial resources are unpredictable and because of significant risk that an anti-union employer could at any time attempt to discourage union membership in order to hinder the bargaining process; dissolve a newly formed union; or even encourage decertification of a longstanding union. Overt employer interference with workers’ freedom to join or form unions via tactics like pressuring employees to drop union membership or selecting new hires based on their willingness to oppose a union is of course illegal. However, as noted in this report, such labor law violations remain commonplace both because they are difficult to prove and even if proven, generally result in few or no consequences for employers under existing weak labor laws.

At its core, affordability is shaped by whether workers’ paychecks keep pace with the cost of living. What many now describe as an affordability crisis is the predictable result of decades of policies that have suppressed wage growth and eroded workers’ bargaining power. In the decades before the pandemic, owners and corporate executives claimed an ever-larger share of the income generated by what workers produced. Had pay for typical workers kept pace with productivity over the last 45 years—rather than being suppressed—their paychecks would be roughly 40% larger today. This wage shortfall is the driving force in America’s affordability crisis—and reversing it must be central to any serious affordability agenda.

While workers’ wages—particularly those of low-wage workers—saw sharp inflation-adjusted increases between 2019 and 2024, these gains fell far short of recouping the losses of the four prior decades. These wage increases were largely obscured amid the anxieties of the immediate post-pandemic period, including a large jump in inflation that eclipsed even larger wage gains for most workers. But instead of building on the first real progress in decades, Trump’s policies over the last year will make this wage shortfall worse and are likely to contribute to greater wage suppression in the longer run. Absent an about-face in Trump’s economic agenda, life will continue to become even less affordable for working people.

In this report, we examine 47 of the most significant actions Trump has taken in the first year of his second term to make it harder for working families to afford the cost of living. We organized these actions into five categories:

1. Eroding workers’ wages and economic security;
2. Undermining job creation;
3. Weakening workers’ rights;
4. Enabling employer exploitation; and
5. Creating an ineffective government.

Our list of 47 is not exhaustive; it highlights a subset of Trump’s actions with clear impacts on working people’s economic security and ability to afford the basics. Many of the actions outlined here have impacts across categories. Trump’s attacks on union workers, for example, reduce workers’ wages, weaken workers’ rights, and promote employer exploitation of workers.

Eroding workers’ wages and economic security

Trump’s actions over the last year consistently undermined workers’ wages and increased their economic vulnerability, making it harder for many families to afford basic necessities. In the first weeks after being sworn in, Trump moved quickly to roll back minimum wage increases for hundreds of thousands of workers and more recently, he finalized regulations that reduce the wages of all farm workers, including those who are U.S. citizens. The actions below illustrate how this agenda has played out across a range of policies that harm workers’ wages and economic security:

• Reducing the minimum wage for nearly 400,000 federal contractors: President Trump rescinded an executive order that increased the minimum wage for federal contractors to $15 per hour in 2022 and indexed it to inflation. The minimum hourly wage for federal contractors had reached $17.75 by the time he eliminated the policy. 
• Stopping enforcement of misclassification protections for workers illegally classified as independent contractors: This robs workers of minimum wage, overtime, workers’ compensation, and other basic rights. 
• Finalizing an interim final rule that will radically cut the wages of all farm workers: The rule reduces the minimum wages paid to migrant farm workers in the H-2A program and deducts up to 30% of their hourly pay for housing costs. These wage cuts for H-2A workers are so massive that they will put downward pressure on the wages of all farm workers, including U.S. citizens. Farm workers as a whole will lose between $4.4 to $5.4 billion in pay—roughly 10% to 12% of their total wages. The Trump administration admitted that their immigration enforcement efforts are hurting farmers and will likely lead to higher food prices—an admission they use to justify the pay cuts.
• Denying 2 million in-home health care workers minimum wage and overtime pay: In July, the Trump administration proposed a rule rescinding the 2013 home health care worker rule, which gave in-home care workers the right to earn the minimum wage and overtime pay for the first time. The Department of Labor also stopped enforcing the 2013 rule, effectively giving employers the green light to ignore it during the rollback process. 
• Facilitating the inclusion of cryptocurrencies among 401(k) investment options: The Trump administration rescinded guidance that warned employers they would face heightened scrutiny if they included cryptocurrency investments in their retirement plans. This “neutral approach” to cryptocurrency, alongside other types of retirement investment strategies, could expose millions of future retirees to significant financial risk.

Negatively impacting job creation

Trump’s second-term policies have weakened job creation across key sectors. His mass deportation agenda threatens to destroy millions of jobs, and his repeated attacks on federal workers have already cost more than a quarter million jobs. Most recent job data already show the effects of these policies, including rising unemployment, slowing job growth, and job losses in both public and private sectors. The policies outlined below show how Trump’s actions have undermined job creation:

• Pausing funding for projects authorized under a bipartisan infrastructure law: This will jeopardize millions of jobs on those projects and deny benefits to communities. 
• Signing into law legislation that facilitates President Trump’s mass deportation agenda: This will cause massive job losses for both immigrants and U.S.-born workers, particularly in construction and caregiving. The Laken Riley Act, the first piece of legislation Trump signed into law, eviscerates due process for immigrants by allowing immigration enforcement to detain immigrants indefinitely if they are accused of even low-level crimes.
• Revoking an executive order that created a federal interagency working group focused on expanding registered apprenticeships in federal employment or on federally funded projects: By doing so, President Trump has limited opportunities to expand registered apprenticeship career pathways in federal employment and halted the expansion of private-sector registered apprenticeships that benefit both employers seeking skilled workers and workers seeking stable careers in high-demand industries.
• Attempting to shut down Job Corps centers operated by federal contractors across the country: Jobs Corps provides free education, workforce training, housing, and job placement to low-income teens and young adults ages 16–24. The uncertainty of the program left thousands of young people with no other options for housing at risk of homelessness.
• Introducing uncertainty into U.S. manufacturing global supply chains through chaotic and arbitrary trade policy and tariffs: Over the first year of the second Trump administration, average effective tariff rates have changed from 2.4% to a high of 28% then back down to today’s 17% as of January 5, 2026—a historically unprecedented scale of volatility in trade policy. This uncertainty and the retaliatory actions levied by U.S. trade partners overwhelmed any potential strategic gains from smart trade and tariff policy that could have supported U.S. manufacturing, resulting in a steady decline in manufacturing jobs in 2025.

Weakening workers’ rights

From his attacks on the independence of agencies to his appointment of corporate-aligned, anti-worker officials, Trump has mounted a sustained assault on workers’ rights, undermining their earnings and making it harder for them to make ends meet. While collective bargaining has been a central target, the damage extends well beyond it. By making work more dangerous, weakening basic labor protections, and heightening economic and immigration precarity, Trump’s administration has systematically suppressed workers’ ability to assert their rights, organize, and demand fair pay and decent working conditions. Trump’s attacks on workers’ rights include:

• Stripping collective bargaining rights from more than 1 million federal workers: President Trump became the largest union buster in U.S. history when he issued an executive order that revoked the collective bargaining rights for workers at more than 30 federal agencies. By rolling back these workers’ right to organize with their coworkers and improve their working conditions, Trump is undermining their ability to efficiently provide services the public relies on.
• Delaying enforcement of the silica rule for coal miners: Exposure to coal mine dust containing silica has been found to lead to black lung disease and progressive massive fibrosis. The Mine Safety and Health Administration estimates that the silica rule would prevent more than 1,000 deaths and 3,700 cases of silica-related illnesses. Delaying enforcement of this rule effectively shifts the burden of protection onto miners, forcing them to weigh their health against their jobs and economic security.
• Proposing limiting the scope of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s General Duty Clause: This would make workers less protected from known and preventable hazards where no other specific standard applies.
• Firing the general counsel of the NLRB: Jennifer Abruzzo had instituted a number of important reforms aimed at reinvigorating workers’ rights to a union and collective bargaining. 
• Stripping work permits and temporary immigration protections like parole and Temporary Protected Status from millions of immigrant workers who are lawfully in the United States: Jeopardizing these workers’ immigration status not only causes them to lose their workplace rights but also makes them targets for deportation, which has large negative impacts on the economy. 
• Deterring worker organizing by having immigration enforcement patrol public spaces including places of employment: These tactics make immigrant workers fearful of asserting their workplace rights. Surveillance and enforcement in immigration courts is also preventing migrants from having their cases proceed—cutting off potential pathways to lawful status or protection that would grant them workplace rights.

Promoting employer abuse and exploitation

Trump has consistently promoted employer exploitation of workers by weakening and politicizing labor enforcement. His firing of a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) member for “disfavoring the interests of employers” was not an isolated act, but part of a broader pattern signaling that he expects the officials he appoints to favor employers in the enforcement of worker protections. His attacks on the independence of agencies tasked with enforcing worker protections further reinforce the message that enforcement will follow his political direction instead of the law—sending a clear signal that workers rights’ violations will go unpunished. Through the actions below, Trump is essentially inviting employers to violate the law without fear of accountability:

• Nominating a secretary of labor who has pursued a deregulatory agenda: This agenda robs workers of standards protecting their health and safety and weakens protections that ensure they are paid for their labor. 
• Firing a member of the NLRB for “disfavoring the interests of employers”: The illegal firing of Gwynne Wilcox compromises the independence of the only agency with the authority to administer and enforce private-sector workers’ rights to a union and collective bargaining. 
• Ending grant funding to fight child labor, forced labor, and human trafficking around the world: Trump terminated International Labor Affairs Bureau grants—leaving vulnerable workers around the world at risk, undermining the U.S.’ ability to monitor foreign governments’ compliance with U.S. trade agreements, forcing U.S. workers to compete on an uneven international playing field, and fueling a race to the bottom in the global economy.
• Nominating a solicitor of labor hostile to workers: Jonathan Berry supports weakening the federal minimum wage, limiting overtime eligibility, and undermining workers’ right to a union by forcing secret ballot elections. 
• Nominating a NLRB general counsel aligned with corporate interests: Crystal Carey was a partner at Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, one of the largest management-side law firms that currently represents corporations known for violating workers’ rights, including Amazon, SpaceX, Apple, and Tesla. 
• Nominating a NLRB board member with a long career as a corporate lawyer: Scott Mayer was the chief labor counsel at the Boeing Corporation—a company repeatedly accused of bad faith bargaining—and has a decades-long career as a corporate lawyer, including at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.
• Nominating an Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) head whose background is misaligned with the ESBA’s mandate: Daniel Aronowitz most recently served as president of a company that insures employers against liability for violating their fiduciary duty as sponsors of employee benefits plans—in other words, a business that helps employers avoid the financial consequences of mishandling workers’ benefits plans. EBSA works to enforce laws protecting workers in employee benefit plans, such as employer-provided health insurance or retirement savings benefits. 
• Weakening workplace safety penalties for smaller businesses: This may reduce incentives for employers to proactively address workplace safety before hazards or accidents occur.
• Nominating an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) chair with a history of opposing anti-discrimination protections: Andrea Lucas voted against workplace harassment guidance that included protections for LGBTQ+ workers and is a known critic of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs at the workplace. The EEOC is an independent agency that enforces federal laws that prohibit employment discrimination and harassment. 
• Revoking an executive order promoting strong labor standards on projects receiving federal funds through Biden-era economic investments: President Trump’s decision opens the door for federal funding to flow toward exploitative employers and increases the likelihood that taxpayer-funded projects will create jobs with lower wages and worse benefits, and that are less likely to be unionized. 
• Appointing the former leader of an anti-union organization to head the Office of Labor-Management Standards: The agency oversees the financial disclosures of unions, employers, and union busting consultants. 
• Firing multiple EEOC Commissioners: These firings compromise the independence of the agency and undermine the enforcement of federal laws that prohibit employment discrimination and harassment. 
• Conducting systematic worksite raids that failed to improve wages and working conditions and instead punished workers: Some were carried out under the guise of stopping labor exploitation, yet occurred with no involvement from the Labor Department and resulted in little to no punishment for employers, whereas workers were detained and deported, losing their livelihoods. In most cases, these raids do not stop employers from exploiting their workers but rather make the workers more fearful of retaliation for speaking out against unsafe working conditions or labor abuses, which puts all workers at risk.

Promoting ineffective government

Trump has taken deliberate actions to weaken the federal government and erode trust in its ability to serve the public interest. From pushing out over a quarter million federal workers to politicizing career civil service positions, eliminating entire agencies, and undermining the federal government’s ability to produce timely, accurate data, the Trump administration has spent the last year reshaping the U.S. government to serve his and his corporate backers’ interests over those of working people. His attacks on the federal workforce make it difficult for public servants to administer essential services that help families afford health care, food, and other basic needs. These actions are intended to foster distrust in the federal government and dismantle vital social safety net programs millions of people in the U.S. rely on. This agenda is most evident in Trump’s signing a massive federal budget bill that includes huge tax cuts for the wealthy while slashing funding for Medicaid and SNAP. In his first year, Trump set a legacy of promoting ineffective government, including through the following actions:

• Politicizing Career Senior Executive Service (SES) officials: Trump issued a memorandum that states they are to serve at the pleasure of the president. SES officials are at the highest level of career civil service in the federal government.
• Firing the majority of staff at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health: The agency was created to ensure safe and healthy working conditions. The firings eliminated divisions focused on the health and safety of miners, firefighters, and health care workers. 
• Nominating an EEOC commissioner who is unqualified in workplace civil rights enforcement: Brittany Panuccio lacks the background and expertise to enforce workplace civil rights effectively. 
• Nominating an Office of Management and Budget director who was a lead architect of the right-wing policy agenda known as Project 2025: This agenda aims to remake the administrative state into a vehicle for advancing the Trump administration’s political ideology. 
• Firing the chair of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, an independent agency that oversees labor relations between the federal agencies and its employees: This move—taking aim at a critical mechanism for oversight and recourse—came shortly after the Trump administration issued dozens of actions that harmed the federal workforce.
• Firing a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board, the agency that protects the federal merits systems and the rights of employees in those systems: The illegal removal of Cathy Harris makes way for President Trump to appoint an individual that aligns politically with his interests—further weakening safeguards for federal workers.
• Trying to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook in an attempt to replace independent Fed leadership with loyalists who would let him micromanage monetary policy from the White House: Presidential control over Federal Reserve policy would signal to decision-makers throughout the economy that interest rates are no longer be set based on sound data or economic conditions—but instead on the whims of the president. As a result, confidence in the Federal Reserve would evaporate and lead to serious economic consequences for the U.S., including higher inflation and interest rates in the long run. 
• Firing BLS Commissioner Erika McEntarfer when accurate numbers that are legally required to be reported conflicted with Trump’s narrative about the economy: The BLS is one of the most respected statistical agencies in the world, known for its methodological rigor, independence, and transparency. Many stakeholders, including the Federal Reserve, state and local governments, and private businesses, rely on the agency’s economic data releases. This country runs on reliable data. Politicizing economic data from the federal government would undermine effective economic decision-making.
• Attempting to shutter the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB): The Trump administration has repeatedly withheld funds from the CFPB, blocking the agency’s work to protect consumers in the financial marketplace.
• Trying to eliminate the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, a federal agency that provides mediation, training, and facilitation to resolve labor-management disputes: If the Trump administration is successful in eliminating the agency, unions and employers will no longer have a neutral, third party in the government available to help navigate disagreements in bargaining.
• Directing federal agencies to end the use of disparate impact liability: This is a core civil rights safeguard that is key to ensuring that policies cannot evade civil rights law simply by being labeled “race-blind” even when they perpetuate discrimination, segregation, and racial inequity in the workplace, schools, or the law. 
• Politicizing and compromising independent agencies by putting them under the supervision of the president: Independent agencies were established by Congress to ensure that those charged with safeguarding critically important public interests—like workers’ rights, product safety, or household financial security—would act to serve the public good, not the president’s political needs.
• Signing into law a bill that is the largest direct transfer (through federal policy) of wealth from working families to the ultrawealthy: The legislation is estimated to deliver $1 trillion in tax cuts for the top 1%, while cutting more than $1 trillion in social safety net programs. The legislation will likely cause more than 15 million people in the U.S. to lose health insurance and will likely expose more than 22 million people to food insecurity. 
• Proposing a new federal employee classification called “Schedule Policy/Career” rule, which would make it easier to fire federal employees for political reasons: The Trump administration estimates that more than 50,000 federal workers—2% of the civilian federal workforce—could be reclassified under this new category. 
• Issuing an executive order on apprenticeships that does not require the federal government to consult with labor organizations, despite the integral role labor unions play in registered apprenticeship programs: This weakens program quality and oversight and risks diverting public funds away from proven, high-road training models that deliver good jobs.
• Implementing large-scale reductions in the federal workforce: These have disrupted essential government services due to a loss in capacity and subject matter experts.
• Directing the attorney general to bring challenges against state laws that would regulate artificial intelligence technologies: In the absence of federal action, states have been working to regulate uses of AI that may harm workers or consumers. President Trump’s executive order to deter states from regulating AI represents a White House-led attempt at federal preemption, using the higher authority of the federal government to prevent states from adopting stronger labor standards or other guardrails. 
• Firing 17 inspector generals tasked with preventing mismanagement, corruption, fraud, and waste of taxpayers’ money in federal agencies: More than a dozen federal agencies now lack independent oversight.

Trump’s actions since taking office a year ago reveal a clear and consistent effort to make working people more economically vulnerable while weakening the government’s ability to respond to their needs. The motivation behind these actions is clear: They serve the interests of Trump’s billionaire and corporate backers. Every dollar denied to typical workers in wages ends up as higher income for business owners and corporate managers. This growing inequality is what is making life so unaffordable for workers and their families today.

Department of Consumer and Worker Protection
42 Broadway
New York, New York 10004

Dear members of the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection:

The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) submits this comment in support of the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) proposal to amend rules relating to contracted delivery workers, including to implement Local Law 124 of 2025, which establishes minimum pay protections for grocery delivery workers.

EPI is a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank working for nearly 40 years to counter rising inequality, low wages and weak benefits for working people, slower economic growth, unacceptable employment conditions, and a widening racial wage gap. We intentionally center low- and middle-income working families in economic policy discussions at the federal, state, and local levels as we fight for a world where every worker has access to a good job with fair pay, affordable health care, retirement security, and a union. EPI has supported past development and implementation of New York City’s existing wage standard for app-based workers in close coordination with affiliates of our Economic Analysis and Research Network (EARN), including the NYC-based Immigration Research Initiative.

New York City has long been a national leader in setting wage and workplace protection standards for frontline service-sector workers who are critical to the city’s economy but often experience low pay, long hours, and unsafe working conditions while producing large profits for corporations or shareholders. This includes workplace protections for app-based ride-hail drivers in place since 2018, and for food delivery workers in place since 2021, when the Council acted on findings from DCWP and established wage standards for app-based delivery workers who are typically treated as “independent contractors” by platform companies and, thereby, denied coverage under most state or federal labor and employment laws. Such municipal policies have become critical to maintaining a consistent wage floor for essential workers in the expanding “gig economy,” since classifying app-based workers as “independent contractors” or applying other non-employee designations remains a key prong of platform companies’ agenda to exempt themselves from coverage under other existing state and federal labor standards.

The 2021 minimum pay standard represented huge progress for app-based delivery workers, the majority of whom are immigrants and people of color. A 2024 report by DCWP revealed a 64% increase in driver earnings alongside an 8% increase in deliveries and a 10% increase in consumer spending when compared with the same fiscal quarter a year prior, before DCWP’s enforcement of the new wage standard. In the first quarter of 2025, consumer spending on app-based delivery grew to an all-time high of $120.2 million, and workers’ total earnings per delivery increased by 21%. In direct contrast to industry claims, these basic workplace protections have benefitted both app-based workers and the platform companies that rely on them.

New York City laws have, however, so far excluded app-based grocery delivery workers, even though these workers face the same struggles that other app-based workers face. Now is the time to take the next step to ensure that all app-based workers are covered by minimum pay and other workplace protections, regardless of their employer.

App-based workers deserve the same protections and benefits as workers in any other industry, including minimum wage rights, unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation, health and safety protections, paid leave, nondiscrimination protections, safeguards against misclassification as independent contractors, and the right to unionize and collectively bargain. DCWP’s proposed rule takes an important step toward realizing that goal by limiting the scope of app-based workers who are excluded from existing minimum wage standards. Raising the minimum wage for app-based grocery delivery workers will have spillover effects that benefit workers in other low-wage jobs, and higher minimum wages benefit us all and make our economy healthier.

Sincerely,

Nina Mast

Policy and Economic Analyst

Economic Policy Institute