Rising authoritarianism and the need to upend the failed Southern economic development model

For generations, Southern politicians backed by powerful business interests have promoted a Southern economic development model—characterized by low wages, regressive taxation, lax environmental regulations, a weak social safety net, and vicious opposition to unions—while claiming such policies will attract business and thereby generate regional economic gains. But data actually show a grim reality. The South lags all other regions on most indicators of economic health including job growth and wages, and Southern workers and their families experience significantly higher rates of poverty than in other parts of the country (Childers 2024a).

The truth is that this Southern economic development model was never designed to benefit most Southerners; rather, it is historically rooted in efforts of white plantation owners to retain their wealth following emancipation and ensure continued access to the labor of Black people for as little compensation as possible (Childers 2025). Foundational to these efforts was an authoritarian approach to state governance that suppressed popular democracy and worker organizing—an approach that also sanctioned prison labor, sharecropping, a century of Jim Crow laws, lynching, and other forms of state-sponsored terror and exploitation. Until partially challenged by federal legal and policy interventions won by post-WWII civil rights movements, many Southern states for decades held elections that served merely to provide a cover of legitimacy to one-party rule of white, wealthy elites—functionally excluding Black voters from the electorate and blocking working-class constituencies from any meaningful participation in governance (Mickey 2015; Perez 2024; Mast 2025).

Today, the Trump administration’s increasingly authoritarian actions echo this troubling Southern history. At their foundation, the administration’s approaches to bypassing constitutional checks and balances—while rolling back civil rights, worker rights, and environmental protections; terrorizing immigrant communities; deploying military troops in U.S. cities; and attempting to engineer election outcomes via gerrymandering and other forms of voter suppression—are rooted in authoritarian models developed and tested in the U.S. South, and that Black, brown, and immigrant communities across the country are no stranger to.

Recent attempts to terminate federal employee collective bargaining agreements, for example, are familiar to public employees in Southern states for whom collective bargaining has long been banned or severely restricted. The Trump administration’s use of military-style policing in communities across the country echoes Southern histories of weaponizing law enforcement (or National Guard troops) to suppress organizing and instill fear, while prioritizing the expansion of the carceral state over investments in housing, education, and public services. Trump’s efforts to override the authority of state officials mirror Southern state uses of abusive preemption laws to strip policymaking authority from local governments. And administration attempts to halt clean energy investments and environmental protections threaten to repeat harms familiar in Black and brown communities in the South, where corporations have insisted on lax environmental regulations that allow them to degrade air, water, and climate quality, while profiting from the exploitation of local natural resources and labor.

Seizing opportunities to reverse decades of anti-worker, anti-democratic policymaking in the South at a moment of rising authoritarianism in the U.S. is a daunting and unavoidably urgent challenge. It will require robust new forms of multiracial organizing and labor-community coalition building across a broad set of industries in the South. Labor-community coalitions can leverage community benefits agreements (CBAs) as a powerful tool to transform economic power relations in Southern workplaces and communities. Because CBAs are private agreements between labor-community coalitions and project owners, they do not rely on government action and can therefore shape economic outcomes of major projects even in otherwise hostile political environments. CBAs have traditionally been fought for and won by labor and community groups coming together and building necessary public pressure to hold developers, corporations, and elected leaders accountable for ensuring that public investments in major new developments truly benefit workers and communities.

In this report, we analyze the potential for labor-community coalitions to pursue strong CBAs that secure significant economic benefits for Southern manufacturing workers and communities, drawing on examples of existing agreements to model potential impacts. We examine the scale of recent public investments in Southern manufacturing and examine how strong CBAs on major publicly-subsidized private projects could improve the quality of newly created construction and production jobs; open up pathways to unionization; ensure equitable hiring and training opportunities for local residents; and address community needs such as child care, affordable housing, and natural resource protection.

We contend that upending the failed Southern economic development model and the authoritarian structures that underpin it will require building new forms of labor and community power to increase union density in the South. Well-known research shows that unions promote economic equality and help workers win improvements in pay, benefits, and working conditions (Economic Policy Institute 2021). But unions also powerfully affect people’s lives outside of work. They help foster solidarity, increase democratic participation, enable working-class communities to shape economic policies affecting their lives, and serve as a counterweight to corporate power in our economy and democracy (McNicholas et al. 2025). Historically, unions have been engines of resistance to entrenched and undemocratic power—mobilizing working people to challenge inequality, defend civil rights, and push back against authoritarianism in all its forms. For all these reasons, strengthening labor-community coalitions and pathways to unionization in growing Southern industrial sectors is not just good economic policy—it is also a democratic imperative amid national authoritarian backsliding.

Worker and community power can ensure new manufacturing investments yield good jobs and community benefits

The latest wave of manufacturing growth in the South presents both opportunities and pitfalls for workers and communities. Southern states continue to lure businesses—including large manufacturing facilities—with promises of low corporate tax rates, low wages, lax regulations, and massive public subsidies. The automotive manufacturing industry has been a key recipient of public subsidies, receiving billions of dollars from Southern states in recent decades (Childers 2024a; Todd 2021). This system of low taxation and corporate giveaways starves other essential public goods, like education and social safety net programs (Mast 2025b). Likewise, weak or nonexistent environmental regulations have contributed to toxic sites and resource degradation that disproportionately affect Black and brown families, reflecting often intentional decisions to site hazardous facilities in low-income communities of color (Bergman 2019).

Some announced manufacturing projects have been cancelled or reduced in size after the Trump administration’s slashing of federal supports for strategic industries, but many projects launched during the Biden administration continue to move forward. These manufacturing investments, both in traditional industries and nascent ones such as electric vehicle (EV) and EV battery manufacturing, are spurring significant job growth in some Southern communities. Yet past experience shows that new investments and resulting jobs are unlikely to generate economic benefits for most Southerners unless local residents are able to ensure that developers and corporations respect workers’ rights, protect local natural resources, and contribute a fair share toward addressing priority community needs.

Community benefits agreements can be powerful vehicles for communities to secure lasting local economic benefits from major industrial development, at both new and existing facilities. A CBA is a legally enforceable contract between a private developer or company and a local coalition—typically made up of labor, community, faith, environmental, and other grassroots organizations—that details how a project will benefit workers and the community, and in turn how the community will support the project (including via potential public investment). Benefits spelled out in a CBA can include commitments to strong labor standards; respect for workers’ rights to organize; equitable workforce recruitment, training, and hiring practices; affordable housing; environmental protections; or a broad range of other community-identified priorities. CBAs are a well-developed model for responsible community development—so far mostly, but not entirely, in regions outside the South—and have been used for many different types of major projects including sports stadiums, events centers, manufacturing plants, airports, transit projects, and more (WRI n.d.).

CBAs can likewise mitigate risks for project developers by ensuring local project support and addressing important concerns early on, whereas failure to engage local communities in major development decisions can otherwise lead to strong community opposition, interruption of development, obstacles to obtaining necessary siting permits or rezoning approvals, or significant legal costs. In an example from June 2024, developers shelved plans for a $1.3 billion data center in Indiana after facing significant local opposition over environmental concerns (Fazili et al. 2025).

Because a CBA is a private, legally binding agreement, it does not require government action and can be used to shape outcomes of major projects even in contexts (as in most of the South) where state legislators have preempted local governments from establishing their own job quality or environmental standards (EPI 2025a). That being said, state and local governments can still have a role in facilitating, negotiating, or enforcing community benefits. Cities like Detroit and Cleveland have ordinances requiring developers of projects using public resources to engage in a community benefits plan process (City of Detroit n.d.; City of Cleveland n.d.). In 2005, Atlanta passed an ordinance specifying worker and community benefits for the Beltline redevelopment (WRI 2025). However, government involvement in community benefits plans does not guarantee strong agreements on its own. A strong labor-community coalition remains essential for securing meaningful community benefits.

Another key strength of a CBA is that it can set standards across all stages of a project’s development to ensure long-term benefits for the community at large. Private developers or public entities sometimes negotiate Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) or Community Workforce Agreements (CWAs) with building trades unions and community partners to set wages, working conditions, and timelines for the construction phase of a complex development project. A CBA can be negotiated alongside a PLA to also ensure pathways to quality jobs for local residents during the operational phases of a project, including any future expansions of the facility or additions to its workforce. A CBA can also secure commitments to build affordable housing, strengthen environmental standards, and provide other benefits to the community such as child care, public parks, or other community spaces.

To be successful, a CBA must also include defined enforcement mechanisms that hold all parties to the agreement accountable. It must clearly establish the obligations of each party, metrics for measuring progress, and ongoing monitoring of compliance with the agreement’s provisions (Last 2025; PWF and CBLC 2016). If the company or the coalition fails to make good-faith efforts on the agreement’s commitments, an arbitration process is initiated. While monitoring of the agreement is an ongoing responsibility of all members of the coalition, providing a pathway for workers to organize in the operational phase of a project is of particular importance. A newly established union at the project site is well-positioned to monitor the commitments of the CBA and hold the company accountable over the long term.

Organizers and advocates should be clear-eyed that while strong CBAs can yield powerful economic outcomes, such agreements are by no means easy to win. There are generally no legal requirements for a particular company or developer to recognize or engage with a labor-community coalition, much less to agree to negotiate and implement a CBA. Building the broad-based, durable coalitions and leverage necessary to compel private interests to engage in CBA negotiations (and then to implement and enforce the terms of a CBA) is unavoidably a challenging, long-term, resource-intensive organizing project. And like any worthwhile organizing, the formation of strong, durable labor-community coalitions is itself a key outcome of successful CBA campaigns. Vastly expanding the capacity of broad-based coalitions and labor, faith, environmental, and other grassroots organizations to gradually build community and worker power in Southern communities is the most essential ingredient for transforming existing power imbalances and, ultimately, upending the failed Southern economic development model.

Indeed, recent initiatives to win CBAs in Southern states have proven so threatening to some corporate interests that they have sought to undermine them. In 2025, Tennessee Republicans passed legislation prohibiting any company that enters into a CBA from receiving state economic development funds—aiming to create obstacles to replication of a highly successful CBA covering Nashville’s soccer stadium, and to discourage a coalition of West Tennessee residents and allied groups calling on Ford and SK Innovation to negotiate a CBA covering its massive BlueOval electric vehicle and battery manufacturing complex (Abrams 2025). In Tennessee and elsewhere, however, labor-community coalitions are nonetheless continuing to organize to ensure that massive, publicly subsidized new facilities yield good jobs and community benefits.

A new wave of Southern manufacturing is an opportunity to transform working conditions in growing industries—and across the South

Growth in Southern manufacturing industries presents a significant opportunity for labor-community coalitions to shape labor standards and community benefits in new plants and facilities—and to shape economic outcomes for generations of Southern workers to come. In recent years, the South has seen a wave of manufacturing investments. Between 2017 and 2023, manufacturing construction doubled in the East South Central Census division (Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi) (O’Brien 2023). The West South Central division (Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas) has the highest amount of manufacturing construction spending of any division in the U.S. These investments are part of a long-term trend of manufacturing industries locating in the South, which in recent years was accelerated by large federal investments through the Inflation Reduction Act, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and CHIPS and Science Act. These federal investments included both direct public subsidies and tax credits to businesses that invested in key clean energy manufacturing industries such as the production of batteries, electric vehicles, solar panels, and wind energy products.

In contrast to the typical economic development approach of many Southern states, some recent federal investments have included incentives meant to encourage strong labor standards on projects receiving public funds. While the future of many of these investments (and accompanying incentives) is now uncertain, the U.S. has in the past two years experienced its largest investment in clean energy manufacturing ever, and much of that has occurred in Southern states.{{1}} Since the third quarter of 2023, more than $125 billion worth of clean energy manufacturing investments were announced across Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Texas (CET 2025). Advancing even a portion of these projects would result in thousands of jobs for Southern workers.

Independent of the future of federal support for clean energy manufacturing, the South will likely continue to be the largest manufacturing employer of all U.S. regions. Figure A shows manufacturing employment by region in the United States since 1990. While manufacturing employment overall has fallen during the last three decades, the South has retained the largest share of manufacturing employment of any region. In 2024, 35% of U.S. manufacturing employment was in the South. Furthermore, since 2010, manufacturing employment in the South has grown by 17%, the quickest growth of any region.

Figure A

Manufacturing jobs are often considered to be well-paid, benefit-providing “middle-class” jobs, but there is nothing inherent to the sector that determines their quality. Manufacturing jobs in some industries became “good jobs” thanks to relatively high levels of unionization during the mid-20th century, which improved wages, benefits, and working conditions (Bayard et al. 2024; Rhinehart and McNicholas 2020). As Figure B shows, unionization in manufacturing has fallen in all regions since 1983, but the South has almost without exception had the lowest unionization rate of any region.

Conservative Southern policymakers have long been hostile to union organizing. For example, every Southern state except Maryland and Delaware has passed anti-union so-called right-to-work (RTW) laws, which make it harder for workers to form, join, and sustain unions. Southern states like Florida and Arkansas were among the first to pass such laws in the 1940s, amid a wave of big business backlash against new federal labor laws and white supremacist campaigns to maintain racial hierarchies and suppress multiracial worker organizing. RTW laws suppress unionization rates and, as a result, have driven down wages for both union and nonunion workers alike across the South (Sherer and Gould 2025; Childers 2023).

Figure B

In 2025, Southern manufacturing had a 6.7% unionization rate—slightly below the national unionization rate for private-sector workers (6.8%). Unionization in Southern manufacturing grew by more than a percentage point between 2024 and 2025, a notable one-year reversal of the industry’s long-standing unionization decline, consistent with overall union gains in the South (McNicholas, Poydock, and Shierholz 2026). Nevertheless, Southern manufacturing’s unionization rate remains well below the Midwest’s (11.2%), the region where manufacturing is the most heavily unionized. Unions have a strong impact on job quality because they leverage worker power collectively to raise wages, win benefits like health care and retirement, and enact other meaningful workplace improvements, such as improved health and safety standards. These benefits can extend beyond unionized workers themselves, helping set standards across a workplace, and with enough density, across an industry.

As unionization declines in an industry or region, so does job quality. For instance, as unionization rates have fallen in auto manufacturing, the pay advantage for auto workers compared with the median worker has declined significantly (Barrett and Bivens 2021). Figure C demonstrates how this relationship holds across regions in 2025. Manufacturing jobs in the South have a pay advantage of 7%, the lowest of any region. Southern manufacturing workers also experience the lowest median hourly pay of any region ($24.41).{{2}}

Figure C

The Southern economic development model clearly hurts the region’s workers by denying them their right to organize and suppressing their wages, but there are harmful spillover effects for their communities as well. Corporate tax breaks with no strings attached provide billions of dollars to corporations that could otherwise be used to invest in schools and other essential government services. These types of tax breaks might be worthy of consideration if manufacturing employers were required to create high-quality jobs for local workers and make long-term investments in local community development needs (i.e., housing, infrastructure, education, etc.). Without such protections, they are simply taxpayer-funded giveaways that often drain the very resources needed to develop the local workforce recruited by large new facilities.

Southern states enact little to no regulation of workplace safety or environmental pollution. This results in unsafe workplaces with greater levels of injury and death (Childers 2024a). Environmental pollution from manufacturing sites can negatively affect public health by contaminating water, air, and soil. New manufacturing investments also can mean significant changes to the demand for housing in a community. A new plant or factory can drive up the cost of living for nearby residents without yielding any economic benefits to a local community. Labor, community, and environmental groups need to collaborate on shared solutions to effectively address these intertwined challenges.

Labor-community coalitions can obtain commitments that ensure “economic development” means shared prosperity for all

Labor-community coalitions organizing around manufacturing projects can secure commitments that offer direct economic benefits to workers and communities, while also establishing groundwork for the growth of worker and community power in the area. While a campaign to win a CBA can be the impetus for forming a local labor-community coalition, the alignment and relationships built through this shared work can lead to longer-term, sustainable coalitions capable of transforming local and state power relationships.

The following section analyzes a set of commitments that can be included in a CBA for a manufacturing project. The CBA framework is flexible and allows for the inclusion of many different types of commitments prioritized by particular groups of workers, community members, and environmental groups. This report focuses on key types of commitments including union neutrality agreements, living wage floors, equitable workforce development practices (such as local or targeted hire policies and programs to expand pathways to apprenticeship training), affordable housing provisions, child care benefits, and environmental protections. Each type of commitment is analyzed in terms of its economic impacts and effectiveness in reshaping local economic development to ensure that public investments generate broadly shared community benefits.

The construction phase and Project Labor Agreements (PLA)

This report mostly focuses on community benefits for workers during the operational phase of a manufacturing plant. Nevertheless, it is just as vital to set high labor standards during the construction phase. Strong community benefits agreements are ideally developed in tandem with strong project construction labor standards set via project labor agreements (PLAs). A PLA is a multiparty agreement between a project owner and a coalition of labor unions that sets out labor standards and dispute resolution procedures to promote stability and efficiency on complex infrastructure projects while also ensuring the project will generate good jobs. PLAs ensure that construction projects run smoothly, are safer, and pay workers fairly (Mangundayao, McNicholas, and Poydock 2022). By setting negotiated wage and benefit levels for each type of work on a project, PLAs level the playing field in highly competitive construction bidding processes; they ensure that contractors base bids on their ability to deliver on quality and efficiency, rather than low-ball cost estimates that reflect intent to pay substandard wages or cut corners on safety. By standardizing wage and benefit levels and taking them out of the competition in the bidding process, PLAs incentivize the use of skilled union labor, which is 14% more productive than nonunionized construction work (McFadden, Santosh, and Shetty 2022). PLAs typically set wages, fringe benefits, and working conditions but can also include requirements to utilize certain numbers of apprentices, hire locally or from certain target worker populations, and/or provide child care or other benefits that open up pathways to good union construction jobs for members of underrepresented groups.

Several of the types of standards for construction workers typically included in a PLA have analogous labor standards in the operational phase. For instance, a CBA can secure commitments for local or targeted hiring and the development of registered apprenticeship programs in a manufacturing facility, extending equitable recruitment and high-quality training requirements that a PLA typically sets for construction into the operational phase of a project.

Removing obstacles to unionization: Neutrality and labor peace agreements

Protecting workers’ freedom to unionize has historically been key to turning manufacturing jobs into good jobs. This remains just as true today. However, like workers across the country, Southern manufacturing workers continue to face formidable obstacles—including weak labor laws, powerful anti-union corporations, and hostile politicians—to exercising their legally protected rights to form or join a union. Employers are charged with violating federal labor law in more than 40% of union elections and spend more than $400 million a year on “union avoidance” consultants (McNicholas et al. 2019; McNicholas et al. 2023). Because existing weak labor laws do not effectively deter employers from union busting, these tactics are treated by many employers as a normal cost of doing business—stacking the deck unfairly against workers seeking to exercise their rights to organize and collectively bargain.

Union neutrality agreements can help safeguard workers’ right to form unions free of the types of interference employers often deploy. Under a neutrality agreement, an employer agrees to remain “neutral” and not interfere with workers’ decisions on whether to unionize. Such agreements typically include joint commitments to a “card check” process for verifying whether a majority of employees have indicated interest in forming a union. Unions and employers sometimes also enter into a labor peace agreement, where unions agree not to engage in certain types of picketing, work stoppages, or other economic disruptions during the organizing process in exchange for employer neutrality.

Employers can also choose to commit to union neutrality as a matter of principle or company policy. Union neutrality—providing workers a more free and fair choice to decide whether to unionize—has been a key component of successful unionization drives in Southern manufacturing. To take two recent examples:

• In 2024, workers at the Volkswagen (VW) Chattanooga plant voted to join the United Auto Workers. Like many European corporations, the German-based VW has an established policy of maintaining neutrality in union election processes, although workers still voiced concerns that in its U.S. facilities, VW management tried to intimidate and dissuade workers from forming a union (Bomey 2024).
• In tandem with community benefits agreement negotiations with New Flyer in Anniston, Alabama, the United Steel Workers and Communications Workers of America negotiated three neutrality agreements with New Flyer and its subsidiaries in 2022. Over the two years that followed, these union neutrality agreements enabled workers to pursue five successful union drives, including at the New Flyer facility in Alabama (Last 2025; Sasha 2024).

Successful recent instances of union organizing in Southern manufacturing facilities have been powerful enough to generate their own backlash. Because of the threat that union neutrality agreements represent to the reigning Southern economic development model, several conservative state legislatures in the South have used model legislation developed by the American Legislative Exchange Council to pass laws intended to interfere with these agreements (Sachs 2024). While the legality of such measures remains in question and has not yet been tested, Alabama, Tennessee, and Georgia now all have legislation in place stating that employers who agree to a union neutrality agreement will be barred from receiving state economic development funds, disincentivizing companies from participating in these agreements (Stephenson 2024).

Importance of unionization to improve manufacturing jobs and wages

Securing unionization in Southern manufacturing can have significant wage benefits for workers. Unionized manufacturing jobs are more likely to provide family-sustaining wages. Unionization in manufacturing is associated with a 17.9% wage premium for workers (Scott et al. 2022). This means that compared with similar workers in terms of education, occupation, experience, race, and ethnicity, unionized manufacturing workers are paid almost a fifth more per hour than their nonunionized counterparts.

Table 1 translates this union premium into how much more unionized workers in the South could make on an hourly, annual, and plant-wide basis. The average nonunionized manufacturing worker in the South earns $34.50 an hour, so with the typical union premium, that worker would be earning an additional $6.18 an hour. If that worker works full time, year-round, the hourly premium translates to $12,846 more a year. To illustrate the potential impact of unionization in an entire plant, we take the example of the BlueOval auto manufacturing investment in Tennessee, which is projected to create 6,000 jobs (TN Office of Governor 2023). For a plant of that size, unionization could mean more than $77 million in additional wages for workers.

Table 1

Wage gains from successful unionization are not hypothetical for manufacturing workers in the South. For example, in 2024, workers at New Flyer in Anniston, Alabama, ratified a union contract with significant pay raises, with some workers gaining raises of up to 38% through 2026 (CWA 2024). Establishing a union contract with transparent pay ladders will also help New Flyer workers combat persistent pay gaps between white and Black workers in Anniston’s manufacturing industry (Erickson 2021).

The benefits of unionization go far beyond hourly wage increases. The workers at New Flyer also achieved significant gains in terms of vacation time and retirement contributions. Unionized workers secure critical benefits like health care and sick days at greater rates than their nonunion peers. Adjusting for differences in industry, sector, and region, union workers are 18.3% more likely to have employer-covered health insurance than their nonunion counterparts (EPI 2021). Almost 9 in 10 private-sector union workers have paid sick days, compared with less than three-fourths of nonunion private-sector workers (EPI 2021).

Unions also contribute to safer and healthier working conditions across a wide range of industries (Dean, McCallum, and Venkataramani 2022). By strengthening workers’ voice on the job, unions empower workers to report safety issues and demand better protocols. One example of this is that unionized construction sites experience significantly lower rates of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) violations than nonunionized sites (Manzo IV, Jekot, and Bruno 2021). This is despite the fact that unionized workplaces actually experience greater rates of OSHA inspections than other workplaces, likely because many unions maintain active health and safety committees and because unionized workers have greater access to education on how to recognize safety hazards and are less afraid of reprisals from their employer for reporting them (Leigh and Chakalov 2021).

As the New Flyer agreement demonstrates, a strong CBA includes (or is negotiated in tandem with) union neutrality commitments ensuring that workers have a free and fair choice to unionize, without employer interference or retaliation. Securing a pathway to unionization can provide direct benefits to workers at a particular facility, while also increasing local organizing capacity and coalition strength for future negotiations over new projects and local development decisions. Not only is a new union a legally recognized institution that can monitor and hold the company accountable for commitments in the CBA, but it can also play a critical role in amplifying demands of workers and communities outside of the workplace and building power for working people more broadly.

Living wage floor

CBAs can also include commitments to minimum wage floors for the workers who will operate a new facility. For example, the 2018 Nashville Soccer CBA in Tennessee included a commitment to an hourly wage of at least $15.50 for stadium workers (SUN 2018). This provision set the stadium’s wage floor well above the minimum wage in Nashville, where workers—like all Tennessee workers and many across the South—are otherwise subject to the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.

If a wage floor set by a CBA is high enough, it can help workers achieve a living wage in the place that they live. What constitutes a living wage must be determined by labor and community partners (Gould, Mokhiber, and DeCourcy 2024). For example, a living wage could be defined narrowly as covering the necessities for a single adult, or more broadly as including the needs of a working parent and their children. A living wage target must also make assumptions about nonwage income such as health care benefits and government transfers. Manufacturing workers in the South can also rightfully seek wages that not only cover bare necessities but provide the family-sustaining resources needed to be healthy and thrive.

Figure D shows the share of manufacturing workers in the South earning less than $30 an hour, or $62,400 a year in wages for a full-time worker. More than 3 in 5 (60.8%) manufacturing workers in the region earn less than $30 an hour. Around 80% of Southern Black and Hispanic manufacturing workers earn below the $30 threshold. Women in manufacturing are also more likely to earn below $30 an hour (71.8%) than men (59.1%).

Figure D

A $30 wage floor exceeds the minimum costs for a single adult in most jurisdictions in the U.S., but still barely covers needs for many families with children in manufacturing-dense counties nationwide. EPI’s Family Budget Calculator estimates living wage standards by county that cover modest but necessary costs families face like food, rent, and transportation in the United States. Table 2 shows three Southern counties with significant clean energy manufacturing investments in recent years (CET 2025). Each county has significant manufacturing employment, exceeding the U.S. average for manufacturing employment density. For each county, living wage standards from the Family Budget Calculator are listed for different family types. In Morgan County, Georgia, and Maury County, Tennessee, a single adult with a child must earn at least $30 an hour to cover basic needs. For a single economic provider to cover the costs of a four-person family, they must earn over $35 an hour in all the counties listed. These living wage standards indicate that a $30 wage floor would provide significant economic security for workers with smaller families or multiple wage-earners.

Table 2

A CBA that secures a strong living wage standard in a manufacturing facility can create a virtuous cycle that brings about greater prosperity in the area. Higher wages for low- and middle-income workers boost spending in the local economy because these workers spend a greater share of their paycheck than high-income workers (Anderson 2014). Other employers in the area might have to raise their wages to compete for workers with the CBA-bound employer. The establishment of a living wage also demonstrates to other workers in the area that higher wages are a feasible goal through collective action.

Local and/or targeted hire policies

Local and targeted hiring refers to policies that prioritize recruitment of individuals from the local community, or workers from specific groups who are otherwise underrepresented in a given workforce relative to local population demographics, such as women, people of color, veterans, low-income workers, formerly incarcerated workers, or workers with disabilities (Lawliss, Finfer, and Sherer 2022). A local hire policy can require that a certain percentage of hours worked on a project be completed by local workers. These policies can also require giving local workers the first option to apply for jobs on a project. For the prosperity created through manufacturing investments in the South to be shared equitably, it is important that local community members have access to the jobs that are created during both the construction and operation phases of a development. Workforce policies also should be designed to remove barriers to employment for groups of workers—especially workers of color and women—who have historically been excluded from many construction and manufacturing career opportunities. Increasing access to these well-paying jobs can increase economic mobility for workers with more limited opportunities.

Despite these benefits, some state policymakers have been hostile to local hire as a public policy. In 2015, Nashville voters passed a ballot initiative that required city-funded construction projects to dedicate 40% of construction hours to Nashville residents, with 25% of those hours going to low-income Nashville residents (Blair et al. 2020). The Tennessee state legislature then quickly passed a bill that preempted the city from creating its own local hire policy.

As Figure E shows, the harm of Tennessee’s preemption of local hire falls disproportionately on workers of color. The construction workforce in the Nashville metro area has a higher share of workers of color and immigrant workers compared with the state construction workforce overall. Black workers are 8.2% of the construction workforce in Davidson County, but 5.5% of the overall state workforce. More than half (51.5%) of construction workers in Davidson County are Hispanic, compared with less than a quarter (20.1%) of the state overall. Davidson County construction workers are also more than twice as likely to be immigrants (40.2%) than in all of Tennessee (14.8%). State preemption of local hire prevented Nashville from ensuring that public spending would benefit local workers. However, private agreements like CBAs offer an opportunity to incorporate local hire and/or targeted hire requirements into publicly subsidized developments, even in heavily preempted jurisdictions.

Figure E

In 2018, three years after the preemption of Nashville’s local hire policy, the labor-community coalition Stand Up Nashville was able to leverage $275 million in public subsidies for a new professional soccer stadium into a successful CBA (SUN 2018). The Nashville Soccer CBA included commitments to local hire for stadium workers, particularly workers from “Promise Zones,” i.e., high-poverty areas with fewer economic opportunities (SUN 2020). Through the CBA, Nashville Soccer Holding, LLC agreed to consider qualified Promise Zone resident referrals for jobs at the stadium. So far, the program has succeeded in hiring Promise Zone residents. In 2023, Nashville Soccer Club had hired 180 employees, 80 of whom were residents of Promise Zones (SUN 2023).

CBAs in the South and throughout the country are securing similar commitments to local and targeted hiring in clean energy and manufacturing investments. In Alabama, the New Flyer CBA commits the company to ensuring that at least 45% of new hires and 20% of promotions are members of “Historically Disadvantaged Groups” (Sabin 2022).{{4}} In Massachusetts, a new offshore wind terminal entered into a CBA with the City of Salem—setting targets for hiring of local workers, workers of color, and women workers (Sabin 2024). The CBA for Maine Aqua Ventis, an offshore wind facility, includes local hiring opportunities for residents of Monhegan, Maine (Sabin 2017). 

These types of agreements help ensure that local residents benefit from large investments in their communities, particularly when policymakers have invested public dollars in the form of tax breaks or corporate subsidies to support a new facility. Ensuring local workers are prioritized in training programs and hiring processes for newly created jobs also helps community members stay in the area when housing costs are driven up by a large new manufacturing investment. And in the longer term, providing pathways for local workers to benefit directly from these investments strengthens the labor and community alliances needed to hold developers and corporations accountable over time.

Equitable workforce development through apprenticeships and pre-apprenticeships

In addition to local hire policies, which help create equitable pathways for local workers to secure good jobs at a manufacturing site, construction and manufacturing projects require a skilled workforce to operate safely and productively. A robust ecosystem of registered apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship programs can help ensure both that employers find the skilled workers they need in a large new manufacturing facility, and that local workers can access pathways to newly created jobs.

Registered apprenticeship programs are training programs vetted by federal or state agencies to ensure use of high-quality, best-practice training standards and approved curriculum aligned with skills needed to succeed in a particular occupation. Registered apprenticeships combine paid on-the-job and classroom training and result in a recognized, portable credential certifying that a worker has the skills and experience necessary for a specific occupation. Pre-apprenticeship programs (also known as apprenticeship readiness programs) recruit and prepare participants for registered apprenticeships—often partnering with community organizations—to open pathways to apprenticeship for women, Black and brown youth, immigrants, workers with disabilities, or others historically excluded from skilled trades occupations. The best practice is for these apprenticeships and pre-apprenticeships to be joint programs between unions and employers, providing high-quality instruction tailored to industry needs and training that leads to placement in a high-quality job with wages, conditions, and benefits negotiated into a union contract. Often, a vital building block for successful manufacturing apprenticeship programs is the establishment of a unionized workforce at a facility.

Unlike lower-quality workforce development programs, registered apprenticeships pay workers fairly for their labor during their training—and in joint apprenticeship programs, the wages and benefits of apprentices are negotiated into a union contract and typically include scheduled increases as apprentices progress through the training program. Registered apprentices (across joint and non-joint programs) typically see their earnings increase 49% between the year before they enter the program and the year after completing it (Walton, Gardiner, and Barnow 2022). These increases in earnings are greater than for similar workers who do not enter the apprenticeship during the same time period (Katz et al. 2022). Apprenticeships can also be particularly attractive to workers because they are debt-free. Most apprentices (60%) consider debt avoidance the most important reason for choosing to enroll in an apprenticeship (Walton, Gardiner, and Barnow 2022).

Apprenticeships can be a powerful tool for increasing the diversity of construction and other industry workforces. While participation of women and workers of color in apprenticeships has grown in recent years, this growth has been painfully slow for decades (CEA 2024). Research finds that union-based (joint) apprenticeship programs have been more successful than other types of apprenticeships at increasing diversity in the construction industry (Ormiston and Bilginsoy 2024). Joint apprenticeships enroll a higher share of women, Black workers, and Hispanic workers than non-joint programs, and have higher program completion rates for all workers, including for women and workers of color. Community benefits agreements can secure commitments and partnerships that equitably grow this pipeline of workers and set enforceable local and targeted hiring goals which in turn spur diversification of construction and manufacturing apprenticeship programs.

For instance, the New Flyer CBA creates a partnership between the company and coalition partners to develop pre-apprenticeship and technical training programs that expand access to manufacturing jobs for workers with low incomes and from disadvantaged groups (Sabin 2022). For these programs to succeed, community groups and educational institutions must have an active role in shaping the programs and connecting workers to these opportunities. The development of a growing skilled workforce and a robust, high-quality workforce development ecosystem can in turn be a strong incentive for bringing more facilities to an area over time. In 2015, Polaris stated that a significant factor in its decision to choose Huntsville, Alabama, for a new production facility was the area’s skilled workforce (Polaris 2015). As more workers participate in high-quality training programs that lead to union jobs, the organized workforce of the region will grow, strengthening labor-community coalitions the next time there is an opportunity to shape new development in the region.

Child care

Child care is an essential but extremely costly expense for many working families across the South. Average annual infant care costs in the South range from $6,868 in Mississippi to $14,277 in Virginia.{{5}} The Department of Health and Human Services recommends that 7% or less of family income go toward infant child care costs, but typical Southern families spend significantly more. In Alabama, infant care costs are 9.8% of median family income, while in Oklahoma the share is 15.4% (EPI 2025b).

Increasing access to high-quality, affordable child care not only makes work more accessible to parents (and especially to women, who on average continue to assume disproportionate care responsibilities), but is a powerful investment in children’s development that can help narrow class and racial inequalities (Morrisey 2020). In addition, child care workers tend to work for very low wages and experience poverty at greater rates than the typical worker.

A large manufacturing investment in a locality might produce a significant number of jobs, and in turn increase the demand of workers and their families to live nearby. This is likely to increase the need for child care services in the region. However, data show that child care employment has not kept up with manufacturing growth in Southern counties. Table 3 compares counties with high manufacturing density, where manufacturing employment makes up more than the national average (9% in 2009), with those with lower manufacturing employment density (EPI 2025c).

Table 3

Between 2009 and 2024, manufacturing employment in high-manufacturing-density counties in the South grew 15.9%, achieving faster growth than similar counties in the U.S. overall (12.1%). However, over the same period, child care employment only grew 4.5% in Southern high-manufacturing-density counties, far below the national rate of 14.2%. Child care employment growth in the South for low-manufacturing-density counties (22.3%) is also below the national level (28.5%). The South systematically underinvests in child care, despite its importance to a healthy economy in the region.

CBAs and PLAs have been used to secure both the construction of physical child care spaces and financial support for actual services. The Nashville Soccer CBA reserved 4,000 square feet for the development of a child care center (SUN 2020). In 2001, the CBA for the North Hollywood Commons mixed-use development project in Southern California secured a commitment to an on-site child care center. Fifty child care spaces at the center were reserved for low- and moderate-income families (Sabin 2001). In the Boston area, unions have secured Project Labor Agreements that seek to address the unique child care needs of the construction industry. The PLA for the Winthrop Center in Boston established a child care access fund to research, develop, and implement alternative child care models within the construction industry, with a particular focus on assisting single mothers with child care while supporting their career (NEREJ 2019).

These types of investments are vital supports for working families, particularly mothers, seeking to balance professional and care work. Combined with union neutrality for the child care workers at these facilities, commitments to providing child care can further elevate worker power in the region and help large new facilities recruit and retain the skilled, experienced workforces they need to succeed.

Affordable housing

Without strategies to address the housing needs of a community impacted by a new manufacturing investment, local residents can experience increased economic precarity or forced displacement. The local housing impacts of a large industrial investment can be complex. A significant manufacturing investment can make a local community more attractive as workers move into the area to be close to their place of work. Manufacturing investments are also likely to be paired with prospective real estate investments in anticipation of future development around the original project. State and local governments might use eminent domain and other purchasing mechanisms to secure land for roads and other new infrastructure. These dynamics can increase housing costs for residents, particularly renters who are most vulnerable to the impacts of housing speculation and prospective rent increases. For instance, the BlueOval development in West Tennessee is already reported to have increased property prices and housing rents (TCG 2023). Homeowners, particularly those with fixed incomes, can also be more burdened with housing costs as higher demand in the area increases property tax valuations (Payne 2019).

On the other hand, extreme proximity to an industrial site can expose residents to environmental hazards and noise pollution, and may be considered unsightly, which decreases property values (Currie et al. 2016; Upton and Talpur 2024). The exact distribution of these changes in demand for housing across a community will depend on the type of industry and any other types of development included in the project.

Industrial investments like manufacturing facilities tend to take place in rural and semirural areas, in part because land is relatively inexpensive (Wiley 2015). While the counties with a higher share of manufacturing employment tend to have lower housing costs than urban areas, housing affordability remains a significant issue for workers. On average, across high-manufacturing-density counties in the South, a two-adult, two-child household must cover more than $14,000 a year in housing costs.{{6}} A large share of renters in high-manufacturing-density counties in the South still are cost-burdened by housing, meaning they spend more than 30% of their income on rent, utilities, and other housing costs. As shown in Figure F, across the Southern states, the share of cost-burdened households in high-manufacturing-density counties ranges from 28% in Arkansas to 47% in Florida. More than 2 in 5 (42%) of Texas renters in these counties are also housing cost-burdened.

Figure F

A strong CBA will secure commitments to build a certain number of affordable housing units or dedicate a share of housing at the site as affordable. The Nashville Stadium CBA created agreements that at least 12% of residential units in the development would be affordable and that 20% of those units would be three-bedroom units to accommodate families (SUN 2020). The Staples Center CBA in Los Angeles, California, was another successful example of strong affordable housing benefits. The 2001 agreement for the development of an expanded convention center, theater, and surrounding housing, hotel, and retail space secured commitments that 20% of housing units would be affordable. The developer also agreed to provide $650,000 in interest-free loans to nonprofit affordable housing developers in the local community (WRI 2001).

Even in situations where a labor-community coalition is unable to reach a final CBA with a company, coalition organizing around community demands can still deliver meaningful affordable housing victories. Between 2002 and 2006, a labor-community coalition in Denver pressured Cherokee Investment Partners to provide community benefits as part of their redevelopment of the site of the Gates Rubber Company. The coalition leveraged zoning changes necessary for the project and a potential subsidy package from the city to extract benefits including an affordable housing plan for hundreds of rental and for-sale affordable housing units (Ingram and Hong 2011; PowerSwitch Action 2025).

In 2005, the labor-community coalition organized by Georgia STAND-UP was able to attach community benefits to an Atlanta city ordinance allocating $2 billion in public funding for the Atlanta Beltline transit-oriented development project. The city resolution shaped by the coalition established an affordable housing trust fund and a goal of developing 5,600 affordable housing units (PowerSwitch Action 2025). As of 2024, more than 4,100 affordable units have been created as part of the project (Atlanta Beltline, Inc. 2024).

Labor-community coalitions can also pursue other land-use commitments beyond the development of affordable housing. The BlueOval Good Neighbors coalition in West Tennessee has demanded commitments to protect land for farmers in the area. The development of the Ford factory has pushed Tennessee’s Department of Transportation to pursue land for new roadways through purchase and eminent domain. The area targeted for new roadways is a majority Black farming community, and several farmers are engaged in lawsuits with the state over the state’s meager compensation offers for their land (Wadhwani 2023). The coalition has demanded that farmers be offered replacement land in exchange for their sold land, as well as the creation of a 10,000-acre community land trust (BlueOval Good Neighbors n.d.).

Creating or protecting affordable housing is essential for protecting the communities that are necessary for any effective labor-community coalition. Large developments can cause instability within the community as new residents arrive, and existing residents are buffeted by rising housing costs. Because of historic and ongoing racial discrimination in housing policy, labor policy, and real estate practices, the costs of these changes are most likely to impact Black and Hispanic workers. Black families and other workers of color are the most likely to be cost-burdened by housing (JCHS 2024). Creating housing for workers and families to remain in the area is vital for continued collective action to secure benefits from developers and hold those developers accountable for their promises.

Environmental standards, funding, and monitoring

Large-scale manufacturing projects often have significant environmental impacts, both during construction and once they are in operation. Air, noise, and groundwater pollution; harm to wildlife habitats; and residents’ exposure to toxic byproducts are just a few examples of common concerns, and these consequences can be severe when projects are approved without sufficient environmental consideration. The consequences of large manufacturing projects often disproportionately harm communities of color and low-wealth areas throughout the South (Brouk 2024). For decades, poor and Black residents in the region have been exposed to toxic chemicals, pollution, and other environmental dangers at alarming rates (Bergman 2019).

In 2021, the Tennessee governor approved the construction of a General Motors lithium battery supplier in the city of Spring Hill, on the banks of the Duck River. Though the project was seen as an economic success, the plant’s operation has taken a toll on the fragile river ecosystem. The lithium battery factory is not the only strain—just eight companies along the river drain tens of millions of gallons of water daily (Wadhwani 2024). This enormous water usage has lowered river water levels, threatened biodiversity, and harmed local tourism and recreation. Advocates for the river’s health blame the state’s prioritization of manufacturing expansion without regard to the long-term environmental or economic consequences for local residents or other existing local industries.

CBAs are a tool that may help community-labor coalitions address the environmental impacts of data centers in the South. Data centers are booming across the United States, but particularly in Southern states like Georgia, Texas, and Virginia (Walker and Goldsmith 2026). New centers are heavy users of water and energy, create noise and air pollution, and are driving up electricity costs nationwide both by increasing demand for energy and requiring utilities to invest in new infrastructure paid for by all ratepayers (Merchant and Guerra 2025; Bizo et al. 2021; AI NOW 2025; Reed 2025). For example, in Virginia, electric bills were on track to increase as much as 25% in 2025 because of data centers (Penn and Weise 2025).

Growing community concerns surrounding data centers could create leverage for labor-community coalitions to pursue CBAs and other community benefits strategies. In 2025, community opposition blocked or delayed $64 billion in data center projects across the nation (Data Center Watch 2025). As community resistance to data centers continues to grow, more developers may recognize the need to come to the table with local coalitions to negotiate binding commitments on environmental and economic outcomes to secure project approvals. A handful of localities have begun to create agreements with data center developers regulating water use and securing commitments to green energy use (Turner Lee and West 2026).

Past development projects provide examples of how communities have used CBAs to secure long-term commitments to clean energy transition and protection of local natural resources in a multitude of ways, from mandating that any new construction must meet specific sustainability standards to requiring companies to contribute a set dollar amount to a city’s renewable energy transition fund. In Virginia, the City of Richmond Resort Casino CBA ensured the developing and operating company would design and construct all project buildings to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver standards and would use previously existing pavement where possible (WRI 2021). The agreement also required the developer to attempt to reduce the urban heat island effect by planting shade trees along sidewalks and using other landscaping methods (WRI 2021). These agreements can mitigate additional environmental harm in areas that have already been polluted. A CBA between the Town of Waterloo, New York, and Seneca Meadows, Inc. regarding a landfill expansion commits the waste management company to pay for the development of new public water lines and other potable water infrastructure if existing public water wells become contaminated (WRI 2005).

CBAs can also be used to expand the positive impact of an already climate-friendly project. In New York, a CBA with an offshore windfarm developer stipulates that the company must contribute $2 million to the town of East Hampton’s Ocean Industries Sustainability Program (WRI 2018). Additionally, Deepwater Wind South Fork, LLC must spend $200,000 to establish an Energy Sustainability and Resilience Fund to support East Hampton’s transition to 100% renewable energy (WRI 2018). CBAs with environmentally focused companies provide valuable opportunities for communities looking to address climate change, especially where state governments have failed to invest in environmental programs.

A CBA can achieve a variety of climate and environmental commitments from a company but is also a strong starting point for building local capacity to monitor resource use, pollution, and other environmental priorities. A strong coalition of community, labor, and environmental groups can play essential roles in implementing and enforcing CBA commitments in contexts where understaffed government agencies have limited ability to monitor or investigate pollution and other environmental harms. Instead, workers and community members are often the first to report harmful practices and safety concerns. A strong CBA can provide opportunities for labor and environmental groups to work together to monitor and protect worker and community health, natural resources, and ecosystems.

Conclusion

For decades, Southern economic policies shaped by dominant business and corporate interests have resulted in poor working conditions and failed to ensure that profits generated by publicly subsidized development are shared with local workers and communities. Confronting the deep, long-standing imbalances of power that have entrenched this failed economic development model will require significant organizing and coalition-building to increase the collective power of workers and community members to shape different outcomes from the latest Southern manufacturing boom. Building new forms of worker and community power will be equally necessary to counter escalating authoritarian actions of the Trump administration, which closely parallel many features of the failed Southern economic development model that by design prioritizes corporations over workers and communities.

Our analysis shows that community benefits agreements could be powerful tools for Southern labor and community groups building the shared power necessary to reshape local and eventually regional economies. When strong coalitions of labor, environmental, faith-based, and other grassroots community organizations are able to build the necessary power to bring a company or developer to the table to negotiate an enforceable agreement, such coalitions can secure measurable economic benefits like higher wages, respect for workers’ rights to unionize, local or targeted hiring, protection of natural resources, or more affordable housing. Such economic gains are beneficial in themselves, but they also raise expectations, build local capacity to pursue additional gains, and demonstrate to the community at large that local residents can shape their own economic futures, and that these types of victories are achievable in the face of the Southern status quo.

While the urgent project of upending the Southern economic development model will require vigorous and persistent organizing across many sectors and geographies, community benefits agreements are one key strategy for turning manufacturing jobs into good jobs, ensuring long-term local economic gains from new industrial investments, and even renewing democracy in contexts where it has long been suppressed. Forming strong, long-lasting labor-community coalitions is essential to winning concrete gains for local workers as well as reshaping the political fabric of Southern communities and increasing working people’s influence over broader state or regional economic policy decisions. Winning and implementing any strong CBA requires the formation of an empowered labor-community coalition, which ideally endures and gains greater strength, experience, and influence over time. Just as the economic benefits of unionization extend far beyond an individual workplace, establishing a strong CBA coalition can create broader positive impacts across a community or region—delivering higher-quality jobs; more equitable tax systems; stronger public services; and healthier, more inclusive political systems.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the AFL-CIO Center for Transformational Organizing for their partnership and invaluable contributions in the production of this report. The authors are also grateful to Athena Last and Ian Elder at Jobs to Move America and Ben Beach at PowerSwitch Action for their expert feedback.

Appendix

Appendix Table 1

Notes

{{1.}} Clean energy manufacturing includes manufacturing of batteries, electric vehicles, mineral products, solar energy products, and wind energy products.

{{2.}} Workers in Southern states experience lower wages than in other regions even after adjusting for cost-of-living differences (Childers 2023).

{{3.}} The facilities covered by these agreements included plants in Alabama, California, Kentucky, Minnesota, New York, and Wisconsin.

{{4.}} This category includes workers who are Black, Indigenous, and/or people of color; women; LGBTQ+ persons; systems-impacted people (formerly incarcerated people); persons emancipated from the foster care system; residents of Anniston, Alabama, lacking GED or high school diploma; and veterans.

{{5.}} Southern states excluding D.C., Delaware, and Maryland.

{{6.}} EPI analysis of Family Budget Calculator and Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data.

References

Abrams, Cynthia. 2025. “As West Tennessee Community Pressures Ford for Promises, Lawmakers Curb ‘Community Benefits Agreements’.” WPLN News, March 25, 2025.

AI NOW. 2025. “North Star Data Center Policy Toolkit: State and Local Policy Interventions to Stop Rampant AI Data Center Expansion.” December 2025.

Anderson, Sarah. 2014. “Wall Street Bonuses and the Minimum Wage.” Institute for Policy Studies, March 12, 2014.

Aquiles-Sanchez, Pablo, and Laura Dresser. 2022. Worker Power Levels the Playing Field: Community Benefits for Public Subsidies in the Iron District. High Road Research Center, November 2022.

Aquiles-Sanchez, Pablo, and Laura Dresser. 2024. From Community Benefits, to Collective Bargaining, and Back: Building Worker Power in Milwaukee. High Road Research Center, March 2024.

Atlanta Beltline Inc. 2024. Relentless Momentum, Undeniable Results: 2024 Annual Report.

Barrett, Jim, and Josh Bivens. 2021. The Stakes for Workers in How Policymakers Manage the Coming Shift to All-Electric Vehicles. Economic Policy Institute, September 2021.

Bayard, Kimberly, Tomaz Cajner, Vivi Gregorich, and Maria Tito. 2022. Are Manufacturing Jobs Still Good Jobs? An Exploration of the Manufacturing Wage Premium. Federal Reserve Board, March 2022.

Bergman, Megan Mayhew. 2019. “‘They Chose Us Because We Were Rural and Poor’: When Environmental Racism and Climate Change Collide“. Guardian, March 8, 2019.

Bizo, Daniel, Rhonda Ascierto, Andy Lawrence, and Jacqueline Davis. 2021. Uptime Institute Global Data Center Survey 2021. Uptime Institute, September 2021.

Blair, Hunter, David Cooper, Julia Wolfe, and Jaimie Worker. 2020. Preempting Progress: State Interference in Local Policymaking Prevents People of Color, Women, and Low-Income Workers from Making Ends Meet in the South. Economic Policy Institute, September 2020.

BlueOval Good Neighbors. n.d. “Community Benefits Agreement Demands Summary.” Accessed September 5, 2025.

Bomey, Nathan. 2024. “Volkswagen on Factory Unionization Efforts: ‘Neutral Doesn’t Mean Silent’.” Axios, February 15, 2024.

Brouk, Allison. 2024. “Wood Pellet Manufacturing in the South Harms Communities and the Environment.” Earthjustice, October 11, 2024.

Clean Economy Tracker (CET). 2025. Clean Economy Tracker. Accessed July 15, 2025.

Childers, Chandra. 2023. Rooted in Racism and Economic Exploitation: The Failed Southern Economic Development Model. Economic Policy Institute, October 2023.

Childers, Chandra. 2024a. Southern Economic Policies Undermine Job Quality for Auto Workers. Economic Policy Institute, September 2024.

Childers, Chandra. 2024b. The Evolution of the Southern Economic Development Strategy. Economic Policy Institute, May 2024.

Childers, Chandra. 2025. The Ongoing Influence of Slavery and Jim Crow Means High Poverty Rates and Low Economic Mobility in the South. Economic Policy Institute, April 2025.

City of Cleveland. n.d. “Community Benefits Ordinance” (web page). Accessed December 4, 2025.

City of Detroit. n.d. “Community Benefits Ordinance” (web page). Accessed December 4, 2025.

Communication Workers of America (CWA). 2024. “A New Dawn: Union Victory at New Flyer in Anniston, Alabama.” May 20, 2024.

Council of Economic Advisors (CEA). 2024. “All Aboard the ApprenticeSHIP: Assessing the Changing Face of Registered Apprenticeships.” Biden White House Archives, November 20, 2024.

Currie, Janet, Lucas Davis, Michael Greenstone, and Reed Walker. 2015. “Environmental Health Risks and Housing Values: Evidence from 1,600 Toxic Plant Openings and Closings.” American Economic Review 105, no. 2 (February 2015): 678–709. doi: 10.1257/aer.20121656.

Data Center Watch. 2025. “$64 Billion of Data Center Projects Have Been Blocked or Delayed Amid Local Opposition.” Accessed February 24, 2026.

Dean, Adam, Jamie McCallum, and Atheendar Venkataramani. 2022. Unions in the United States Improve Worker Safety and Lower Health Inequality. Washington Center for Equitable Growth, December 2022.

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

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2025a. “Workers’ Rights Preemption in the U.S.” Accessed July 1, 2025.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2025b. “Child Care Costs in the United States.” Accessed July 1, 2025.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2025c. “State of Working America data.” Accessed June 25, 2025.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2026. “Family Budget Calculator.” Accessed February 15, 2026.

Erickson, Emily. 2021. Are Good Jobs Possible in the Deep South? Jobs to Move America, March 2021.

Fazili, Sameera, Pronita Gupta, and Doug Bloch. 2025. “How Community Benefits Agreements Can Reduce Project Delivery Risk.” UtilityDive, October 15, 2025.

Gould, Elise, Zane Mokhiber, and Katherine DeCourcy. 2024. What Constitutes a Living Wage? Economic Policy Institute, January 2024.

Hickey, Sebastian Martinez. 2024. “Leveraging the Gulf Coast Hydrogen Hub Community Benefits Plan to Empower the Texas Workforce.” Comments submitted on behalf of Economic Policy Institute to Texas Climate Jobs Project Community Commission on Truth and Transparency in Texas Hydrogen, December 5, 2024.

Ingram, Gregory K, and Yu-Hong Hong. 2012. Value Capture and Land Policies. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University (JCHS). 2024. America’s Rental Housing. Harvard University, 2024.

Katz, Batia, Robert Lerman, Daniel Kuehn, Jessica Shakespeare. 2022. Did Apprentices Achieve Faster Earnings Growth Than Comparable Workers? Brief prepared for U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. Rockville, MD: Abt Associates; and Washington, DC: Urban Institute, August 2022.

Last, Athena Nicole. 2025. A Case Study of the New Flyer of America Inc. Community Benefits Agreement. Jobs to Move America, July 2025.

Lawliss, Michael, Lew Finfer, and Jennifer Sherer. 2022. Using Local and Economically-Targeted Hire to Promote Good Jobs through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Jobs to Move America, September 2022.

Leigh, J. Paul, and Bozhidar Chakalov. 2021. “Labor Unions and Health: A Literature Review of Pathways and Outcomes in the Workplace.” Preventative Medicine Reports 24, no. 101502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101502

Mangundayao, Ihna, Celine McNicholas, and Margaret Poydock. 2022. “Project Labor Agreements on Federal Construction Projects Will Benefit Nearly 200,000 Workers.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), February 9, 2022.

Manzo IV, Frank, Michael Jekot, and Robert Bruno. 2021. The Impact of Unions on Construction Worksite Health and Safety. Illinois Economic Policy Institute, November 2021.

Mast, Nina. 2025a. Forced Prison Labor in the “Land of the Free.” Economic Policy Institute, January 2025.

Mast, Nina. 2025b. How Anti-Worker Policies, Crony Capitalism, and Privatization Keep the South Locked Out of Shared Prosperity. Economic Policy Institute, June 2025.

McFadden, Michael, Sai Santosh, and Ronit Shetty. 2022. Quantifying the Value of Union Labor in Construction Projects. Mechanical Industry Advancement Fund, December 2022.

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.

McNicholas, Celine, Margaret Poydock, Samantha Sanders, and Ben Zipperer. 2023. Employers Spend More Than $400 Million per Year on ‘Union-Avoidance’ Consultants To Bolster Their Union-Busting Efforts (fact sheet). Economic Policy Institute, March 2023.

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

Merchant, Zach, and Adrian P. Guerra. 2025. “Data Center Boom Impacting Georgia’s Water Resources.” 11Alive, April 14, 2025.

Mickey, Robert. Paths Out of Dixie: The Democratization of Authoritarian Enclaves in America’s Deep South, 1944-1972. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 2015.

Mishel, Lawrence. 2017. “The Increased Diversity of New York City Union Construction Employment.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), January 19, 2017.

Morrissey, Taryn. 2020. Addressing the Need for Affordable, High-Quality Early Childhood Care And Education for All in the United States. Washington Center for Economic Growth, February 2020.

New England Real Estate Journal (NEREJ). 2019. “MP Boston and Building Trades Unions sign Project Labor Agreement for Winthrop Center.” NEREJ, November 15, 2019.

O’Brien, Connor. 2023. “Factory Boom in the Mountain West and Upper Midwest Accelerated into the Spring.” Economic Innovation Group, June 13, 2023.

Ormiston, Russell, and Cihan Bilginsoy. 2024. “Measuring Diversity in Construction Apprenticeship Programs.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), November 21, 2024.

Partnership for Working Families and Community Benefits Law Center (PWF and CBLC). 2016. Common Challenges in Negotiating Community Benefits Agreements and How to Avoid Them. January 2016.

Payne, Mat. 2019. “When Nowhere Becomes Somewhere: Gentrification in Rural Communities and How Proactive Community Planning and a Progressive Property Valuation System Can Stem the Tide.” Kentucky Law Journal 207, no. 4: 727–745.

Perez, Daniel. 2015. Voter Suppression Makes the Racist and Anti-Worker Southern Model Possible. Economic Policy Institute, October 2024.

Penn, Ivan, and Karen Weise. 2025. “Big Tech’s A.I. Data Centers Are Driving Up Electricity Bills for Everyone.” New York Times, August 2025.

Polaris. 2015. “Polaris Industries Inc. Announces Expansion of Manufacturing Operations.” January 9, 2015.

PowerSwitch Action. 2025. “Community Benefits Agreements Examples.” Accessed September 1, 2025.

Reed, Rachel. 2025. “How data centers may lead to higher electricity bills.” Harvard Law Today, September 2025.

Rhinehart, Lynn, and Celine McNicholas. 2020. Collective Bargaining Beyond the Worksite: How Workers and Their Unions Build Power and Set Standards for Their Industries. Economic Policy Institute, May 2020.

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law (Sabin). 2001. North Hollywood Mixed-Use Redevelopment Project Community Benefits Agreement.

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law (Sabin). 2017. Monhegan Plantation et al. and Maine Aqua Ventis Community Benefits Agreement.

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law (Sabin). 2022. New Flyer of America, Greater Birmingham Ministries, and Jobs to Move America Community Benefits Agreement.

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law (Sabin). 2024. City of Salem and Salem Wind Terminal LLC Community Benefits Agreement.

Sachs, Benjamin. 2024. “Hey ALEC, Be Careful What You Wish For.” On Labor, March 8, 2024.

Saha, Devashree. 2024. Community Benefits Snapshot: New Flyer Community Benefits Agreement. World Resources Institute, December 2024.

Scott, Robert, Valerie Wilson, Jori Kandra, and Daniel Perez. 2022. Botched Policy Responses to Globalization Have Decimated Manufacturing Employment with Often Overlooked Costs for Black, Brown, and Other Workers of Color. Economic Policy Institute, January 2022.

Sherer, Jennnifer, and Elise Gould. 2025. It’s Time for Colorado to Remove Barriers to Unionization. Economic Policy Institute, February 2025.

Stand Up Nashville (SUN). 2018. “Historic Community Benefits Agreement Reached!” SUN, September 4, 2018.

Stand Up Nashville (SUN). 2020. Nashville MLS Soccer Community Benefits Agreement.

Stand Up Nashville (SUN). 2023. Community Advisory Committee Community Benefits Agreement Annual Report 2023.

Stephenson, Jemma. 2024. “Alabama Senate Bill Would Punish Companies That Voluntarily Recognize Unions.” Alabama Reflector, March 27, 2024.

Tennessee Office of Governor. 2023. “Gov. Lee, Ford Celebrate Historic BlueOval City in West TN” (press release). March 23, 2023.

The Chesapeake Group, Inc. (TCG). 2023. Haywood Market Assessment Section for Growth Strategies. September 2023.

Todd, Patricia. 2021. The Hidden Costs of Alabama’s Tax Incentives. Jobs to Move America, August 2021.

Turner Lee, Nicol, and Darrell West. 2026. Why Community Benefit Agreements Are Necessary for Data Centers. The Brookings Institution, January 2026.

Upton, Greg, and Sarang Talpur. 2024. Literature Review on the Impact of Utility-Scale Solar on Housing Prices. Louisiana State University, August 2024.

Wadwhani, Anita. 2023. “Black Farming Community Fights to Get Fair Deal as State Takes Land for Ford Plant Roadways.” Tennessee Lookout, April 3, 2023.

Wadhwani, Anita. 2024. “Water Wars: Groups Challenge ‘Unsustainable’ Withdrawals from Duck River.” Tennessee Lookout, May 6, 2024.

Walker, Carla, and Ian Goldsmith. 2026. “From Energy Use to Air Quality, the Many Ways Data Centers Affect US Communities.” World Resources Institute, February 2026.

Walton, Douglas, Karen Gardiner, and Burt Barnow. 2022. Expanding Apprenticeship to New Sectors and Populations. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. Rockville, MD: Abt Associates, August 2022.

Wiley, Jonathan. 2015. The Impact of Commercial Development on Surrounding Residential Property Values. J. Mack Robinson College of Business, April 2015.

World Resource Institute (WRI). n.d. “Database of Community Benefits Frameworks Across the US.” Accessed September 5, 2025.

World Resources Institute (WRI). 2001. Staples Center Community Benefits Agreement.

World Resources Institute (WRI). 2005. Community Benefits Agreement between the Town of Waterloo and Seneca Meadows Inc.

World Resources Institute (WRI). 2018. Community Benefits Agreement between Deepwater Wind and the Town of East Hampton.

World Resources Institute (WRI). 2021. Resort Casino Host Community Agreement by and between the City of Richmond, Virginia and RVA Entertainment Holdings, LLC.

World Resources Institute (WRI). 2025. Atlanta Beltline. Accessed September 29, 2025.

Zessoules, Daniella, and Olugbenga Ajilore. 2018. Wage Gaps and Outcomes in Apprenticeship Programs. Center for American Progress, December 2018.

The Trump administration has consistently prioritized aggressive and arbitrary immigration enforcement, with the ultimate goal of deporting 1 million people every year of his term—regardless of their contributions to their communities and the U.S. economy. While the Department of Homeland Security’s pace currently falls short, increased enforcement would curtail business operations and reduce employer demand for both immigrant and U.S.-born workers. Over four years, 1 million annual deportations could cause total employment in the United States to fall by 5.9 million jobs, with particularly severe losses in construction and child care industries.

The direct care sector is also highly vulnerable to these enforcement actions. Amanda Kreider and Rachel Werner’s recent research indicates that job losses will significantly affect workers who provide long-term care in home- and community-based settings. The direct care sector—which includes home health aides, personal care aides, orderlies, psychiatric aides, and some nursing assistants—relies heavily on immigrant labor. Immigrants constitute nearly 30% of the direct care workforce, compared with 20% of overall employment. Among home health aides who assist with daily living and healthcare tasks, four in 10 workers are immigrants.

Kreider and Werner found that previous increases in immigration enforcement caused the direct care sector to shrink. If these patterns hold under the current enforcement regime, four million deportations over four years could cause direct care employment to fall by 394,000 (see Figure A).

Figure A

The majority of this employment decline—274,000 jobs—will result from the loss of immigrant workers. However, in addition to removing a supply of labor, deportations also make the labor market more precarious for immigrant workers. When immigrants face heightened risk of arrest, detention, or deportation, their ability to change jobs becomes severely constrained. With reduced labor market leverage, employers can worsen working conditions and suppress wages for all workers in the sector, not just those directly affected by deportations.

Contrary to the misconception that deportations will increase job opportunities for U.S-born workers, existing research consistently demonstrates that increased immigration enforcement reduces the employment for both immigrant and U.S.-born workers. Deteriorating pay and conditions for direct care workers would make U.S.-born workers unlikely to step in to replace the shortfall of immigrant workers, consistent with what studies have found when immigration enforcement decreased the size of the construction and child care sectors. In direct care, about 30% of the employment decline—the equivalent of around 120,000 jobs—will affect U.S.-born workers.

While employment reductions will be widespread, they will hit certain states particularly hard due to the geographic concentration of noncitizen immigrants in the direct care sector (see Table 1). New York faces especially severe challenges. Immigrants comprise two-thirds of the state’s direct care workforce, and more than one-third of all noncitizens working in direct care nationwide live in New York. If the Trump administration achieves its deportation goals, New York’s direct care sector could shrink by 45%.

Table 1

These large employment losses would translate directly into reduced availability of direct care services. Kreider and Werner found that past escalations of immigration enforcement led to substantial increases in the number of older adults living without any help at home. Among the Medicaid population, formal nonfamily caregiving declined while family-based caregiving increased, reflecting the contraction of the formal direct care sector.

This shift from formal to family-based care suggests that job losses in the direct care sector will have large spillover effects across the economy, greatly increasing their potential harm to even U.S.-born workers. As direct care supply becomes constrained due to deportations, some family members may need to leave their jobs or reduce their work hours to assume new caretaking responsibilities. Indeed, other research has shown that increases in immigration enforcement caused U.S.-born mothers to work fewer hours due to declining availability of household services like cleaning and child care. Family members may well be forced to choose between their careers and caring for aging and disabled relatives.

The Trump administration’s deportation agenda threatens to trigger a cascading crisis in senior and disability care that will harm families across the economic spectrum. Even in the absence of deportations, caretaking needs will accelerate as the older population grows tremendously, especially in the next five years. If the direct care workforce contracts by nearly 400,000 workers due to deportations, millions of older adults and people with disabilities will be left without the professional assistance they need to remain safely in their homes. Rather than creating jobs for U.S.-born workers as proponents claim, mass deportations eliminate employment opportunities for citizens and immigrants alike while dismantling a care infrastructure that seniors, people with disabilities, and families depend on.

Discrimination in the workplace—either in employment, promotion, job assignments, pay, benefits, discipline, discharge, and layoffs—is illegal in the United States. Research shows that actions taken to reduce discrimination not only improve equity but also support economic growth. Federal law defines workplace discrimination on the basis of a worker’s membership in designated protected classes, with the rationale that disparate treatment violates the law when it would not have happened to an individual “but for” that aspect of their identity. These protected classes are enshrined by legislation and include the following:

• Race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity), and national origin (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
• Age (Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)
• Disability (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
• Genetic information (Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008)

The extent to which these protected classes can be expanded is subject to legal interpretation. For example, over time, the definition of “sex discrimination” has been amended to explicitly include disparate treatment related to pregnancy and childbirth with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, as well as sexual orientation and gender identity following Supreme Court decisions in 2020.

In addition to protection from unjust unequal treatment, federal law also protects workers from retaliation for filing discrimination claims or from beginning the process of filing a discrimination claim. These federal laws cover most employees whether they work full time or part time and irrespective of citizenship status. Employers with 20 or more employees are required to comply with all nondiscrimination laws at the federal level; employers with less than 20 employees are still subject to many nondiscrimination standards, though standards are less stringent.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is the independent federal agency responsible for investigating claims of employment discrimination at the federal level and for enforcing federal workplace nondiscrimination law. The EEOC does this both by fielding discrimination claims against employers and by requiring annual reports from employers on employment outcomes by protected class characteristics to assess potential patterns of discrimination.

What are the threats to federal workplace nondiscrimination protections?

Current threats to workplace nondiscrimination protections include:

• Executive actions constraining EEOC’s mission and functions: Since taking office, Trump has undermined or limited key functions of the EEOC by:
  • Illegally firing two of the three commissioners and the general counsel, leaving the Commission unable to alter policy or vote on rulemaking for several months. In October 2025, the Senate confirmed Brittany Panuccio as an EEOC commissioner, establishing a three-person quorum. With a quorum in place, the EEOC will likely rescind their 2024–2028 strategic enforcement plan, guidance on arrest and conviction records, and EEO-1 reporting requirements. Additionally, the agency will likely move forward with announced plans to significantly revise its Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Rule and Harassment Guidance.  
  • Imposing new limits on the collection of data necessary to accurately assess discriminatory impact by shortening annual reporting periods and removing nonbinary gender reporting entirely from forms used to collect demographic data from private employers and federal contractors.
  • Directing the EEOC to focus more on so-called “DEI-motivated race and sex discrimination and anti-American national origin bias and discrimination.”
• Politicizing the EEOC and constraining independent state and local agencies: EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas has repeatedly affirmed her commitment to restructuring the EEOC’s priorities toward those of the administration, rather than enforcing anti-discrimination law as an independent federal agency. In an effort to impose the administration’s agenda on state and local enforcement agencies, Lucas has proposed changes that would weaponize the funding relationship between those agencies and the EEOC. While state and local agencies operate independently, they receive funding from the EEOC in the form of reimbursements for jointly filed cases they take on behalf of the federal agency. With the exception of a few large states, such as New York or California, most states significantly rely on this funding to cover their operational costs. Since serving as acting chair, Lucas has reversed course on the EEOC’s enforcement of disparate impact and sex discrimination cases by:
  • Withholding funding for state and local Fair Employment Practice Agencies (FEPAs) that choose to take on cases concerning gender identity discrimination.
  • Threatening to decertify state and local FEPAs that draw conclusions on gender identity and disparate impact charges that differ from those of the EEOC.
  • Instructing the agency to close charges that solely concern disparate impact by September 30, 2025, without developing them for litigation or for conciliation.
• Diminished EEOC enforcement capacity: The extent to which workers are protected from workplace discrimination at the federal level is dependent on the EEOC’s capacity to monitor employment practices, investigate claims of workplace discrimination, and reliably enforce sanctions against employers who violate nondiscrimination law. But for decades, inadequate funding and staffing has limited the EEOC’s capacity to investigate and resolve charges in a timely manner. Actions of the second Trump administration further exacerbate these problems:
  • In March 2025, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) announced plans to close and consolidate EEOC field offices. Once the EEOC reestablishes a quorum, the agency may begin these closures, which threaten the job security of EEOC field staff and further constrain their enforcement capacity.
  • The EEOC plans to break up its data analytics office, signaling that robust data collection and analysis—critical tools for enforcement and assessing charges—will be less of a priority for the agency. Rolling back data collection is a step toward the Project 2025 prescribed goal of ending EEO-1 data collection.
• Executive actions attacking nondiscrimination law: The Trump administration has prohibited the consideration of disparate impact liability in discrimination claims, making it more difficult to hold employers accountable for unfair employment practices and outcomes without being able to prove that employers explicitly intended to discriminate (including efforts to hold companies accountable for AI-driven algorithmic bias).  

While many threats are coming directly from the federal level, workplace nondiscrimination protections are also under threat in states that have chosen to follow the lead of the White House in passing anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) laws. Many states have already closed DEI-related offices and initiatives, cut funding to programs, and restricted the use of language and consideration of protected classes in higher education. While these actions do not remove existing workplace nondiscrimination laws, workers in those states could be left without recourse if legislative trends continue and federal nondiscrimination protections continue to deteriorate.

How can states maintain and strengthen workplace nondiscrimination protections?

States have legal authority to establish their own employment discrimination laws that provide more expansive coverage than federal law. States can provide legal protections for more traits or characteristics, lower the minimum employment threshold required to file a discrimination claim, and extend the window of time employees have to file a claim after the alleged discriminatory incident occurred.

Many states and local governments have Fair Employment Practices Agencies{{1}} that investigate workplace discrimination claims in accordance with state and local nondiscrimination law, often in concert with field offices of the federal EEOC. FEPAs may have authority to enforce state or local standards for nondiscrimination that exceed those laid out by the federal government. Workers who believe they have been discriminated against can file a claim with the EEOC and/or their state or local FEPA, depending on the standards being violated, the types of relief available to victims, the deadlines for filing charges, or other factors related to the claim. The Trump administration is actively working to undermine the independence of FEPAs by weaponizing their funding arrangement, particularly on enforcement of disparate impact and gender identity discrimination protections. For state agencies that rely on federal funding for a significant share of their operating budget, these changes present serious challenges to their ability to properly maintain and expand enforcement capacity.

Step I: Update state statutes to lock in current federal protections 

Most states have passed state-level employment discrimination laws that codify employment discrimination protections for at least the same protected classes that are federally protected. Today, 24 states and Washington, D.C., have discrimination laws that cover a more expansive range of protected traits than federal law. However, 19 states, including Idaho, Louisiana, and Oklahoma, offer less protection than federal laws. Alabama’s employment discrimination law is by far the least comprehensive, as it only protects against age discrimination from 40 years of age.  

Other states have enacted certain discrimination laws that only protect public employees. For example, Georgia’s discrimination laws have mixed levels of protection based on the sector of employment. Protections for discrimination against race, color, religion, pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity are only extended to public-sector employees. Private-sector employees are provided protections for disability and equal pay discrimination. Similarly, Mississippi’s employment discrimination laws only apply to public employees.  

States typically have a commission or division dedicated to enforcing state nondiscrimination laws. Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi do not have their own state agency and solely rely on the EEOC for anti-discrimination enforcement. Additionally, North Carolina does not have an agency where private employees can file discrimination claims.

As the Trump administration makes it easier for employers to discriminate by weakening the federal EEOC, failure to cover private employers under state law and a lack of state level enforcement capacity will leave even more workers in those states without recourse. States can—and should—act to plug these gaps by, at a minimum:

• Ensuring their state code includes at least all the protected classes covered in federal nondiscrimination law;
• Ensuring state nondiscrimination laws cover all workers (in both public and private sectors) and mirror federal employment minimum thresholds for coverage; and
• Establishing and adequately funding a state commission or division with enforcement authority that, at minimum, mirrors federal policies for filing deadlines.

Step II: Include additional protections already implemented in other states 

• Extend protections to additional traits: Most states have extended protections for marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. While states may be financially disincentivized to pursue cases concerning gender identity discrimination, there is currently no threat to simply extending legal protections. Some states have also incorporated additional traits such as reproductive health decision-making, medical conditions, status as a victim of domestic violence, housing status, arrest/court/conviction record, and military or veteran status as protected traits (see Figure A). Additionally, several states including New York and Oregon and D.C. have lowered the age limit to be considered for age discrimination.  
• Codify inclusive definitions for protected traits to fortify employment nondiscrimination protections: Many states include definitions of protected traits that better encompass the types of discrimination employees may face. For example, since 2019, the CROWN Act has been adopted by states across the nation to include hair discrimination as a form of racial discrimination. More than half of U.S. states have passed the CROWN Act and eight states have defined race-based discrimination to include discrimination based on traits associated with race in their state code. 

Figure A

Step III: Modernize nondiscrimination policies by extending and locking in coverage across classes of workers and collecting comprehensive data

• Extend coverage to contract workers: Independent contractors are not considered employees, so they may not be inherently covered by employment discrimination laws. As of 2019, only four states (Maryland, Minnesota, New York, and Rhode Island) protect independent contractors from discrimination protection, while 24 states and D.C. explicitly exclude them. Extending discrimination protections to independent contractors is important as they have significantly less labor protections than employees. Additionally, states could explicitly enforce anti-discrimination and equal employment opportunity laws for state contract workers to ensure fair employment practices among private employers that conduct business with the state. In a climate with increased hostility against those who are not white, male, heterosexual, and cisgender, it is imperative that the classification of a worker does not dictate the rights they have to protect themselves from discrimination.
• Emphasize protections for workers regardless of their citizenship and immigration status: Federal law prohibits discrimination on the basis of national origin, and employees are protected by Equal Employment Opportunity statutes regardless of citizenship or immigration status. Given changing federal treatment of immigrants, states should emphasize and enforce fair treatment regardless of documentation status to ensure workers remain protected. They should also strengthen anti-retaliation protections and practices.  
• Collect employment and pay data at the state level: Federally, the EEOC requires employers with more than 100 employees to submit an annual report (the EEO-1 form) providing critical workforce demographic data. With the future of federal data collection at risk, states should seek to collect their own equal employment data, including pay data, to support anti-discrimination enforcement mechanisms. Currently, only three (California, Illinois, Massachusetts) states require employers to submit this data.

Additional recommended resources 

• Trump is making it easier for employers to discriminate. This stifles equity and hurts economic growth. (Economic Policy Institute) 

• Trump-led attacks on equity are setting the stage for our next public health crisis (Economic Policy Institute) 
• Trump’s assault on independent agencies endangers us all (Economic Policy Institute and The Century Foundation) 

Editor’s note: This piece was revised on October 24, 2025, to add an “Additional recommended resources” section and include updates on federal and state policy developments that took place after initial publication

{{1.}} These agencies are often referred to as commissions on civil rights, human rights, human relations, etc. See a list of agencies here: University of Minnesota Human Rights Library.

Established in the wake of the Great Depression through the Social Security Act of 1935, unemployment insurance (UI) is a critical safety net program that provides a partial replacement of wages to workers who have separated from employment. UI helps workers and their families afford their basic needs during spells of unemployment. It also helps stabilize the macroeconomy by keeping dollars flowing to local economies where layoffs and job losses could otherwise result in harmful drops in aggregate demand. UI is a forward-funded reserve, accumulating tax dollars during periods of economic stability to support workers during economic downturns.

Federal law establishes UI as federal-state partnership. Under the existing framework, the federal government sets baseline program parameters and raises revenue through Federal Unemployment Tax Act taxes to cover state administrative costs (e.g., processing claims or maintaining state unemployment trust funds), provide technical assistance, and conduct performance monitoring. States are responsible for paying worker benefits, although the federal government typically covers at least half of the cost of “extended benefits” during recessions. States have significant discretion to determine key features of their UI programs, such as eligibility criteria, benefit amounts and durations, and financing mechanisms.

What are the threats to state UI programs?

Unemployment insurance programs face mounting threats—some that are new, some from long-standing structural weaknesses that have left many state UI programs chronically underfunded and ill-prepared for economic downturns. In particular:

1. The Trump administration aims to weaponize UI systems to advance its mass deportation agenda: All workers in the U.S. with legal status (regardless of citizenship or nationality) are eligible for UI benefits, though immigrants who lack work authorization are not. Despite this distinction, in April 2025, Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer issued letters warning state governors against granting UI benefits to noncitizen workers, including those legally authorized to work. The letters threatened to withhold federal funds and directed states to verify the immigration status of UI applicants. Further, the U.S. Department of Labor recently proposed a rule change around UI data collection that poses risks to applicant privacy and could expand the risk of UI data being used for immigration enforcement.
2. The Trump administration’s rollback of merit staffing opens the door to UI privatization: Project 2025 calls for states to “innovate” with their UI programs by approving “non-public” organizations to administer benefits. This would dismantle long-standing merit staffing guidelines that require benefits to be administered by impartial career civil servants. Weakening merit staffing risks putting UI administration in the hands of actors who may not be impartial or accountable to the public. Although privatization of UI is explicitly prohibited by the Social Security Act, this backdoor approach erodes the public nature of UI administration. Research shows that introducing a profit motive for vital public services often results in reduced service quality, little cost savings, and less transparency, oversight, and accountability.
3. UI programs suffer from long-standing weaknesses that undermine their effectiveness as a safety net and economic stabilizer: Although unemployment insurance is a critical lifeline for unemployed workers, benefit levels replace less than 40% of wages on average, leaving many workers unable to meet their basic needs and disproportionately discouraging UI take-up among women and workers of color in low-wage jobs. Many states have also shortened benefit durations below the historical standard of 26 weeks, despite research showing such cuts reduce recipiency without improving employment rates or program solvency. At the same time, taxable wage bases and employer tax rates have eroded, starving trust funds. Most states now fail to meet federal solvency standards. Many states also rely on outmoded technology and understaffed state agencies to administer UI benefits and federal funding to modernize state UI systems was recently rescinded by the Trump administration. Finally, restrictive eligibility rules exclude large swaths of the workforce, including part-time and low-wage workers, women, Black and brown workers, misclassified workers, independent contractors, undocumented workers, and the self-employed. These weaknesses leave UI programs chronically underfunded, inaccessible to millions, and ill-equipped to protect workers or stabilize the economy during downturns.
4. Project 2025 seeks to weaken UI eligibility criteria by circumventing suitable work standards: Under federal law, workers can remain eligible for UI if they decline job offers that don’t meet a reasonable standard of suitability. Suitability definitions can vary by state but often consider factors such as health and safety conditions, wages, skills match, commuting distance, or other job characteristics when determining suitability. Some states’ suitable work requirements weaken the longer a worker is unemployed. Despite evidence that continued UI eligibility leads to better job matches and job quality, Project 2025 proposes providing states with waivers to suitable work requirements. Should waivers to this critical UI standard be adopted, workers could be disqualified from UI for turning down any job offer, no matter how unsafe, low-paid, or ill-suited to their experience. This would fundamentally weaken UI’s ability to facilitate good job matching, while putting workers in a precarious financial position following a job separation.

State lawmakers must act now to strengthen UI programs ahead of the next crisis

States lawmakers have broad authority over UI benefits, eligibility, and the financing of their states’ unemployment insurance trust fund, meaning they wield substantial power to ensure programs’ solvency and effectiveness when an economic crisis materializes. In light of the Trump administration’s anti-growth, inflationary economic policy and a softening labor market, policymakers must act with urgency to fortify UI programs.

Step I: Update state funding mechanisms to solidify trust funds and set basic minimum benefit standards

In recent decades, lawmakers in many states have sought to replenish unemployment trust funds by paring back benefits and restricting eligibility criteria. These efforts have largely failed to restore fund solvency or improve employment rates and have instead caused considerable harm to workers. State policymakers have the authority and tools to modernize their programs in ways that protect solvency without undercutting protections for workers. Policymakers should:

• Raise and index the taxable wage base to reflect the typical worker’s income: States have broad discretion in setting their taxable wage base (TWB), provided it meets or exceeds the exceptionally low federal minimum of $7,000. (As of 2025, the median state TWB is only $14,000.) States should link or index their TWBs to typical wages in their state. Currently, 18 states index their TWBs to the state’s average weekly wage, including Oregon (TWB of $54,300), Hawaii ($62,000), and Washington ($72,800). This ensures UI revenues keep pace with growth in the state economy, while creating a more equitable tax base and strengthening trust fund solvency. Adjusting taxable wage bases also allows states to generate more revenue at lower State Unemployment Tax Act (SUTA) rates. For instance, applying a 5.7% rate to a $7,000 tax base generates $400 in revenue per worker, while a much lower rate of 3.8% applied to a $21,000 tax base generates $800—twice the revenue. 
• Guarantee a minimum of 26 weeks of potential benefit duration: An extensive body of research finds that longer UI benefits do not meaningfully discourage work and any resulting increase in unemployment duration is offset by improved job matching, as workers find jobs with higher pay or that better match their skills. Prior to the Great Recession, all states offered at least 26 weeks of potential benefit duration (PBD) to eligible workers. Policymakers should ensure UI programs guarantee a minimum of 26 weeks of PBD.
• Raise benefit levels to afford workers a minimum standard of living: Low benefit levels mean low-wage workers—should they even qualify for benefits—often receive benefits that are unlivable. As a stepping stone to more ambitious and meaningful benefit level increases, lawmakers should set minimum benefit levels that working families can survive on: a benefit amount of at least 30% of the state’s average weekly wage or $300 per week (indexed to median wage growth), whichever is greater.

Step II: Improve program access and benefits to levels that make UI fulfill its core objectives

Unemployment insurance is one of the most important tools for reducing the harmful, reverberating effects of unemployment and one of the most effective programs for combatting recessions. Providing adequate benefits to unemployed workers leads to better reemployment outcomes, keeps dollars flowing in local economies, and ultimately lends itself to a more productive and dynamic economy. To this end, state policymakers should:

• Strengthen program administration and remove barriers to UI access: Applying for UI benefits is often a complex process and serves as a barrier to entry to workers who are navigating job loss. Underfunding and inadequate staffing of state and local UI administrative offices can compound these problems. Lawmakers should ensure that state agencies and UI offices have adequate resources to help applicants navigate the process and quickly process claims. In addition, the Century Foundation and Philadelphia Legal Assistance provide a comprehensive set of recommendations for state policymakers and agencies seeking to modernize UI systems and reduce barriers to access.
• Automatically extend UI benefits in difficult economic conditions to strengthen the program’s role as a macroeconomic stabilizer: When UI programs do not scale with market conditions, this deepens the damage caused by recessions. To better leverage UI’s stabilizing potential, states should utilize the optional Total Unemployment Rate (TUR)-based extended benefit program to guarantee workers can receive up to 20 weeks of extended benefits during severe economic crises. As of 2023, only 27 states and territories utilize the optional TUR-based trigger. Although optional state extended benefit programs carry some budgetary costs, they can help mitigate the long-lasting scarring effects of an economic contraction. 
• Set benefit levels that offer real protection for workers: State laws governing wage replacement and benefit maximums vary widely, but some states have adopted benefit formulas that provide much stronger protection. For instance, in 2024, Hawaii’s program provided an average weekly benefit of $653 (57% of worker wages), Washington’s average weekly benefit was $722 (51% of wages), and Massachusetts’s was $704 (48% of wages.) The National Employment Law Project’s policy brief describes optimal formulas for computing benefits.
• Establish a dependent allowance to allow parents and caregivers to fulfill their obligations: Households with children are much more likely to face food and housing insecurity when a job is lost. Dependent allowances, already enacted in 13 states, can help mitigate these harms by recognizing the added burdens that caregivers face. Policymakers should adopt similar measures and define dependents broadly to reflect the diversity of family structures and care responsibilities.
• Make short-term compensation (“work-sharing”) more appealing for employers and workers: During economic downturns, employers often resort to layoffs to reduce costs, harming workers financially and businesses in lost skilled labor. Under a short-time compensation (STC) (or “work-sharing” arrangement), firms can reduce employee hours instead eliminating jobs, while UI benefits partially offset lost wages for workers. Currently 33 states have STC programs in place, but utilization remains uneven and low relative to comparable programs in OECD nations. States can strengthen STC programs by making firms of all sizes eligible, removing experience rating penalties, allowing employers to certify reductions in hours on behalf of workers, and ensuring earnings from other jobs are not counted against workers’ STC benefits. The Washington Center for Equitable Growth provides additional recommendations for reducing administrative barriers and engaging in employer outreach and education.

Step III: Modernize unemployment insurance to reflect the needs of a 21st century economy

The unemployment insurance system, designed in the 1930s, no longer reflects the realities of today’s workforce. It excludes many gig, part-time, and irregular workers, and inherits frameworks that are rooted in racism and sexism. Lawmakers should adopt more expansive frameworks for UI eligibility and accessibility by taking action to:

• Set progressive benefit levels that truly alleviate economic hardship: Policymakers can ensure UI systems truly alleviate economic hardship and strengthen worker bargaining power, while targeting those workers most in need, by progressively structuring benefits. A smart approach would replace at least 85% of wages for the lowest earners, gradually scaling down to 50% for high earners, and 30% for very high earners.
• Increase benefits duration to ensure workers have sufficient runway and better prospects when reentering the workforce: Evidence shows that when workers have a longer benefit runway, they have better reemployment outcomes, find jobs that better match their skills, earn higher wages, and are more likely to remain on the job. States should guarantee a minimum of 30 weeks of potential regular UI benefit duration.
• Raise or remove the ceiling on the taxable wage base: Policymakers can truly address solvency concerns by dynamically increasing or eliminating caps on taxable wage bases. States should set the TWB to at least half of the Social Security taxable wage limit ($176,100 as of 2025). Several states have successfully increased their TWBs by indexing to a high proportion of the average worker’s wage. Whether by raising the cap, indexing it to wages, or relinking it to the Social Security base, modernizing the taxable wage base would strengthen trust fund solvency and create fairer contributions across employers of low- and high-wage workers.
• Reform experience rating to eliminate harmful incentives to fight legitimate UI claims: Federal law requires states to adopt rules such that employers with higher rates of separations pay higher UI taxes. This approach, known as “experience rating” encourages workforce stability and helps ensure equity among employers by charging more of those who draw more heavily against unemployment trust funds. However, these rules create the perverse incentive for employers to block legitimate claims by encouraging workers to not file, challenging claims, or structuring their workforce to minimize the number of employees eligible for UI, such as relying on part-time or contract labor. States can remove these harmful incentives by experience rating employers based on changes in the number of hours worked by their employees or the number of workers they employ. Alaska, for example, implemented a “payroll decline quotient” method which ties tax rates to changes in payroll over time instead of the number of claims made by workers. Further, since some firms are indifferent to additional layoffs because of a capped experience rating tax, states can impose penalties on firms that persistently remain at the cap.
• Expand eligibility to all workers with demonstrated attachment to the labor force: State monetary eligibility rules should be reformed to guarantee coverage for all workers who demonstrate clear labor force participation. Rather than relying solely on workers meeting specific earnings thresholds, states should also allow workers to qualify based on hours worked. Specifically, any individual who works at least 300 hours during two quarters of a base period should qualify. This means a worker who performed 15 hours of work per week for 20 weeks across two quarters would be eligible for UI. Hours from all work arrangements should be counted toward the 300-hour minimum, given that low-paid workers often hold multiple jobs across different employers. States should also extend the base period for determining eligibility to six quarters of work, to prevent low-paid, seasonal, and temporary workers from falling through the cracks. Oregon is currently the only state with a hybrid model allowing workers to qualify based on either earnings or hours.
• Reform work-search requirements to account for issues that workers commonly face: Overly onerous work-search requirements increase benefit denials while failing to save money for UI programs. States should ensure work-search requirements are not so burdensome that active jobseekers lose UI benefits before finding a new and suitable job. For instance, states should allow workers to continue receiving benefits if they have good cause for missing an appointment or work-search verification. If a worker falls short of work-search requirements, they should lose benefits only for that week, instead of being permanently removed from the program. States should also allow workers engaged in education or training programs that may boost their employment prospects to continue receiving UI benefits. Further, they should ensure continuing eligibility for workers available for part-time work, not just those seeking full-time work.
• Enact strong suitable work requirements to boost worker reentry prospects: A core function of UI is to promote stable, quality reemployment; workers should remain eligible for UI if they decline a job that is a poor match for their skills or of substandard quality. The National Employment Law Project provides recommendations that states can adopt to ensure strong suitable work criteria, including: 1) comparing the wage offered by a new job to the occupation’s prevailing wage and factoring in the worker’s expertise, training, and experience; 2) maintaining standards of suitable work that do not weaken based on the length of unemployment; and 3) reviewing offers for temporary employment under a lens of prevailing labor market conditions.
• Expand eligibility criteria to cover workers compelled to leave their jobs for valid reasons: Historically, the UI program has failed to account for many of the reasons that might compel a worker to leave their job. States should adopt stronger good-cause quits provisions that include reasons such as leaving due to unsafe conditions, caregiving responsibilities, or harassment, while exploring broader eligibility criteria that provide benefits to workers who quit.
• Extend UI eligibility to striking workers: Allow workers engaged in labor disputes to access UI benefits under the same rules as other unemployed workers. While some states impose extra waiting periods for striking workers, policymakers should adopt no or minimal additional delays.
• Establish joblessness protections for independent contractors, self-employed, and undocumented workers: To function as a true safety net UI should cover all labor force participants, including self-employed workers, independent contractors, and undocumented workers who lose work. In recent years, California, Colorado, and New York have pioneered successful initiatives for covering contractors, self-employed, and undocumented workers. States should explore options for establishing similar programs to ensure workers excluded from traditional UI have access to similar safety net protections.
• Adopt clear legal standards to combat worker misclassification: When workers are wrongfully classified as independent contractors, they lose the labor protections of W-2 employees, including UI eligibility. Misclassification imposes heavy costs on both workers and state trust funds. Policymakers can address this by adopting Pennsylvania’s model, which presumes that any worker performing services is an employee unless the employer proves that 1) the worker is free from the employer’s control or direction in performing work and 2) the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade or business.
• Design programs to protect workers’ privacy: While some states have expanded wage records to include details such as occupation, industry, or work hours to better evaluate job quality and improve services, UI programs should ensure workers can apply for benefits without risking retaliation or exposure of sensitive personal data. The Century Foundation and Immigration Research Initiative recommend limiting data collection to what is necessary, prohibiting disclosure for nonprogram purposes, and requiring data safeguards, while allowing applicants to self-attest wherever possible. To ensure accountability, violations of privacy rules should carry clear penalties. This year, Maryland lawmakers introduced legislation to protect state databases from unauthorized sharing and immigration inquiries, offering model language for policymakers seeking to protect state data more broadly.

Additional recommended resources

• National Employment Law Project (NELP)’s State Unemployment Insurance Policy Hub;
• Reforming Unemployment Insurance: Stabilizing a System in Crisis and Laying the Foundation for Equity—a joint report of the Center for American Progress, Center for Popular Democracy, Economic Policy Institute, Groundwork Collaborative, National Employment Law Project, National Women’s Law Center, and Washington Center for Equitable Growth;
• The Century Foundation’s Unemployment Insurance Data Dashboard. 

Editor’s note: This piece was revised on October 8, 2025, to add an “Additional recommended resources” section and clarify the need to increase UI funding both to strengthen benefits and ensure effective UI program administration.

The 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) sets guidelines for the hours and nonhazardous jobs for which employers can hire minors under 16. The FLSA also empowers the Secretary of Labor to prohibit all minor employment in occupations that are particularly dangerous through “hazardous occupations orders.” It covers employers that conduct at least $500,000 in annual sales or any employees engaged in interstate commerce (this coverage is interpreted broadly with respect to child labor—if a firm engages in any form of interstate commerce, its minor workers are covered). Federal law sets an important but limited and increasingly outdated floor for child labor standards. For example, federal child labor standards in agriculture are much weaker than in nonagricultural employment, hazardous occupations orders have not been updated in decades, and there are no work hours protections for minors over the age of 15 (see Table 1).

Table 1

What are the threats to federal child labor standards?

Threats to federal child labor standards include federal proposals to weaken child labor protections and ongoing state-level efforts to erode the FLSA by proposing or enacting state child labor legislation that conflicts with federal law:

• Project 2025, the anti-worker policy roadmap being implemented by the Trump administration, proposes:
  1.  Eliminating federal hazardous occupations orders, which protect minors from employment in particularly dangerous jobs, like mining and roofing; and
  2. Allowing states to obtain waivers from the FLSA—including provisions that prevent harmful forms of child labor.

• In recent years, a coordinated, industry-backed campaign to erode child labor standards has generated proposals in dozens of states to weaken or eliminate state standards exceeding the minimal federal “floor” for child labor protections. Some state lawmakers have gone even further, proposing or enacting bills that directly conflict with federal minimum standards, while stating intent to build pressure for the eventual relaxation or elimination of FLSA standards for the whole country. Common targets for these attacks on state child labor standards include:
  • Eliminating youth work permits
  • Eliminating hours of work guidelines for 16- and 17-year-olds
  • Eliminating meal or rest break requirements for minors
  • Expanding employers’ ability to hire minors for previously prohibited hazardous jobs
  • Lowering the age at which minors can serve alcohol and/or work in establishments serving alcohol
  • Establishing or expanding laws that allow employers to pay students or other youth a subminimum wage
  • Creating new exemptions from state child labor protections, for example for homeschooled youth or youth in certain occupations
  • Creating new systems—such as unregulated “internship” or “work-based learning” programs—that allow employers to skirt child labor laws or hire minors for otherwise prohibited hazardous work

By repeatedly proposing—and in some cases implementing—standards that conflict with federal law, these states are chipping away at the already fragile federal floor for workplace protections.

How can states maintain and strengthen child labor protections?

States have legal authority to establish their own child labor standards; the FLSA sets a floor above which states can adopt and enforce their own stronger standards.

States have historically played a prominent role in setting child labor standards—some states have protections in place that predate the FLSA, and many have long legislated above federal law. Other states maintain standards that generally mirror the FLSA, with few additional protections, and some states have standards that are significantly weaker than the FLSA. In many cases, a state’s standards are stronger than the FLSA in some areas and weaker in others. When a state standard is weaker than the FLSA, federal law applies. However, since only federal agencies can enforce federal laws, state laws that fall short of federal law increase the risk of federal violations while shifting the enforcement burden to already-overburdened federal agencies. Amid Trump administration attacks, federal agencies are now facing even more pronounced staffing shortages that will further limit their enforcement capacity.

In response to increasing child labor violations, many states are already taking action to strengthen state child labor standards and enforcement. Given the very real risk that aspects of FLSA child labor protections could be eliminated (or will go unenforced), all states should at a minimum lock in existing FLSA standards and ensure state capacity to enforce them. Beyond this, states have critical opportunities and responsibilities to modernize child labor standards beyond the minimal, outdated FLSA floor to ensure that minors who must work or choose to work can access safe work experiences that don’t harm their health or education. Fortunately, state lawmakers have an array of options to consider and tested legislative models to use as a guide.

Step I: Update state statutes to lock in current federal protections.

State standards should be at least as strong as those in the FLSA. Ensuring that state standards mirror FLSA minimums protects both employers and children from the risks and confusion that arise when state standards contradict federal law. For example, after a Utah employer was fined for violating federal child labor law for incorrectly following state child labor guidelines that were weaker than FLSA standards, Utah enacted a bill to align state guidelines on hours of work for minors under 16 with FLSA standards.

Weaker standards often appear in areas of state code covering work hours or prohibited hazardous occupations. For example:

• Idaho allows employers to schedule 14–15-year-olds up to nine hours a day or 54 hours per week. Federal law allows employers to schedule 14–15-year-olds up to three hours a day or 18 hours per week in a school week and up to eight hours per day and 40 hours per week in a nonschool week.
• Iowa allows employers to hire 14-year-olds in industrial laundries and 15-year-olds in light assembly work, among other weaker standards. Federal law does not permit 14–15-year-olds to work in these settings.
• West Virginia allows employers to hire 16–17-year-olds enrolled in a “youth apprenticeship program” for all 17 hazardous occupations prohibited for minors under federal law. Federal law allows 16–17-year-olds to perform certain types of intermittent work in only seven of these occupations when enrolled in a bona fide registered apprenticeship program meeting certain stringent standards.

State policymakers should review their child labor statutes alongside federal child labor laws to identify areas of weakness. At a minimum, states should ensure that their guidelines for hours of work and hazardous occupations orders are at least as protective as the FLSA.

Step II: Close coverage gaps and address weaknesses in FLSA minimum protections

States can address many longstanding limitations and gaps in federal child labor protections. Examples of priority actions for state lawmakers to consider include:

1. Maintain effective youth work permit systems: Youth work permits have been shown to reduce child labor violations and aid in enforcement. The FLSA suggests—but does not require—that employers maintain certificates confirming the age of minors they employ. It also does not require minors to receive a permit as a condition of employment. Instead, youth work permit policies have historically been left to states. Most states already have some sort of permit system in place. Youth work permits are often simple, one-page forms that engage employers, parents, youth, and sometimes educators, in ensuring a child’s employment is legal, safe, and age-appropriate. Permits remind employers of existing child labor laws, inform parents of their child’s rights and affirm their consent, and aid state agencies in investigations of potential violations. States without work permit systems should implement them and states with existing work permit systems should assess and modernize their systems, as recently done in Illinois and New York and proposed in California.
2. Implement or expand work hour guidelines for 16- and 17-year-olds: The FLSA sets standards to protect children from excessive hours of work, especially during the school year. However, the FLSA was passed at a time when fewer than half of students completed high school, and its hours of work guidelines have never been updated to cover older minors (16- and 17-year-olds). In the absence of state standards, older teens can be scheduled to work unlimited hours per day or per week, including during school weeks. Some states have already adopted standards to address this gap, but fewer than half of states have hours guidelines in place for older teens. States should set maximum daily and weekly work hours for 16–17-year-olds and prohibit overnight work during the school week. Minimum standards should include limiting employers to scheduling 16–17-year-olds for no more than 32 hours in a school week, as nine states already do,{{1}} and prohibiting employers from scheduling 16–17-year-olds to work after 10 p.m. or before 6 a.m. (or similar), as 20 states and D.C. already do.{{2}}
3. Update prohibitions on hazardous child labor: The FLSA prohibits minors under 18 from working in a list of 17 nonagricultural occupations and 11 agricultural occupations that have been found to be particularly hazardous for minors. Many of these hazardous occupations orders have never been updated. And new orders have not been created to account for new forms of hazards in our modern economy, particularly in agriculture. Moreover, the FLSA opens the door to dangerous exemptions from some hazardous orders,{{3}} with language that allows student apprentices and learners enrolled in approved training programs to do certain types of hazardous work under close supervision. State lawmakers can update prohibitions on hazardous child labor by expanding existing hazardous orders, creating new orders to cover hazardous occupations not covered under federal law, and ending student learner and apprentice exemptions. Lawmakers can use the 2002 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recommendations to the U.S. Department of Labor as a guide for revising state hazardous orders. For example, Illinois recently updated and clarified state law to prohibit employment of minors in hazardous workplaces not covered under federal law, such as gun ranges and establishments primarily involved in the sale of tobacco or alcohol.
4. Extend equal protections to children working in agricultural occupations: Agriculture is the most dangerous sector of employment for minors, yet federal child labor standards remain much weaker in agriculture than in nonagricultural industries. State lawmakers can address this longstanding gap in federal law by aligning agricultural child labor standards for work hours and hazardous work with standards for nonfarm work. For example, in 2025, New Jersey lawmakers introduced a bill to raise the minimum age for agricultural employment to 14 and align work hours and hazardous work protections in agriculture with nonagricultural standards, among other updates to protections for farmworkers of all ages.
5. Increase civil penalties to deter violations and update them based on inflation: Under most existing state penalty structures, civil monetary penalties for child labor violations are very limited and, in some cases, nonexistent. Some states levy no civil penalties at all, and many states have not reviewed or updated penalty amounts in decades. In Indiana, for example, penalties range from a warning letter for an initial violation to a maximum of only $400 for a fourth violation within two years. Low or nonexistent penalties that can easily be absorbed as a “cost of doing business” do not deter employer violations and leave state enforcement agencies with few tools for ensuring compliance by bad actors. To ensure penalties serve as effective deterrents and enforcement tools, state lawmakers should set meaningful minimum penalties for first offenses and very high maximum penalties for serious or repeat offenses, as Illinois did in 2024. States can use federal civil penalties and annual adjustments as a benchmark; for example, current federal maximum civil penalties for a child labor violation range from $16,035 to $145,752, and rates are adjusted for inflation each year.
6. Strengthen state enforcement capacity and authority: Ensuring adequate state enforcement of child labor laws will become particularly important as federal enforcement capacity is diminished.
   • States should ensure funding for dedicated child labor enforcement staff so as not to take resources away from other wage and hour investigations. For example, a Virginia lawmaker recently requested an increased budget appropriation for child labor enforcement.
   • States should grant labor agencies sufficient authority to fulfill enforcement goals. For example, Nebraska recently enacted a bill that gives its labor agency power to subpoena records from employers suspected of violating the law.
7. Eliminate youth subminimum wages: The FLSA allows workers under age 20 to be paid as little as $4.25 per hour for their first 90 days of employment and allows employers to pay a lower minimum wage to full-time students in certain occupations, student learners, and apprentices. In recent years, some states have taken action to close these gaps so that all workers—regardless of their age—have a right to the minimum wage. All states should follow suit.

Step III: Modernize child labor standards to protect children’s health and wellbeing, safeguard their right to education, and improve their career prospects

The most effective child labor laws implement evidence-based guardrails to prevent excessive and hazardous work—as discussed above—alongside innovative policies to empower youth workers, deter violations, and provide meaningful redress and support to victims if violations occur. State lawmakers need not be bound by traditional areas of policy covered by the FLSA and can also:

1. Require workers’ rights education: If young workers do not know their rights, they will be less likely to report unsafe or illegal working conditions. States can invest in labor education to address this information gap. For example, California mandated that high schools annually teach students about workplace rights and the labor movement following a curriculum developed by the UC Berkeley Labor Center.
2. Mandate employer training on child labor laws and commitment to following the law: For example, Washington requires businesses who hire minors to obtain a special endorsement on their business license affirming compliance with child labor laws.
3. Encourage reporting by protecting whistleblowers and victims: Most labor investigations depend on worker reporting. Because young workers lack experience and knowledge about workplace rights and may fear employer retaliation, loss of wages, or immigration enforcement, many workplace abuses go unreported and uninvestigated. To address these enforcement challenges, state lawmakers should:
   1. Provide multiple avenues for child labor victims to be made whole after they report violations and risk losing their job. In most states, civil penalties for child labor violations are deposited into the state’s General Fund, and minors receive no compensation in the form of damages owed by the employer. Moreover, when a child is injured or killed on the job while employed illegally, they (or their family members in the event of the child’s death) are generally limited to the workers’ compensation system as their sole source of financial compensation. However, several states have enacted or proposed bills to make aggrieved minors eligible for additional compensation in the form of damages; for example, Colorado recently made it possible for minors who are injured while employed under illegal conditions to pursue private legal action and receive monetary damages.
   2. Enact whistleblower and anti-retaliation protections to protect workers who report labor abuses, as recently done in Minnesota.
   3. Remove provisions of state law that may discourage reporting of violations, such as those holding parents criminally responsible for allowing a child to be employed under illegal conditions, as Colorado recently did.
   4. Provide wraparound services to victims of illegal child labor to address root causes of excessive or hazardous work. For example, unaccompanied migrant youth should be provided with legal services, assistance in securing safe and age-appropriate work, and connections to community-based organizations or local government agencies that can provide additional supportive services.
4. Use innovative enforcement strategies to meaningfully hold employers accountable: Civil monetary penalties are a necessary but insufficient deterrent. State lawmakers should take a holistic approach to changing employer behavior and significantly increase the financial and reputational costs associated with breaking the law. They should:
   1. Use “hot goods” provisions and “stop work” orders to immediately disrupt the normal business of employers who are actively violating the law. “Hot goods” provisions allow courts to stop the flow of goods produced using illegal child labor and are currently in place federally. “Stop work” orders allow labor agencies to require the cessation of business until child labor violations are addressed, increasing the cost of violating the law. New Jersey permits such orders to be used when minimum wage violations are occurring.
   2. Bar violators from receiving public funding as proposed in Alabama, and implement other penalties, like revoking an employer’s permission to hire minors when they violate the law, as enacted in Washington.
   3. Create lead corporation accountability, so corporations are held jointly responsible for violations committed by their subcontractors or staffing agencies as proposed in a federal bill.
   4. Make employer violations data more accessible to the public—as recently mandated in Colorado—or publicly shame companies that violate the law by posting about violations on the state labor agency’s website—similar to New Jersey and New York.
   5. You can read more about these and other policies to address and deter violations here: Policies for states and localities to fight oppressive child labor.

Additional recommended resources 

• Child labor state legislation tracker (Economic Policy Institute) 

• Campaign to End US Child Labor 

• Child Labor Coalition at the National Consumers League 

• Federal child labor regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act  

• State child labor laws (U.S. Department of Labor; note that this page may not reflect all recent state legislative changes) 

• How states can stop the corporate campaign to roll back child labor protections (State Innovation Exchange and Economic Policy Institute) 

Editor’s note: This piece was revised on October 24, 2025, to add an “Additional recommended resources” section. 

{{1.}} Connecticut (32 hours), Florida (30), Kentucky (30), Maine (24), Michigan (24), New Hampshire (30), New York (28), Pennsylvania (28), Washington (20). See https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/child-labor.

{{2.}} Alabama (10 p.m. to 5 a.m.), Arkansas (11 p.m. to 6 a.m.), California (10 p.m. to 5 a.m.), Connecticut (10 or 11 p.m. to 6 a.m.), Florida (11 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.), Indiana (10 p.m. to 6 a.m.), Kentucky (11 p.m. to 6 a.m.), Louisiana (11 p.m. or 12 a.m. to 5 a.m.), Maine (10:15 a.m. to 7 a.m.), Massachusetts (10 p.m. to 6 a.m.), Michigan (11:30 p.m. to 6 a.m.), Minnesota (11 p.m. to 5 a.m.), New Jersey (11 p.m. to 6 a.m.), New York (10 p.m. to 6 a.m.), North Carolina (11 p.m. to 5 a.m.), Ohio (11 p.m. to 7 a.m.), Pennsylvania (12 a.m. to 6 a.m.), Rhode Island (11:30 p.m. to 6 a.m.), Tennessee (10 p.m. to 6 a.m.), Washington (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.), and D.C. (10 p.m. to 6 a.m.). See https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/child-labor.

{{3.}} Hazardous occupation (HO) 5. Power-driven woodworking machines; HO 8. Power-driven metal-forming, punching and shearing machines; HO 10. Power-driven meat-processing machines, slaughtering and meat packing plants; HO 12. Balers, compactors, and power-driven paper-products machines; HO 14. Power-driven circular saws, band saws, guillotine shears, chain saws, reciprocating saws, wood chippers, and abrasive cutting discs; HO 16. Roofing operations and work performed on or about a roof; HO 17. Trenching and excavation operations.

Being forced to make this impossible choice threatens workers’ economic and health security. Further, when workers go to work with a contagious illness, they are likely to spread disease to their coworkers and customers. When they are forced to send a sick child to school, they send contagion with them. This means lack of paid sick leave is a threat not only to a worker’s (and their family’s) own health, but also to the health of their community.

Over the last decade, 15 states and the District of Columbia have expanded labor protections to require employers to allow workers to earn paid sick time. In areas of the country with these new laws, workers have seen significant increases in access to paid sick time. Expanded coverage has particularly benefited low-wage workers—who were least likely to have access to paid sick leave before these policies went into effect. 

Our research finds:

• Lack of paid sick days is a real problem, particularly for low-wage workers. Three-quarters (78%) of private-sector workers overall currently have access to paid sick days. However, only 39% of workers in the bottom 10% of the wage distribution do.
• Lack of paid sick days deprives workers of funds needed for basic necessities. Without the ability to earn paid sick days, workers must choose between going to work sick (or sending a child to school sick) and losing much-needed pay. For the average worker without access to paid sick days, the costs of taking unpaid sick time can make a painful dent in their monthly budget, making it hard to pay for groceries (five days of unpaid sick time), utilities (three days of unpaid sick time), or gas (two days of unpaid sick time).
• Over the last decade, state-level laws providing the right to paid sick days have had a significant impact on access to paid sick days across the country. Paid sick time increased dramatically in parts of the country with paid sick time mandates. The Pacific region saw the highest access rate, at 94%. Across the country, access for the lowest-wage workers nearly doubled between 2010 and 2023.
• Paid sick leave is a wise investment for businesses, workers, and communities. Studies have shown that offering paid sick time adds little or nothing to a business’s expenses. Moreover, increased access to paid sick leave can in fact benefit businesses and the wider community by increasing productivity and job stability as well as reducing illness and transmission rates of infectious diseases.

Low-wage workers are less likely to have access to paid sick days

Approximately 78% of private-sector American workers currently have access to paid sick days, but this topline number masks the unequal distribution of this access among workers (BLS 2023a). Higher-wage workers have better access to most benefits, including paid sick days, than lower-wage workers.

Among the 10% of private-sector workers with the highest wages, 96% have access to paid sick days (Figure A). By contrast, among the 10% of workers with the lowest wages, only 39% have access to paid sick days. This skewed distribution of paid sick days is particularly troubling since low-wage workers are least able to absorb lost wages when they or their family members are sick.

Figure A

Research from other sources also shows that disparities in access occur by demographic group. A report published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that Hispanic workers are least likely to have access to paid sick leave compared with other racial/ethnic groups (Bartel et al. 2019).

Access to paid sick days also varies significantly by occupation, work hours, union status, and employer size. As noted above, 78% of private-sector employees nationwide have access to paid sick days; that means 22%—more than 1 in 5 workers—cannot earn paid sick days. But even fewer have access in some occupations: only 61% of workers in service occupations—which tend to be low-wage occupations—have access to paid sick days (BLS 2023a). Far more full-time workers have access to paid sick time compared with part-time workers—87% versus 51%. Union workers are more likely to have access (86%) compared with nonunion workers (77%). And 89% of workers in large establishments (500 or more workers) have access as opposed to 71% of workers in small establishments (fewer than 50 workers).

“Presenteeism,” or working while sick, not only results in decreased productivity and increased risk of injury, but also poses a public health risk (Asfaw, Pana-Cryan, and Rosa 2012). This is particularly true in service occupations, and especially in the food services industry. Almost half of all restaurant-related foodborne illness outbreaks are attributed to employees coming to work while ill (Norton et al. 2015). In a survey of women working in the fast-food industry, 70% reported that at some point during the prior year they had gone to work despite displaying symptoms of illness, including coughing, sneezing, fever, diarrhea, or vomiting (National Partnership for Women & Families 2016a).

Further, for many workers in service-based jobs, pay can be tied to the volume of people they interact with (e.g., jobs with tipped wages). This means service workers often not only feel pressure to show up for work because they lack paid sick days, but they are also incentivized by their pay structure to interact with people, regardless of their health condition.

Although workers may want to stay home when they are sick, a 2010 survey by the National Opinion Research Center highlighted how difficult it was to do so. Nearly one-third of workers reported being threatened with job loss or outright losing their job for leaving work when sick (Smith and Kim 2010). Unsurprisingly, a 2018 study shows a strong association between workers without paid sick leave and higher levels of psychological distress relative to workers with access to paid sick leave (Stoddard-Dare et al. 2018).

We shouldn’t make workers choose between going to work sick or going without pay

Expanding access to paid sick days will mean stronger, healthier families. Without paid sick days, working parents are often forced to make the difficult choice between staying home with a sick child—and losing income—or going to work and possibly compromising their child’s health. When parents cannot take off work, children are sometimes sent to school ill, diminishing their learning experience and exposing other students, teachers, and staff to infection.{{1}}

When employees go to work sick, they endanger their own health and the health of their colleagues. They also may jeopardize their own safety and the quality of their work. At the same time, staying home and putting one’s own health first can result in overdue bills and not having enough food to eat. Earned paid sick days allow workers to avoid an unfair choice between going to work sick or going without pay (and maybe even losing a job).

Many workers do not need to take much, if any, sick time in a given month or year. But when illness strikes them or their family members, that paid time off is a physical and economic lifeline. CDC guidelines recommend five days of isolation for even a mild bout of COVID (CDC 2023a). People with flu are most contagious for three to four days, while those infected with RSV are typically contagious for three to eight days (CDC 2022, 2023b). To be clear, that’s the contagious period; it may take longer to fully recover from those infectious diseases or other illnesses.

COVID, flu, and RSV outbreaks have become routine in communities across the country. Even the healthiest among us have a reasonably high chance of contracting one of these illnesses at some point or another. Given that context, the economic and health risks of workers lacking paid sick days are enormous.

To assess the value of sick days for workers, in Table 1 we show the number of unpaid sick days that correspond to each monthly expenditure in a family budget. These calculations are based on the average monthly household expenditures on a selected set of goods for a household earning between $50,000 and $69,999 per year (BLS 2023c). This expenditure band was chosen because the average wage of workers without access to paid sick time is $15.50, and we assume two full-time workers per household (DHHS AHRQ 2023).{{2}}

Table 1

If a worker needs to take off even a half day due to illness, the lost wages take away most of the household’s monthly spending for fruits and vegetables; lost wages from taking off five days is nearly their entire grocery budget for the month. Two days of unpaid sick time are more than the equivalent of a month’s worth of gas, making it difficult to get to work, while an additional day not worked is nearly equivalent to a monthly car insurance premium.

Three days of unpaid sick time translate into the household’s monthly utilities budget, potentially cutting off electricity or heat to the family’s home. Taking three days to recuperate or to care for a sick family member means the worker may have difficulty paying for health insurance or keeping up with medical bills. Cutting back on health care at a time when it is most needed puts the worker’s family at further risk in the future in terms of both health and economic security.

This tradeoff—reduced income and risk of losing a job because of a short-term illness—does not arise for workers with adequate paid sick time. Because paid sick leave is often job-protected, access to paid sick leave has long been associated with increased job stability, enhancing workers’ economic security (Hill 2013). A related but different issue arises when workers face a lengthier illness; paid family and medical leave could help fill in these larger gaps, but unfortunately workers across the board are even less likely to earn that benefit (Appelbaum 2016). Even with another wage earner at home working full time, a household could lose the necessary monthly income to pay for their entire rent or mortgage if one worker is forced to take just eight days of sick time for a longer illness or recovery.

Many states now require employers to provide paid sick time

During the pandemic, Congress authorized, for the first time ever, federal emergency sick leave through the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. The act required employers with fewer than 500 employees to provide up to two weeks of paid sick leave at full pay for illness, quarantine, or isolation related to COVID-19. Unfortunately, the tax credits used to reimburse employers for providing paid sick leave expired two years ago, and few policymakers seem intent on renewing it (DOL WHD 2021).

Some federal policymakers have repeatedly pushed for a national standard, such as the Healthy Families Act (National Partnership for Women & Families 2023b). The Healthy Families Act, first introduced in 2004, would (among other provisions) allow workers in workplaces with 15 or more employees to earn at least one hour of paid sick time per 30 hours worked, up to 56 hours or seven days of paid sick time per year (National Partnership for Women & Families 2023b). Despite repeated introductions of the Healthy Families Act, most recently in May 2023, federal policymakers in favor of it have so far not been successful in passing it. The lack of a national standard for paid sick leave places the United States behind its international peers (Heymann et al. 2020).

Fortunately, many state and local policymakers understand the economic costs of workers losing pay if they are sick, as well as the public health risk of workers showing up to work sick. Currently, 15 states and the District of Columbia require employers to allow workers to accrue some minimum number of paid sick days. Additionally, 17 cities and four counties have moved ahead to provide paid sick days to eligible workers.

States with paid sick leave laws include Arizona, California, Connecticut, Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington (National Partnership for Women & Families 2023a). In addition, Minnesota enacted paid sick time protections in 2023, which will become effective in 2024 (National Partnership for Women & Families 2023a). In Missouri, a paid sick time initiative is expected to appear on the ballot in 2024 (Ballotpedia 2023).

While there is no federal paid sick leave law for workers in general, in 2016 federal contractors were mandated to provide paid sick leave to their employees. This impacted an estimated one million private-sector workers who were either newly eligible for paid sick leave or saw an increase in their sick leave allowance (Gould 2017).

More workers have access to paid sick time as states pass paid sick leave laws

Widespread advances in paid sick time protections in the states have corresponded with a dramatic increase in access. Since 2010, the share of private-sector workers in the U.S. with access to paid sick days has increased from 63% to 78%. Unsurprisingly, the gains in access were most pronounced in areas of the country where states mandated employers to provide those protections.

Figure B illustrates paid sick days access by Census division from 2010 to 2023.{{3}} The three blue lines indicate Census divisions where at least two-thirds of the division’s population live in states with paid sick leave laws.{{4}} The four lines in shades of red denote Census divisions where no state has a paid sick time provision.{{5}} Green lines denote Census divisions where some states have paid sick time laws but less than two-thirds of the division’s population are in those states.

The patterns in the figure are clear: Workers who live in the Census divisions marked by blue lines have the highest levels of access to paid sick days in 2023. The red-line Census divisions have the lowest levels of access, with the green-line divisions falling in the middle.

The Pacific division in particular saw a dramatic increase in access over the period from 2010 to 2023: The percentage of private-sector workers in that part of the country with access to paid sick days increased from 66% to 94%. Expansion in that division was a 42% increase from its base level. This is not surprising considering that division includes the paid sick provision states of California, Oregon, and Washington, and that those states represent the largest share of the population in that division.

The divisions identified with red lines—where no state-level paid sick time laws have been passed—experienced more modest gains between 2010 and 2023, if they experienced gains at all.

Notably, many state governments in the East South Central and West South Central Census divisions—the divisions with the lowest access rates—have passed preemption laws prohibiting local municipalities from passing paid leave and sick day policies (Policy Surveillance Program 2022). Those two divisions also have weak labor standards (e.g., low minimum wages; see EPI 2023). Further, low-wage workers and their families in those divisions are less likely to have access to public insurance (e.g., policymakers have refused to expand Medicaid; see KFF 2023).

Figure B

Low-wage workers particularly benefit from state sick leave laws

As mentioned earlier, this period of state expansions in paid sick leave laws translated into significant increases in overall access, from 63% to 78% between 2010 and 2023. But workers with lower wages, who generally are less likely to have access to paid sick days, have benefited disproportionately.

The first state-level paid sick days law was passed in Connecticut in 2011. In 2010, the year prior to its passage, 20% of workers in the bottom 10% of wage earners in the private-sector workforce nationwide had access to paid sick days (Figure C). That number stands at 39% today. That is an enormous gain, nearly doubling paid sick leave access for the lowest-wage workers.

Similarly, the share of workers in the bottom 25% with access to paid sick days increased from 33% in 2010 to 56% in 2023. In 2010, only one-third of workers in the bottom 25% had access; now over half do. This means significant gains in economic and health security for these workers and their families.

Figure C

Paid sick leave is a wise investment for businesses, workers, and communities

Often when a new labor standard is introduced, some people express concerns about the cost to businesses and potential employment losses. However, evidence among cities and states that have legislated paid sick leave laws shows that these concerns are not justified (National Partnership for Women & Families 2017).

In San Francisco, the first jurisdiction to set a paid sick days standard, employment grew twice as fast in the year following the law’s enactment as in neighboring counties that had no paid sick days policy (Miller and Towne 2011). San Francisco’s job growth was even faster in the food service and hospitality sector, which is dominated by small businesses and viewed as vulnerable to additional costs.

Further, studies of state and local paid sick leave laws show that the cost of the laws are negligible for businesses newly mandated to provide the benefit. For example, Pichler and Ziebarth (2018) examined the impact of paid sick leave laws on labor costs. In particular, they looked for evidence that the new policies were so costly that businesses passed down costs to their workers in the form of reduced earnings or employment loss. Pichler and Ziebarth found no evidence of this.

Businesses might also suggest that the added cost of paid sick leave would render them unable to provide other benefits, such as health insurance. But research has shown that paid sick leave policies are not so costly as to crowd out nonmandated fringe benefits such as health, dental, or disability benefits or paid vacation or holidays (Maclean, Pichler, and Ziebarth 2020).

Finally, employers may worry that workers might take paid sick leave when they are not actually sick. But evidence suggests this is not the case: Workers in states with new mandates take, on average, only two more sick days per year than workers in states without mandates (Maclean, Pichler, and Ziebarth 2020).

Case studies also reveal that paid sick leave makes economic sense. For example, a study of the 2011 Connecticut law (which went into effect in 2012) showed that the law brought paid sick days to a large number of workers, particularly part-time workers, at little to no cost to business (Appelbaum et al. 2014).

In a study of the 2013 New York City law (which took effect in 2014), Appelbaum and Milkman (2016) found that two years after the law was passed, 86% of employers surveyed supported the law. The law provided an additional 1.4 million workers with paid sick days, and almost 85% of employers surveyed reported the law had no effect on business costs.

Taken together, the evidence shows that paid sick leave does not hurt businesses. Instead, businesses, workers, and their communities all benefit from a more productive and healthier workforce (Drago and Lovell 2011). States and localities that have passed paid sick leave laws have reduced transmission rates for influenza-like illnesses (Pichler, Wen, and Ziebarth 2021). Where state policies are more generous and include more groups of workers, those states have seen a greater reduction in influenza-like-illness rates than states with less generous and less inclusive policies (Wething 2022). Moreover, evidence shows that workers in states with paid sick leave have a lower likelihood of working while sick (Schneider 2020; Callison and Pesko 2022).

More action is needed to protect all workers

The ability to earn paid sick leave stands to improve health outcomes of communities and reduce economic insecurity for workers while supporting businesses.

Access to earned paid sick leave means that workers do not have to go to work sick or risk their income security. The stress of an illness does not have to be compounded by worry about whether they will be able to pay their monthly bills. The economic security provided by paid sick leave is particularly critical for low-wage workers and their families, who may lack access to sufficient savings to cover an unexpected expense.

Businesses benefit from a healthy workforce—workers who show up at work sick are less likely to be productive and may be more prone to mistakes. Communities benefit, too. When workers can rest, get the health care they need, and fully recover from an illness before returning to work, transmission of diseases is reduced.

State and local measures have begun to provide a patchwork of solutions, corresponding to an increase in access to paid sick leave over the last decade. Localities have the potential to build momentum at the state level. For example, 13 cities in New Jersey passed paid sick leave laws in the years leading up to the passage of New Jersey’s 2018 state law (National Partnership for Women & Families 2016b). But the problem calls for national attention—especially given state attacks on the right of localities to legislate these protections (Policy Surveillance Program 2022). A lack of a national earned sick leave standard also means that there are inequalities in coverage, with the vast majority of low-wage workers still lacking access to paid sick time. 

As noted above, the Healthy Families Act of 2023 would allow workers to earn up to seven days of paid sick time per year, among other provisions (National Partnership for Women & Families 2023b). However, the act is not expected to advance in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives though bipartisan support for the Families First Coronavirus Response Act proved that there has been political will to pass these protections. Given the widespread success of state sick leave policies that have improved conditions for workers and communities without hurting employers’ bottom lines, it is disappointing that efforts at the national level to reach the overall workforce have yet to succeed. More action is needed to reach workers across the economy regardless of their wage levels, hours, or where their jobs are located.

Notes

{{1.}} See, for example, Cunha 2014.

{{2.}} Whereas the average wage of a worker with access to paid sick time is approximately $20.40 per hour, the average wage of a worker without access to paid sick time is $15.50 per hour. To the extent that we are overestimating actual work hours or wages, workers would have less to lose but also less in earnings to make ends meet in general.

{{3.}} For a full list of states by their respective Census divisions, see U.S. Census Bureau 2013.

{{4.}} For example, the Middle Atlantic Census division includes New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. New York and New Jersey have paid sick leave laws; Pennsylvania does not. In 2022, 29 million people lived in New York and New Jersey, and the total population of the Mid-Atlantic Census division population (population of all three states) was 42 million. That means 69% of people in the Mid-Atlantic Census division were covered by state paid sick leave laws.

{{5.}} There are some cities in those states with paid sick time policies, but they represent small populations compared with the Census division as a whole.

References

Appelbaum, Eileen. 2016. “The Universal Paid Leave Act of 2015.” Written testimony, January 14, 2016.

Appelbaum, Eileen, and Ruth Milkman. 2016. No Big Deal: The Impact of New York City’s Paid Sick Days Law on Employers. Center for Economic and Policy Research, September 2016.

Appelbaum, Eileen, Ruth Milkman, Luke Elliott, and Teresa Kroeger. 2014. Good for Business? Connecticut’s Paid Sick Leave Law. Center for Economic and Policy Research, February 2014.

Asfaw, Abay, Regina Pana-Cryan, and Roger Rosa. 2012. “Paid Sick Leave and Nonfatal Occupational Injuries.” American Journal of Public Health 102, no. 9: e59–e64.

Ballotpedia. 2023. “Missouri Earned Paid Sick Time Initiative (2024)” (web page). Accessed October 20, 2023.

Bartel, Ann P., Soohyun Kim, Jaehyun Nam, Maya Rossin-Slater, Christopher J. Ruhm, and Jane Waldfogel. 2019. “Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Access to and Use of Paid Family and Medical Leave: Evidence from Four Nationally Representative Datasets.” Monthly Labor Review, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 2019. https://doi.org/10.21916/mlr.2019.2.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2023a. National Compensation Survey: Employee Benefits in the United States, March 2023. September 2023.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2023b. National Compensation Survey [public data series].

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2023c. “Table 3242. Consumer Units of Two People by Income Before Taxes: Average Annual Expenditures and Characteristics.” Consumer Expenditure Surveys, 2021–2022. September 2023.

Callison, Kevin, and Michael F. Pesko. 2022. “The Effect of Paid Sick Leave Mandates on Coverage, Work Absences, and Presenteeism.” Journal of Human Resources 57, no. 4: 1178–1208. https://doi.org/0.3368/jhr.57.4.1017-9124r2.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2022. “Key Facts About Influenza (Flu): What You Need to Know” (web page). Last reviewed October 24, 2022.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2023a. “Ending Isolation and Precautions for People with COVID-19: Interim Guidance” (web page). Last updated August 22, 2023. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2023b. “RSV Transmission” (web page). Last reviewed April 26, 2023.

Cunha, Darlena. 2014. “Kids Come to School Sick Because We Can’t Stay Home from Work.” Washington Post, October 14, 2014.

Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (DHHS AHRQ). 2023. Medical Expenditure Panel Survey [database].

Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division (DOL WHD). 2021. COVID-19 and the Family and Medical Leave Act Questions and Answers (fact sheet). 2021.

Drago, Robert, and Vicky Lovell. 2011. San Francisco’s Paid Sick Leave Ordinance: Outcomes for Employers and Employees. Institute for Women’s Policy Research, April 2011.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2023. Minimum Wage Tracker (interactive map). Last updated July 2023.

Gould, Elise. 2017. “Paid Sick Leave Provides Economic and Health Security to Over a Million Federal Contract Workers.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), January 17, 2017.

Heymann, Jody, Amy Raub, Willetta Waisath, Michael McCormack, Ross Weistroffer, Gonzalo Moreno, Elizabeth Wong, and Alison Earle. 2020. “Protecting Health During COVID-19 and Beyond: A Global Examination of Paid Sick Leave Design in 193 Countries.” Global Public Health 15, no. 7: 925–934. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2020.1764076.

Hill, Heather D. 2013. “Paid Sick Leave and Job Stability.” Work and Occupations 40, no. 2. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888413480893.

Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF). 2023. Status of State Medicaid Expansion Decisions: Interactive Map. October 2023.

Maclean, Johanna Catherine, Stefan Pichler, and Nicolas R. Ziebarth. 2020. “Mandated Sick Pay: Coverage, Utilization, and Welfare Effects.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper no. 26832, March 2020. https://doi.org/10.3386/w26832.

Miller, Kevin, and Sarah Towne. 2011. “San Francisco Employment Growth Remains Stronger with Paid Sick Days Law Than Surrounding Counties” (fact sheet). Institute for Women’s Policy Research, September 2011.

National Partnership for Women & Families. 2016a. “Most Women in Fast Food Industry Cannot Earn Paid Sick Time, Have Gone to Work with ‘Troubling Symptoms,’ Survey Finds” (press release). November 22, 2016.

National Partnership for Women & Families. 2016b. “Paid Sick Days – State, District and County Statutes Updated November 2016” (web page). Accessed October 20, 2023 via Internet Archive Wayback Machine.

National Partnership for Women & Families. 2017. “Paid Sick Days: Low Cost, High Reward for Workers, Employers and Communities” (fact sheet).

National Partnership for Women & Families. 2023a. Current Paid Sick Days Laws (fact sheet). June 2023.

National Partnership for Women & Families. 2023b. The Healthy Families Act (fact sheet). May 2023.

Norton, D.M., L.G. Brown, R. Frick, L.R. Carpenter, A.L. Green, M. Tobin-D’Angelo, D.W. Reimann, H. Blade, D.C. Nicholas, J.S. Egan, and K. Everstine. 2015. “Managerial Practices Regarding Workers Working While Ill.” Journal of Food Protection 78, no. 1: 187–195. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-14-134.

Pichler, Stefan, Katherine Wen, and Nicolas R. Ziebarth. 2021. “Positive Health Externalities of Mandating Paid Sick Leave.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 40, no. 3: 715–743. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22284.

Pichler, Stefan, and Nicolas R. Ziebarth. 2018. “Labor Market Effects of U.S. Sick Pay Mandates.” Journal of Human Resources 58, no. 5. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.55.3.0117-8514R2.

Policy Surveillance Program. 2022. “State Preemption Laws” (web page). Last modified November 1, 2022.

Schneider, Daniel. 2020. “Paid Sick Leave in Washington State: Evidence on Employee Outcomes, 2016–2018.” American Journal of Public Health 110: 499–504. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305481.

Smith, Tom W., and Jibum Kim. 2010. Paid Sick Days: Attitudes and Experiences. National Opinion Research Center, June 2010.

Stoddard-Dare, Patricia, LeaAnne DeRigne, Cyleste C. Collins, Linda M. Quinn, and Kimberly Fuller. 2018. “Paid Sick Leave and Psychological Distress: An Analysis of U.S. Workers.” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 88, no. 1: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000293.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. “Census Regions and Divisions of the United States” (fact sheet). April 17, 2013.

Wething, Hilary. 2022. “Paid Sick Leave Policy Impacts on Health and Care Utilization in the United States: Why Policy Design Matters.” Journal of Public Health Policy 43, no. 4: 530–541. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41271-022-00371-9.

Political and religious coercion in the workplace is a growing problem affecting workers from all backgrounds and across the political spectrum. U.S. employers have tremendous power over worker conduct under current federal laws. For example, employers can require workers to attend “captive audience” meetings—and force employees to listen to political, religious, or anti-union employer views—on work time.

In the face of this growing threat, legislators in 18 states have advanced bills to protect workers from offensive or unwanted political and religious speech unrelated to job tasks or performance. These bills are designed to prohibit employers from threatening, disciplining, firing, or retaliating against workers who refuse to attend mandatory workplace meetings focused on communicating opinions on political or religious matters.

Importantly, these state laws do not limit employers’ rights to express their beliefs freely or even to continue inviting employees to attend workplace political or religious meetings. These laws simply empower workers to opt out of unwelcome political speech by protecting them from financial harm or retaliation if they choose not to attend such meetings.

A growing number of states are taking action to protect workers’ freedom of thought and association

So far, six states have enacted laws designed to protect employees’ dignity and freedom of thought and association. Table 1 summarizes these laws, additional bills currently under consideration, as well as bills that have been previously proposed.

Table 1

Because most workers (in the absence of a collective bargaining agreement) are considered “at-will” employees who can be terminated at any time, employers often try to exercise vast authority over employees’ lives, including their political activities or freedom of association.

This power is routinely abused to coerce workers into attending political rallies, religious discussions, or anti-union meetings under the threat of disciplinary action. State legislators, however, are working to fill the void left by continued congressional inaction. State legislation that creates a minimum labor standard to protect workers from abusive forms of employer coercion can help workers more fully exercise their basic rights.

Current labor and employment laws allow bosses to bombard workers with politics and religion

Employers are increasingly using the workplace to advance their political interests, and the lack of legal protections for workers has created a situation ripe for coercion. Traditionally, employers have relied on donations, lobbying, and political action committees to advance their political interests. However, nearly universal “at-will” employment laws and recent legal rulings are emboldening employers to politically mobilize their own employees.

Pervasive “at-will” employment laws give employers the right to terminate workers without cause or for virtually any reason—including their political beliefs. And the 2010 landmark Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission extended First Amendment protections to corporate political spending and gave employers the green light to hold political captive audience meetings. In tandem, these laws have had dire implications for workers and the democratic process.

A 2015 study revealed how widespread political communication is in U.S. workplaces. One in four U.S. workers has been contacted by their employer regarding a political matter. Of these workers, 20% (representing 5% of all U.S. workers) received messages from their boss that included one or more threats of job loss, business closure, or changes to wages and hours. Under current federal labor and employment laws, it is perfectly legal for an employer to threaten, discipline, or terminate an employee for objecting to their boss’s political views.

Political coercion affects U.S. workers of all backgrounds and across the political spectrum. Consider the following examples in which workers were pressured to vote in specific ways or forced to donate to political campaigns or lobby other voters to support legislation.

• In 2014 at a ConocoPhillips’ site in Alaska, some 200 construction workers were called into a “safety stand-down” meeting—typically held after serious workplace incidents. Rather than addressing a safety concern, a ConocoPhillips’ representative discussed the company’s stance on the upcoming August primaries, emphasizing its opposition to a ballot measure to repeal a significant tax cut for oil companies. The message to the workers was that their jobs relied on tax breaks, and voting against the repeal could harm their industry and livelihoods. One worker described the meeting as an abuse of safety protocol, while others reported fearing for their jobs.
• During the 2012 election, presidential candidate Mitt Romney spoke at an Ohio coal mine at the invitation of Murray Energy’s CEO, Robert Murray. Workers later said that mine operations were halted, and they were forced to attend the event without pay. Managerial staff also reported being pressured to donate to Murray Energy’s political action committee. Internal records later revealed that employee donations were monitored and that employees who failed to donate generously enough faced potential demotions and missed bonuses.
• In 2018, D.C. voters introduced Ballot Initiative 77 that would have raised the tipped wage from $3.33 to the regular minimum wage ($12.50 an hour at the time). Restaurant industry representatives embarked on a vigorous campaign opposing the initiative called “Save Our Tips,” warning of widespread restaurant closures and job losses. Around the city, restaurants displayed “Save Our Tips” and “NO on 77” signs. Some employers distributed weekly newsletters to employees featuring anti-Initiative 77 content and provided workers with instructions on how to vote on the initiative. Other employers held captive audience meetings during work hours to tell workers that Initiative 77 would harm them. Additionally, workers were encouraged to inform customers about the perceived negative impacts of the initiative.

While Title VII of the Civil Rights Act explicitly prohibits religious discrimination by employers, religious coercion is rampant in U.S. workplaces. For example:

• In an infamous Oregon case, a formerly incarcerated worker of Native American descent attended weekly, hour-long Bible study sessions out of fear “that he wouldn’t be able to find other work” if he declined. Following six months of weekly attendance, the worker declined to attend further sessions and was subsequently fired.
• A North Carolina-based home renovation company required employees to attend daily worship sessions that included prayer and Bible reading. A lawsuit alleged that the company owner would track attendance and reprimand employees who were absent. Additionally, when a manager asked to be excused from prayer, the owner subsequently cut his pay and then fired him.
• Employees at a Long Island, New York, firm alleged they were compelled to pray, chant, and partake in spiritual interpersonal workshops as part of a program called “Onionhead.” Workers described the workplace as “cult-like” with religious ceremonies where incense was burned to purify the workspace and lights were dimmed to deter demons. Employees and later the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission asserted that employees who resisted were disciplined or terminated.

Employers use ‘captive audience’ meetings to support union-busting

Captive audience meetings have likewise become one of employers’ preferred union-busting tactics. Workers who express interest in unionizing are routinely required by employers to hear one-sided propaganda. Workers have no right to ask questions or hear opposing viewpoints during these meetings. Analysis of National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) elections documents shows that 89% of all employers conduct captive audience meetings in response to unionization efforts. And the use of captive audience meetings caused the average union election win rate to fall from 73% to 47%.

Today, employers spend over $400 million per year on “union-avoidance” consultants, who specialize in using captive audience meetings along with a host of other tactics designed to intimidate and instill fear in workers for the purpose of union-busting. Legislation giving workers the right to opt out of captive audience meetings without fear of discipline or termination is fundamental to restoring workers’ basic right to organize without interference.

The unequal impact of coercive speech on workers

Legislation to protect workers from coercive speech is particularly important for the workers most likely to encounter discrimination at work.

Particularly vulnerable to such coercion are Black, brown, disabled, formerly incarcerated, LGBTQ, and other groups of workers who have historically faced discrimination and unequal treatment in the labor market. Structural racism and discrimination in the form of systematically higher unemployment rates, higher job search costs, lower wages, and greater tolerance for unfair treatment, put these workers in a disadvantaged position to resist employer abuses.

Further, the United States’ piecemeal approach to holding employers accountable for discrimination often puts the onus of enforcement on workers, leaves many exposed to retaliation, and excludes many of the most vulnerable workers altogether. Given the precarity of employment for non-union workers in the United States, there is a clear need for comprehensive and enforceable worker protections from coercive speech.

Conclusion: State-level solutions to coercion

State lawmakers have the power to fight back against employer coercion and address gaps in weak, outdated federal laws. States can legislate to protect workers from unwanted speech, as affirmed by the Supreme Court’s 1988 ruling Frisby v. Schultz. Many of the proposed state-level laws also have the advantage of offering quicker enforcement mechanisms than federal proceedings and include provisions for “injunctive relief” (emergency court intervention to immediately stop damaging employer behavior), restitution for lost wages, reinstatement with retained benefits and seniority, and coverage of attorney fees. As the national spotlight intensifies on growing economic inequality and decades-long erosion of workers’ rights, it is clear that state-led initiatives could play a pivotal role in shaping the future of worker rights in the U.S.

Legislators in all states should continue to build on existing momentum to protect the freedom to avoid offensive or unwanted political and religious speech at work. Lawmakers can enact enforcement mechanisms to protect workers against financial harm and retaliation if they opt out of such speech. This legislation will help safeguard democracy by protecting citizens from undue influence over their political views, donations, or votes; guaranteeing workers’ freedoms; and ensuring all workers can fully exercise their rights in the workplace.

Though much work remains to be done to enact a progressive economic agenda, this midterm election showed clear signs of support for a policy agenda that prioritizes economic, racial, and gender justice for working families.

Minimum wage

Nebraska: Voters approved Initiative 433, which will increase the state’s minimum wage to $15 by 2026.

Nevada: Voters approved Question 2, which will increase the state’s minimum wage to $12 in July 2024. The measure also removed a provision that allows employers to pay workers $1 less if they offer health insurance.

Tipped minimum wage

Voters in Washington, D.C. and Portland, Maine considered ballot measure to eliminate the subminimum wage for tipped workers. The tipped minimum wage system, which allows employers to pay workers well below the minimum wage, is a legacy of slavery and disproportionately harms workers of color and women. Over 3 million tipped workers nationwide are paid below their state’s minimum wage for as little as $2.13 an hour. Meanwhile, workers in states with one fair wage have higher take-home pay and are less likely to live in poverty than workers in states that pay tipped workers the federal minimum of $2.13.

Washington, D.C.: Voters approved Initiative 82, eliminating the subminimum wage and raising the wage floor for tipped workers from $5.35 to $16.10 by 2027. A similar initiative was passed in 2018 but was overturned by the D.C. City Council and Mayor Muriel Bowser.

Portland, Maine: Voters rejected Question D, which would have raised the overall minimum wage to $18 by 2025 and eliminated the subminimum wage for tipped work. The measure would have also classified app-based workers as employees and established a Department of Fair Labor Practices to investigate and enforce labor standards at the city level. The Maine Center for Economic Policy, a partner of EPI’s Economic Analysis and Research Network (EARN), estimates that over a third of Maine workers would have earned higher wages as a result of the change. An increased minimum wage would have primarily benefited women and workers of color in the state.

Workers’ rights

New York: Voters approved the Clean Water, Clean Air, and Green Jobs Environmental Bond Act of 2022, which establishes prevailing wage standards on construction projects. The bill also allows the state and municipalities to require contractors to execute labor peace agreements and buy American for structural iron and steel.

Illinois: Voters approved Amendment 1, which will prevent lawmakers from passing so-called “right-to-work” laws and give workers a constitutional right to collectively bargain over wages, hours, and working conditions.

However, in Tennessee, so-called “right-to-work” was further entrenched at the ballot box. Voters approved Amendment 1, enshrining “right-to-work” in the state’s constitution and making efforts to repeal the law much more difficult. EPI research has shown that states with so-called “right-to-work” laws, which are designed to weaken unions financially, have lower wages for both unionized and nonunionized workers than states without such laws.

Free school meals

Colorado: Voters approved Proposition FF to provide free meals for all public school students in the state. The measure, which will also fund pay increases for school cafeteria workers, will be funded by limiting state income tax deductions by households earning more than $300,000 annually. Colorado Fiscal Institute, an EARN partner, called the initiative a “fair, equitable” measure that “will boost the physical and economic health of our communities.”

Tax fairness

Massachusetts: Voters approved Question 1, an amendment to the state’s constitution that will increase taxes on the state’s richest residents. The Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, an EARN partner, estimates that the tax will generate at least $2 billion a year for investments in public education and affordable transportation.

Health Care

Medicaid Expansion

South Dakota: Voters approved Constitutional Amendment D, which will require the state to provide Medicaid benefits to adults between 18 and 65 with incomes below 133% of the federal poverty level. Though the Affordable Care Act offered to pay 90% of states’ costs to expand Medicaid eligibility, 12 states have yet to expand eligibility. As a result, over 3.5 million people—mostly people of color—lack affordable health care coverage. South Dakota is the seventh state to expand Medicaid through the ballot initiative process. An additional 45,000 South Dakotans will qualify for Medicaid under the expanded program, 14,000 of whom are American Indian.

Abortion

Voters in Kentucky rejected an amendment that would eliminate residents’ right to reproductive freedom and prohibit the use of public funds for abortion. The right to an abortion is a matter of economic security, independence, and mobility for millions of women across the country. People who are denied abortion access are more likely to live in poverty, be unemployed, and face other adverse economic outcomes. Kentucky currently has an abortion plan in place, but the state Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of the ban this week. 

California, Michigan, and Vermont voters approved amendments that enshrine reproductive rights, including the rights to contraception and abortion, into the state constitution.

Criminal justice

Constitutional amendments to abolish slavery

Voters in Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, and Alabama approved measures that remove language in their state constitutions permitting slavery or involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime. Louisiana voters rejected a measure to remove language permitting slavery from the constitution after the amendment’s sponsor expressed concerns that the measure’s confusing wording could inadvertently erode protections against slavery. Louisiana voters will consider a revised measure in 2023.

Many state constitutions retain language similar to the 13^th Amendment to the U.S Constitution, which prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime. The Abolish Slavery National Network—which is organizing the effort across the country—and other civil rights advocates argue that extremely low-paid (or, in some cases, unpaid) forced work in American prisons amounts to modern slavery. Incarcerated workers are not only exempt from minimum wage laws but are also denied overtime protection, workplace safety guarantees, and the right to unionize. Supporters see these slavery abolition amendments as an initial step in disrupting the power dynamic between incarcerated workers and prison staff and establishing basic rights for the incarcerated workforce.

Cannabis legalization

Marijuana is now legal to use recreationally in 21 states, Washington, D.C., and Guam. As legalization efforts gain momentum in states across the country, it is critical that lawmakers protect cannabis workers’ collective bargaining rights to ensure that this emerging industry provides safe, good-paying, and community-sustaining jobs.

Maryland: Voters approved Question 4, which permits residents to possess, smoke, and grow marijuana (within limits) and allows the General Assembly to tax the sale of marijuana. Companion legislation to the amendment proposes an expungement process for past marijuana convictions and an assistance fund for small, BIPOC-owned, or woman-owned businesses. Maryland Center on Economic Policy, an EARN partner, estimated that decriminalization would save the state tens of millions of dollars on enforcement costs and that taxing the sale of marijuana would generate hundreds of millions in revenue for the state.

Missouri: Voters approved Amendment 3, which legalizes recreational marijuana and will automatically expunge the records of individuals who were convicted of non-violent marijuana offenses and are not currently incarcerated. Currently incarcerated individuals can petition for release from incarceration, probation, or parole. State advocacy groups estimate that record expungement will impact thousands of Missourians whose marijuana offense convictions limited access to employment, housing, and the social safety net.

Meanwhile, Arkansas, North Dakota, and South Dakota voters rejected marijuana legalization.

Affordable housing

Voters in several states and localities approved measures to fund the construction of affordable housing. As the housing shortage grows and housing becomes increasingly unaffordable, particularly for communities of color and low- to moderate-income families, affordable housing construction has become an especially urgent priority. In Kansas City, voters approved Question 2, which allows the city to spend $50 million over five years to build affordable housing units for low-income residents.

Colorado voters approved the only state-wide affordable housing measure on the ballot this November. Proposition 123 will direct $300 million of the state’s taxable income to help essential workers like teachers and nurses buy homes, as well as help local governments increase housing supply. According to Colorado Fiscal Institute, an EARN partner, minimum wage workers in Colorado would need to work 75 hours a week to afford a one-bedroom apartment.

Los Angeles voters approved Measure LH, which grants the city authority to develop 75,000 units of affordable housing for seniors, unhoused, and low-income residents. Measure ULA, which will raise $1 billion per year for affordable housing and homelessness efforts in the city by taxing property sales over $5 million, also appeared likely to pass as of this writing.

And Austin voters approved Proposition A, the city’s largest ever affordable housing bond. The $350 million bond will be used to build and preserve affordable housing for Austin residents with annual incomes below $61,800.

When given the opportunity, millions of voters across the country showed their support for policies that will strengthen workers’ rights, reproductive justice, and racial equity. Lawmakers at every level of government should take note.