Foreword by Julie Su
It is no secret that workers across the country are feeling stressed, strained, and under attack. Paychecks aren’t enough to pay the rent, life-saving safety protections are being stripped away, and workers are spending longer looking for a job. Job security, so critical to being able to live a good life and plan for the future, is a luxury enjoyed by too few, and workers’ rights are being trampled with impunity. The chasm between CEO pay and frontline worker pay continues to widen, adding to workers’ sense that they are just not getting a fair deal. Rising costs are making it even harder for people to get by, and the targeting of America’s immigrant communities has made it dangerous for some even to go to work, drop kids off at school, and go to the grocery store, especially for those already living at the margins.
As worker protections and job-creating investments are being eroded at the federal level, state leaders have an unparalleled opportunity to be the shield workers need and to strengthen and lift the floor for working families.
In my time as acting U.S. Secretary of Labor and since, I traveled across the country talking to workers, families, lawmakers, and business leaders who all have one thing in common: they just want a fair shot to get ahead. Many feel that government does not understand their struggles, is unwilling to do anything to address them, and focuses on things that have little to do with their day-to-day lives. I heard from workers in every corner of the economy—Black workers, rural workers, women—that they were breaking their backs just to get by and no one was listening to their concerns.
This state playbook is meant to be a resource for state leaders to see beyond the headlines to the opportunities they have to create wins for workers in their state and set an example for the rest of the country. It goes beyond calls for the baseline rights and benefits workers need and deserve—from robust minimum wages to paid leave—and instead raises up new, innovative ideas that push boundaries in creative ways. It is organized by themes most relevant to improving workers’ well-being and the ability to live a good life. This state playbook is also meant to be practical, so the policy ideas come from examples that are already working in corners of our country—a tribute to the critical leadership states have already been showing. Indeed, while there is no substitute for strong federal laws that put working people first, many of our nation’s federal worker protections have come about because states had already taken action.
Two other points I want to share based on my experience with policymaking:
- These ideas will no doubt need to be modified to maximize their impact depending on existing law and resources for enforcement in each state, and to ensure clarity and consistency for the regulated community. The more policies are written with enforcement in mind—ideally with enforcement agencies at the table—the more effective they are.
- Mayors and city and county officials may also find lessons in these examples. The other thing states can do is encourage local leaders to innovate in these areas and clarify that, when they do, the state will provide support.
Part of our goal for this playbook is to share knowledge across state lines so that wins in Michigan, for example, benefit not only Michigan’s workers, but can inspire progress in Maine and Missouri as well. We want to create an environment where a win for workers in one state turns into many more and—eventually—wins in Congress for all workers through federal action.
As workers and their advocates continue to build power, the ideas in this playbook can help us create an America in which every worker who wants a good job has one, an America where workers come home safe at the end of the day, with a paycheck in their pocket, and with ample time outside of work so they can live a good, fulfilling life. By empowering workers across the country, we won’t just survive to fight another day, but create a future that working people deserve.
A two-page summary of the state playbook is available here.
Introduction
Across the United States, workers are in a moment of historic precarity. Rising costs of living are swallowing wages for the typical worker, while CEO pay is now 281 times a worker’s paycheck.1 Nearly seven in ten Americans approve of unions2—close to a record high—yet the share of private-sector workers who benefitted from union representation shrank to just 5.9 percent3 last year and the institutions that uphold workers’ basic labor rights are facing existential threats.4 The rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) may be poised to transform American workplaces—holding significant promise and potential for workers if it is deployed with their input and voice, but significant peril if not.5
This is a moment that calls for bold, forward-thinking action for working people.
States have an unparalleled opportunity to lead the charge on policies that help workers build power and expand rights—and many are already doing so.
This playbook showcases “next generation” pro-worker, pro-labor policies—bold and innovative ideas that will benefit workers, families, and state economies. It provides a menu of ambitious but concrete ideas, ranging from pioneering policies enacted in just one or a handful of states, to new ideas that are ripe for advancement at the state level for the first time. Additionally, it offers case studies as examples for workers, advocates, and policymakers considering what options are best for their own states. (In many cases, mayors and local areas can pursue these options as well.)
The policy ideas in this playbook are organized into five categories:
- Putting more money in workers’ pockets
- Creating good jobs for all
- Enhancing responsibility for workers’ well-being
- Supporting healthier workers and care
- Building worker power over corporate power
From ensuring workers have a voice in artificial intelligence (AI) on the job, to establishing “just cause” protections for workers against unfair firing, to creating a new tax on the rich devoted to serving workers, and more, this playbook features nineteen policy goals across these categories that offer states options to boost benefits, protections, opportunity, and power for their workers. At the same time, to ensure any new laws or policies will be maximally effective and enforceable, this playbook also urges states to identify and remove existing barriers for workers in these five areas. And it encourages state leaders to co-develop their policies hand-in-hand with enforcement agencies and organizations, as well as boost enforcement resources—because if a policy is worth passing, it’s worth enforcing.
Importantly, this playbook is not intended to capture every policy we know are critical to workers’ well-being and good jobs—including foundational policies such as higher minimum wages, overtime protections, paid sick and family leave, and equal employment protections. The Century Foundation is committed to working every day alongside workers and their allies to advance these fundamental rights and protections at the state, federal, and local levels.
Rather, the focus of this playbook is highlighting a set of promising worker-centered policies that have begun to gain traction but are not yet widespread at the state level. To be clear, the set of policies featured here are not the only bold ideas that workers, advocates, and policymakers are pursuing and advancing in states across the country: there is no shortage of—or substitute for—creative solutions being advanced by workers themselves to build power, strengthen protections, and improve working conditions in communities across the country. This playbook is simply a compilation of actionable policies that should gain wider adoption.
In addition, other expert organizations and practitioners have produced strong toolkits and guides for states—many of which are referenced throughout and listed in the Appendix—and this playbook is intended to complement and elevate those resources. Some of these resources include policies targeted toward workers who are not currently classified as employees, such as gig economy workers.6 These policies are not included in the scope of this playbook, but recent state-level innovations, including models of collective bargaining and worker protections, could provide a route to bringing a growing group of workers who have been systematically stripped of employee protections into the fold.7
1. Putting More Money in Workers’ Pockets
1.1 Creating Wage Boards for Vulnerable Workers in Specific Industries
Too many workers are stuck in low-paying, low-quality jobs. An estimated 43 million U.S. workers—three in ten—earn less than $20 per hour, and one in ten earn less than $15 per hour.8 Coupled with today’s high costs, low wages leave many working people unable to afford basics such as groceries and gas—much less get ahead.9 Yet low- and middle-income workers have limited levers to advocate for higher pay and better working conditions, particularly when fewer than 6 percent of private-sector workers benefit from union representation and the associated wage premium.10
Wage boards, also called industry standards boards or worker boards, are powerful tools to boost pay and job quality for low- and middle-earning workers.11 Wage boards bring together representatives of workers, employers, and government to set labor standards across an industry or sector. States can establish wage boards to develop a broad range of customized industry standards simultaneously—ranging from pay and benefits, to overtime, training, and health and safety standards—and direct the board to assess and update those standards periodically.
For state leaders seeking to tackle stagnant wages and inequality, wage boards can provide a solution to these issues in specified industries. While not a substitute for broad-based labor standards, such as minimum wages, wage boards allow for more targeted solutions and ongoing engagement to respond to industry-specific needs. Research indicates wage boards can successfully raise pay for middle earners as well as the lowest earners.12 Boards also give states a proven, sectorwide solution to help vulnerable workers in industries with low job quality and high rates of worker exploitation and harassment, where workers often face challenges to or restrictions on forming a union or bargaining collectively with individual employers.13 Strengthening job quality and worker voice in this way can help policymakers attract and retain workers in industries such as health care and home care, which fill a critical public need but often experience high turnover and acute workforce needs.
Although the concept of wage boards is not new, there has been a surge in their use over the past few years.14 Wage boards currently operate in at least six states, concentrated in three key sectors—care, including in-home and direct care (Colorado and Nevada) and nursing home care (Minnesota and Michigan); fast food (California and New York); and agriculture (New York).15 Several cities have also authorized wage boards, as Philadelphia and Seattle did for domestic workers.16 Most have been created through state laws or city council resolutions, although Michigan formed its nursing home industry board through an executive order.17
In a 2021 bipartisan law, Nevada authorized a Home Care Standards Board, which allows for creation of the board when at least fifty home care workers petition the Nevada Department of Health and Human Services.18 Following a successful petition in October 2021, the law gave the board one year to develop and submit policy recommendations to lawmakers. The board’s 2022 recommendations—informed by monthly meetings and stakeholder surveys and testimony—included pay increases and know-your-rights training for workers, along with higher Medicaid reimbursement rates for employers.19 Most of the board’s recommendations were passed as part of the state’s 2023 budget law, including a pay raise for Nevada’s 13,000 home care workers from around $11 per hour to a minimum of $16 per hour.20
More recently, Colorado lawmakers created the state’s Direct Care Workforce Stabilization Board in 2023.21 Colorado’s board is permanent, unlike Nevada’s; the law requires it to gather information on an ongoing basis about labor-market conditions in the direct care industry, and to submit recommendations at least once every two years on minimum employment standards and work-rights communications. In 2025, Colorado implemented the board’s initial set of recommendations through legislation, including increasing minimum pay for direct care workers to $17 per hour and providing free “know your rights” training on wages, benefits, and complaint procedures.22
The Center for American Progress provides a guide to help states establish wage boards, including best practices such as enabling boards to hire dedicated staff, providing legal authority or a straightforward process for recommendations to become law, and establishing worker-led compliance mechanisms such as private rights of action and worker rights training.23 The Center for Law and a Just Economy provides additional ideas for states to enhance wage boards’ benefits, such as engaging boards to advise on public procurement processes and economic development planning.24 Additional strong state practices, as Colorado’s example indicates, include establishing boards on a permanent rather than temporary basis, requiring periodic updates to the board’s recommendations, and providing resources for implementation.
1.2 Phasing Out Discriminatory Subminimum Wages
Since 2009, the federal minimum wage has been stuck at just $7.25 per hour, a poverty-level wage that has lost nearly one-third of its purchasing power since Congress last increased it.25
For workers with disabilities, the situation is even more dire. Federal law allows employers to pay disabled workers as little as pennies per hour if they obtain a special certificate from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), called a 14(c) certificate.26 This carve-out, which dates back to 1938, was originally intended to boost employment opportunities for workers with disabilities.27 But in recent decades, there has been broad and growing agreement among disabled workers, disability rights leaders, and labor-market experts that subminimum wages are not only an ineffective way to support employment for workers with disabilities, but are counterproductive and discriminatory.28
By denying workers with disabilities fair pay, the subminimum wage contributes to high levels of economic insecurity among disabled workers, who are more than twice as likely to live in poverty as nondisabled workers.29 Low wages exacerbate the barriers and discrimination workers with disabilities already face in the labor market: disabled workers are often among the first to be laid off during an economic downturn and the last rehired when conditions improve,30 and working-age individuals with disabilities typically experience unemployment at two times the rate of their nondisabled peers.31
Nearly 40,000 workers continue to work under 14(c) certificates,32 with most earning less than $3.50 per hour.33 And while the number of employers using 14(c) certificates decreased seven-fold since 2001, to about 800 in 2024,34 more than 90 percent of their 14(c) workers are employed in so-called “sheltered workshops.”35 Sheltered workshops separate disabled workers from other workers and afford few opportunities to transition to competitive, integrated employment (CIE)36—that is, nonsegregated work that pays at least the full minimum wage.37
At least seventeen states have taken action to guarantee workers with disabilities the full minimum wage by ending 14(c)—often with strong bipartisan support, as Georgia recently did through the Dignity and Pay Act.38 At the same time as more states have eliminated 14(c), disability employment has grown, in contrast to critics’ concerns, reaching a record high in November 2024.39 In fact, rigorous research published in 2024 found that New Hampshire and Maryland’s 14(c) phaseouts actually caused a rise in disability employment among workers with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD), who make up 90 percent of 14(c) workers.40 Similarly, after Vermont stopped issuing new 14(c) certificates in 2000, employment for these workers rose more than 17 percent between 2008 and 2017, reaching more than double the national average, and workers and their families reported positive experiences with the transition into competitive integrated employment.41 Based on states’ experience and other evidence, in 2024 the federal government proposed phasing out 14(c) nationwide, although the proposal has since been withdrawn—leaving it up to individual states to continue to act.42
States that have ended 14(c) have generally immediately stopped issuance of new certificates while letting existing certificates expire over a period of one or several years. While most states have passed legislation, Vermont, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia have achieved this using administrative policy.43 The strongest state policies pair 14(c) phase-out with investments, resources, and policies that help workers and their families successfully transition to CIE, as well as other Employment First policies.44 As New America recommends, states should also expand Medicaid, bolster benefits counseling and tax-deferred savings accounts for individuals with disabilities, and collect high-quality data on affected workers and employers.45 Moreover, states should seek to expand employment supports, such as comprehensive health care and personal care assistance, that enable all disabled workers to participate in the competitive labor market, regardless of the type of disability they have and whether they are transitioning from 14(c).
At the same time as they ensure fair pay and benefits for workers with disabilities, states should also raise wage floors for other vulnerable workers. That includes increasing overall minimum wages—as nearly two-thirds of states have done—and linking their levels to wage or price growth to prevent erosion over time, while enabling local areas to enact higher wages if they choose.46 And it includes eliminating other discriminatory carveouts from federal labor law, such as subminimum wages for tipped workers—who can legally be paid as little as $2.13 per hour in many states, contributing to poverty rates nearly three times that of nontipped workers47—and youth workers.
| Case Study: Colorado’s Elimination of the 14(c) Subminimum Wage for Workers with Disabilities |
|
In 2021, Colorado passed bipartisan legislation to phase out 14(c).48 The law prohibited issuance of new 14(c) certificates shortly after enactment, and required all existing certificates to be sunset by mid-2025.49
Importantly, Colorado’s law paired its 14(c) phase-out with multiple best practices that helped workers, families, and employers successfully manage this transition.50 First, by roughly one year after enactment, the law required 14(c) employers to create and submit a plan detailing how their business would accomplish the phase-out for its workers. It also provided dedicated resources for implementation and to help workers transition to CIE, including more than $90,000 in state funds and $410,000 in federal funds. The law also made enhancements to the state’s Medicaid waiver: it directed its key agency to seek federal approval to enhance employment-related services for 14(c) workers with I/DD, expanded access to job counseling and placement services, and expanded Colorado’s Medicaid “buy-in” option so transitioning workers could earn higher wages without losing their Medicaid eligibility. Finally, the law mandated strong technical assistance and data collection, including requiring 14(c) employers and Medicaid to track and report workers’ initial placement after transitioning out of 14(c) employment, as well as their wages and hours.
Colorado successfully phased out all 14(c) certificates by mid-2023—two years ahead of the law’s deadline.51 Colorado’s data showed that of nearly 200 workers who held 14(c) jobs just before the law’s enactment, almost 50 percent moved to CIE or supported group employment. Average wages for this group increased from $4.33 per hour to $12.74 per hour between mid-2021 and mid-2023, with a slight decrease in weekly hours. A further 21 percent of 14(c) workers entered Medicaid-supported employment preparation, such as job counseling or training, and 16 percent entered day services or community activities.52
Other states can follow Colorado’s example, pairing a several-year phase-out of 14(c) with policies and resources to facilitate a smooth transition for workers to CIE and other paid and unpaid arrangements—all while collecting the data needed to track and evaluate progress.
|
1.3 Strengthening Enforcement
Labor standards are worth little if they are not enforced. Too many workers labor under exploitative conditions where their basic wage and hour, health and safety, and other rights are ignored. For example, workers lose an estimated $8 billion each year to minimum-wage violations in the ten most populous states alone.53 This and other wage theft, such as off-the-clock work and failure to pay overtime, robs workers of hard-earned paychecks and puts them at risk of unpaid bills, late fees, and eviction.
States have a crucial role in protecting workers and leveling the playing field for law-abiding employers—particularly as the federal government has slashed resources for enforcement. For example, in May of 2025, there were only 611 federal wage and hour investigators to protect 165 million workers—the fewest in more than fifty years—and four states had no federal investigators based in their borders.54 Unfortunately, many states currently have little enforcement capacity of their own.55 And while they maintain a variety of laws and policies designed to uphold labor standards, states need to strengthen their penalties and practices to ensure their enforcement efforts protect vulnerable workers and deter wage theft.
In recent years, some states have championed innovative enforcement tools to better safeguard workers and ensure high-road employers face fair competition. Two such tools—mandatory treble damages and wage liens—are among the strongest approaches to preventing wage theft and related violations, but are not yet widespread.56
Mandatory treble damages require that a worker be awarded three times the amount of unpaid wages owed once a labor violation is proven. The policy significantly increases the cost to employers of violating workers’ rights compared to, for example, penalties under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). (The FLSA allows, but does not require, double damages—that is, unpaid wages plus liquidated damages.)57 Mandatory treble damages achieve a trifecta of goals: strongly penalizing employers who violate wage laws, deterring future violations by making them unprofitable, and compensating workers for the real-world harms caused by the violation. And the policy’s clear, automatic penalty also reduces legal uncertainty and costs, encouraging more workers and their attorneys to pursue justice.
Several states have enacted mandatory treble damages for wage theft, including Maine, Massachusetts, and New Mexico.58 The District of Columbia goes further, with a mandatory penalty of four times unpaid wages if a violation is shown.59 Massachusetts’ mandatory treble damages statute is particularly robust. It automatically requires damages regardless of whether the violation was intentional or inadvertent, which incentivizes employers to take care in their payroll practices and relieves workers of the difficulty of showing intent.60 The law also applies broadly, including to late-paid wages, unpaid overtime, and earned vacation.
Wage liens, a second innovative policy, allow a worker (or a state agency on a worker’s behalf) to place a lien, or legal claim, on an employer’s property until the wages owed are paid. Too often, low-paid workers are unable to recover their stolen wages even when they speak up, bring a case, and win a judgment against their employers.61 These unpaid wage judgments not only rob workers of their earnings, but also contribute to legal cases being settled on the cheap, giving employers a practically free pass to violate the law. Wage liens help combat unpaid wage judgments by placing a hold on the employer’s assets until the debt is paid. They also help avoid lengthy litigation by putting pressure on the employer, since future creditors are put on notice of the debt.62
In Wisconsin, the first state to enact a wage lien statute, workers received payments of wages owed in 80 percent of cases to enforce a wage lien between 2008 and 2011.63 By comparison, only 17 percent of workers who won their wage claim cases received any payment in California, which did not have a broad wage lien policy at the time.64 Strong state laws include Washington’s 2021 and Maryland’s 2013 laws. Both enable the worker (rather than only the state labor agency) to file for a lien—and to do so before a final judgment is issued—and cover multiple types of earned but unpaid compensation.65 Washington’s law also applies to a broad set of employer property types, establishes procedures for events such as foreclosure, and ensures workers cannot be asked to sign away their right to place a lien in their employment contract.66
Best practices for these policies are detailed in resources from the State Innovation Exchange, the National Employment Law Project, Economic Policy Institute, State Futures, and others, alongside other innovative ideas to strengthen state labor enforcement.67 Further policies states should consider include increasing civil monetary and criminal penalties and lengthening statutes of limitation for a broad swath of labor violations, strengthening private rights of action, preventing employer retaliation, requiring wage bonds, barring labor violators from public contracts and state tax incentives, and expanding the powers of state labor enforcement agencies.
1.4 Making Progress toward Equal Pay
Certain groups of workers—such as women, workers of color, disabled workers, and older workers—face significant pay disadvantages in the U.S. labor market. Research shows that these disparities cannot fully be explained by differences in characteristics such as education, occupation, and seniority—and that employer bias discrimination, whether deliberate or unintentional, is a contributing factor.68
In 2024, for instance, women working full time, year-round were paid less than 81 cents for every dollar paid to men, marking the first time the gender wage gap has widened for two years in a row, down from 82.7 cents in 2023 and 84 cents in 2022.69 And it is even wider in certain states, with gaps of 75 cents or larger in Alabama, Louisiana, Utah, and Wyoming in recent years.70 The gender pay gap costs the typical woman worker more than $11,500 each year—or more than $450,000 over her career.71 Similarly, full-time LGBTQ+ workers were paid less than 90 cents for every dollar paid to the typical worker.72 And workers who are members of multiple disadvantaged groups often face even starker pay disadvantages, such as Black women (76 cents compared to a dollar for all men) and Hispanic women (66 cents) in 2023.73
Pay gaps harm economic security for workers and families, impacting their ability to pay their bills and save for their future, and even harming mental health and well-being.74 They can also hurt states’ economies by reducing labor-force participation, consumer spending, and tax revenue.75
Since 1963, the federal Equal Pay Act (EPA) has required that men and women in the same workplace be provided equal pay for equal work.76 While the EPA has helped significantly advance pay equity over the past six decades, it has some significant shortcomings.77 Importantly, the EPA only covers pay discrimination on the basis of sex. (And although other federal civil rights laws prohibit compensation discrimination on the basis of certain other protected characteristics, such as race, age, and disability status, these laws require proof of intentional discrimination or disparate impact, which is challenging to prove.)78 What’s more, courts often have taken a narrow approach to the meaning “equal work” under the EPA, throwing out cases based on minor and nonsubstantive differences in work.79
The majority of states have state equal pay law on the books, but many mirror federal law and suffer from similar shortcomings.80 However, in recent years, multiple states have broadened and strengthened their efforts to ensure equal pay.81 First, more than a dozen states have broadened protections beyond gender or sex, with some including all protected classes under state and federal law, as in Iowa, Hawaii, and New Jersey.82 Second, states have adopted fairer and more realistic standards for what constitutes “equal work” in modern workplaces, such as “substantially similar” or “comparable” work, as Colorado, Illinois, and New York all did in 2019. In a 2015 amendment to its equal pay law, California took the additional step of eliminating the requirement that the jobs being compared be located at the same establishment.83
States have paired these enhancements with additional evidence-based steps to promote pay equity.84 At least eighteen states now restrict the use of a job candidate’s salary history in hiring or setting pay, preventing workers from being penalized for past pay disparities, discrimination, or time taken to care for themselves or a loved one.85 Research shows salary history bans have led wages to rise for women and non-white workers who changed jobs by about 6 percent.86 More than a dozen states have also passed pay transparency laws, which require employers to provide a wage or salary range to applicants and/or current employees. This information helps level the playing field and equips workers to choose which jobs they pursue, engage in pay negotiations, and detect unjustified disparities.87 Two further best practices that help states prevent, identify, and mitigate disparities are disclosure laws, which protect workers’ rights to discuss their pay (or ask about others’ pay) free from retaliation, and requirements for employers to collect and report robust pay data.88
The strongest state approaches combine multiple or all of these measures, alongside strong penalties for violators and relief for victims of pay discrimination. For example, Rhode Island substantially strengthened its pay equity protections in 2021 to cover “comparable work” for a broad set of protected classes (race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disability, age, and country of ancestral origin).89 Notably, the law specifies that while seniority can be a bona fide reason for a wage differential, employers must not reduce seniority for any time spent on leave due to a pregnancy-related condition or family and medical leave. The law also includes salary history and pay transparency provisions, and wage disclosure protections for both applicants and employees, and also closes loopholes in federal law used to justify unlawful pay disparity. Rhode Island’s statute is undergirded by robust anti-retaliation and enforcement provisions, which can be pursued by both the state labor agency and workers themselves through civil action.
2. Creating Good Jobs for All
2.1 Expanding High-Road Training Partnerships
Each year, states collectively invest billions of dollars in workforce development.90 To ensure these investments are creating a skilled, diverse, and well-compensated workforce, state leaders should intentionally steer these dollars toward high-road training partnerships—high-quality training initiatives that advance job quality, equity, and worker voice. The high-road partnership approach has a proven record of expanding pathways to good jobs in sectors such as construction and manufacturing, and also holds particular promise to pave the high road in industries that have historically offered low-paying, low-quality jobs, such as hospitality and care.
Strong research shows that high-quality sectoral training programs91 are the best way to help workers—particularly those who are disadvantaged or underserved—train for, obtain, and stay in good jobs and achieve sustained earnings gains.92 These training programs—a feature of high-road training partnerships—prepare workers for jobs that align with the labor-market needs of employers in specific industry sectors. They are developed and run by regional industry-led partnerships between employers and other key stakeholders such as unions, community-based groups, education and training providers, and workforce boards.93 Examples include registered apprenticeship programs and other labor-management partnership training programs.94
High-quality sectoral training programs have several attributes in common: they deliver quality skills training, earn-and-learn opportunities, industry-recognized credentials, supportive services, and clear pathways into existing good jobs. Unfortunately, many training options available today do not align with these high-quality attributes, which can lead workers to waste their time, money, and potential, and states to waste their limited taxpayer dollars.95
A distinguishing feature of high-road training partnerships—one that maximizes benefits for both workers and states’ economies—is that their high-quality training goes hand-in-hand with deliberate efforts to advance job quality, equity, and worker voice. First, that means ensuring employers that are engaged in and benefitting from state-supported training programs are high-road employers, meaning their competitive edge comes from their quality and service, achieved through innovation and investment in their workers. In contrast to low-road employers, who cut corners and costs at the expense of workers, high-road employers are committed to providing good jobs where workers have agency and voice, with family-sustaining wages and benefits, safe and healthy workplaces, and opportunities for career advancement.96 Second, it means reaching out to, recruiting, and supporting workers of all backgrounds in their community, including those who come from historically underrepresented groups or experience labor-market disadvantages such as low incomes, justice involvement, or a disability. Finally, it means ensuring participating individuals have the opportunity to be heard on the job and meaningfully contribute to decisions about their training and work.
State leaders should support, scale, and encourage creation of regional sectoral training programs that meet these high standards. Exemplary programs exist in states across the country today—yet many currently receive little or no consistent public investment,97 limiting their ability to serve workers at scale. Some successful sectoral training programs operate sites in multiple locations, such as Per Scholas, the proven-effective IT training model.98 In California, policymakers support dozens of exemplary programs, including the Hospitality Training Academy (discussed below), through the state’s High-Road Training Partnership Program. Washington State, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and high-road home care employers partner to support the SEIU 775 Training Partnership.99 Another long-standing example comes from the Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership, a nonprofit workforce intermediary based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin bringing together employers, unions, and community stakeholders. Rigorous evaluation showed WRTP’s sectoral training programs in health care and construction—two-to-eight-week programs with robust supportive services—produced large, long-term increases in earnings for low-income participants.100 Today, WRTP’s Building Industry Group Skilled Trades Employment Program (BIG STEP) successfully operates apprenticeship readiness programs that are directly connected to registered apprenticeships and lead to family-sustaining jobs. Its programs served roughly 2,000 youth and adults in construction, manufacturing, and emerging sectors in 2024101—and in September 2025, WRTP was awarded a U.S. Department of Labor grant designed to increase women’s participation in apprenticeship programs and nontraditional occupations.102
Leaders can foster, grow, and sustain high-quality sectoral training programs such as WRTP | BIG STEP in their states using the successful strategies highlighted in key resources from the University of California Berkeley Labor Center, the National Skills Coalition, and other expert organizations, as well as providing dedicated support through state budgets.103 In addition to California, strong examples come from Massachusetts (which offers competitive grants to partnerships using funding from a dedicated state workforce competitiveness trust fund); Maryland (which similarly provides state-funded competitive grants to fund both planning activities as well as training itself, provides technical assistance, and facilitates peer-to-peer learning opportunities); and Colorado (which codified sectoral partnerships as a key component of state workforce policy and coordinates partnership policy statewide through its state workforce board).104
| Case Study: California’s High-Road Training Partnership Initiative and the Hospitality Training Academy |
|
Since 2017, California has made significant investments in high-road workforce development through its High Road Training Partnerships (HRTP) initiative. The state’s workforce development board launched the HRTP initiative as a $10 million demonstration project to expand industry-led, worker-informed regional training partnerships. Since then, the initiative has invested nearly $250 million from state funds in more than ninety partnerships that prioritize job quality, underserved workers, and environmental resilience in multiple industries—from hospitality and health care to infrastructure and clean energy.105 Its multi-year, flexible grants can be used to cover not only costs of training, but also employer engagement, supportive services, and development of the partnership infrastructure. Based on its success, California attracted philanthropic support to supplement its public investments in 2022, and Los Angeles County created a complementary HRTP effort at the local level.106
The Hospitality Training Academy (HTA), started in Los Angeles, was one of eight partnerships supported by the inaugural round of HRTP grants.107 HTA is a high-road partnership that meets the needs of employers and workers in the hospitality, food services, leisure, and tourism industries in Southern California, Baltimore, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Phoenix.108 HTA is structured as a nonprofit labor–management partnership. Its backbone organization is UNITE HERE Local 11, a union representing hospitality workers, and its partners include 170 employers, as well as community colleges, workforce investment boards, and city agencies.109
In collaboration with its industry partners, HTA offers free training for participants in its industrial kitchen, designed to simulate an actual employment setting, that leads to industry-recognized credentials—including registered apprenticeships and pre-apprenticeships for occupations such as line cooks, baristas, and bartenders—as well as classes such as English language learning. In contrast to typical jobs in its target occupations—which are characterized by low pay, poor job quality, and few opportunities for professional development—HTA’s partnerships move participants to jobs with living wages and benefits, safe working conditions, and strong career pathways.110 In exchange, HTA’s employer partners benefit from a pipeline of qualified workers.
Since 2012, HTA has trained 4,500 students—95 percent of whom have a job waiting for them upon graduation—and upskilled 2,700 incumbent workers.111 Leveraging a mix of federal, state, local, and other funding, HTA targets underserved populations such as low-income workers, people experiencing homelessness, and those who are formerly incarcerated.
For state leaders, the design and best practices from California’s HRTP initiative can serve as a model for statewide investments in high-road, evidence-based training. And the Hospitality Training Academy can serve as a model training partnership worth investing in to benefit workers, employers, and the state economy alike.112
|
2.2 Leveraging Public Dollars to Create Good Jobs for Public Contractors
From infrastructure to mass transit to public schools, states are responsible for building and maintaining tens of thousands of public projects annually. State policymakers can use these investments as opportunities not only to deliver public goods effectively and efficiently, but also to create good jobs and high-quality training opportunities for their residents.113
To ensure that public dollars are not blank checks to corporations—but are instead used to create good jobs that lift up entire communities—state leaders can attach strong standards to public funds using good jobs tools. Three key good jobs tools are community benefits agreements, workforce equity agreements, and community project labor agreements, all of which are already demonstrating success at the local, regional, and project levels. These three types of negotiated agreements can advance states’ goals by incorporating provisions to improve job quality (such as standards for wages, benefits, safety, and union neutrality); support high-quality training (such as requirements to expand and hire from registered apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship programs); and increase equitable recruiting and hiring (such as specific targets for hiring from priority groups or the local community near a project site). The agreements can also include tracking and accountability mechanisms for reaching these standards and targets. All three are developed by bringing key stakeholders to the table—from project owners such as developers or public agencies, to unions, community organizations, philanthropy, workforce boards, government entities, and/or education and training providers.
In addition to benefiting workers and communities, these good jobs tools can also benefit project owners by increasing project efficiency and quality, controlling costs, improving worker retention, reducing the risk of strikes, and smoothing approval processes by securing the community’s support. Importantly, they can help employers and local economies build a reliable, diverse pipeline of highly skilled workers—an urgent need in states across the country for critical industries such as construction, in which a large share of the workforce is nearing retirement age.114
Community Benefits Agreements
Community benefits agreements (CBAs) are voluntary but legally binding agreements between a developer and local residents tied to a specific project.115 Signatories on behalf of residents are often coalitions of community groups and/or the municipal government. CBAs incorporate residents’ interests into the planning process and determine how the community will benefit during and after the project’s development, through both monetary and nonmonetary mechanisms. Alongside labor-related provisions such as livable or prevailing wages and local and economic hiring preferences,116 CBAs often include commitments in other areas such as affordable housing, transit, or local services.117 Many dozens of CBAs have been negotiated since the tool was first used in the late 1990s,118 and experts have compiled robust recommendations for their negotiation and implementation.119 Several states have CBA requirements in place. For example, New Jersey law requires CBAs for all projects costing $10 million or more that are part of its state tax incentive program,120 while Maine and Connecticut laws require CBAs for projects in certain sectors, such as clean energy.121 California and Michigan provide incentives such as expedited permitting for projects that include CBAs or other community benefits mechanisms.122
One strong example of a CBA is a 2022 agreement in Anniston, Alabama with New Flyer, the nation’s largest electric bus manufacturer.123 Led by Jobs to Move America, community–labor coalitions in Anniston, a predominantly Black city, secured commitments to high-quality workforce development, including a new pre-apprenticeship program; safety, anti-discrimation, and anti-harassment trainings and protections; and equitable hiring from local neighborhoods and disadvantaged groups.124 Use of CBAs for clean energy projects, many of which are located in the South, expanded during the previous administration under the U.S. Department of Energy’s requirement that companies applying for billions of dollars in funding create a plan for community benefits.125
Workforce Equity Agreements
Workforce equity agreements (WEAs) can cover all projects in a geographic region that meet certain criteria, such as capital projects that receive $5 million or more in public funding, rather than being tied to a specific project.126 WEAs can be structured in a number of formats, depending on implementation needs. Their strongest form is as formal, legally binding contracts, but they can also be policy agreements such as memoranda of understanding (MOUs) or publicly adopted policies by the parties. To develop a statewide WEA, states or regions can convene a working group of key public agencies—such as transit, housing, and water authorities—to set specific targets and requirements that advance shared goals on job quality, training, workforce diversity, and more. After engaging and soliciting feedback from key stakeholders across the state, public agencies sign the finalized agreement, committing to integrating its provisions in the projects they fund.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania announced its regional WEA in 2024.127 Under the city’s WEA pilot project,128 bidders on construction and real estate development projects receiving public funding of $250,000 or more must provide quality jobs consistent with Pittsburgh’s Good Jobs Principles, including elements such as prevailing wages, paid sick days, anti-discrimination protections, and equal employment opportunity for individuals with previous criminal convictions.129 And they must meet workforce utilization targets for economically disadvantaged residents: at least 25 percent of project hours must be worked by registered apprentices who are residents of disadvantaged neighborhoods in the city, and at least 15 percent of journeyworkers and apprentices must come from these neighborhoods or from specific disadvantaged worker groups.
In an earlier example, in 2022, Greater Portland, Oregon launched its multi-jurisdictional WEA developed by sixteen public agencies.130 The agreement advances the region’s Construction Career Pathways Framework, which is helping meet regional demand for thousands of skilled construction workers by training, hiring, and retaining a diverse local workforce.131
Project Labor Agreements
Project labor agreements (PLAs) are legally binding, pre-hire collective bargaining agreements that set the terms of work for all contractors on a specific project.132 For much of their seventy-five-year history, PLAs were typically negotiated between project owners and consortia of construction trades unions; they were used to set uniform labor standards, increase competition, ensure high-quality work, prevent strikes that could delay project completion, and lower costs for taxpayers.133 In the past quarter-century, PLAs have increasingly evolved to include a wider range of community stakeholders in negotiations, and to address broader community and workforce needs.134 Such broader agreements are sometimes called community PLAs or community workforce agreements. Several states—including Illinois, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Washington—require PLAs for certain publicly funded construction projects (generally projects that exceed a certain size), mainly through executive orders.135 Unfortunately, at the same time, roughly half of states restrict the use of PLAs.136
One successful example of the use of PLAs comes from Minneapolis, where local construction unions and a contractor negotiated a community PLA to build the U.S. Bank Stadium in 2013.137 Alongside provisions on wages, hours, dispute resolution, and more, the parties to the PLA committed to an equity plan adopted by the Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority, a public board. The equity plan provided targets that 32 percent and 6 percent of the 7,500 jobs created by the project be held by workers of color and women, respectively. Using a specified online platform to monitor progress, the project exceeded these goals—with 36 percent workers of color and 9 percent women—and was completed six weeks ahead of schedule.
State leaders can require, incentivize, or encourage the use of CBAs, WEAs, PLAs, and other good jobs tools138 on a statewide basis—whether through legislation, executive orders, or other means—wherever appropriate. State leaders should use these tools to establish strong floors for labor and workforce standards on public projects, while enabling local jurisdictions to go further with policies that make sense for their communities. As a first step, leaders should remove barriers such as statewide restrictions on the use of PLAs.
2.3 Boosting Supportive Services
Workers cannot train for, transition to, or stay in good jobs if they cannot meet basic needs, such as transportation, child care, housing, and mental health services. To improve a labor market that too often puts the onus on workers—particularly those who have low incomes or face barriers to employment such as a disability—to navigate the narrow path to a good job on their own, states should ensure workers have access to robust supportive services that help them meet their individual needs. Evidence shows supportive services help workers, especially disadvantaged workers, successfully complete training programs and remain in the workforce.139
Supportive services, also called wraparound services, encompass a variety of supports that are available on an as-needed basis.140 Individual workers may only need a few, if any, of these supports—but workers, employers, and states alike benefit from policies that connect individuals quickly and effectively to the services they need. For example, when a worker’s car unexpectedly breaks down, emergency assistance could spell the difference between the worker keeping or losing her job and income; the employer retaining or losing a skilled worker; and the state receiving or losing that worker’s labor force participation, future tax revenues, and contributions to her local economy.
The most critical services may differ by worker population. For example, access to affordable child care—states’ most frequently cited barrier to workforce development141—is particularly important for many women workers, who are disproportionately likely to be caregivers.142 Transportation to training or to a jobsite is another key barrier to employment, especially in rural areas with little access to public transportation. For example, construction workers and apprentices—who often start work at very early hours—may particularly need assistance obtaining a driver’s license or maintaining a personal vehicle to get reliably to their jobsite.143
States invest in supportive services for workers in multiple ways—from providing financial support for and connecting workers to direct-service and community-based organizations that provide services on the ground; to offering subsidies, cash assistance, or services directly from state or local governments; to incentivizing or encouraging employers and other stakeholders to provide services. States can and do leverage multiple funding streams for supportive services, including funds they receive from the federal government such as Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), and even federal highway formula funds.144 However, these resources are often underfunded and contain limitations on how flexibly funds may be used,145 so states, service providers, and workforce organizations generally must blend and braid funding sources to serve workers and trainees.146
State leaders should strengthen access to supportive services to help more workers train for, navigate to, and remain in good jobs. As a first step, state leaders should ensure that, wherever appropriate, supportive services are an allowable use of state-provided workforce development funds, and consider increasing or removing restrictions on the share of such funds that can be used for services.
States can also create a dedicated funding stream that flexibly supports multiple supportive services. For example, Illinois established Barrier Reduction Funding, which enables workforce training programs to tackle their participants’ expenses related to housing, child care, digital technology, fines and fees, or other barriers to employment.147 Or states can expand direct financial support to specific high-quality workforce programs or organizations that deeply integrate supportive services into their approaches—whether by funding these efforts directly in their budgets, directing federal resources such as WIOA or apprenticeship funds toward these efforts, or creating incentives such as preference points in their competitive funding opportunities to encourage these efforts.
Another way to address the need for supportive services is to provide a universal benefit. New Mexico created a first-in-the-nation statewide solution for one vital supportive service—a universal free child care initiative launching in November 2025.148 New Mexico’s initiative, while not limited to workers, is expected to have strong workforce benefits, from boosting labor force participation to making it easier for residents to participate in education and training so they can get a better-paying job.149 The initiative also holds significant promise to improve wages, job quality, and retention among child care workers, with providers receiving incentives to pay entry-level wages of at least $18–$21 per hour. While state leaders will need to make thoughtful decisions in the coming months on details and implementation to ensure that all stakeholders—families, child care workers, and providers—benefit to the initiative’s full potential, New Mexico is showing at the state level what it means to prioritize supportive services. New Mexico’s initiative will leverage dedicated funding from the state’s land grant reserve fund; other states interested in following New Mexico’s example could consider a dedicated corporate tax (see Section 5.3).
3. Enhancing Responsibility for Workers’ Well-Being
3.1 Strengthening Hot Goods Protections
Across the country, every year, workers are harmed by companies that routinely violate minimum wage, overtime, and child labor requirements. Federal wage and hour investigators recovered more than $1 billion in back wages and damages for 615,000 workers between January 2021 and September 2024.150 While these workers received some repayment of their stolen wages, many thousands—if not millions—of others experience violations of their minimum wage, overtime, and child labor rights each year with no measure of justice.151
One tool states can use to increase accountability for wage theft and illegal child labor across supply chains is to enact their own versions of “hot goods” provisions. Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), hot goods provisions make it illegal to ship goods in interstate commerce that were produced in violation of minimum wage or overtime requirements.152 They also prohibit shipping goods that were produced in an establishment where a child labor violation occurred within the prior thirty days.
Hot goods provisions allow the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) to seek a court order to prevent interstate shipment of such goods, which can apply to both the employer that manufactures the goods as well as anyone who possesses the goods. This creates a disincentive for employers to violate labor laws in their own workplaces, as well as a deterrent for employers up the supply chain who may be considering doing business with potential violators.
States can enact their own “hot goods” provisions to prevent goods made in violation of worker protection laws from flowing through their economic markets. Such provisions would, first and foremost, empower the state’s labor agencies and/or the state attorney general to seek a court order to halt the shipment, distribution, or sale of hot goods. Furthermore, as the Economic Policy Institute discusses, states could also expressly prohibit the sale of hot goods, paired with strong monetary penalties; empower state authorities to confiscate these goods and, in the case of repeat violations, the equipment with which they were made; and make consumers aware using special tags affixed to goods produced with illegal child labor, as in New York.153 States should offer a prompt hearing to any employers whose goods or equipment are confiscated under these policies. And in crafting these policies, state policymakers should consult up-front with the entities that will be responsible for enforcing them.
Several states have elements of these policies in statute. For example, Vermont prohibits the sale of goods made in violation of state and federal child labor laws, regardless of the type of goods or the state in which the goods were produced.154 Violations carry a penalty of up to $10,000. California and New York both have laws specific to the garment industry.155 These laws require garment manufacturers and contractors to register with the state labor agency. And they not only enable the labor agencies to prevent shipment, sale, and purchase of goods made in violation of law, but also to confiscate the goods under certain circumstances.156
To maximally combat illegal child labor, states can pair “hot goods” provisions with other efforts to strengthen enforcement, as this playbook covers in Section 1.3, and enhance child labor laws, as in Section 4.1.
3.2 Holding Corporate Power in Check
In recent decades, many major companies have shifted away from directly employing their workers, choosing instead to outsource to subcontractors or staffing agencies for the workers they need.157 Often, both the major company and the subcontractor jointly control workers’ key terms and conditions of employment.
For workers, this shift has translated into lower wages, fewer benefits, less job security, and higher rates of injury and fatalities on the job.158 It also complicates enforcement of employment laws, making it hard to hold employers accountable when they steal workers’ wages, deny them benefits to which they are entitled, misclassify them, or otherwise violate their rights.
Subcontractors often use these illegal practices to gain a cost advantage against their law-abiding competitors, slashing their labor costs by up to 17 percent, according to one study of the construction industry.159 When caught, these companies often simply change their business identity or adopt a shell-company identity.160 Meanwhile, lead employers at the top of the contracting chain evade consequences by blaming and replacing subcontractors—without changing the policies, practices, or pressures that led to these violations.
States can use the joint employer doctrine161 to combat these exploitative business models by holding accountable all employers that share control of a worker’s terms and conditions of employment on a particular job. By applying and strengthening joint employment liability, states can help recover penalties, back pay, and other damages and costs on behalf of workers. And they can deter lead employers from doing business with low-road subcontractors that cut costs by mistreating workers.
Fortunately, states already have authority to hold companies accountable as joint employers under existing state employment laws.162 But states can take further action to clarify, tighten, and strengthen joint employment liability to better protect workers.
For example, state labor agencies and/or attorneys general can issue regulations or guidance to clarify joint employer standards under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in their state, including by drawing inspiration from guidance issued by DOL in 2016.163 They can also increase financial penalties and carry out strategic enforcement to better deter violations and raise awareness.
States can also strengthen their joint employer standards through legislation or the ballot box. As with all policy objectives, a straightforward but powerful step is to remove existing barriers: In roughly eighteen states, voters and policymakers can score a major win for workers by repealing so-called joint employer shield laws, which are designed to insulate major franchises such as major fast food chains from responsibility for treatment of their workers.164 In addition, states can codify or expand the list of “essential terms and conditions of employment” used to determine joint employer status.165 They can adopt an expansive definition of joint employment that covers employers that have indirect control over workers’ terms and conditions and/or employers that reserve the ability to control workers’ terms and conditions, even if they do not exercise that ability.
Additionally, states can also make “client” companies jointly responsible for violations of wage and hour, health and safety, or workers’ compensation laws committed by labor contracting firms they hire, as California first did in 2014.166 They can make companies whose subcontractors violate labor laws ineligible for state-funded incentives such as tax breaks for job creation. Finally, some states have passed special legislation to protect groups who experience high rates of wage theft and other violations due to workplace fissuring, such as workers in the construction industry and at temporary staffing agencies.167
A strong approach is to enact policy with broad coverage across industries, types of workers, and types of violations, and then conduct intensive strategic enforcement in high-risk industries, as the District of Columbia has done. Across industries, the District of Columbia’s law makes contractors and their subcontractors jointly and severally liable under its laws on minimum wage, timely payment of wages, and sick and safe leave, including in temporary staffing situations. The District of Columbia’s attorney general, partnering with its labor agencies, has “made extensive use of its joint and several liability law with much success,” particularly in the construction industry.168
A second example comes from New Jersey’s 2023 Temporary Workers’ Bill of Rights.169 Recognizing the particular vulnerability of temporary workers to exploitation, New Jersey had already made lead (client) companies jointly liable with their temporary staffing agencies for violations of wage and hour laws, employer tax laws, and misclassification.170 Building on those laws, the bill of rights further leveled the playing field by requiring that these workers receive pay and benefits comparable to workers who are directly employed by the lead companies. If this requirement is violated, lead companies can be held jointly liable. To help bring more temporary staffing agencies above board, the law also required these companies to register with the state and prove that they are making required contributions to unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation before they can enter into contracts with clients. In addition to enforcement powers it provides to state agencies, New Jersey created a private right of action that allows aggrieved workers to sue both the temporary staffing agency and the lead agency for relief. In a further innovation for temporary workers, Illinois—the only other state with a temporary workers’ bill of rights—amended its law in 2024 to require lead employers to offer temporary workers permanent positions when they become open.171
States can pair action to hold up-the-chain employers accountable with other steps to protect workers’ wages and financial security from exploitation by corporations. One example comes from Arizona, where voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure (72 percent to 28 percent) to better shield workers and families from losing their hard-earned paychecks—as well as their homes and savings—to predatory medical debt collectors.172 Medical debt is among the most devastating but common ways people end up in a cycle of economic precarity, and the fear of such debt prevents millions of Americans from seeking the medical care they need. Based on its Proposition 209, Arizona law now shields more of workers’ earnings from wage garnishments, limiting garnishments to 10 percent rather than 25 percent. It also protects $400,000 of their home’s value and $5,000 in their bank account, and caps interest rates for medical debt at 3 percent, dramatically limiting the circumstances under which workers can lose everything they’ve earned and saved. Other states can follow Arizona’s popular policy to protect the paychecks, homes, and savings of 100 million Americans who have medical debt from corporate confiscation.173
3.3 Taxing the Rich and Profitable Corporations to Better Serve Workers
Economic inequality has increased significantly in recent decades in states across the country.174 In 1965, CEOs of major companies were paid 21 times as much as a typical worker—compared to 290 times as much as a typical worker in 2023.175 Yet today, forty-four states’ tax systems exacerbate income inequality because they are regressive, meaning tax burdens as a share of income fall most heavily on low- and middle-income residents.176
Meanwhile, critical public investments in workers—from enforcement of labor laws to high-quality training and supportive services—are often deeply underfunded at the federal and state levels. When faced with similar gaps in the funds needed to serve their working families and communities, such as public education or transportation, some states have created dedicated taxes on the highest earners in the state.
To better serve workers and working families while also reducing inequality, states could consider dedicated taxes on the highest-income residents or profitable corporations.
There is growing precedent for state-level taxes on the rich, with several states recently enacting surtaxes on incomes above a certain threshold. Starting in 2024, rich Californians began paying a 14.4 percent rate on incomes over $1 million.177 Since 2020, New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts have also established or increased tax rates on incomes greater than $1 million, with additional increments at $5 million and $25 million in New York.178 And Washington State is adding an additional tax on capital gains greater than $1 million from the sale of long-term assets following a 2024 ballot initiative.179 Contrary to fears that such taxes will cause high earnings to leave the state, research shows that taxes rarely influence where people—including the rich—choose to live.180 While other state taxes tend to go to general revenue, many special taxes on high incomes are devoted to a specific purpose. For example, California’s Proposition 55 tax on high earners was specifically earmarked for K–12 schools, community colleges, and health care for low-income residents, while Massachusetts’s surtax is devoted to public education and transportation.
Another option is a state-level tax on corporations, which could be directly tied to these businesses’ reliance on and vested interest in the state’s skilled workforce. In addition to the Washington State example discussed below, there are multiple international examples of such taxes.181 For instance, in the United Kingdom and other European nations, the registered apprenticeship system is supported by a dedicated tax on employers because employers benefit from the system’s services to develop skilled workers.182 States could similarly enact a tax on corporations to help expand high-quality training opportunities such as registered apprenticeships and other high-road training partnerships, as well as supportive services for workers (see Section 2). To encourage employers to participate in developing a strong workforce, states could offer partial reimbursements to employers who do their part—in proportion to their business’s size and workforce needs—by engaging in high-road training partnerships, hosting apprenticeships and pre-apprentices, or participating in related activities.
Alternatively or additionally, tax revenue could be dedicated to other pro-worker policies, including those advanced in this playbook—for example, equitably implementing new benefits and protections such as phasing out the subminimum wage or implementing fair and predictable scheduling; expanding supportive services for workers such as child care, transportation, or health services; strengthening enforcement of key labor and employment laws; or supporting outreach, education, and awareness for workers and employers about laws and policies such as joint employer liability or hot goods provisions.
Case Study: Washington’s Surcharge on Big Tech Companies to Develop a Highly Skilled Workforce |
|
In 2019, Washington State lawmakers passed the Workforce Education Investment Act to give the state’s residents a fair shot at the 740,000 job openings at Washington companies projected to require a postsecondary credential, such as a degree or apprenticeship, in subsequent years.183 The law covered the costs of apprenticeship, community and technical college, and university tuition and fees for students with family incomes up to half the state’s median family income, and reduced costs on a sliding scale for students up to the median family income.184 It also allocated nearly $200 million to support and expand apprenticeships, community colleges, and public four-year colleges and universities.185
To make these investments, the law placed a surcharge on the corporations that employ highly skilled workers in fields such as engineering, accounting and consulting—companies that depend on Washington’s training and higher education systems to supply their future workers. The 1.22-percent surcharge, which was designed to raise roughly $1 billion over four years, is applied on top of the state’s existing business and occupation tax on professional services, a tax paid by about one in five Washington companies.186 Smaller businesses faced a smaller tax, while the state’s largest technology firms were estimated to contribute up to $7 million per year.187
The law received vocal, public endorsements from Amazon and Microsoft, the state’s largest technology firms. As Microsoft’s vice chair and president wrote, he supported his company and other technology companies paying into a dedicated workforce and education investment fund because they rely heavily on a pipeline of highly educated workers in the state.188
Other states could follow Washington’s example by creating a surcharge on corporations or wealthy households that benefit from the state’s skilled workforce and economy—and devoting the resulting funds to supports and services that make life better for workers and their families.
|
4. Supporting Healthier Workers and Care
4.1 Combating Harmful Child Labor
Illegal child labor has surged in recent years, with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) reporting a nearly 90 percent increase in violations between 2019 and 2023.189 In 2023 alone, there were twenty-three fatalities among workers younger than 18.190 Unfortunately, at the same time, multiple states have passed laws that make it easier for employers to endanger and exploit children on worksites—and harder for enforcement authorities to identify and combat illegal child labor.
Illegal and hazardous labor threatens children’s safety, health, and educational opportunities.191 What’s more, these exploitative practices harm state economies by undermining wages and working conditions for legitimate workers and undercutting law-abiding businesses with low-road competition.
Since 1938, the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) has regulated employment among children younger than 18 years old in nonagricultural jobs. But nine decades later, the FLSA’s key tenets have not been updated and its exclusion for farm work remains.192 Experts agree that the FLSA’s civil penalties—a maximum of $16,035 per child employed in violation of the law in 2025—are too low to meaningfully deter violations, particularly among large corporations.193 As a consequence, while the number of children affected by DOL enforcement actions nearly doubled between 2017 and 2022, penalty amounts remained alarmingly low, averaging less than $3,000 per child worker.194 And violators face very low odds of receiving this slap on the wrist at all when the number of federal wage and hour investigators is at a fifty-two-year low.195
This situation leaves states with a critical role to protect children from dangerous work. Yet some have recently gone backward, with seventeen states enacting rollbacks in state laws since 2021—including loosening restrictions on hazardous jobs, alcohol service, and hours of work—and at least eight states proposing measures to further weaken protections in 2025, according to the Economic Policy Institute.196
Fortunately, other states are stepping up, including seven that strengthened their laws in 2024.197 For example, in a nearly unanimous bipartisan effort, Alabama passed a law establishing a minimum penalty of $300 for violating employers, introducing criminal penalties for the death or serious injury of a child, and quintupling its maximum penalty for certain hazardous work violations to $10,000.198 Now, an innovative Alabama proposal would prohibit businesses that violate child labor laws from receiving state incentive funds for economic development.199
And Illinois passed a major overhaul of its child labor laws, which took effect at the start of 2025.200 Among other provisions, the law multiplies the state’s penalties for child labor violations in prohibited occupations up to $15,000 (or $60,000 in the event of a fatality), with each day a violation occurs being considered a separate offense. It also updates the list of jobs classified as hazardous for children, and strengthens limits on working hours for children younger than 16 to account for their school schedules. It strengthens connections with school systems, including improving the youth work permit process—which research shows works to prevent violations—at a time when some other states have been weakening youth permits.201
State leaders should double down on this momentum to prevent, deter, and strongly penalize harmful child labor. In addition to the types of actions discussed above, expert organizations have offered detailed recommendations for states202—from publicly publishing data on violations and violators, to barring violators from the public procurement process, to dedicating money from fines and penalties to directly support enforcement efforts. States can also expand the rights of child victims to sue employers and make these victims eligible to collect damages, as Minnesota and Colorado have recently done,203 and expand education and outreach for young workers and employers, as Virginia recently did.204 And as recommended in this playbook, states can enact their own “hot goods” provisions (see Section 3.1); increase accountability for businesses up the supply chain whose subcontractors or staffing agencies use illegal child labor (Section 3.2); and end the discriminatory youth subminimum wage, which increases younger workers’ vulnerability and employers’ incentive to seek out youth instead of adult workers (Section 1.2).
4.2 Modernizing Health and Safety Protections to Shield Workers from New Risks
In 2023, nearly 5,300 workers were killed on the job in the United States, and there were nearly 2.6 million nonfatal injuries and illnesses in American workplaces.205 The risk of death or harm on the job is not evenly distributed: for example, workers in industries such as agriculture, mining, transportation, warehousing, and construction face particularly high risk.206 Low-paid workers and workers of color are disproportionately affected, as are immigrant workers, some of whom fear retaliation from their employers for speaking up about unsafe working conditions.207
Today, longstanding workplace risks, such as toxic dust in mines, hazardous chemicals, and falls in construction, mingle with new and emerging threats. For instance, dangerous heat—long a risk factor in summer months, hot regions of the country, and industries such as agriculture and construction—now threatens a growing share of workers and workplaces as temperatures continue to break records.208 The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the risks health care workers and other frontline workers face from the threat of new infectious diseases. A recent surge in illegal child labor shines a spotlight on the hazards of industries such as meatpacking—not only for workers directly employed in those industries, but also for workers who handle the dangerous equipment as employees of janitorial and maintenance subcontractors, as major corporations increasingly outsource to third-party contractors rather than hiring workers directly.209 And the rapid spread of AI-enabled technologies in American workplaces is driving a host of safety and health concerns, such as injuries due to “work intensification” and increased psychological stress as workers race to meet AI-monitored productivity metrics (see case study below).
Workers are much more likely to come home safely at the end of their shift compared to a half-century ago,210 but federal efforts to protect workers are dramatically and increasingly under-resourced. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has just one compliance officer for every 80,000 workers, and funding cuts threaten to further slash OSHA resources.211 At the same time, progress has been stalled or reversed on providing overdue protections against major workplace threats, including miners’ exposure to toxic silica dust, health care workers’ vulnerability to infectious diseases and workplace violence, and indoor and outdoor workers’ exposure to dangerous heat.212
States have many opportunities to reduce preventable injuries, illnesses, and deaths on the job. For example, in the twenty-two states that are approved by the federal government to operate their own job safety and health programs, leaders can immediately act to enhance strategic enforcement and increase penalties for violators by updating their state OSHA plans.213 (In 2022, the average penalty under OSHA state plans for a serious violation of worker health and safety rules was just $2,221—about half of the already-low average of $4,354 under federal OSHA.214) States can also target specific hazards through their legislative and executive processes. For example, seven states currently have laws protecting workers against dangerous heat on the job—and similar protections have been proposed in half a dozen additional states, as well as at the federal level.215 Finally, states can identify and counteract threats to workers from particular technologies or in specific industries, such as Minnesota did for warehouse workers in the case study below.216
| Case Study: Minnesota’s Quota Transparency Law to Protect Warehouse Workers’ Safety |
|
The rise of e-commerce and high-speed fulfillment has driven massive expansion of the warehousing sector over the past decade, with employment increasing by 116 percent.217 At the same time, new AI-enabled technologies have allowed warehousing employers to set time-based quotas to meet their ever-steeper performance goals, monitoring workers’ progress in real time through wearable devices and surveillance technologies.
These production quotas are often used to determine pay, promotions, discipline, and even termination with little or no transparency, explanation, interaction with a human manager, or recourse for workers.218 Warehousing is already one of the nation’s most dangerous industries,219 and pressure from production quotas can push warehouse workers to work at an unsafe pace, skip needed breaks, or take on too heavy a workload.220 This “work intensification” corresponds to a sharp increase in the severity of warehousing injuries: nearly 90 percent of injuries required missed days of work or job transfers in 2023, up dramatically from 70 percent just a decade earlier.221
In Minnesota, lawmakers passed the state’s Warehouse Worker Protection Act in 2023,222 after workers raised major concerns about safety in one of the state’s largest warehouses. Analysis revealed that workers at the Twin Cities-area warehouse were four times more likely to be injured on the job as workers in other Minnesota industries—and more than twice as likely to be injured as workers employed by other Minnesota warehouse employers.223 The warehouse also had large racial earnings gaps and triple-digit turnover rates.224 State lawmakers and worker advocates wrote that the high injury and worker turnover rates were directly attributable to “dangerous management practices” that kept workers “racing against a machine with quotas set by algorithms that treat them like robots.”225
Minnesota’s law requires warehouses with more than 250 employees to provide their workers, upon hire, with plain-language, written information of all quotas and performance standards they are subject to, as well as how those quotas and standards are determined.226 Importantly for the community’s large concentration of immigrant workers, the information must be provided in the worker’s primary language. Workers cannot be fired or disciplined for failing to meet a quota that was not disclosed. And they cannot be required to meet a quota that prevents them from complying with time allowed for meals, breaks, or prayer; traveling to and from and using restrooms; or state and other health and safety standards—and are specifically protected against employer retaliation.
The law also gives workers the right to receive—both upon request and when any disciplinary action is taken—their personal work speed data, as well as aggregated data for similar employees at their worksite, over the most recent ninety-day period.227 Finally, the bill establishes a private right of action for workers, and requires the Minnesota commissioner of labor and industry to open an investigation for any warehouse site with an injury rate 30 percent higher than that year’s industry average.
As of 2025, five states have passed legislation prohibiting nontransparent quotas that reward speed over safety.228 That includes Washington, where the state’s law has strong record-keeping requirements and applies to worksites with 100 or more workers—including independent contractors and those employed by subcontractors and temporary staffing agencies, improving accountability for employers regardless of their employment model.229 Officials in Minnesota, Washington, and other states have successfully used these laws to bring enforcement actions in recent years.230 More than a dozen other states have also proposed legislation, according to the National Employment Law Project, which offers guidance to state leaders on quota laws and other actions to improve safety and health for the nation’s 1.8 million warehouse workers.231
|
4.3 Enhancing Job Quality for Care Workers through Minimum Staffing Standards
Across the country, an army of dedicated care workers—including 5.4 million direct care workers and nearly 1 million child care workers—work in settings ranging from homes and nursing homes to child care centers and hospitals.232 Care occupations are among the fastest-growing in the U.S. economy; for instance, in the next decade alone, the United States will need an additional 722,000 direct care workers trained to assist people with disabilities and seniors as our population rapidly ages.233
Care workers, who are disproportionately women of color, make others’ lives and livelihoods possible. Yet they hold some of the lowest-quality jobs in the labor market, often facing low pay, health and safety risks, harassment and exploitation, and little voice on the job—all of which fuel the sector’s high turnover rates and chronic staffing challenges.234 To meet their care needs in the coming years—and maintain healthy populations, productive workforces, and strong economies—states will need to prioritize policies that improve job quality for care workers.
One of many opportunities for states to improve job quality for care workers—while also benefitting individuals and families who receive care—is by strengthening minimum staffing requirements for nursing homes. Nationwide, nearly 500,000 direct care workers provide medical and personal care services to 1.2 million Americans in nursing facilities.235 In many facilities across the country, these workers not only face low wages,236 but also barely sustainable workloads due to low staffing levels—contributing to burnout and a turnover rate that has approached 100 percent per year.237 At the same time, extensive research finds that low staffing levels also lead to lower-quality care for residents.238
Minimum staffing standards ensure there are sufficient professionals on hand to maintain the health and safety of residents and staff. While more than two-thirds of states currently have minimum staffing standards, states’ standards vary widely and many could be significantly strengthened to improve health, safety, and well-being of residents and workers alike.239 Based on available evidence, in a 2024 federal rulemaking, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service (CMS) proposed a total nurse staffing standard of 3.48 hours per resident day (HPRD) at nursing facilities,240 as well as having a registered nurse on duty twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.241 In recent years, only about half a dozen states had an average total nurse staff HPRD of 3.48 or greater.242 And in the large majority of states, minimum staffing requirements were less than 3.0 HRPD.243
Fortunately, states can look to recent examples to improve their standards. For example, in 2020, Massachusetts passed a law to raise its state minimum nurse staffing requirement to 3.58 HPRD.244 The state also leveraged its Medicaid funds to encourage compliance with a penalty of 2 percent of a facility’s quarterly Medicaid payments.245 A quasi-experimental study found the state’s policy successfully increased staffing levels among short-staffed nursing homes with high Medicaid resident shares.246 Rhode Island went further the following year, increasing its minimum standard to 3.58 HRPD beginning in 2022 and to 3.81 HRPD beginning in 2023, paired with funds to help raise wages for direct care staff, recruit and retain workers, and provide training opportunities.247 Other state leaders should carefully design and implement such minimum staffing standards and other care-sector policies with input from affected workers, individuals and their families, employers, and other stakeholders.
Minimum staffing standards are just one of many policies state leaders can consider to improve job quality for the critical care workforce. Expert organizations have offered additional ideas to help states address staffing issues specifically in nursing homes.248 And throughout this playbook, states can find multiple options affecting job quality for all types of care workers—from supporting high-road partnership training options for good care careers (Section 2.1) and expanding care as a supportive service (2.3), to creating care-sector wage boards (1.1) and expanding collective bargaining rights (5.1) for care workers.
4.4 Ensuring Schedules Are Fair and Predictable
Harmful scheduling practices that shift costs and risks from employers onto workers are all too common in today’s economy—from “just-in-time” scheduling where workers receive their schedules with little notice, to workers being sent home early when business is slow without the wages they were counting on, to “on-call” shifts that require workers to wait to be called into work (or not).249 In a 2025 national study of more than 18,000 workers, 62 percent said they lack work schedules that are stable, predictable, and over which they exercise some control.250 These practices are particularly widespread in sectors where labor represents a larger share of employers’ costs, such as hospitality, retail, and food service—sectors in which millions of workers already experience low pay, inadequate benefits, and little ability to influence their working conditions.251 And in recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has accelerated these trends through the proliferation of algorithmic scheduling tools.252
For workers, unstable and unpredictable schedules make it difficult to plan, budget, afford basic needs, and manage out-of-work responsibilities.253 And they can prevent workers from holding a second job or pursuing better careers through education or training.254 Employers, meanwhile, may believe these scheduling practices help their bottom line—but research indicates these practices can lead to lower productivity, higher turnover, and increased labor costs.255 State and local economies also suffer from these lose-lose practices, which keep their workforce trapped in low-paying, low-quality jobs rather than caring for their families, enjoying leisure time, or pursuing opportunities for upward economic mobility, and enable low-road businesses to undercut local high-road employers that create good jobs.
To halt this race to the bottom, one state—Oregon—and nearly a dozen cities have enacted “fair workweek” laws, also called “predictive scheduling” laws.256 As the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) catalogs, fair workweek laws vary across jurisdictions, but each grants workers a strong package of rights.257 Common provisions include the right to advance notice of the work schedule (generally both a good-faith estimate of the typical schedule before employment begins, followed by two weeks’ early notice of weekly schedules thereafter); the right to request a schedule change or flexible work schedule free from retaliation by their employer; the right to predictability pay to compensate workers if the employer makes a last-minute schedule change; and the right to rest for a minimum amount of time between shifts, with additional pay for workers who consent to forego this rest time. Some jurisdictions also include the right to split-shift pay to compensate workers when they have one or more gaps between scheduled shifts on the same day; access-to-hours provisions to offer additional available hours to existing qualified workers (such as part-time workers) before an additional person is hired to work those hours; and part-time parity to ensure part-time workers are treated the same as full-time workers when it comes to wages, benefit accrual, and eligibility for promotions and raises.
Oregon is the only state to enact a comprehensive statewide law to date.258 In 2017, the state began requiring employers in the retail, hospitality, and food service industries that have at least 500 employees to provide their workers a good-faith estimate of their work schedules upon hiring and at least seven days’ written notice of their schedules thereafter, increasing to fourteen days’ notice in 2020. Workers also have the right to decline any schedule changes made with less notice—and if they do not decline, the law specifies how much predictability pay employers must provide for longer, shorter, and modified shifts. Oregon’s law also provides and protects workers’ right to request flexibility in their schedule and work location, as well as their right to rest for at least ten hours between shifts. The law is enforced through both Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industry and a private right of action for workers.
A 2022 study found that following enactment of Oregon’s law—which covered an estimated 172,000 workers—affected workers experienced a 5 percent boost in weekly earnings and a nearly 1 percent reduction in underemployment relative to national trends, while affected employers saw reduced employee turnover.259
A number of other states have proposed, but not yet passed, comprehensive fair workweek laws.260 However, at least nine states have taken discrete steps to address harmful scheduling practices through stand-alone right to request laws as well as reporting pay laws, which compensate workers who show up for their required shift but are not given work to perform.261 States typically reinforce these laws with anti-retaliation protections and a private right of action.
Unfortunately, a nearly equal number of states have taken a step backward by preempting local areas’ ability to advance fair scheduling policies.262
State leaders should promote stable, predictable scheduling practices that can benefit workers and employers alike by removing barriers such as preemption laws, building on existing state laws and policies where they exist, and pursuing additional fair workweek protections such as those discussed above—leveraging resources and recommendations from NWLC and other expert organizations.263
5. Building Worker Power over Corporate Power
5.1 Ensuring All Workers Have a Voice on the Job
Being part of a union has substantial positive effects for workers. Research shows that union workers experience higher pay, stronger benefits, and better working conditions compared to their nonunion counterparts.264 Unions also help close racial and gender pay gaps.265 For states, this translates into stronger workforces, families, and economies.
Nearly half of nonunion workers say they want to be in a union, yet government policy and corporate efforts have erected roadblocks to unionizing and collective bargaining over recent decades.266 As a result, union membership declined from a peak of 33.5 percent in 1954 to just 9.9 percent in 2024—and even when successful, just one in seven union organizing drives reaches a first contract within one year.267
State policies can help to fill in for the failures of federal law to protect worker voice and worker rights. In particular, states have a vital role in ensuring that workers excluded from coverage under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), including agricultural, domestic, and state and local public-sector employees, can achieve the benefits of a union.268 The majority of states allow public-sector employees, such as teachers and firefighters, to organize and bargain collectively, and fourteen states extend such rights to farmworkers.269 (Twelve states and Washington, D.C. have also passed domestic workers’ bills of rights that establish important minimum labor standards, such as wages, hours, and working conditions, but to date, none directly confer collective bargaining rights.)270
Several states such as Connecticut, discussed below, have also expanded collective bargaining rights for care-sector workers who receive their pay through government programs such as Medicaid and child care subsidies, doing so by giving these workers the right to bargain with the state.271 Like farmworkers and domestic workers, home care and child care workers tend to be among the nation’s lowest-paid and most vulnerable workforces—and research shows unions can play a pivotal role in improving their pay and job quality.272 States can also extend these rights for workers at state and local colleges and universities.273
Finally, while policies for workers who are not classified as employees, such as independent contractors, are beyond the scope of this playbook, it is worth noting that states have also sought to support organizing among workers classified as independent contractors. For example, in 2024, Massachusetts voters approved a ballot initiative that gave ride-sharing drivers the right to organize, and in 2025, California provided similar rights through legislation.274
States should ensure as many workers as possible have the free and fair choice to join a union by extending organizing and bargaining rights to groups of workers who would otherwise lack these rights. They can also take steps to prohibit antiunion practices, such as banning captive-audience meetings, as a dozen states have done and an additional five have proposed.275
While proactive and innovative approaches to empower workers should be celebrated, many states have straightforward opportunities for high-value action, of which they can take advantage simply by removing barriers to worker organizing. For example, twenty-seven states have so-called “right-to-work laws” that undermine unions by making it illegal to collect fair-share fees from workers represented by the union.276 These states can follow the example of Michigan, which repealed its decade-old right-to-work law in 2023.277 Four states also ban or severely restrict collective bargaining for public-sector workers.278 Removing these obstacles would offer millions of additional workers across the nation the opportunity to form, join, and sustain a union.
| Case Study: Connecticut Collective Bargaining for Care Workers |
|
Starting in 2012, Connecticut lawmakers granted care workers who are paid through state-funded programs the right to unionize and collectively bargain with the state for better wages, benefits, and training opportunities.279 This included personal care attendants who provide Medicaid-funded supports and services to seniors and people with disabilities, as well as family child care providers who are paid by the state’s Care-4-Kids program, which subsidizes child care for low- and middle-income families.280
The law also created a Personal Care Attendant Workforce Council to study and improve the quality and supply of long-term personal care, including by recommending standards for wages, benefits, training, and retention. The council’s members include representatives for consumers with disabilities and seniors, alongside commissioners of the relevant state government entities. Finally, the law required creation and upkeep of registries of personal care attendants and child care providers who were paid through state-funded programs in the previous six months, which must be available on request to any organization seeking to form a union among these workers.
In 2012, Connecticut’s Medicaid-funded home care workers faced a pay ceiling of just over $13 per hour.281 Since its passage, the law has resulted in significant improvement in wages and benefits, including paid time off, health care premium assistance, and longevity bonuses for personal care attendants.282 And these workers continue to make strides: in May 2025, for example, Connecticut’s governor announced the state had reached an agreement with SEIU 1199 NE, the union representing workers in nursing homes and group homes, that paves the way to wages of $26 per hour for Medicaid-funded certified nursing assistants (CNAs) by January 1, 2028.283 By comparison, the typical nursing assistant in the United States earned just $19 per hour in 2024.284 This followed a 2023 agreement between the state and the SEIU/CSEA Local 740 to increase payment rates for family child care providers by 11 percent in each of the subsequent three years.285
|
5.2 Building a Firmer Foundation for Labor Rights
For ninety years, the federal National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) has been the foundation of workers’ voice and power in the workplace. The NLRA guarantees private-sector employees’ right to organize, form, and join unions, bargain collectively with their employers, and engage in protected activities like striking.
Unfortunately, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which administers and enforces the NLRA, has been unable to decide cases since January 2025 when firings left the NLRB short of the quorum of three members required to do so.286 This has left workers, employers, and their representatives in the lurch while the NLRB’s basic activities—such as certifying union representation elections and resolving unfair labor practices cases—go largely unfulfilled. At the same time, a select group of wealthy corporate leaders is leading efforts to have courts declare the NLRB unconstitutional.287
Faced with this vacuum and uncertainty, several states have passed or proposed measures to empower their own state labor relations boards to enforce labor rights when the NLRB fails or is unable to do so.
In September 2025, both New York and California passed laws that would allow state boards to regulate labor relations if certain conditions, or “triggers,” are met.288 Massachusetts is considering a similar proposal.289 While states’ proposed triggers differ, examples include if the NLRB cannot fulfill its statutory authority to administer the NLRA because it lacks a quorum, adequate funding, or adequate staffing; if NLRA law is narrowed or repealed; or if the NLRB fails to provide a determination or remedy within a certain time period (generally, more than six months).290 Under the bills, if one or more of the triggers are met, state boards would be empowered to take on responsibilities such as certifying union representation elections and addressing charges of unfair labor practices. These trigger laws raise open legal questions when it comes to preemption—a doctrine that generally prohibits states from regulating conduct that is regulated by the National Labor Relations Act. But they are intended to ensure that workers and employers can continue to have their labor-related needs addressed, even if the NLRB is unable or unwilling to fulfill the duties Congress has assigned it.
5.3 Establishing “Just Cause” Protections against Unfair Firings
The United States is unique among industrialized countries in maintaining “at-will” employment, which means that workers can be fired without being given a good reason—or any reason at all.291 Nor do workers have a right to advance notice, severance pay, or a chance to address the problems that led to their termination. While union contracts often include such protections, fewer than 6 percent of U.S. private-sector workers are part of a union.292 This stands in stark contrast to most European countries, as well as the United Kingdom, Australia, Brazil, Japan, Mexico, and others where employers are required to provide workers with a sufficient reason when they are terminated.
Four in every ten U.S. workers have been let go or fired at some point in their careers.293 While employers sometimes have legitimate reasons for terminating workers—such as bad business conditions or poor employee performance—nearly 70 percent of terminated workers were given no reason, or an unfair reason such as retaliation, according to NELP.294
When a large share of American working families are struggling financially, many workers cannot afford to lose their job.295 Fear of being dismissed may make them reluctant to speak up if their employer violates their rights, which in turn creates an environment in which workers can be vulnerable to wage theft, employment discrimination, health and safety violations, and sexual harassment. This particularly affects low-income workers, workers of color, women, and others who are least likely to have financial security or savings. What’s more, at a time when half of all workers are electronically monitored by their employers—and decisions on hiring, firing, and discipline are increasingly delivered by algorithms rather than human bosses—workers may not even receive advance warning or explanation when they are dismissed from their job.296
In the United States, only Puerto Rico and Montana have “just cause” employment laws, although just-cause protections are common in union contracts. Under Law 80, passed in 1976, Puerto Rico does not recognize “at-will” employment.297 Rather, when employers dismiss an employee, they must show that their reasons are based on the employee’s performance or conduct, or on legitimate economic or business reasons such as downsizing or reorganization. Employees who are dismissed in violation of the law are entitled to severance pay.298
Montana’s narrower law, passed in 1987, requires good cause for termination after an employee has completed a probationary period. However, Montana’s law was originally designed to mitigate employers’ worries about state supreme court cases that significantly expanded at-will employees’ rights to sue their employers for wrongful termination.299 The law’s protections and remedies are relatively weak, with researchers calling it “a cautionary tale of why just cause or wrongful discharge legislation needs to be designed carefully.”300
However, in recent years, specific groups of workers have won stronger protections against unfair firings in several cities and one state. This began with parking lot attendants in Philadelphia in 2019, after seven workers were fired in less than a year for speaking out against poor working conditions and low pay.301 In response, the Philadelphia City Council approved the nation’s first local just-cause law, protecting roughly 1,000 parking employees against being dismissed without either just cause or a bona fide economic reason.302 They were followed by the fast food employees of large chains in New York City in 2020 (with legislation proposed to extend these protections to all workers in the city303) and ridesharing drivers in Seattle (followed by all of Washington State). In 2021, Illinois lawmakers introduced the Employee Security Act to protect nearly all employees statewide against unjust dismissals, although the legislation has so far failed to pass.304 In the same year, Maine lawmakers put forward a bill to end at-will employment in the state.305
The National Employment Law Project recommends more than a dozen key protections for inclusion in just-cause policies—including requiring employers to demonstrate a good reason for discharge; clarifying that certain activities are protected and not grounds for termination; requiring a minimum number of weeks of severance pay; guaranteeing that rights are enforceable before judges and juries; and providing strong remedies and relief.306 And, as workplaces are increasingly contracted out and permeated by artificial intelligence (AI), these policies should provide equal protection to temporary and staffing agency workers, prohibit extreme surveillance and electronic monitoring, and protect workers from “deactivation” from and by automated platforms without good cause.
5.4 Freeing Workers from Harmful Noncompete Agreements
An estimated 30 million U.S. workers—nearly one in five—have a noncompete agreement in their employment contract, restricting them from seeking employment with a competing firm or from starting a competing business after they leave their job.307 While employers often justify their use to protect trade secrets, a 2019 report found these agreements are widespread among low-paid workers.308 Nearly 30 percent of businesses with average wages below $13 per hour—including fast food, home health care, and coffee shops—use noncompete agreements for all of their workers, many of whom are not aware of the agreement until after they accept the job.309 This suggests that noncompete agreements are being used by employers to depress workers’ wages and gain an edge over their competitors rather than to protect confidential information.310
For workers, noncompete agreements suppress wages by reducing workers’ leverage to negotiate for higher pay. Noncompete agreements also make it harder to find a new job, leave a bad employer, or start a business in their field. Studies find that these consequences occur even when noncompete agreements are not enforced and are unenforceable, simply because they exert a “chilling effect” on workers.311 Meanwhile, for states, noncompete agreements hurt their economies by stifling business creation, innovation, and job mobility.312 They can also prevent states from addressing critical worker shortages in industries such as health care and engineering.
Fortunately, states have significant power to tackle noncompete agreements and similar anticompetitive employment practices. Thirty-four states and the District of Columbia have at least some restrictions on noncompete agreements, often prohibiting these clauses for workers earning less than a specific income threshold or in particular industries. However, only four states—California, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Oklahoma—ban noncompete agreements entirely, a practice that research shows results in the greatest benefits for workers and state economies.313
The strongest state policies not only prohibit employers from including noncompete clauses in new employment contracts, but also render void previously signed noncompete clauses as well—and require employers to notify current and former workers who signed them that the clauses are void. In addition, the strongest policies apply to noncompete agreements entered into out-of-state, rendering them void within the state. In 2023, California passed these enhancements into law, strengthening its 150-year-old ban into what is now considered the nation’s strongest.314 And strong policies apply broadly, which research shows yields greater economic benefits for workers and labor markets.315 For example, Minnesota’s 2023 ban explicitly applies to independent contractors by including them in the law’s definition of “employees.”316
Strong state policies also prevent evasion by employers317 and are backed by strong enforcement mechanisms, including facilitating strong partnerships between state labor agencies and state attorneys general; enabling enforcers to seek meaningful penalties; and empowering employees to pursue civil action against employers who violate the ban.
States can pair bans on noncompete agreements with action to address other anticompetitive, coercive contract provisions that chill or prevent workers from exercising their rights and accessing justice.318 Examples include no-poaching agreements, nondisclosure agreements, and so-called “forced arbitration” clauses that deny mistreated workers their day in court.319 States should act to prevent AI from being used to stifle labor-market competition through practices such as algorithmic wage-fixing and sharing of workers’ sensitive information with third parties.320
5.5 Giving Workers a Voice in Workplace AI
Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly changing American workplaces—from how workers perform tasks; to how they are paid and managed; to their safety, privacy, and well-being. To ensure that workplace AI does not undermine working conditions, threaten labor protections, or chill the right to organize, workers must have a strong voice in its adoption and deployment. If AI technologies are designed to support workers and implemented with their input, these technologies have the potential to benefit employers and workers alike—yet in a 2025 survey, 55 percent of workers felt they had too little voice in new technologies, including AI, in their workplaces.321
With the federal government failing to act on AI regulation, states are at the forefront of AI governance.322 As part of their good governance efforts, state policymakers can support workers in building power in the face of AI, such as by helping workers secure a seat at the table and transparency on their employers’ AI-related decisions.323
Multiple types of workplace AI policies are needed to amplify workers’ voices on workplace AI,324 and this playbook highlights two such policy areas for immediate state action: first, counteracting harmful AI-enabled surveillance; and second, modeling strong practices by giving their own state employees a voice in deployment of workplace AI.
First, states can help counteract the chilling effect of AI-enabled surveillance, monitoring, and management technologies on workers’ right to pursue collective action.325 These so-called “bossware” technologies affect roughly two-thirds of workers across industries and incomes.326 Workers may be hesitant to gather, discuss, or engage in protected activities if they fear being surveilled and retaliated against through the use of these technologies.327
Several states are already pursuing legislation to shield workers from extreme surveillance and retaliation that can suppress their rights.328 In 2025, Maine lawmakers passed a bill that would require providing notice to workers and interviewees before an employer begins surveillance, prohibit surveillance in workers’ personal residences and vehicles, and enable workers to decline employers’ requests to install surveillance applications on their personal devices.329 Proposed legislation in states such as California and Vermont would go further by requiring human oversight of automated decision-making systems used for employment purposes such as firing, discipline, and promotion.330 California’s bill would also restrict these systems’ use for certain purposes, such as inferring personal information about workers and setting wages unrelated to job performance, and enable workers to appeal automated decisions.331 And Vermont’s proposal would also require employers to have a legitimate reason for surveillance and produce a detailed impact assessment before automated decision-making systems can be used.332 To craft strong policies, states should consider these features, as well as others recommended by Harvard’s Center for Labor and a Just Economy (CLJE) and the National Employment Law Project (NELP).333
Second, states can also model strong policies in their own workforces by giving state employees and their representatives a voice in workplace AI.334 For example, New York passed the LOADinG Act in 2024, which requires state agencies to negotiate with their unions over surveillance and management technologies before deploying them in the workplace. The law also prevents state agencies from using these tools in ways that impair collective bargaining agreements, displace civil service employees, or reduce their hours or benefits.335 Similarly, a 2025 bill in Washington State would require most state and local public employers to bargain with employees’ unions over decisions to adopt or modify workplace AI that affects employees’ wages, hours, or terms and conditions of employment.336
Beyond these two areas, states are pursuing hundreds of efforts to ensure that AI works for workers, such as Berkeley’s Labor Center catalogs.337 In addition, dozens of union contract provisions provide strong examples of solutions negotiated between employers and workers’ representatives, with AI-related topics ranging from advance notice of, participation in, and opportunity to bargain over technology adoption; employer commitments to provide training on new technologies; and limitations on the use of algorithmic management to make hiring, firing, and disciplinary decisions.338 State policymakers can require or encourage employers to take similar steps using legislation, executive action, and other tools—whether on behalf of all workers in the state, workers in heavily AI-exposed sectors such as warehousing and health care, or state employees.
With thoughtful action, state leaders can help ensure AI improves workers’ health and safety, well-being, and voice on the job—rather than benefiting powerful businesses and individuals at workers’ expense.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank colleagues at The Century Foundation, including Andy Stettner, Angela Hanks, Lauren McFerran, and Gayle Goldin, for invaluable insight and support, as well as former Century Foundation interns Zoe Wang and Cole Hahn for excellent research assistance.
Appendix: Additional Multi-Issue Labor Toolkits and Resources for State Leaders
“Building Worker Power in Cities and States: A Toolkit for State and Local Labor Policy,” Innovation, Harvard Law School, Center for Labor and a Just Economy (CLJE), September 1, 2024
“Quick Fixes to Lock in Wins for Workers,” NYU Wagner Labor Initiative, National Employment Law Project, Towards Justice, Economic Policy Institute, Harvard Center for Labor and a Just Economy, and the American Economic Liberties Project, November 26, 2024
Terri Gerstein and Gaby Goldstein, “Strengthening Workers’ Rights and Labor Protections Through Interstate Cooperation,” State Futures and the NYU Wagner Labor Initiative, September 29, 2025
Terri Gerstein, “Issue Brief: 2025 State Workers’ Rights Roundup: Policy Opportunities From Recent Legislative Sessions,” NYU Wagner Labor Initiative, September 30, 2025
“Holding the line: State solutions to the U.S. worker rights crisis,” Economic Policy Institute
Karla Walter, “How State Spending Can Create a Good Jobs Economy,” State Innovation Exchange, March 2025
“2023–2024 State and Local Policy Agenda,” Economic Policy Institute, National Employment Law Project, Economic Analysis and Research Network, October 30, 2023
“Building Access and Equality in Construction Careers,” Jobs With Justice
“Community Benefits Agreement Resource Center (CBARC)”
“Essential Elements of High Road Training Partnerships: A Look at State Funded Initiatives,” High Road Training Partnership, January 2020
Notes
- Elise Gould, Josh Bivens, and Jori Kandra, “CEO pay increased in 2024 and is now 281 times that of the typical worker,” Economic Policy Institute, September 25, 2025, https://www.epi.org/blog/ceo-pay-increased-in-2024-and-is-now-281-times-that-of-the-typical-worker-new-epi-landing-page-has-all-the-details/.
- “Labor Unions,” Gallup, accessed November 3, 2025, https://news.gallup.com/poll/12751/labor-unions.aspx.
- “Union Members—2024,” U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 28, 2025, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf.
- Lauren McFerran, “An Unhappy Labor Day at the NLRB,” The Century Foundation, August 27, 2025, https://tcf.org/content/commentary/an-unhappy-labor-day-at-the-nlrb/.
- Erik Brynjolfsson, Bharat Chandar, and Ruyu Chen, “Canaries in the Coal Mine? Six Facts about the Recent Employment Effects of Artificial Intelligence,” Digital Economy Lab, Stanford University, August, 2025, https://digitaleconomy.stanford.edu/publications/canaries-in-the-coal-mine/.
- Employee misclassification, which occurs when employers improperly or mistakenly classify their employees as independent contractors, is a large and growing problem in U.S. workplaces—particularly among some of the lowest-paid and most vulnerable workers. Misclassified workers are robbed of key benefits and protections, such as minimum wages, overtime protections, and unemployment insurance eligibility. See “End Independent Contractor Misclassification,” National Employment Law Project, https://www.nelp.org/explore-the-issues/contracted-workers/misclassified-workers/.
- See, for example, David Madland, “State Rideshare Collective Bargaining Policies Hold Great Promise,” Center for American Progress, August 6, 2025, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/state-rideshare-collective-bargaining-policies-hold-great-promise/; and “How California reached the unthinkable: A union deal with tech giants,” POLITICO, September 14, 2025, https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/14/california-uber-lyft-union-00562680.
- “Low Wage Workforce,” Economic Policy Institute, n.d., https://www.epi.org/low-wage-workforce/.
- Julie Margetta Morgan and Rachel West, “The Hidden Costs of Trump’s Economy: Skipped Meals, Rising Debt, and the Impossible Choices Facing American Families,” The Century Foundation, July 31, 2025, https://tcf.org/content/report/the-hidden-costs-of-trumps-economy-skipped-meals-rising-debt-and-the-impossible-choices-facing-american-families/.
- “Union Members—2024,” U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 28, 2025, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf. Economists estimate that the union wage premium, the amount that union members earn above non-union workers with similar characteristics, is about 10 to 15 percent. “Labor Unions and the U.S. Economy,” U.S. Department of The Treasury, February 8, 2025, https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/labor-unions-and-the-us-economy.
- David Madland, “Wage Boards for American Workers: Industry-Level Collective Bargaining for All Workers,” Center for American Progress, April 9, 2018, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/wage-boards-american-workers/.
- Arindrajit Dube, “Using Wage Boards to Raise Pay,” Economics for Inclusive Prosperity, December, 2018, https://econfip.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/4.Using-Wage-Boards-to-Raise-Pay.pdf; as cited in “Workers’ Boards,” Center for Labor and a Just Economy, January 21, 2025, https://clje.law.harvard.edu/publication/building-worker-power-in-cities-states/workers-boards/.
- “Workers’ Boards,” Center for Labor and a Just Economy, January 21, 2025, https://clje.law.harvard.edu/publication/building-worker-power-in-cities-states/workers-boards/.
- Timothy Long, “The California IWC: What’s Old Is New Again,” GT L&E Blog, August 7, 2023, https://www.gtlaw-laborandemployment.com/2023/08/the-california-iwc-whats-old-is-new-again/; Matthew Blake, “A New Deal Revival: Why Labor Unions Love the Minnesota Nursing Home Workforce Standards Board,” MinnPost, October 16, 2025, https://www.minnpost.com/state-government/2025/10/a-new-deal-revival-why-labor-unions-love-the-minnesota-nursing-home-workforce-standards-board/.
- For case studies covering multiple boards, see David Madland and Sachin Shiva, “Industry Standards Boards are Delivering Results for Workers, Employers and Their Communities,”Center for American Progress, November 2024, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/industry-standards-boards-are-delivering-results-for-workers-employers-and-their-communities/; Yoorie Chang et al., “Workers at the Table: A Case Study of the Harris County Essential Workers Board,” Center for Labor and a Just Economy at Harvard Law School, 2025, https://clje.law.harvard.edu/app/uploads/2025/08/Workers-at-the-Table-Report_Final.pdf; and Lauren Fung and Rodrigo Garcia, “California Gave Fast Food Workers a Voice in Shaping Wages. How Can Other States Do the Same?,” Urban Institute, April 8, 2025, https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/california-gave-fast-food-workers-voice-shaping-wages-how-can-other-states-do-same.
- David Madland and Sachin Shiva, “Industry Standards Boards Are Delivering Results for Workers, Employers and Their Communities,” Center for American Progress, November 2024, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/industry-standards-boards-are-delivering-results-for-workers-employers-and-their-communities/.
- Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer created the Nursing Home Workforce Stabilization Council in 2021 through Executive Order No. 2021-15.
- “NRS: Chapter 608—Compensation, Wages and Hours,” Nevada State Legislature, n.d., https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-608.html.
- Steve Sisolak et al., “Nevada Home Care Employment Standards Board 2022 Report,” Nevada Department of Health and Human Services, 2022, https://www.dhs.nv.gov/siteassets/content/programs/hcesb/2022_Report_-_Nevada_Home_Care_Employment_Standards_Board_-_FINAL.pdf.
- Nevada’s law also contains a process to adopt the board’s recommendations through rulemaking. David Madland and Sachin Shiva, “Industry Standards Boards are Delivering Results for Workers, Employers and Their Communities.” Center for American Progress, November 2024, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/industry-standards-boards-are-delivering-results-for-workers-employers-and-their-communities/; Grace Da Rocha, “Home Care Workers’ Struggle to Ease as Nevada Raises Their Minimum Wage to $16 an Hour,” Las Vegas Sun, June 11, 2023, https://lasvegassun.com/news/2023/jun/11/home-care-workers-struggle-to-ease-as-nevada-raise/.
- “Direct Care Workforce Stabilization Board | Colorado General Assembly,” Colorado General Assembly, n.d., https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb23-261.
- “Law to Boost Incomes, Address Home Care Workforce Shortage Takes Effect,” Colorado House Democrats, n.d., https://www.cohousedems.com/news/law-to-boost-incomes%2C-address-home-care-workforce-shortage-takes-effect.
- David Madland and Sachin Shiva, “Industry Standards Boards are Delivering Results for Workers, Employers and Their Communities,” Center for American Progress, November 2024, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/industry-standards-boards-are-delivering-results-for-workers-employers-and-their-communities/.
- “Workers’ Boards,” Center for Labor and a Just Economy, January 21, 2025, https://clje.law.harvard.edu/publication/building-worker-power-in-cities-states/workers-boards/.
- Sebastian Martinez Hickey and Ismael Cid-Martinez, “The Federal Minimum Wage Is Officially a Poverty Wage in 2025,” Economic Policy Institute, April 28, 2025, https://www.epi.org/blog/the-federal-minimum-wage-is-officially-a-poverty-wage-in-2025/.
- Rebecca Vallas et al., “Economic Justice Is Disability Justice,” The Century Foundation, April 22, 2022, https://tcf.org/content/report/economic-justice-disability-justice/.
- Specifically, the Fair Labor Standards Act directs the Secretary of Labor to issue certificates “to the extent necessary to prevent curtailment of opportunities for employment” for individuals with disabilities. “29 U.S. Code § 214 – Employment Under Special Certificates,” LII / Legal Information Institute, n.d., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/214.
- Rebecca Vallas et al., “Economic Justice Is Disability Justice,” The Century Foundation, April 22, 2022, https://tcf.org/content/report/economic-justice-disability-justice/. For example, a seminal 2020 report from the U.S. The Commission on Civil Rights finds that 14(c) has “limited people with disabilities participating in the program from realizing their full potential while allowing providers and associated businesses to profit from their labor.” “Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People With Disabilities,” U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2020 Statutory Enforcement Report, 2020, https://www.usccr.gov/files/2020/2020-09-17-Subminimum-Wages-Report.pdf.
- “The Disability and Economic Justice Chartbook,” CEPR, January 16, 2025, https://cepr.net/publications/the-disability-and-economic-justice-chartbook/.
- Michelle Maroto and David Pettinicchio, “First Fired, Last Hired, and Lower Paid: Re-employment Outcomes Among Displaced Workers With Disabilities, 2007–2021,” in Research in Social Science and Disability (Emerald Insight, 2025), 25–42, https://doi.org/10.1108/s1479-354720250000016003; Sophie Mitra and Douglas Kruse, “Are Workers With Disabilities More Likely to Be Displaced?,” International Journal of Human Resource Management 27, no. 14 (April 20, 2016): 1550–79, https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1137616.
- Rebecca Vallas et al., “Economic Justice Is Disability Justice,” The Century Foundation, April 22, 2022, https://tcf.org/content/report/economic-justice-disability-justice/; “Unemployment Rate—With No Disability, 16 Years and over,” [LNU04074593], U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU04074593; and “Unemployment Rate—With a Disability, 16 Years and over,” [LNU04074597], U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU04074597.
- “Subminimum Wage Program: Employment Outcomes and Views of Former Workers in Two States,” United States Government Accountability Office, April 2025, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-25-106471.pdf.
- United States Government Accountability Office, “Subminimum Wage Program: DOL Could Do More to Ensure Timely Oversight,” United States Government Accountability Office, January 2023, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-105116.pdf.
- “Employment of Workers With Disabilities Under Section 14(C) of the Fair Labor Standards Act,” Federal Register, December 4, 2024, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/12/04/2024-27880/employment-of-workers-with-disabilities-under-section-14c-of-the-fair-labor-standards-act.
- Marokey Sawo, Dana Ferrante, and Alexis Weaver, “It’s Legal for Some Employers To Pay Disabled Workers Less Than the Minimum Wage. Ending This Practice Is Just a First Step Toward Supporting Their Economic Stability,” Urban Institute, April 2, 2025, https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/its-legal-some-employers-pay-disabled-workers-less-minimum-wage-ending-practice-just.
- “Competitive Integrated Employment (CIE),” U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, n.d., https://www.dol.gov/agencies/odep/program-areas/cie; Susan J. Popkin et al., “Public Comment on the Employment of Workers With Disabilities Under Section 14(C) of the Fair Labor Standards Act,” Urban Institute, April 3, 2025, https://www.urban.org/research/publication/public-comment-employment-workers-disabilities-under-section-14c-fair-labor.
- Susan J. Popkin et al., “Public Comment on the Employment of Workers With Disabilities Under Section 14(C) of the Fair Labor Standards Act,” Urban Institute, April 3, 2025, https://www.urban.org/research/publication/public-comment-employment-workers-disabilities-under-section-14c-fair-labor; “Centers Offer Employment and Support Services to Workers With Disabilities, but Labor Should Improve Oversight,” United States Government Accountability Office, September 4, 2001, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-01-886.pdf. “Competitive Integrated Employment (CIE),” U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, n.d., https://www.dol.gov/agencies/odep/program-areas/cie. An investigative report on sheltered workshops in Missouri, for example, showed that between 2017 to 2022, just over 2 percent of workers transitioned into competitive, integrated work. This follows a 2001 GAO study finding that less than 5 percent of 14(c) workers transitioned into integrated environments. Madison Hopkins, “Missouri’s Sheltered Workshops Have a 2.3% Graduation Rate,” ProPublica, March 11, 2024, https://www.propublica.org/article/missouri-sheltered-workshops-low-graduation-rate.
- “Pennies on the Dollar: The Use of Subminimum Wage for Disabled Workers Across the United States,” New America, n.d., https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/reports/the-use-of-subminimum-wage-for-disabled-workers-across-the-us/; “Georgia General Assembly—SB 55,” n.d., https://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/69634. In addition, at least nine states place some restrictions on payment of 14(c) subminimum wages: “Employment of Workers With Disabilities Under Section 14(C) of the Fair Labor Standards Act,” Federal Register, December 4, 2024, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/12/04/2024-27880/employment-of-workers-with-disabilities-under-section-14c-of-the-fair-labor-standards-act.
- “Trendlines_October_2024,” U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, n.d., https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/opder/DASP/Trendlines/posts/2024_10/Trendlines_October_2024.html. Both total employment and the employment-to-population ratio for individuals with disabilities reached record highs in November 2024, while the unemployment rate for disabled workers hit a record low in December 2022. “Employment-Population Ratio—With a Disability, 16 Years and Over,” U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, September 5, 2025, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU02374597; “Employed—With a Disability, 16 Years and Over,” U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, September 5, 2025, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU02074597; “Unemployment Rate—With a Disability, 16 Years and Over,” U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, September 5, 2025, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU04074597.
- Mihir Kakara, Elizabeth F. Bair, and Atheendar S. Venkataramani, “Repeal of Subminimum Wages and Social Determinants of Health Among People With Disabilities,” JAMA Health Forum 5, no. 11 (November 15, 2024): e244034, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.4034.
- “Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People With Disabilities,” 2020 Statutory Enforcement Report, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2020, https://www.usccr.gov/files/2020/2020-09-17-Subminimum-Wages-Report.pdf.
- In December 2024, the U.S. DOL published a proposed regulation that would have stopped issuance of new 14(c) certificates when the rule became effective and sunset existing certificates over a period of up to three years. “Employment of Workers With Disabilities Under Section 14(C) of the Fair Labor Standards Act,” Federal Register, December 4, 2024, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/12/04/2024-27880/employment-of-workers-with-disabilities-under-section-14c-of-the-fair-labor-standards-act. DOL withdrew the rule in mid-2025, concluding that it lacked the statutory authority required to end 14(c) nationwide. “Employment of Workers With Disabilities Under Section 14(C) of the Fair Labor Standards Act; Withdrawal,” Federal Register, July 7, 2025, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/07/07/2025-12534/employment-of-workers-with-disabilities-under-section-14c-of-the-fair-labor-standards-act-withdrawal.
- These three states have no remaining 14(c) certificates after the relevant state agency stopped issuing and/or supporting certificates. “Employment of Workers With Disabilities Under Section 14(C) of the Fair Labor Standards Act,” Federal Register, December 4, 2024, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/12/04/2024-27880/employment-of-workers-with-disabilities-under-section-14c-of-the-fair-labor-standards-act.
- Employment First is a national movement centered on the belief that competitive integrated employment in the community should be the first and preferred option for individuals with disabilities. “Employment First,” U.S. Department of Labor, n.d., https://www.dol.gov/agencies/odep/initiatives/employment-first.
- Tax-deferred accounts include Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) accounts, savings accounts that help individuals with disabilities save money in a way that does not count toward savings limits for certain public programs. “Pennies on the Dollar: The Use of Subminimum Wage for Disabled Workers Across the United States,” New America, n.d., https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/reports/the-use-of-subminimum-wage-for-disabled-workers-across-the-us/policy-recommendations/.
- “Minimum Wage Tracker,” Economic Policy Institute, n.d., https://www.epi.org/minimum-wage-tracker/. The Economic Policy Institute recommends setting minimum wages to increase automatically at the rate of growth in prices or median wages—whichever is greatest. “Minimum Wage: State Solutions to the U.S. Worker Rights Crisis,” Economic Policy Institute, n.d., https://www.epi.org/publication/minimum-wage-state-solutions-to-the-u-s-worker-rights-crisis/.
- Sylvia A. Allegretto, “The Subminimum Wage Plus Tips: A Bad Bargain for Workers,” New Labor Forum 32, no. 2 (May 1, 2023): 12–22, https://doi.org/10.1177/10957960231170201.
- “Elimination of Subminimum Wage Employment,” Colorado General Assembly, n.d., https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb21-039.
- “Colorado Elimination of Subminimum Wage Annual Report,” Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, February 2024, https://hcpf.colorado.gov/sites/hcpf/files/Elimination%20of%20Subminimum%20Wage-Annual%20Report-March%202024.pdf.
- “Colorado Elimination of Subminimum Wage Annual Report,” Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, February 2024, https://hcpf.colorado.gov/sites/hcpf/files/Elimination%20of%20Subminimum%20Wage-Annual%20Report-March%202024.pdf; “SB 21-039,” Colorado Legislative Council Staff, 2021, https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021A/bills/fn/2021a_sb039_f1.pdf; “Polis-Primavera Administration Eliminates Subminimum Wages for People With Disabilities Two Years Ahead of Schedule,” Office of Colorado Governor Jared Polis, October 31, 2023, https://www.colorado.gov/governor/news/10901-polis-primavera-administration-eliminates-subminimum-wages-people-disabilities-two-years.
- “Colorado Elimination of Subminimum Wage Annual Report,” Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, March 2024, https://hcpf.colorado.gov/sites/hcpf/files/Elimination%20of%20Subminimum%20Wage-Annual%20Report-March%202024.pdf.
- Outcomes for the remaining 14 percent of workers were not tracked. Group employment means two to eight individuals with disabilities working together earning at least minimum wage. “Subminimum Wage Program: Employment Outcomes and Views of Former Workers in Two States,” U.S. Government Accountability Office, April 2025, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-25-106471.pdf.
- David Cooper and Teresa Kroeger, “Employers Steal Billions From Workers’ Paychecks Each Year: Survey Data Show Millions of Workers Are Paid Less Than the Minimum Wage, at Significant Cost to Taxpayers and State Economies,” Economic Policy Institute, May 10, 2017, https://www.epi.org/publication/employers-steal-billions-from-workers-paychecks-each-year/.
- According to a May 2025 report, the U.S. Department of Labor had no Wage and Hour Division investigators based in Delaware, Montana, Vermont, or Wyoming, so investigators must travel from other states. “Labor Investigator Staffing Hits 52-year Low, Raising the Risk of Wage Theft,” Rutgers School of Management and Labor Relations, May 29, 2025, https://smlr.rutgers.edu/news-events/smlr-news/labor-investigator-staffing-hits-52-year-low-raising-risk-wage-theft.
- For example, five states—Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi—employ no state wage and hour investigators. “Labor Investigator Staffing Hits 52-year Low, Raising the Risk of Wage Theft,” Rutgers School of Management and Labor Relations, May 29, 2025, https://smlr.rutgers.edu/news-events/smlr-news/labor-investigator-staffing-hits-52-year-low-raising-risk-wage-theft.
- “An Advocate’s Guide to State and City Policies to Fight Wage Theft,” National Employment Law Project, 2011, https://www.nelp.org/app/uploads/2015/03/WinningWageJustice2011.pdf; “Wage Theft Playbook,” State Innovation Exchange,May 2020, https://stateinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/SiX_Wage-Theft-Playbook.pdf.
- “29 U.S. Code § 216—Penalties,” Legal Information Institute, n.d., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/216.
- “Title 26, §626-A: Penalties,” Maine Legislature, n.d., https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/26/title26sec626-A.html; “General Law – Part I, Title XXI, Chapter 149, Section 150,” 194th General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, n.d., https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXI/Chapter149/Section150/; “General Law—Part I, Title XXI, Chapter 151, Section 1B,” 194th General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, n.d., https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXI/Chapter151/Section1b; “2024 New Mexico Statutes: Chapter 50—Employment Law: Article 4—Labor Conditions; Payment of Wages: Section 50-4-26—Enforcement; penalties; employees’ remedies,” Justia Law, n.d., https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-50/article-4/section-50-4-26/. Mandatory treble damages are most commonly applied in the contexts of wage-payment and overtime violations, although a limited number of states apply this penalty for violations related to wage theft, such as retaliation and misclassification (Massachusetts) and withheld benefits (New Mexico and Maine). Relatedly, several other states impose treble damages for wage theft on a discretionary basis, which state leaders could strengthen into mandatory policies.
- “§ 32–1308. Civil Actions.,” D.C. Law Library, n.d., https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-1308.
- “Title 26, §626-A: Penalties,” Maine Legislature, n.d., https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/26/title26sec626-A.html; “General Law—Part I, Title XXI, Chapter 149, Section 150,” 194th General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, n.d., https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXI/Chapter149/Section150/; “General Law – Part I, Title XXI, Chapter 151, Section 1B,” 194th General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, n.d., https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXI/Chapter151/Section1b. Other strong features of the Massachusetts statute include anti-retaliation protections, a three-year statute of limitations, and authority for the state Department of Labor to issue orders to employers.
- For example, the National Employment Law Project found that between 2008 and 2011, only 17 percent of California workers who won a judgment in their unpaid wage claim cases received any payment at all, and the total amount collected was just $42 million out of $282 million, or 15 percent, of those awards. Eunice Hyunhye Cho, Tia Koonse, and Anthony Mischel, “Hollow Victories: The Crisis in Collecting Unpaid Wages for California’s Workers,” National Employment Law Project, June 28, 2013, https://s27147.pcdn.co/insights-research/hollow-victories-the-crisis-in-collecting-unpaid-wages-for-californias-workers/.
- “Testimony Submitted by Nadine Nevins in Support of HB5426: An Act Concerning Liens for Unpaid Wages and a Requirement That Fiscal Intermediaries Meet Employer Timely Pay Obligations,” Banking Committee et al., February 10, 2020, https://www.cga.ct.gov/2020/badata/tmy/2020HB-05426-R000310-Nevins,%20Nadine-CT%20Legal%20Services-Support-TMY.PDF.
- Eunice Hyunhye Cho, Tia Koonse, and Anthony Mischel, “Hollow Victories: The Crisis in Collecting Unpaid Wages for California’s Workers,” National Employment Law Project, June 28, 2013, https://s27147.pcdn.co/insights-research/hollow-victories-the-crisis-in-collecting-unpaid-wages-for-californias-workers/.
- Eunice Hyunhye Cho, Tia Koonse, and Anthony Mischel, “Hollow Victories: The Crisis in Collecting Unpaid Wages for California’s Workers,” National Employment Law Project, June 28, 2013, https://s27147.pcdn.co/insights-research/hollow-victories-the-crisis-in-collecting-unpaid-wages-for-californias-workers/. California has since strengthened its laws, although liens must be filed by the Labor Commissioner (not the worker) and are generally only available after an award or judgment is made. “2024 California Code: Labor Code—LAB: Division 1—Department Of Industrial Relations: Chapter 4—Division of Labor Standards Enforcement: Section 90.8.,” Justia Law, n.d., https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-lab/division-1/chapter-4/section-90-8/.
- “Chapter 60.90 RCW: Washington Wage Recovery Act,” Washington Legislature, n.d., https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=60.90. “Pre-judgment” liens help prevent employers from hiding or transferring assets in advance of legal proceedings, and disincentivizes them from delaying proceedings.
- “New Washington Law Creates Statutory Wage Lien for Claims on Unpaid Wages,” Perkins Coie, June 24, 2021, https://perkinscoie.com/insights/update/new-washington-law-creates-statutory-wage-lien-claims-unpaid-wages.
- See “Wage Theft Playbook,” State Innovation Exchange, May 2020, https://stateinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/SiX_Wage-Theft-Playbook.pdf; “Winning Wage Justice: An Advocate’s Guide to State and City Policies to Fight Wage Theft,” National Employment Law Project, 2011, https://www.nelp.org/app/uploads/2015/03/WinningWageJustice2011.pdf; Haeyoung Yoon, Tsedeye Gebreselassie, “Building Robust Labor Standards Enforcement Regimes in Our Cities and Counties,” National Employment Law Project, March 2015, https://onlabor.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Building-Robust-Labor-Standards-Enforcement-Regimes-in-Our-Cities-and-Counties-.pdf; Laura Huizar, “Testimony of Laura Huizar: Hearing Before the Oregon Senate Interim Committee on Workforce and General Government,” and National Employment Law Project, January 13, 2016, https://www.nelp.org/app/uploads/2016/01/NELP-Testimony-Laura-Huizar-Wage-Theft-Enforcement.pdf; Gaby Goldstein, “Issue Brief: Strengthening Workers’ Rights and Labor Protections Through Interstate Cooperation,” State Futures, September 29, 2025, https://www.statefutures.org/research/issue-brief-labor-interstate-cooperation; Jennifer Sherer, “Wage Payment: State Solutions to the U.S. Worker Rights Crisis,” Economic Policy Institute, July 30, 2025, https://www.epi.org/publication/wage-payment-state-solutions-to-the-u-s-worker-rights-crisis/.
- For example, a seminal study found that between 1980 and 2010, 62 percent of the gender wage gap could be explained by differences in factors such as industry and occupation, hours worked, and years of experience—but 38 percent remained unexplained, which the authors attribute at least in part to labor-market discrimination. Francine D. Blau and Lawrence M. Kahn, “The Gender Wage Gap: Extent, Trends, and Explanations,” NBER Working Paper 21913 (2016), https://doi.org/10.3386/w21913. Of course, many contributors to the “explained” share of the pay gap, such as occupational choice, hours of work, and years of experience or seniority, are themselves influenced by gender. For example, a U.S. Department of Labor study exploring how women of color are “sorted” into lower-paying occupations found that in 2023, Black women lost $42.7 billion and Hispanic women lost $53.3 billion in wages compared to white men due to the impacts of segregation by occupation and industry sector. “Still Bearing the Cost,” U.S. Department of Labor, March 2024, https://web.archive.org/web/20250113034839/https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WB/media/BearingTheCostReport2024.pdf.
- “Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2024,” U.S. Census Bureau, September 9, 2025, https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2025/income-poverty-health-insurance-coverage.html; “Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2023,” US Census Bureau, September 10, 2024, https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024/income-poverty-health-insurance-coverage.html. Researchers believe this widening is driven in part by a rollback of workplace flexibilities, such as remote or hybrid work, that employers provided during the COVID-19 pandemic. Women workers, who bear a disproportionate share of caregiving responsibilities, tend to be more responsive to changes in workplace flexibility. Taylor Telford, “Women Are Taking Pay Cuts as Companies Mandate Return to Office,” Washington Post, October 11, 2025, https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/10/11/rto-mandates-gender-wage-gap/.
- “The Wage Gap, State by State,” National Women’s Law Center, October 9, 2025, https://nwlc.org/resource/wage-gap-state-by-state/.
- Ashir Coillberg, “A Window Into the Wage Gap: What’s Behind It and How to Close It,” National Women’s Law Center, February 2025, https://nwlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/2025-Window-Into-the-Wage-Gap-Factsheet.pdf; “Lifetime Wage Gap Losses by State for Women Overall,” National Women’s Law Center, February 2025, https://nwlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Lifetime-Losses-State-by-State-Women-Overall-2.12.2025.pdf.
- “The Wage Gap Among LGBTQ+ Workers in the United States,” Human Rights Campaign, February 4, 2025, https://www.hrc.org/resources/the-wage-gap-among-lgbtq-workers-in-the-united-states.
- Calculations based on Table 1, “Gender and Racial Wage Gaps Worsened in 2023 and Pay Equity Still Decades Away,” Institute for Women’s Policy Research, September 2024, https://iwpr.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/IWPR-National-Wage-Gap-Fact-Sheet-2024.pdf.
- Rose Khatter, “Closing the Gender Pay Gap,” Center for American Progress, March 14, 2024, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/playbook-for-the-advancement-of-women-in-the-economy/closing-the-gender-pay-gap/; Jonathan Platt et al., “Unequal Depression for Equal Work? How the Wage Gap Explains Gendered Disparities in Mood Disorders,” Social Science & Medicine 149 (December 12, 2015): 1–8, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.11.056.
- Rose Khatter, “Closing the Gender Pay Gap,” Center for American Progress, March 14, 2024, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/playbook-for-the-advancement-of-women-in-the-economy/closing-the-gender-pay-gap/.
- “Equal Pay Act of 1963,” U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n.d., https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/equal-pay-act-1963. The law defines “pay” broadly to cover all or nearly all forms of compensation. Specifically, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Act “prohibits sex-based wage discrimination between men and women in the same establishment who perform jobs that require substantially equal skill, effort, and responsibility under similar working conditions.” Furthermore, “the jobs need not be identical, but they must be substantially equal,” as determined by job content, not job title. “Equal Pay/Compensation Discrimination,” U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n.d., https://www.eeoc.gov/equal-paycompensation-discrimination#.
- In addition to the shortcomings discussed above, remedies and statutes of limitation under federal law are limited, and workers must file complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a process that can be very slow.
- “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n.d., https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964. Other civil rights laws prohibiting compensation discrimination include Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) Ac
- “Progress in the States for Equal Pay,” National Women’s Law Center, November 2020, https://nwlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/State-Equal-Pay-Laws-2020-11.13.pdf.
- See “Equal Pay and Pay Transparency,” U.S. Department of Labor, n.d., https://www.dol.gov/agencies/wb/equal-pay-protections.
- “Progress in the States for Equal Pay,” National Women’s Law Center, November 2020, https://nwlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/State-Equal-Pay-Laws-2020-11.13.pdf.
- “50 State Equal Pay Reference Guide—2024 Q4 Edition,” Seyfarth, 2024, https://www.content.seyfarth.com/publications/50-State-Equal-Pay-Reference-Guide-2024/.
- See “California-2015-SB358-Chaptered,” n.d., https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB358/id/1264719/California-2015-SB358-Chaptered.html; “California Equal Pay Act,” California Department of Industrial Relations, n.d., https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/california_equal_pay_act.htm. Similarly, New York’s equal pay law applies across all of an employer’s establishments within a county. “Equal Pay Provision of the New York State Labor Law,” New York State Department of Labor, Division of Labor Standards, November 2023, https://dol.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2024/03/ls603.pdf.
- For an overview of research on equal pay practices, see Shengwei Sun et al., “Equal Pay Policies and the Gender Wage Gap: A Compilation of Recent Research,” Institute for Women’s Policy Research, 2022, https://iwpr.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Equal-Pay-Policies-and-the-Gender-Wage-Gap_Compilation_20220125_FINAL.pdf.
- Amy Dalrymple, “Issue Brief: Equal Pay in the United States: Salary History Bans,” U.S. Department of Labor, March 2023, https://web.archive.org/web/20250113120809/https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WB/equalpay/WB_Brief_Equal_Pay_Salary_History_Bans_03072023.pdf. Salary history laws generally allow individuals to voluntarily provide this information, but prohibit employers from relying on the information when it could create an unlawful pay disparity, and from retaliating against or refusing to hire a worker or candidate who does not volunteer it.
- James E. Bessen, Chen Meng, and Erich Denk, “Perpetuating Inequality: What Salary History Bans Reveal About Wages,” SSRN Electronic Journal, January 1, 2020, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3628729.
- Zoe Cullen, “Is Pay Transparency Good?,” March 1, 2023, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4400702. A recent study of Canada’s pay transparency policy for public-sector workers found it reduced gender wage gaps among university faculty by 20 percent to 40 percent. Michael Baker et al., “Pay Transparency and the Gender Gap,” National Bureau of Economic Research, 2019, https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w25834/w25834.pdf.
- For further on these and other best practices to reduce pay gaps, alongside state examples, see Progress in the States for Equal Pay,” National Women’s Law Center, November 2020, https://nwlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/State-Equal-Pay-Laws-2020-11.13.pdf.
- “Pay equity legislation becomes law,” State of Rhode Island General Assembly, n.d., https://www.rilegislature.gov/pressrelease/_layouts/RIL.PressRelease.ListStructure/Forms/DisplayForm.aspx?List=c8baae31-3c10-431c-8dcd-9dbbe21ce3e9&ID=371942; “R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-6-18,” State of Rhode Island General Assembly, https://webserver.rilegislature.gov/Statutes/TITLE28/28-6/28-6-18.HTM.
- For example, in recent years states collectively received and invested roughly $3.3 billion from the federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) funds and $1.4 billion from career and technical education (CTE) funds under the Perkins Act. “Recommendations for a Fully Funded and Transformed Workforce Development System,” Jobs for the Future, March 25, 2024, https://www.jff.org/idea/recommendations-for-a-fully-funded-and-transformed-workforce-development-system/; “State Allocations,” Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, n.d., https://cte.ed.gov/grants/state-formula-grants/state-allocations. Many states also invest considerable sums of their own funds to support workforce development activities, ranging from training to career navigation to supportive services.
- Sectoral training programs are workforce training initiatives run by a sectoral partnership—a partnership of employers within one industry that bring together government, education, training, economic development, labor, and/or community organizations to address the workforce needs of that industry within the regional labor market. Sectoral partnerships generally have backbone organization, which convenes, coordinates, and serves as a liaison between employers and all other partners. Sectoral training programs prepare workers for jobs that the regional employers need filled. These programs are also referred to interchangeably as “sector-based,” “sectoral partnership,” “industry-led,” or “sectoral employment” training programs.
- Lawrence F. Katz et al., “Why Do Sectoral Employment Programs Work? Lessons From WorkAdvance,” National Bureau of Economic Research, December 2020, https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28248/w28248.pdf; Ariella Spitzer et al., “The Impact of Regional Sectoral Training Partnerships: Findings From America’s Promise,” U.S. Department of Labor and Mathematica, October 2023, https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/OASP/evaluation/pdf/AP-Impacts-Report.pdf; Erik Gallant, “Job Training That Works: Findings From the Sectoral Employment Impact Study,” Aspen Institute, August 6, 2025, https://www.aspeninstitute.org/publications/job-training-works-findings-sectoral-employment-impact-study/.
- “Sector-Based Training Programs,” MDRC, February 1, 2024, https://www.mdrc.org/work/publications/sector-based-training-programs.
- Joint labor–management training programs are collaborative programs in which unions and employers jointly design, fund, and administer training. Registered apprenticeships are earn-and-learn training programs vetted and approved by industry and validated by the U.S. Department of Labor or a state apprenticeship agency. Apprentices receive paid work experience with a mentor, progressive wage increases, classroom instruction, and a portable, nationally-recognized credential. “Registered Apprenticeship Program,” Apprenticeship USA, U.S. Department of Labor, https://www.apprenticeship.gov/employers/registered-apprenticeship-program.
- Emily McGrath et al., “Beyond Job Placement: Reimagining WIOA for Economic Mobility and Workforce Resilience,” The Century Foundation, July 14, 2025, https://tcf.org/content/report/beyond-job-placement-reimagining-wioa-for-economic-mobility-and-workforce-resilience/.
- A helpful guide on what constitutes a good-quality job is the Good Jobs Principles factsheet, which reflects eight principles developed by the U.S. Departments of Labor and Commerce in 2022, available at https://web.archive.org/web/20250116145717/https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/goodjobs/Good-Jobs-Summit-Principles-Factsheet.pdf.
- Federal public investment has been limited, including because the per-worker cost of delivering high-quality training often exceeds the maximum amount the public workforce system contributes. For example, while WIOA directs states to support local sectoral partnerships, WIOA’s Individual Training Accounts (ITAs) are often capped at $5,000 per worker. Thus, rather than receiving WIOA funding, many high-quality sectoral training programs instead rely on a combination of contributions from the participant (such as enrollment fees or tuition), employers (such as wage payments), unions (such as training facilities and resources), direct-service organizations or public agencies (such as supportive services), workforce boards, and/or private or philanthropic funds. https://tcf.org/content/report/beyond-job-placement-reimagining-wioa-for-economic-mobility-and-workforce-resilience/. However, recognizing the strong evidence of return on investment for workers, employers, and local communities, the Biden-Harris administration leveraged several sources of discretionary funds to invest in high-quality sectoral training programs. Examples include the Department of Labor’s Building Pathways to Infrastructure Jobs and Apprenticeships Building America grants and the Department of Commerce’s Good Jobs Challenge program. See “DOL Building Pathways to Infrastructure Jobs Grant Program,” U.S. Department of Labor, https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/general/grants/InfrastructureFOAOutreachFactSheet.pdf; “Biden–Harris Administration Awards over $244M to Modernize, Diversify, Expand Registered Apprenticeships In Growing Industries,” U.S. Department of Labor, July 11, 2024, https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/eta/eta20240711-0; “Good Jobs ChallengeSupporting Americans in Good Jobs,” U.S. Economic Development Administration, https://www.eda.gov/funding/programs/good-jobs-challenge.
- “Evidence Summary for Per Scholas Employment/Training Program for Low-Income Workers,” Social Programs That Work, February 2022, https://evidencebasedprograms.org/document/per-scholas-evidence-summary/; Livia Lam and Karla Walter, “Quality Workforce Partnerships: Strategies To Create a More Equitable Workforce,” Center for American Progress, April 1, 2020, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/quality-workforce-partnerships/.
- Livia Lam and Karla Walter, “Quality Workforce Partnerships: Strategies To Create a More Equitable Workforce,” Center for American Progress, April 1, 2020, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/quality-workforce-partnerships/.
- “Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership (WRTP) Sectoral Employment Program,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, https://pathwaystowork.acf.gov/intervention-detail/403.
- See the WRTP/Big Step website at https://wrtp.org/.
- “WANTO Grant Program,” U.S. Department of Labor, Women’s Bureau, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/wb/grants/wanto; “She Drives the Future Abstract,” WRTP/Big Step, https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WB/Files/Wisconsin-Regional-Training-Partnership-Abstract.pdf.
- “High Road Training Partnerships: A Path to Reimagine & Rebuild Our Economy,” UC Berkeley Labor Center, May 2020, https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Taking-the-High-Road-High-Road-Training-Partnershps-A-Path-to-Reimagine-and-Rebuild-Our-Economy.pdf; “Sector Partnership Policy Toolkit,” National Skills Coalition, October 2015, https://nationalskillscoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Final-Sector-Partnership-Policy-Toolkit-1.pdf. Other key resources for states and practitioners include “Toolkit for Developing High-Performing Industry Partnerships,” National Fund for Workforce Solutions, https://nationalfund.org/industry-partnership-toolkit/; Quality Workforce Partnerships: Strategies To Create a More Equitable Workforce,“ Center for American Progress, April 1, 2020, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/quality-workforce-partnerships/; “State Support for Sector Partnerships: A Guide for Action,” United States Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration, https://dcworks.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dcworks/publication/attachments/State_Support_Sector_Partnerships_Guide.pdf; “Workforce Development Planning Guide: Guidance for CHIPS Incentives Applicants,” U.S. Department of Commerce CHIPS Program Office, March 27, 2023, 10–14, https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2025/09/09/CHIPS%20Workforce%20Development%20Planning%20Guide%20%281%29.pdf; and Creating Career Pathways in Colorado: A Step-By-Step Guide,” Collaborative Economics and the Woolsey Group, May 2014, https://dcworks.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dcworks/publication/attachments/Creating_career_pathways_in_colorado_guide.pdf.
- See “Sector Partnership Policy Toolkit,” National Skills Coalition, October 2015, https://nationalskillscoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Final-Sector-Partnership-Policy-Toolkit-1.pdf; https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleIII/Chapter29/Section2WWW; “Section 2WWW: Workforce Competitiveness Trust Fund,” 194th General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleIII/Chapter29/Section2WWW; “Maryland SB278 Maryland Employment Advancement Right Now (EARN) Program,” Maryland State Senate, “https://trackbill.com/bill/maryland-senate-bill-278-maryland-employment-advancement-right-now-earn-program/439849/; Senate Bill 14-205, Concerning the Talent Pipeline Working Group with the State Workforce Development Council in the Department of Labor and Employment, General Assembly of the State of Colorado, May 21, 2014, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57ebae4d5016e1191947196b/t/5c4a0cc47ba7fc5210151c25/1548356804474/SB14-205_0+%281%29.pdf.
- “High Road Training Partnerships,” California Workforce Development Board, https://cwdb.ca.gov/initiatives/high-road-training-partnerships/; “State Workforce Board Awards $33.7 Million To Create High Quality Jobs For Underserved Californians,” California Workforce Development Board, February 8, 2024, https://cwdb.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2024/02/24_2_7_State-Workforce-Boards-Awards-33.7-M-to-Create-High-Quality-Jobs_ACCESSIBLE.pdf.
- Philanthropic support flows through the High Road Training Fund run collaboratively with national partner Jobs for the Future. “California Launches Workforce Development Fund to Train Workers for Jobs of the Future,” Office of Governor Gavin Newsom, May 6, 2022, https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/05/06/california-launches-workforce-development-fund-to-train-workers-for-jobs-of-the-future; https://www.jff.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/JFF-HRTF-Framework.pdf; LA County “High Road Training Partnerships,” Department of Economic Opportunity, County of Los Angeles, https://opportunity.lacounty.gov/hrtp.
- “California Workforce Development Board High Road Framework,” California Workforce Development Board, June 2018, https://cwdb.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2019/09/High-Road-ECJ-Brief_UPDATED-BRANDING.pdf.
- See the Hospitality Training Academy website at https://lahta.org; and “DOL Critical Sectors Job Quality Grant Tier 2 Program Descriptions,” U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration, 2023, https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/Critical%20Sectors/CSJQ%20Descriptions%20-%20Round%201%20Tier%202.pdf.
- “The High Road to Hospitality,” California Workforce Development Board, June 2019, https://cwdb.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2019/11/High-Road-to-Hospitality-11-25-2019.pdf; “Employer Partners,” Hospitality Training Academy, https://lahta.org/employers/.
- Levi Sumagaysay, “Academy With Millions of Dollars in Government Funding Helps Hospitality Workers Get Better Jobs,” CalMatters, February 27, 2024, https://calmatters.org/economy/2024/02/workforce-training-hotel-academy.
- “Our Impact,” Hospitality Training Academy, https://lahta.org/impact/
- Ana Luz González-Vásquez and Magaly N. López, “The High Road To Economic Prosperity An Assessment of the California Workforce Development Board’s High Road Training Partnership Initiative,” UCLA Labor Center, May 2021, https://www.labor.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Eval-Report_The-High-Road_UCLA-Labor-Center_FINAL.pdf; “High-Road Training Partnerships,” UC Berkeley Labor Center, https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/labor-management-partnerships/high-road-training-partnerships/.
- Jeff Hagan, “New Report: Harnessing the Power of Procurement,” In The Public Interest, July 13, 2023, https://inthepublicinterest.org/new-report-harnessing-the-power-of-procurement/.
- To have enough skilled workers for crucial future projects, states will need to attract, train, and retain more women, who hold only 11.2 percent of jobs—including just 4 percent of non-office jobs—and Black workers, who make up just 6.7 percent of the workforce. Zachary Phillips, “Construction’s Age Problem: A Foreboding Exodus of Experience,” Construction Dive, May 25, 2023, https://www.constructiondive.com/news/construction-labor-retirement-recruiting-dei/651184/. “Employed Persons by Detailed Industry, Sex, Race, and Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity,” U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 29, 2025, https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat18.htm; Ganneston Construction Corp, “How Many Women Work in Construction?,” June 25, 2024, https://www.gannestonconstruction.com/blog/how-many-women-work-in-construction/.
- “Value Capture: Development Agreement and Other Contract-Based Value Capture Techniques—A Primer,” U.S. Department of Transportation, December 2020, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/pdfs/value_capture/fhwa_hin_21_001.pdf.
- Local and economic hiring preferences are contract provisions that require employment of workers from a specific target population or group—whether based on geographic boundaries (such as high-poverty ZIP codes) or the worker’s economic circumstances (such as receipt of public benefits or justice system involvement). These policies can help give disadvantaged workers a fair shot at good jobs. For more information, see Creating a Local Construction Workforce: “Assessment of Current Use of Local and Economic Hiring Provisions,” United States Department of Transportation, April 2023, https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2023-05/Creating-Local-Construction-Workforce.pdf; “Investing in America: Best Practices to Expand Access to Jobs and Economic Opportunity Through Transportation Infrastructure Investments,” U.S. Department of Transportation, February 2024, https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2024-02/Best%20Practices%20to%20Expand%20Accessto%20Jobs%20and%20Economic%20Opportunity%20final_.pdf. Multiple local areas—from Baltimore to Cleveland and Milwaukee to St. Louis—have longstanding local and economic hire policies, some of them dating back to the 1980s. Examples with strong, proven outcomes on increasing representation of underserved workers include Milwaukee’s Resident Preference Program (see “Residents Preference Program,” City of Milwaukee, n.d., https://city.milwaukee.gov/Equity-and-Inclusion/RPP.) and Seattle’s Priority Hire Program (see “Undoing Racism Through Economic Equity,” City of Seattle, updated May 2022, https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/FAS/PurchasingAndContracting/Labor/PH_Brochure.pdf).
- “Development Agreements and Other Contract-Based Value Capture Techniques—A Primer,” U.S. Department of Transportation, December 2020, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/value_capture/vcsp/fhwa_hin_21_001/ch_3.aspx.
- “Database of Community Benefits Frameworks Across the US,” World Resources Institute, https://www.wri.org/cbf-database; “U.S. Employment Plan,” Jobs to Move America, April 10, 2020, https://jobstomoveamerica.org/resource/u-s-employment-plan-2/.
- Matthew Eisenson and Romany M. Webb, “Expert Insights on Best Practices for Community Benefits Agreements,” Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive, September 2023, https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/sabin_climate_change/206/.
- Ruby Moore-Bloom, “Community Benefits Agreements: Opportunities, Barriers, and Best Practices,” Clean Energy Transition Institute, July 24, 2025, https://www.cleanenergytransition.org/post/community-benefits-agreements-opportunities-barriers-and-best-practices.
- “State Legislative Requirements for Community Benefits Agreements in Renewable Energy Projects,” Initiative for Energy Justice, December 2024, https://iejusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/FINAL-12.5-CB-State-Legislative-Requirements-1.pdf.
- Ruby Moore-Bloom, “Community Benefits Agreements: Opportunities, Barriers, and Best Practices,” Clean Energy Transition Institute, July 24, 2025, https://www.cleanenergytransition.org/post/community-benefits-agreements-opportunities-barriers-and-best-practices.
- Greater Birmingham Ministries and Jobs to Move America led negotiations and signed the New Flyer CBA on behalf of the local community. See “Community Benefits Agreement,” Jobs to Move America, May 24, 2022, https://jobstomoveamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/CBA_05-24-2022_New-Flyer-Executed.pdf; “A Case Study of the New Flyer of America Inc. Community Benefits Agreement: Lessons Learned in the Bus Manufacturing Industry,” Jobs to Move America, July 15, 2025, https://jobstomoveamerica.org/resource/new-flyer-cba-case-study/.
- For instance, 45 percent of newly hired workers and 20 percent of promotions must come from groups that have traditionally had little access to good manufacturing jobs, such workers of color, women, formerly incarcerated people, and former foster youth. See Devashree Saha, “Community Benefits Snapshot: New Flyer Community Benefits Agreement,” World Resources Institute, December 19, 2024 https://www.wri.org/snapshots/community-benefits-snapshot-new-flyer-community-benefits-agreement.
- See “Guide to DOE Evaluation of Community Benefits Plan Costs,” U.S. Department of Energy, October 2024, https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-10/Guide%20to%20DOE%20Evaluation%20of%20CBP%20Costs.pdf. A community benefits plan is a non-legally binding version of a CBA.
- Elyse Shaw, “Building Back Better: Centering Equity and Inclusion in Job Creation and Economic Development,” U.S. Department of Labor Blog, February 14, 2022, https://web.archive.org/web/20220322060221/https://blog.dol.gov/2022/02/14/building-back-better-centering-equity-and-inclusion-in-job-creation-and-economic-development.
- “Building Opportunity Infrastructure: City of Pittsburgh, U.S. Department of Labor, and Partner4Work, Announce Three Significant Commitments of the Pittsburgh Workforce Hub,” The City of Pittsburgh, November 21, 2024, https://engage.pittsburghpa.gov/black-womens-equity-initiative/building-opportunity-infrastructure-city-pittsburgh-us-department-labor-and-partner4work-announce-three-significant-commitments. The core terms of Pittsburgh’s WEA were developed by a coalition of stakeholders across sectors and committed to by two key public entities, the regional housing and urban redevelopment authorities.
- The City launched its first pilot project under the WEA in 2025. See “Strategic Convening and Procurement Pilot Unveiling,” The City of Pittsburgh, August 21, 2025, https://www.pittsburghpa.gov/News-articles/Homepage/Mayor-Ed-Gainey-and-the-City-of-Pittsburgh-Advance-Regional-Workforce-Equity-Agreement-with-Strategic-Convening-and-Procurement-Pilot-Unveiling; “New Schenley Heights Pavilion at Robert E Williams Memorial Park: Bid Terms and Conditions,” The City of Pittsburgh, October 6, 2025, https://procurement.opengov.com/portal/pittsburghpa/projects/185202/document?section=1710143.
- See the Pittsburgh Workforce Development Hub at https://engage.pittsburghpa.gov/pittsburgh-workforce-development-hub. The City of Pittsburgh and more than fifty local partners committed to the Pittsburgh Principles on job quality and worker voice, which were modeled on the U.S. Department of Labor’s Good Jobs Principles. See “Department of Commerce and Department of Labor Good Jobs Principles,” U.S. Department of Labor, https://web.archive.org/web/20250118012715/https://www.dol.gov/general/good-jobs/principles. Pittsburgh’s Regional Workforce Equity Agreement is a key strategy for ensuring jobs supported by publicly funded projects adhere to the Pittsburgh Principles.
- “Regional Workforce Equity Agreement,” Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters and Columbia Pacific Building Trades Council, 2022, https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/2022/rwea-executed-final.2022.06.08.pdf.
- Among other provisions, Greater Portland’s WEA mandates that at least 20 percent of work hours be performed by state registered apprentices, at least 14 percent by women journeyworkers and apprentices, and at least 25 percent by journeyworkers and apprentices of color, with these targets phased in over time. See “Construction Career Pathways,” Metro, September 17, 2025, https://www.oregonmetro.gov/regional-leadership/diversity-equity-and-inclusion/construction-career-pathways.
- PLAs are authorized under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), and apply to all contractors and subcontractors that successfully bid on a project, regardless of whether they are unionized.
- Maria Figueroa, Jeffrey Grabelsky, and Ryan Lamare, “Community Workforce Provisions in Project Labor Agreements: A Tool for Building Middle-Class Careers,” October 1, 2011, https://ecommons.cornell.edu/items/38cd650d-a14d-4f2d-8611-00df401c7ac9. For research on the extent to which PLAs increase productivity, competition, and work quality—and reduce strikes and cost overruns—see, for example: “Quantifying the Value of Union Labor in Construction Projects,” Independent Project Analysis, Inc., December 2022, https://www.ipaglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Value-Union-Labor-Construction-Projects-IPA-Study.pdf; “The Impacts of Project Labor Agreements on Costs, Competition, and Contractors in Illinois,” Illinois Economic Policy Institute, March 6, 2025, https://illinoisepi.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/ilepi-pmcr-impacts-of-plas-in-illinois-final.pdf; and Aurelia Glass and Karla Walter, “How Project Labor Agreements and Community Workforce Agreements Are Good for the Biden Administration’s Investment Agenda,” Center for American Progress, July 21, 2023, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/how-project-labor-agreements-and-community-workforce-agreements-are-good-for-the-biden-administrations-investment-agenda/.
- Maria Figueroa, Jeffrey Grabelsky, and Ryan Lamare, “Community Workforce Provisions in Project Labor Agreements: A Tool for Building Middle-Class Careers,” October 1, 2011, https://ecommons.cornell.edu/items/38cd650d-a14d-4f2d-8611-00df401c7ac9.
-
Examples include Washington, which requires PLAs for projects with estimated costs of $35 million or more, and Oregon, for projects with onsite labor costs totaling at least 15 percent of construction costs. See “Executive Order on Project Labor Agreements,” EO 03-13, State of Illinois Executive Department, 2003, https://www.illinois.gov/government/executive-orders/executive-order.executive-order-number-13.2003.html; “Executive Order No. 641: Using Project Labor Agreements to Promote Successful Delivery of Major Projects,” The Office of Governor Maura Healey and Lt. Governor Kim Driscoll, March 11, 2025, https://www.mass.gov/executive-orders/no-641-using-project-labor-agreements-to-promote-successful-delivery-of-major-projects; “Executive Order 25-07: Project Labor Agreements,” State of Washington, Office of Governor Bob Ferguson, July 2025, https://governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/exe_order/25-07%20-%20Project%20Labor%20Agreements%20%28tmp%29.pdf; “Executive Order No. 24-31: Project Labor Agreements for State Construction Projects,” State of Oregon, Office of Governor Tina Kotek, 2024, https://www.oregon.gov/gov/eo/eo-24-31.pdf.
- According to the Economic Policy Institute, about half of states preempt local governments’ ability to use or require PLAs: see “Workers’ rights preemption in the U.S. A map of the campaign to suppress workers’ rights in the states,” Economic Policy Institute, n.d., https://www.epi.org/preemption-map/.
- Aurelia Glass and Karla Walter, “How Project Labor Agreements and Community Workforce Agreements Are Good for the Biden Administration’s Investment Agenda,” Center for American Progress, July 21, 2023, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/how-project-labor-agreements-and-community-workforce-agreements-are-good-for-the-biden-administrations-investment-agenda/; “Project Labor Agreement for Minnesota Multi-Purpose Stadium,” November 2022, https://www.msfa.com/df-data/files/EQUITY%20PLAN/MMPS%20Executed%20Project%20Labor%20Agreement.pdf.
- For additional tools and resources state leaders can leverage to create good jobs on public projects, see Karla Walter, “How State Spending Can Create a Good Jobs Economy,” State Innovation Exchange, March 2025, https://stateinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/How-State-Spending-Can-Build-a-Good-Jobs-Economy-State-Innovation-Exchange-1.pdf; “Building Worker Power in Cities and States: Government Procurement and Spending Authority,” Harvard Center for Labor and a Just Economy, September 1, 2024, https://clje.law.harvard.edu/publication/building-worker-power-in-cities-states/government-procurement-and-spending-authority/; “How State and Local Policymakers and Advocates Can Raise Standards for Publicly Supported Work,” Center for American Progress, January 2024, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/government-on-workers-side/; “Harnessing the Power of Procurement: Issues, Considerations, and Best Practices to Advance Equity in the Contracting of Public Goods and Services,” In the Public Interest, July 2023, https://inthepublicinterest.org/new-report-harnessing-the-power-of-procurement/.
- Cynthia Hess, Yana Mayayeva, Lindsey Reichlin Cruse, and Mala Thakur, “Supportive Services in Job Training and Education: A Research Review,” Institute for Women’s Policy Research, November 25, 2016, https://iwpr.org/supportive-services-in-job-training-and-education-a-research-review/; “Getting to the Finish Line: The Availability and Impact of Supportive Services in the Workforce Development System,” Institute for Women’s Policy Research, February 1, 2017, https://iwpr.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/C453-Getting-to-the-Finish-Line.pdf; Veronica Goodman, “Recommendations for Reauthorizing the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act,” Center for American Progress, June 11, 2024, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/recommendations-for-reauthorizing-the-workforce-innovation-and-opportunity-act/.
- Examples of supportive services can include, but are not limited to, child or dependent care services; transportation, food, or housing assistance; mental health services; financial counseling; legal assistance; referrals for substance use treatment; expungement services; emergency cash assistance; career navigation; mentoring; tutoring; and provision of work supplies such as tools or clothes.
- In interviews, 62 percent of states identified child care as a significant challenge or priority. See Joseph B. Fuller et al., “Governors Reshaping Workforce Development: Turning WIOA Challenges Into Workforce Solutions,” Harvard Kennedy School, April 2025, https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Governors-Reshaping-Workforce-Development.pdf. Nationwide, the average cost of care for one child was more than $13,000 per year in 2024—an increase of nearly 30 percent since 2020 that well exceeds inflation. See “Child Care in America: 2024 Price & Supply,” Child Care Aware, https://www.childcareaware.org/price-landscape24/.
- Kate Bahn, “Paths to Providing Supports For Women’s Participation in Workforce Development Programs,” in Workforce Realigned, Volume II: New Incentives for Improving Workforce Outcomes (Social Finance Institute, 2025), https://workforcerealigned.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/WFR2-19Bahn-Final.pdf.
- Workers in industries such as construction and manufacturing often start work as early as 5:00 a.m. or 6:00 a.m., making it difficult to align with public transit schedules even in areas where transit is reliable. See “Investing in America: Best Practices to Expand Access to Jobs and Economic Opportunity Through Transportation Infrastructure Investments,” U.S. Department of Transportation, February 2024, https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2024-02/Best%20Practices%20to%20Expand%20Accessto%20Jobs%20and%20Economic%20Opportunity%20final_.pdf.
-
“A Federal Funding Toolkit for State and Local/Regional Career Pathway Partnerships: Appendix: Federal Funding for Support Services,” CLASP, February 2022, https://www.clasp.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/appendix.pdf. States may use federal highway formula funds, which total nearly $50 billion per year, for workforce development including supportive services to develop their transportation, infrastructure, and construction workforces. For example, in 2024, Maryland announced it would invest $24 million over six years in training and supportive services to help workers secure good jobs in transportation. “See Guidance for Use of Federal-aid State Core Program Funds for
Training, Education and Workforce Development,” U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovativeprograms/centers/workforce_dev/504e_state_core_programs_guidance_0318.aspx; “Readout of White House State Workforce Day Convening,” The White House, May 4, 2024, https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/05/04/readout-of-white-house-state-workforce-day-convening/; “Fact Sheet: On One-Year Anniversary of President Biden’s Care EO, the Biden–Harris Administration Celebrates New Progress toward Providing Care and Other Supportive Services for Workers,” The White House, April 17, 2024, https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/04/17/fact-sheet-on-one-year-anniversary-of-president-bidens-care-eo-the-biden-harris-administration-celebrates-new-progress-toward-providing-care-and-other-supportive-services-for-workers/.
- “A Federal Funding Toolkit for State and Local/Regional Career Pathway Partnerships: Appendix: Federal Funding for Support Services,” CLASP, February 2022, https://www.clasp.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/appendix.pdf.
- Kelly S. Mikelson and Ian Hecker, “Public Funding for Job Training at the State and Local Level: An Examination of Massachusetts, Texas, and Washington,” Urban Institute, June 2018, https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/98625/public_funding_for_job_training_at_the_state_and_local_level.pdf.
- Ill. Admin. Code tit. 56, § 2660.80—Barrier Reduction Funding, https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/illinois/Ill-Admin-Code-tit-56-SS-2660.80. Relatedly, Illinois also operates the Energy Transition Barrier Reduction Program, which provides similar barrier-reduction support specifically to participants in the state’s Climate Works Pre-apprenticeship Program, and received $6 million in funding in 2023. “Gov. Pritzker Announces $16 Million in Funding for Climate Works Pre-Apprenticeship, Barrier Reduction Programs,” Office of Governor JB Pritzker, April 21, 2023, https://www.illinois.gov/news/release.html?releaseid=26358.
- “Universal Child Care,” New Mexico Early Childhood Education and Care Department, ,https://www.nmececd.org/universal/. Importantly, New Mexico laid the groundwork for universal free child care over multiple years, including establishing an Early Childhood Education and Care Department in 2019, passing a voter-approved constitutional amendment to provide dedicated funding for early childhood activities in 2022, and waiving of income eligibility requirements from the state’s child care assistance program on an ongoing basis. Karen Brulliard, “This state will be the first to offer free child care, regardless of income,” Washington Post, September 18, 2025, https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/09/18/new-mexico-free-child-care-grisham/.
- See Maureen Coffey, “Providing Affordable, Accessible, and High-Quality Child Care,” Center for American Progress, March 14, 2024, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/playbook-for-the-advancement-of-women-in-the-economy/providing-affordable-accessible-and-high-quality-child-care/. To take just one example, research finds that a 10 percent reduction in the cost of child care can lead to a 0.25 percent to 11 percent increase in employment among mothers. T. W. Morrissey, “Child care and parent labor force participation: a review of the research literature,” Review of Economics of the Household 15 (2017): 1–24, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-016-9331-3.
- “US Department of Labor recovers more than $1B in wages, damages for 615,000 workers under Biden-Harris administration,” U.S. Department of Labor, October 22, 2024, https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/whd/whd20241022-0.
- Margaret Poydock and Jiayi (Sonia) Zhang, “More Than $1.5 Billion in Stolen Wages Recovered for Workers Between 2021 and 2023,” Economic Policy Institute, December 20, 2024, https://www.epi.org/publication/wage-theft-2021-23/. In addition to federal recoveries, state agencies also recover stolen wages for workers. Based on responses from 34 states and the District of Columbia, for example, the Economic Policy Institute estimates that states recovered more than $200 million for workers between 2021 and 2023 alone.
- “Fact Sheet #80: The Prohibition Against Shipment of ‘Hot Goods’ Under the Fair Labor Standards Act,” U.S. Department of Labor, October 2014, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/80-flsa-hot-goods.
- Terri Gerstein, “Policies for States and Localities to Fight Oppressive Child Labor,” Economic Policy Institute and NYU Wagner Labor Initiative, February 27, 2024, https://www.epi.org/publication/fight-oppressive-child-labor/.
- Vermont statute: 21 V.S.A. § 453, https://law.justia.com/codes/vermont/title-21/chapter-5/section-453/.
- California Labor Code, https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-lab/division-2/part-11/; New York Labor Law § 345, https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/lab/article-12-a/345/.
- Terri Gerstein, “Policies for States and Localities to Fight Oppressive Child Labor,” Economic Policy Institute and NYU Wagner Labor Initiative, February 27, 2024, https://www.epi.org/publication/fight-oppressive-child-labor/.
- The restructuring is often referred to as the “fissuring” of the workplace. See David Weil, “Understanding the Present and Future of Work in the Fissured Workplace Context,” The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, December, 2019, 5 (5) 147-165, https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2019.5.5.08.
- “2023–2024 State & Local Policy Agenda,” National Employment Law Project, Economic Policy Institute, and Economic Analysis and Research Institute, October 30, 2023, https://www.nelp.org/insights-research/2023-2024-state-and-local-policy-agenda/.
- Karl A. Racine, “Illegal Worker Misclassification: Payroll Fraud in the District’s Construction Industry,” U.S. Office of the Attorney General, September 2019, https://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/OAG-Illegal-Worker-Misclassification-Report.pdf.
- Matthew F. Capece, “Joint Employer Liability: Use of The Joint Employer Doctrine to Advance the Enforcement Battle Against Exploitative Employment Practices,” Leadership Center for Attorneys General Studies, https://agstudies.org/publications/joint-employer-liability-use-of-the-joint-employer-doctrine-to-advance-the-enforcement-battle-against-exploitative-employment-practices/.
- Joint employment is a legal doctrine that means a worker may have more than one legally responsible employer on a particular job. In such cases, all employers are jointly responsible for labor standards, and are jointly accountable if they violate those standards. “‘Joint Employment’ Keeps Corporations Accountable When They Outsource Work,” National Employment Law Project, https://www.nelp.org/explore-the-issues/contracted-workers/joint-employer-accountability/.
- There is no single federal, state, or local statute that governs joint employment. At the federal level alone, for example, definitions of the employment relationship differ across the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), and the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act). As a consequence, “the joint-employment standard can, and often does, differ depending on the legal claim, type of employment, and possibly geography.” (Jeffrey Hirsch “Joint Employment in the United States,” UNC School of Law, 2020, https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1574&context=faculty_publications.) States have significant discretion on joint employment: “Typically, the contours of the employment relationship fall under state common law, usually pursuant to agency law concepts.”
- “2023–2024 State & Local Policy Agenda, National Employment Law Project, Economic Policy Institute, and Economic Analysis and Research Network, October 30, 2023, https://www.nelp.org/insights-research/2023-2024-state-and-local-policy-agenda/; “Joint employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act,” U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, Administrator’s Interpretation No. 2016-1, https://src.bna.com/b7j.
- Marni von Wilpert, “States with joint-employer shield laws are protecting wealthy corporate franchisers at the expense of franchisees and workers,” Economic Policy Institute, February 13, 2018, https://www.epi.org/publication/states-with-joint-employer-shield-laws-are-protecting-wealthy-corporate-franchisers-at-the-expense-of-franchisees-and-workers/.
- National Labor Relations Board, “NLRB Joint-Employer Standard—2023 Final Rule,” 2023, https://www.nlrb.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/pages/node-9558/joint-employer-fact-sheet-2023.pdf.
- AB-1897 Labor contracting: client liability, California State Legislature, 2013–14, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB1897.
- Matthew F. Capece, “Joint Employer Liability: Use of The Joint Employer Doctrine to Advance the Enforcement Battle Against Exploitative Employment Practices,” Leadership Center for Attorneys General Studies, https://agstudies.org/publications/joint-employer-liability-use-of-the-joint-employer-doctrine-to-advance-the-enforcement-battle-against-exploitative-employment-practices/; “2023-2024 State and Local Policy Agenda,” Economic Policy Institute, National Employment Law Project, and Economic Analysis and Research Network, October 30, 2023,https://www.nelp.org/app/uploads/2023/11/FINAL-2023-2024-State-and-Local-Policy-Agenda.pdf.
- Matthew F. Capece, “Joint Employer Liability: Use of The Joint Employer Doctrine to Advance the Enforcement Battle Against Exploitative Employment Practices,” Leadership Center for Attorneys General Studies, https://agstudies.org/publications/joint-employer-liability-use-of-the-joint-employer-doctrine-to-advance-the-enforcement-battle-against-exploitative-employment-practices/; “AG Racine Announces Construction Company Must Pay Over $1 Million to Resolve Workers’ Rights Lawsuit, Including to Impacted Workers,” Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, April 6, 2022, https://oag.dc.gov/release/ag-racine-announces-construction-company-must-pay.
- The law covers an estimated 127,000 temporary workers in nine occupational groups, such as food preparation and personal care. “Temporary Labor,” N.J.S.A. § 34:8D-1 et seq, New Jersey Legislature, February 6, 2023, https://pub.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2022/AL23/10_.PDF.
- “Wage & Hour Compliance: Selected NJ State Labor Laws and Regulations,” New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development, n.d., https://nj.gov/labor/wageandhour/tools-resources/laws/selectedstatelaborlaws.shtml#11-58.2.
- HB0690—100th General Assembly (2017–2018),” Official Government Website of the Illinois General Assembly, n.d., https://www.ilga.gov/Legislation/BillStatus?DocNum=690&GAID=14&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=100992&SessionID=91; “2023–2024 State & Local Policy Agenda,” National Employment Law Project and Economic Policy Institute, n.d., https://www.nelp.org/app/uploads/2023/11/FINAL-2023-2024-State-and-Local-Policy-Agenda.pdf.
- The measure also increased asset protections for household furnishings and personal vehicles, among other provisions. For full details, see: “Arizona Proposition 209, Healthcare Debt Interest Rate Limit and Debt Collection Exemptions Initiative (2022),” Ballotpedia, n.d., https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Proposition_209,_Healthcare_Debt_Interest_Rate_Limit_and_Debt_Collection_Exemptions_Initiative_(2022); “Proposition 209: Amending Sections 1218.10, 1101, 112, 112, 1126, 111 AND 1201, Arizona Revised Statutes; Relating to Predatory Debt Collection Protection,” Healthcare Rising Arizona, n.d., https://www.healthcarerisingaz.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/2022-Publicity-Pamphlet-Prop-209-Text.pdf.
- According to KFF Health News, more than 100 American adults—41 percent—have medical debt they cannot pay, and 50 million are on a financing plan to pay off a medical or dental bill. In a growing trend, hospitals are turning to financing companies to collect aggressively on those bills in exchange for a cut of the payments, including from steep interest rates. “Diagnosis: Debt,” KFF Health News, October 17, 2024, https://kffhealthnews.org/diagnosis-debt/; Noam N. Levey and Aneri Pattani, “How Banks and Private Equity Cash in When Patients Can’t Pay Their Medical Bills,” KFF Health News, November 17, 2022, https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/how-banks-and-private-equity-cash-in-when-patients-cant-pay-their-medical-bills/.
- Juliana Menasce Horowitz, Ruth Igielnik, and Rakesh Kochhar, “Trends in Income and Wealth Inequality,” Pew Research Center, January 2020, accessed October 28, 2025, https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/.
- Josh Bivens, Elise Gould, and Jori Kandra, “CEO pay declined in 2023: But it has soared 1,085% since 1978 compared with a 24% rise in typical workers’ pay,” Economic Policy Institute, September 19, 2024, https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-in-2023/.
- “Who Pays? State-by-State Data,” Institute on Taxationand Economic Policy, accessed October 28, 2025, https://itep.org/whopays-map-7th-edition/.
- Katelyn Washington, “California Just Became More Expensive for High Earners,” Kiplinger, January 10, 2024, https://www.kiplinger.com/taxes/california-just-became-more-expensive-for-high-earners.
- Carmen Reinicke, “New York Is Raising Taxes for Millionaires. Will Other States Follow?,” CNBC, April 8, 2021, https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/08/new-york-is-raising-taxes-for-millionaires-will-other-states-follow.html; “4% Surtax on Taxable Income: The Basics,” Massachusetts Department of Revenue, January 26, 2024, https://www.mass.gov/news/4-surtax-on-taxable-income-the-basics.
- “Capital Gains Tax in Washington State: Updates & How They Could Affect You,” Consilio Wealth Advisors, July 7, 2025, https://www.consiliowealth.com/insights/how-the-new-capital-gains-tax-in-washington-state-could-affect-you.
- Omar Ocampo, “Wealth Expands After Higher State Taxes on High-Income Earners,” Institute for Policy Studies, April 28, 2025, https://ips-dc.org/report-wealth-expands-after-higher-state-taxes-on-high-income-earners/; Michael Mazerov, “State Taxes Have a Minimal Impact on People’s Interstate Moves,” Center of Budget and Policy Priorities,” August 9, 2023, https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/state-taxes-have-a-minimal-impact-on-peoples-interstate-moves.
- “Incentives to Promote Quality Apprenticeships,” International Labour Organization, January 28, 2024, https://www.ilo.org/topics/apprenticeships/publications-and-tools/digital-toolkit-quality-apprenticeships/system-and-policy-level-key-building-blocks-quality-apprenticeships-system/funding-arrangements/incentives-promote-quality-apprenticeships.
- “Incentives to Promote Quality Apprenticeships,” International Labour Organization, January 28, 2024, https://www.ilo.org/topics/apprenticeships/publications-and-tools/digital-toolkit-quality-apprenticeships/system-and-policy-level-key-building-blocks-quality-apprenticeships-system/funding-arrangements/incentives-promote-quality-apprenticeships.
- “Certification of Enrollment Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 2158 66th Legislature 2019 Regular Session,” Washington State Legislature, accessed October 28, 2025, https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2019-20/Pdf/Bills/House%20Passed%20Legislature/2158-S2.PL.pdf.
- Emily S. Rueb, “Washington State Moves Toward Free and Reduced College Tuition, With Businesses Footing the Bill,” New York Times, May 8, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/08/education/free-college-tuition-washington-state.html; “UW Impact FAQ: Workforce Education Investment Act,” UW Impact, https://uwimpact.org/uw-impact-faq-workforce-education-investment-act/.
- Emily S. Rueb, “Washington State Moves Toward Free and Reduced College Tuition, With Businesses Footing the Bill,” New York Times, May 8, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/08/education/free-college-tuition-washington-state.html.
- Emily S. Rueb, “Washington State Moves Toward Free and Reduced College Tuition, With Businesses Footing the Bill,” New York Times, May 8, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/08/education/free-college-tuition-washington-state.html.
- “Washington State Moves toward Free and Reduced College Tuition, with Businesses Footing the Bill,” New York Times, May 8, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/08/education/free-college-tuition-washington-state.html.
- Brad Smith, “Here’s How Microsoft and UW Leaders Want to Better Fund Higher Education,” Seattle Times, March 20, 2019, https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/how-the-business-community-can-support-higher-education-funding/.
- Terri Gerstein, “Policies for States and Localities to Fight Oppressive Child Labor,” Economic Policy Institute and NYU Wagner Labor Initiative, February 27, 2024, https://www.epi.org/publication/fight-oppressive-child-labor/.
- Terri Gerstein, “Policies for States and Localities to Fight Oppressive Child Labor,” Economic Policy Institute, February 27, 2024, https://www.epi.org/publication/fight-oppressive-child-labor/; “Table A-7. Fatal Occupational Injuries by Worker Characteristics and Event or Exposure, All United States, 2023,” U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, December 19, 2024, https://www.bls.gov/iif/fatal-injuries-tables/fatal-occupational-injuries-table-a-7-2023.htm.
- Reed Shaw and Nina Mast, “Protecting Children from Dangerous Work,” Governing for Impact and Economic Policy Institute, n.d., https://governingforimpact.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/GFI-EPI-CLC-Child-Labor-FLSA-Report_FINAL-1.pdf.
- “Fact Sheet #43: Child Labor Provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for Nonagricultural Occupations,” U.S. Department of Labor, n.d., https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/43-child-labor-non-agriculture.
- “29 CFR Part 579—Child Labor Violations—Civil Money Penalties,” last amended September 26, 2025, https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-V/subchapter-A/part-579; Terri Gerstein, “Policies for States and Localities to Fight Oppressive Child Labor,” Economic Policy Institute, February 27, 2024, https://www.epi.org/publication/fight-oppressive-child-labor/. Maximum civil penalties increase to $72,876 per child for violations resulting in death or serious injury, which may be doubled for repeated or willful violations. Criminal penalties, which require proof of a willful violation, are a fine up to $10,000 for a first violation and imprisonment of not more than six months for a subsequent violation.
- Siobhan Standaert, “Strategies to Combat Child Labor Beyond Civil Penalties,” Good Jobs First, September 16, 2024, https://goodjobsfirst.org/strategies-to-combat-child-labor-beyond-civil-penalties/.
- “Labor Investigator Staffing Hits 52-year Low, Raising the Risk of Wage Theft,” Rutgers School of Management and Labor Relations, May 29, 2025, https://smlr.rutgers.edu/news-events/smlr-news/labor-investigator-staffing-hits-52-year-low-raising-risk-wage-theft.
- “2025 Worker-led State Policy Victories Show How States Can—and Must—Do More to Hold the Line Against Escalating Federal Attacks on Workers’ Rights,” Economic Policy Institute, n.d., https://www.epi.org/research/child-labor/.
- Nina Mast, “More States Have Strengthened Child Labor Laws Than Weakened Them in 2024: This Year, State Advocates Were Better Equipped to Organize in Opposition to Harmful Bills,” Economic Policy Institute, June 12, 2024, https://www.epi.org/blog/more-states-have-strengthened-child-labor-laws-than-weakened-them-in-2024-this-year-state-advocates-were-better-equipped-to-organize-in-opposition-to-harmful-bills/.
- Alabama Senate Bill 119, Alabama State Legislature, Regular Session, LegiScan, 2024, https://legiscan.com/AL/bill/SB119/2024. Unfortunately, a separate 2024 Alabama law weakened one evidence-based type of protection by removing the requirement that 14- and 15-year-olds obtain a work permit signed by a school official before they become employed. Chance Phillips, “Legislature OKs Bill Making It Easier to Employ 14- and 15-year-olds,” Alabama Political Reporter, May 8, 2024, https://www.alreporter.com/2024/05/08/legislature-oks-bill-making-it-easier-to-employ-14-and-15-year-olds/.
- Alabama Senate Bill 22, Alabama State Legislature, Regular Session, 2025, LegiScan, https://legiscan.com/AL/bill/SB22/2025.
- Illinois Senate Bill 3646,103rd General Assembly, 2023–24, LegiScan, https://legiscan.com/IL/drafts/SB3646/2023.
- Research shows work permits significantly reduce both child labor violations and the number of minors involved in these violations. Fred Bao and Ashish Kabra, “State Mandated Employment Certificate for Minors Reduces Child Labor Violations in the US,” Social Science Research Network, June 7, 2024, https://ssrn.com/abstract=4857432.
- See: Terri Gerstein, “Policies for States and Localities to Fight Oppressive Child Labor,” Economic Policy Institute, February 27, 2024, https://www.epi.org/publication/fight-oppressive-child-labor/; Nina Mast, “Child Labor Standards: State Solutions to the U.S. Worker Rights Crisis,” Economic Policy Institute, July 30, 2025, https://www.epi.org/publication/child-labor-standards-state-solutions-to-the-u-s-worker-rights-crisis/; Julia Isaacs Tse, “How States Can Stop the Corporate Campaign to Roll Back Child Labor Protections,” State Innovation Exchange, February 26, 2024, https://stateinnovation.org/childlabor; Reed Shaw and Nina Mast, “Protecting Children from Dangerous Work,” Governing for Impact and Economic Policy Institute, n.d., https://governingforimpact.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/GFI-EPI-CLC-Child-Labor-FLSA-Report_FINAL-1.pdf.
- SF 3852 Status in the Senate, 93rd Minnesota Legislature, 2023–24, https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/93/2024/0/SF/3852/; Remedies at Law for Violating Colorado Youth Act, Colorado General Assembly, n.d., https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb23-1196.
- HB 100, Child labor offenses; increases civil penalties, Virginia Legislature, 2024, https://legacylis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+sum+HB100.
- These official statistics are likely an undercount of actually fatalities, injuries, and illnesses on the job. “TABLE A-1. Fatal Occupational Injuries by Industry and Event or Exposure, All United States, 2023,” U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, December 19, 2024, https://www.bls.gov/iif/fatal-injuries-tables/fatal-occupational-injuries-table-a-1-2023.htm; “2.6 Million Workplace Injuries and Illnesses in Private Industry in 2023, Down 8.4 Percent From 2022,” U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, November 19, 2024, https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2024/2-6-million-workplace-injuries-and-illnesses-in-private-industry-in-2023-down-8-4-percent-from-2022.htm.
- “Number and Rate of Fatal Work Injuries, by Private Industry Sector,” U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, n.d., https://www.bls.gov/charts/census-of-fatal-occupational-injuries/number-and-rate-of-fatal-work-injuries-by-industry.htm.
- Andrea L. Steege et al., “Examining Occupational Health and Safety Disparities Using National Data: A Cause for Continuing Concern,” American Journal of Industrial Medicine 57, no. 5 (January 16, 2014): 527–38, https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.22297; “Low-Wage Jobs Are Hazardous,” Berkeley Public Health, n.d., https://racismharmshealth.berkeley.edu/work/low-wage-jobs-are-hazardous/; “Fatal Injuries to Foreign-Born Hispanic or Latino Workers,” U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, n.d., https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2023/workplace-fatalities-among-foreign-born-hispanic-workers/home.htm; “Death on the Job: The Toll of Neglect, 2025,” AFL–CIO, April 23, 2025, https://aflcio.org/reports/dotj-2025.
- Jill Rosenthal, Rosa Barrientos-Ferrer, Kate Petosa, “Extreme Heat Is More Dangerous for Workers Every Year,” Center for American Progress, September 24, 2024, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/extreme-heat-is-more-dangerous-for-workers-every-year/.
- See, for example: “News release: More than 100 children illegally employed in hazardous jobs, federal investigation finds; food sanitation contractor pays $1.5M in penalties,” U.S. Department of Labor, February 17, 2023, https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/whd/whd20230217-1; David Weil, “‘This Ancient Atrocity’: The Return of Child Labor in the United States: Why Now? What Should Be Done?” Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, December 2023, https://ash.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/331543_hvd_ash_child_labor_v3.pdf; and Terri Gerstein, “Policies for States and Localities to Fight Oppressive Child Labor,” Economic Policy Institute and NYU Wagner Labor Initiative, February 27, 2024, https://www.epi.org/publication/fight-oppressive-child-labor/.
- Annual workplace fatalities have dropped more than 60 percent—and mining fatalities by nearly 90 percent—since the 1970s, due in large part to powers given to federal agencies under the landmark Occupational Safety and Health Act and Mine Safety and Health Act. “Commonly Used Statistics,” U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, n.d., https://www.osha.gov/data/commonstats. Julie Su, “What Cuts to the Department of Labor Will Mean for You,” The Century Foundation, April 4, 2025, https://tcf.org/content/report/what-cuts-to-the-department-of-labor-will-mean-for-you/.
- Julie Su, “What Cuts to the Department of Labor Will Mean for You,” The Century Foundation, April 4, 2025, https://tcf.org/content/report/what-cuts-to-the-department-of-labor-will-mean-for-you/.
- Julie Su, Rachel West, and Andrew Stettner, “Trump’s Department of Labor Continues Its Onslaught Against Workers,” The Century Foundation, July 22, 2025, https://tcf.org/content/commentary/trumps-department-of-labor-continues-its-onslaught-against-workers/.
- For ideas on how states can enhance strategic enforcement efforts for worker health and safety protections, see Michael Felsen, “The Labor Standards Enforcement Toolbox,” ed. Jenn Round, February 2024, https://smlr.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/Documents/Centers/WJL/24_1_24_OSH%20Strat%20Enf.pdf.
- Michael Felsen, “The Labor Standards Enforcement Toolbox,” ed. Jenn Round, February 2024, https://smlr.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/Documents/Centers/WJL/24_1_24_OSH%20Strat%20Enf.pdf.
- According to the Center for American Progress, California, Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington State currently have workplace heat protections in place, while Arizona, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Rhode Island are considering protections. In addition, in 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor published a proposed rule that, if finalized, would have created a federal heat standard, protecting an estimated 36 million outdoor and indoor workers from extreme heat. Drawing on research and existing state-level protections, the proposal would have required covered employers to create a heat plan, and, under specific high-heat conditions, provide workers with protections including access to shade, water, and rest breaks. As of November 2025, it is unclear whether the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) will move forward with the rulemaking. Meghan Miller, “States Must Lead the Way to Protect Workers From Extreme Heat,” Center for American Progress, May 20, 2025, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/states-must-lead-the-way-to-protect-workers-from-extreme-heat/; “Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings,” Federal Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/08/30/2024-14824/heat-injury-and-illness-prevention-in-outdoor-and-indoor-work-settings.
- For an overview of states’ recent actions to regulate workplace technologies, see Mishal Khan and Annette Bernhardt, “Evaluating Trends and Challenges in State Regulation of Workplace Technologies,” Tech Policy Press, November 3, 2025, https://www.techpolicy.press/evaluating-trends-and-challenges-in-state-regulation-of-workplace-technologies/.
- Over the same period—August 2015 to August 2025—total nonfarm employment in the United States increased by 16 percent. “All Employees, Warehousing and Storage,” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, September 5, 2025, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES4349300001#; “All Employees, Warehousing and Storage,” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, September 5, 2025, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES4349300001#; “All Employees, Total Nonfarm,” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, September 5, 2025, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PAYEMS.
- See, for example, Beth Gutelius and Sanjay Pinto, “Data on Work Intensity, Monitoring, and Health at Amazon Warehouses,” Center for Urban Economic Development, University of Illinois at Chicago, 2023, https://cued.uic.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/219/2023/10/Pain-Points_Final_Oct2023.pdf. Amazon accounts for nearly 30 percent of U.S. warehousing employment.
- Warehousing and storage has one of the highest nonfatal injury rates of any industry, with 4.7 injuries per 100 full-time workers, nearly double the overall rate for private-sector workers in 2023. “Table 1. Incidence Rates of Nonfatal Occupational Injuries and Illnesses by Industry and Case Types, 2023,” U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, November 8, 2024, https://www.bls.gov/web/osh/table-1-industry-rates-national.htm.
- See, for example, Jay Greene, “Amazon’s Employee Surveillance Fuels Unionization Efforts: ‘It’s Not Prison, It’s Work,’” Washington Post, December 14, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/12/02/amazon-workplace-monitoring-unions/. The increased pressure from production quotas will not necessarily affect all workers equitably; for instance, quotas can present higher risks for disabled and pregnant workers. Leadership Council on Civil and Human Rights, “A Worker-Resistant Approach to AI Is Harming Our Workforce, Economy, and Civil Rights,” The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, August 28, 2024, https://civilrights.org/blog/a-worker-resistant-approach-to-ai-is-harming-our-workforce-economy-and-civil-rights/.
- “Table 1. Incidence Rates of Nonfatal Occupational Injuries and Illnesses by Industry and Case Types, 2023,” U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, November 8, 2024, https://www.bls.gov/web/osh/table-1-industry-rates-national.htm; “Table 1. Incidence Rates of Nonfatal Occupational Injuries and Illnesses by Industry and Case Types, 2013,” U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, n.d., https://www.bls.gov/iif/nonfatal-injuries-and-illnesses-tables/soii-summary-historical/ostb3958.pdf; and “COVID-19: OSHA Needs to Do More to Address High Injury Rates of Warehouse Workers,” U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General Audit, September 27, 2023, https://www.oig.dol.gov/public/reports/oa/2023/19-23-013-10-105.pdf. A 2023 study on Amazon, an online retailer and the nation’s largest warehouse employer, accounting for nearly 30 percent of U.S. warehousing employment, found that more than four in ten workers reported having been injured on the job and nearly seven in ten had to take unpaid time off in the past month due to pain or exhaustion from working. Beth Gutelius and Sanjay Pinto, “Data on Work Intensity, Monitoring, and Health at Amazon Warehouses,” Center for Urban Economic Development, University of Illinois at Chicago, 2023, https://cued.uic.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/219/2023/10/Pain-Points_Final_Oct2023.pdf; Irene Tung, Nicole Marquez and Paul Sonn, “Amazon’s Outsized Role: The Injury Crisis in U.S. Warehouses and a Policy Roadmap to Protect Workers,” National Employment Law Project, May 2024, https://www.nelp.org/app/uploads/2024/05/Amazons-Outsized-Role-5-1-24.pdf.
- Sec. 182.6526 MN Statutes, n.d., https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/182.6526; Minnesota HF36: 2023–2024, 93rd Minnesota Legislature, LegiScan, n.d., https://legiscan.com/MN/text/HF36/id/2789701.
- Irene Tung, Maya Pinto, and Deborah Berkowitz, “Injuries, Dead-End Jobs, and Racial Inequity in Amazon’s Minnesota Operations,” National Employment Law Project, August 25, 2025, https://www.nelp.org/insights-research/injuries-dead-end-jobs-and-racial-inequity-in-amazons-minnesota-operations/.
- Specifically, Black workers at the warehouse earned only 63 percent of White workers’ earnings each month, and turnover rates were as high as 170 percent per year. Irene Tung, Maya Pinto, and Deborah Berkowitz, “Injuries, Dead-End Jobs, and Racial Inequity in Amazon’s Minnesota Operations,” National Employment Law Project, August 25, 2025, https://www.nelp.org/insights-research/injuries-dead-end-jobs-and-racial-inequity-in-amazons-minnesota-operations/.
- “These high injury rates are directly attributable to how Amazon manages workers in their warehouses,” the lawmakers and advocates write, “enforcing an excessively rapid pace of work through the system of electronic surveillance and discipline that Amazon has pioneered.” Abdirahman Muse, Emma Greenman, Erin Murphy, “Minnesota Enacts Landmark Protections for Amazon Warehouse Workers,” The Nation, May 17, 2023, https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/amazon-warehouse-workers-minnesota/. In January 2023, Amazon announced it would shutter its Shakopee, Minnesota facility once the lease expired. According to state officials and a local worker-centered nonprofit, 609 of the approximately 680 workers were expected to be transferred to other Amazon facilities in the area, while 71 were expected to be terminated. Alfonzo Galvan, “Amazon Shutters Shakopee Facility, Agrees to Transfer Hundreds of Workers,” Sahan Journal, March 31, 2023, https://sahanjournal.com/business-work/amazon-closes-shakopee-sort-center-transfers-workers-minnesota/.
- Sec. 182.6526 Minnesota Statutes, Office of the Revisor of Statutes, n.d., https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/182.6526.
- The law also requires employers to document formally any disciplinary action and, if a worker is dismissed for any reason, the employer must provide that worker with ninety-day personal and aggregate work speed data upon termination.
- Eleanor Cooney, “Advocacy in Action: Movement Gains Momentum to Hold Amazon Accountable for Harms to Warehouse Workers,” National Employment Law Project, October 23, 2025, https://www.nelp.org/advocacy-in-action-movement-to-hold-amazon-accountable-for-harms-to-warehouse-workers-gains-momentum/.
- Chapter 49.84 RCW: Warehouse Distribution Centers, Washington State Statute, n.d., https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=49.84&full=true.
- See, for example, “Minnesota OSHA Issues Citations to Amazon for Warehouse Distribution Worker Safety and Ergonomic Hazards,” Minnesota Department of Labor and Industries, June 27, 2024, https://www.dli.mn.gov/news/minnesota-osha-issues-citations-amazon-warehouse-distribution-worker-safety-and-ergonomic; “Warehouse Quota Violations Result in Fines for Auburn Distribution Center,” Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, April 30, 2025, https://www.lni.wa.gov/news-events/article/25-12; and Jeanne Kuang, “California Hits Amazon with Fines Under Warehouse Worker Law,” CalMatters, June 18, 2024, https://calmatters.org/california-divide/2024/06/warehouse-workers-california-amazon-fine/.
- Eleanor Cooney, “Advocacy in Action: Movement Gains Momentum to Hold Amazon Accountable for Harms to Warehouse Workers,” National Employment Law Project, October 23, 2025, https://www.nelp.org/advocacy-in-action-movement-to-hold-amazon-accountable-for-harms-to-warehouse-workers-gains-momentum/; Irene Tung, Nicole Marquez and Paul Sonn, “Amazon’s Outsized Role: The Injury Crisis in U.S. Warehouses and a Policy Roadmap to Protect Workers,” National Employment Law Project, May 2024, https://www.nelp.org/app/uploads/2024/05/Amazons-Outsized-Role-5-1-24.pdf.
- “Understanding the Direct Care Workforce,” PHI, September 15, 2025, https://www.phinational.org/policy-research/key-facts-faq/; “Childcare Workers,” U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, August 28, 2025, https://www.bls.gov/ooh/personal-care-and-service/childcare-workers.htm.
- “PHI Report Highlights Record Growth in Direct Care Workforce, Warns Federal Policy Changes Threaten Job Quality and Stability” PHI, September 22, 2025, https://www.phinational.org/news/phi-report-highlights-record-growth-in-direct-care-workforce-warns-federal-policy-changes-threaten-job-quality-and-stability/.
- Laura Valle Gutierrez et al., “Care Matters: A 2024 Report Card for Policies in the States,” The Century Foundation, April 26, 2024, https://tcf.org/content/report/care-matters-a-2024-report-card-for-policies-in-the-states/.
- Most hands-on care in nursing homes—such as assistance with dressing, eating, and bathing—is typically provided by certified nursing assistants (CNAs), licensed practical nurses (LPNs), and personal care aides. CNAs, who comprise nearly two-thirds of nursing home workers, are 90 percent female and predominately workers of color. More than one in five are immigrants. Noelle Denny-Brown et al., “COVID-19 Intensifies Nursing Home Workforce Challenges,” Mathematica, October 2020, http://resource.nlm.nih.gov/101775124; “PHI Report Highlights Record Growth in Direct Care Workforce, Warns Federal Policy Changes Threaten Job Quality and Stability,” PHI, September 22, 2025, https://www.phinational.org/news/phi-report-highlights-record-growth-in-direct-care-workforce-warns-federal-policy-changes-threaten-job-quality-and-stability/; Priya Chidambaram and Alice Burns, “A Look at Nursing Facility Characteristics Between 2015 and 2024,” KFF, December 6, 2024, https://www.kff.org/medicaid/a-look-at-nursing-facility-characteristics/.
- For example, CNAs had a median wage of $18.36 per hour in 2023. Often, these workers earn significantly less for nursing facility care work compared to a hospital setting. “Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2023: 31-1131 Nursing Assistants,” U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, https://www.bls.gov/oes/2023/may/oes311131.htm; “Myths and Realities About Nursing Home Staffing,” AFL–CIO, June 14, 2023, https://aflcio.org/reports/myths-and-realities-about-nursing-home-staffing.
- In 2017–18, the annual median turnover for nursing home staff was 94 percent. Ashvin Gandhi, Huizi Yu, and David C. Grabowski, “High Nursing Staff Turnover in Nursing Homes Offers Important Quality Information,” Health Affairs 40, no. 3 (March 1, 2021): 384–91, https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00957.
- For example, a review of more than 3,500 articles concluded that higher staffing levels were associated with significant reductions in pressure sores and urinary tract infections. Elodie Perruchoud et al., “The Impact of Nursing Staffs’ Working Conditions on the Quality of Care Received by Older Adults in Long-Term Residential Care Facilities: A Systematic Review of Interventional and Observational Studies,” Geriatrics 7, no. 1 (December 28, 2021): 6, https://doi.org/10.3390/geriatrics7010006. See also: Q. Zheng, C. S. Williams, E.T. Shulman, and A.J. White, “Association between staff turnover and nursing home quality—evidence from payroll-based journal data,” Journal of the American Geriatric Society 70, no. 9 (2022): 2508–16, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35524769/; Nicholas G. Castle and John Engberg, “Staff turnover and quality of care in nursing homes,” Medical Care 43, no. 6 (2005): 616–26, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15908857/.
- Brandon Petit-Homme, “What to Know About Nursing Home Staffing Minimums: Implications of New Federal Rules,” Center for Health Care Strategies, May 2, 2024, https://www.chcs.org/what-to-know-about-nursing-home-staffing-minimums.
- Hours per resident per day (HRPD) is a staffing metric calculated by dividing a nursing home’s daily staff hours by its number of residents. For instance, a facility with average daily total nurse staff hours worked of 300 hours and 100 residents would have a total nurse staff HRPD of 300/100 = 3.0.
- The 2024 federal rulemaking would have created minimum staffing standards nationwide. Specifically, over a period of several years, the rule would have phased in a total nurse staffing standard of 3.48 HPRD, including at least 0.55 HPRD of registered nurse care and 2.45 HPRD of nurse aide care; as well as required facilities to have a registered nurse on duty twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, among other provisions. Staffing standards would have been phased in over the course of one to three years starting in May 2026, with timelines varied by the type of worker and the facility location (urban or rural). The rule was rescinded in September 2025 before its provisions were scheduled to take effect. “Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Minimum Staffing Standards for Long-Term Care Facilities and Medicaid Institutional Payment Transparency Reporting,” Federal Register, May 10, 2024, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/10/2024-08273/medicare-and-medicaid-programs-minimum-staffing-standards-for-long-term-care-facilities-and-medicaid. Priya Chidambaram et al., “A Closer Look at the Final Nursing Facility Rule and Which Facilities Might Meet New Staffing Requirements,” KFF, August 9, 2025, https://www.kff.org/medicaid/a-closer-look-at-the-final-nursing-facility-rule-and-which-facilities-might-meet-new-staffing-requirements/.
- “Interactive: Nursing Home Staffing Data (Q4 2024),” NursingHome411, August 13, 2025, https://nursinghome411.org/data/staffing/staffing-q4-2024/map/.
- Caroline Broder, “Compendium: State Policies Related to Nursing Facility Staffing,” MACPAC, March, 2022, https://www.macpac.gov/publication/state-policies-related-to-nursing-facility-staffing/.
- 101 CMR, § 206.13—Average Staffing Hours Incentive, Legal Information Institute, n.d., https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/massachusetts/101-CMR-206-13. The Massachusetts minimum of 3.58 HPRD is slightly above the 3.48 HPRD in the 2024 federal final rule, which CMS rescinded in 2025: “Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Minimum Staffing Standards for Long-Term Care Facilities and Medicaid Institutional Payment Transparency Reporting,” Federal Register, May 10, 2024, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/10/2024-08273/medicare-and-medicaid-programs-minimum-staffing-standards-for-long-term-care-facilities-and-medicaid.
- This is a significant source of funds for many nursing homes, more than 90 percent of which participate in both Medicaid and Medicare. Noelle Denny-Brown et al., “COVID-19 Intensifies Nursing Home Workforce Challenges,” Mathematica, October 2020, http://resource.nlm.nih.gov/101775124.
- 2021—S 0002 Substitute A: Nursing Home Staffing and Quality Care Act, Rhode Island Legislature, January 2021, https://webserver.rilegislature.gov/BillText/BillText21/SenateText21/S0002A.pdf; “Nursing Home Staffing Study: Comprehensive Report,” Abt Associates, June, 2023, https://www.cms.gov/files/document/nursing-home-staffing-study-final-report-appendix-june-2023.pdf.
- “Governor McKee Signs Nursing Home Staffing and Quality Care Act,” Governor’s Office, State of Rhode Island, May 27, 2021, https://governor.ri.gov/press-releases/governor-mckee-signs-nursing-home-staffing-and-quality-care-act.
- See, for example: “State Policy Levers to Address Nursing Facility Staffing Issues,” MACPAC, 2022, https://www.macpac.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/State-Policy-Levers-to-Address-Nursing-Facility-Staffing-Issues.pdf; “Allied Health Professionals Series: Direct Care Workers,” National Conference of State Legislatures, October 30, 2025, https://www.ncsl.org/health/direct-care-workers.
- “State and Local Laws Advancing Fair Work Schedules,” National Women’s Law Center, September 2023, https://nwlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Fair-Work-Schedules-Factsheet-9.14.23v1.pdf.
- “American Job Quality Study,” Gallup, Jobs for the Future, The Families & Workers Fund, and W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 2025, https://www.gallup.com/analytics/691241/american-job-quality-study.aspx.
- For instance, according to The Shift Project at Harvard, 60 percent of service-sector workers received less than two weeks’ notice of their schedules, 57 percent deal with last-minute shift changes, and 27 percent face on-call shifts. Furthermore, one in five receive only part-time schedules despite wanting additional hours. “Secure Scheduling,” The Shift Project, accessed October 29, 2025, https://shift.hks.harvard.edu/secure-scheduling/. Qiuping Yu, “How to Design Predictable Scheduling Laws That Not Only Benefit Workers but Also Firms’ Bottom Line?” Brookings Institution, August 10, 2023, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-to-design-predictable-scheduling-laws-that-not-only-benefit-workers-but-also-firms-bottom-line/.
- See, for example, Ben Rand, “Bad Data, Bad Results: When AI Struggles to Create Staff Schedules,” Harvard Business School, February 27, 2025, https://www.library.hbs.edu/working-knowledge/bad-data-bad-results-when-ai-struggles-to-create-staff-schedules.
- Daniel Schneider and Kristen Harknett, “Hard Times: Routine Schedule Unpredictability and Material Hardship Among Service Sector Workers,” Social Forces 99, no. 4 (July 7, 2020): 1682–1709, https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soaa079; Kristen Harknett, Daniel Schneider, and Sigrid Luhr, “Who Cares if Parents Have Unpredictable Work Schedules?: Just-in-Time Work Schedules and Child Care Arrangements,” Social Problems 69, no. 1 (April 4, 2020): 164–83, https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spaa020. In addition, multiple studies compiled by The Shift Project also demonstrate negative impacts for workers’ mental and physical health: “[w]orkers with unstable and unpredictable work schedules also experience diminished health and well-being across numerous measures, including poorer sleep, increased psychological distress, and greater unhappiness.” “Secure Scheduling,” The Shift Project, accessed October 29, 2025, https://shift.hks.harvard.edu/secure-scheduling/.
- “American Job Quality Study,” Gallup, Jobs for the Future, The Families & Workers Fund, and W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 2025, https://www.gallup.com/analytics/691241/american-job-quality-study.aspx.
- See, for example: Joshua Choper, Daniel Schneider, and Kristen Harknett, “Uncertain Time: Precarious Schedules and Job Turnover in the US Service Sector,” ILR Review 75, no. 5 (December 1, 2021): 1099–1132, https://doi.org/10.1177/00197939211048484; Saravanan Kesavan et al., “Doing Well by Doing Good: Improving Retail Store Performance With Responsible Scheduling Practices at the Gap, Inc.,” Management Science 68, no. 11 (March 2, 2022): 7818–36, https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.4291; “American Job Quality Study,” Gallup, Jobs for the Future, The Families & Workers Fund, and W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 2025, https://www.gallup.com/analytics/691241/american-job-quality-study.aspx.
- Kathryn Moody, “A Running List of States and Localities With Predictive Scheduling Mandates,” HR Dive, April 26, 2024, https://www.hrdive.com/news/a-running-list-of-states-and-localities-with-predictive-scheduling-mandates/540835/.
- “State and Local Laws Advancing Fair Work Schedules,” National Women’s Law Center, September 2023, https://nwlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Fair-Work-Schedules-Factsheet-9.14.23v1.pdf.
- Enrolled Senate Bill 828, 79th Oregon Legislative Assembly—2017 Regular Session, https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2017R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB828; “Predictive Scheduling,” Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, n.d., https://www.oregon.gov/boli/workers/pages/predictive-scheduling.aspx.
- Grace Dunn et al., “Implementing a Fair Workweek Law in Illinois,” Illinois Economic Policy Institute and Project for Middle Class Renewal, February 14, 2022, https://illinoisupdate.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/ilepi-pmcr-implementing-a-fair-workweek-law-in-illinois-final.pdf.
- Dana Holle, “Fair Workweek and Predictive Scheduling Laws: What Employers Need to Know,” GovDocs, July 30, 2025, https://www.govdocs.com/predictive-scheduling-laws-what-employers-need-to-know/.
- “State and City Laws and Regulations on Fair and Flexible Scheduling,” A Better Balance, 2021, https://www.abetterbalance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Formatted-fact-sheet-final.pdf; “State and Local Laws Advancing Fair Work Schedules,” National Women’s Law Center, September 2023, https://nwlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Fair-Work-Schedules-Factsheet-9.14.23v1.pdf.
- Kathryn Moody, “A Running List of States and Localities With Predictive Scheduling Mandates,” HR Dive, April 26, 2024, https://www.hrdive.com/news/a-running-list-of-states-and-localities-with-predictive-scheduling-mandates/540835/.
- Key resources for states include: “State and Local Laws Advancing Fair Work Schedules,” National Women’s Law Center, September 2023, https://nwlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Fair-Work-Schedules-Factsheet-9.14.23v1.pdf; Susan Lambert and Julia Henly, “How Are Workers Experiencing Fair Workweek Laws? Evidence for Policymakers and Advocates,” Equitable Growth, October 2, 2025, https://equitablegrowth.org/how-are-workers-experiencing-fair-workweek-laws-evidence-for-policymakers-and-advocates/; and “Secure Scheduling,” The Shift Project, June 5, 2025, https://shift.hks.harvard.edu/secure-scheduling/.
- Laura Feiveson, “Labor Unions and the U.S. Economy,” August 28, 2023, U.S. Department of the Treasury, https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/labor-unions-and-the-us-economy.
- See, for example, “Unions Help Reduce Disparities and Strengthen Our Democracy,” Economic Policy Institute, April 23, 2021, https://www.epi.org/publication/unions-help-reduce-disparities-and-strengthen-our-democracy/.
- Heidi Shierholz, Celine McNicholas, Margaret Poydock, and Jennifer Sherer, “Workers want unions, but the latest data point to obstacles in their path,” Economic Policy Institute, January 23, 2024, https://www.epi.org/publication/union-membership-data/.
- Paul D. Romero and Julie M. Whittaker, “A Brief Examination of Union Membership Data,” Congress.gov, October 24, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47596; “Union Members—2024,” U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 28, 2025, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf; David Madland, “State Rideshare Collective Bargaining Policies Hold Great Promise,” Center for American Progress, August 6, 2025, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/state-rideshare-collective-bargaining-policies-hold-great-promise/.
- “Building Worker Power in Cities and States: Workers Excluded from the NLRA,” September 1, 2024, Center for Labor and a Just Economy, https://clje.law.harvard.edu/publication/building-worker-power-in-cities-states/workers-excluded-from-the-nlra/.
- Aurelia Glass and Karla Walter, “7 Ways State Lawmakers Can Build Public Sector Union Power,” Center for American Progress, January 14, 2025, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/7-ways-state-lawmakers-can-build-public-sector-union-power/; “Collective Bargaining Rights for Farmworkers – National Agricultural Law Center,” n.d. https://nationalaglawcenter.org/collective-bargaining-rights-for-farmworkers/.
- “Workers Excluded From the NLRA – Center for Labor and a Just Economy,” Center for Labor and a Just Economy, October 7, 2025, https://clje.law.harvard.edu/publication/building-worker-power-in-cities-states/workers-excluded-from-the-nlra; “Domestic Workers Bill of Rights,” National Domestic Workers Alliance, September 17, 2025, https://www.domesticworkers.org/programs-and-campaigns/developing-policy-solutions/domestic-workers-bill-of-rights/.
- Roughly a quarter of states allow child care providers to bargain with the state: Christian Collins and Alejandra Londono Gomez, “Unionizing Home-Based Providers to Help Address the Child Care Crisis,” by Getty and kate_sept2004, Clasp.Org, April 2023, https://www.clasp.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/4.3.2023_Unionizing-Home-Based-Providers-to-Address-the-Child-Care-Crisis.pdf. Six states allow home care workers to bargain with the state; and in California, in-home supportive services workers may bargain with the county, although proposed legislation would enable them to bargain with the state instead: Nari Rhee et al., “Analysis of the Potential Impacts of Statewide or Regional Collective Bargaining for In-Home Supportive Services Providers: Final Report to California Department of Social Services,” U.S. Berkeley Labor Center, December 2024, https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/IHSS-Statewide-Bargaining.pdf; In-Home Supportive Services Employer-Employee Relations Act, California Assembly Bill 283, https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB283/id/3074068.
- Leigh Anne Schriever, “The Home Health Care Industry’s Organizing Nightmare,” The Century Foundation, March 15, 2022, https://tcf.org/content/commentary/the-home-health-care-industrys-organizing-nightmare/; “CAROW Examines How Unions Can Help Direct Care Workers | the ILR School,” The ILR School, January 28, 2025, https://www.ilr.cornell.edu/news/research/carow-examines-how-unions-can-help-direct-care-workers; Christian Collins and Alejandra Londono Gomez, “Unionizing Home-Based Providers to Help Address the Child Care Crisis,” by Getty and kate_sept2004, Clasp.Org, April 2023, https://www.clasp.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/4.3.2023_Unionizing-Home-Based-Providers-to-Address-the-Child-Care-Crisis.pdf.
- Aurelia Glass and Karla Walter, “7 Ways State Lawmakers Can Build Public Sector Union Power,” Center for American Progress, January 14, 2025, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/7-ways-state-lawmakers-can-build-public-sector-union-power/. A 2025 law in Rhode Island also protects the right of graduate students at private universities to unionize and collectively bargain if the NLRB declines to do so: Ethan Schenker, “With GLO Push, RI Becomes First State to Explicitly Codify Student Unionization Rights in State Law,” The Brown Daily Herald, August 6, 2025, https://www.browndailyherald.com/article/2025/08/with-glo-push-ri-becomes-first-state-to-explicitly-codify-student-unionization-rights-in-state-law.
- “Uber and Lyft drivers in California win the right to unionize,” CNN, October 4, 2025, https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/04/business/california-uber-lyft-union-bill.
- Captive audience meetings are mandatory meetings during working hours that force employees to listen to employers’ political, religious, or anti-union views. Adam C. Doerr and Samantha Bowie, “NLRB Aside, Bans on Captive Audience Meetings Spread Across the States,” Husch Blackwell, December 10, 2024, https://www.huschblackwell.com/newsandinsights/nlrb-aside-bans-on-captive-audience-meetings-spread-across-the-states.
- “Building Worker Power in Cities & States: State Constitutions and Public Sector Collective Bargaining Rights,” Center for Labor and a Just Economy at Harvard Law School, January 21, 2025, https://clje.law.harvard.edu/publication/building-worker-power-in-cities-states/state-constitutions-and-public-sector-collective-bargaining-rights.
- “Michigan Becomes 1st State in Decades to Repeal ‘Right-to-work’ Law,” PBS News, March 24, 2023, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/michigan-becomes-1st-state-in-decades-to-repeal-right-to-work-law.
- “Building Worker Power in Cities & States: State Constitutions and Public Sector Collective Bargaining Rights,” Center for Labor and a Just Economy at Harvard Law School, January 21, 2025, https://clje.law.harvard.edu/publication/building-worker-power-in-cities-states/state-constitutions-and-public-sector-collective-bargaining-rights/.
- Substitute House Bill No. 5312, Public Act No. 12-33, An Act Creating a Process for Family Child Care Providers and Personal Care Attendants to Collectively Bargain with the State, Connecticut General Assembly, May 4, 2012, https://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/act/pa/2012PA-00033-R00HB-05312-PA.htm.
- Connecticut’s law grants these workers many of the same collective bargaining rights and obligations as state employees, although it makes clear that they are not state employees. “An act establishing a task force to study the effect of collective bargaining for certain state employees,” n.d., https://cga.ct.gov/2012/TOB/H/2012HB-05312-R01-HB.htm.
- “Connecticut PCAs Granted Collective Bargaining Rights,” PHI (blog), July 31, 2017, https://www.phinational.org/connecticut-pcas-granted-collective-bargaining-rights.
- “Governor Lamont Announces New PCA Labor Agreement,” Office of Governor Ned Lamont, CT.gov, March 5, 2024, https://portal.ct.gov/governor/news/press-releases/2024/03-2024/governor-lamont-announces-new-pca-labor-agreement.
- “Governor Lamont Announces Three-Year Agreement To Provide Wage Increases for Direct Care Workers in Nursing Homes and Group Homes,” Office of Governor Ned Lamont, CT.gov, May 23, 2025, https://portal.ct.gov/governor/news/press-releases/2025/05-2025/governor-lamont-announces-for-direct-care-workers-in-nursing-homes-and-group-homes?language=en_US.
- “Occupational Outlook Handbook: Nursing Assistants and Orderlies,” U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, August 28, 2025, https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/nursing-assistants.htm.
- Kyra Weber et al., “State Child Care and Early Education Updates 2023: Continuing Progress,” National Women’s Law Center, 2023, https://nwlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/State-Child-Care-and-Early-Education-Updates-2023-NWLC.pdf.
- As of November 1, 2025, the NLRB still lacks the minimum number of members it needs to make decisions (at least three of five members). Danielle Kaye and Rebecca Davis O’Brien, “Trump Fires National Labor Relations Board Prosecutor Jennifer Abruzzo,” New York Times, January 28, 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/28/us/politics/trump-nlrb-jennifer-abruzzo.html.
- Haleluya Hadero, “Amazon and Elon Musk’s SpaceX Challenge Labor Agency’s Constitutionality in Federal Court,” AP News, November 18, 2024, https://apnews.com/article/amazon-nlrb-unconstitutional-spacex-elon-musk-ab42977117d883e97110a7bf8e8b257f.
- Senate Bill S8034A, New York State Senate, 2025–26 Legislative Session, https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S8034/amendment/A; Employment: labor organization and unfair practices, California Assembly Bill 288, https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB288/2025.
- An Act protecting labor and abolishing barriers to organizing rights, Bill S.1327, The 194th General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, https://malegislature.gov/Bills/194/S1327/PrimarySponsorSummary.
- Mark G. Eskenazi, “States Pondering ‘Trigger’ Legislation to Enforce the National Labor Relations Act,” Fox Rothschild, July 14, 2025, https://www.foxrothschild.com/publications/states-pondering-trigger-legislation-to-enforce-the-national-labor-relations-act.
- Ugo Okere et al., “Secure Jobs, Safe Workplaces, and Stable Communities: Ending At-Will Employment in Illinois,” National Employment Law Project and Raise the Floor, April 2021, https://www.nelp.org/app/uploads/2021/03/Secure-Jobs-Safe-Workplaces-Stable-Communities-Ending-At-Will-Employment-Illinois.pdf.
- “Union Members—2024,” U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 28, 2025, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf.
- “Just Cause,” National Employment Law Project, February 7, 2025, https://www.nelp.org/explore-the-issues/worker-power/just-cause/.
- “Just Cause,” National Employment Law Project, February 7, 2025, https://www.nelp.org/explore-the-issues/worker-power/just-cause/.
- Julie Margetta Morgan and Rachel West, “The Hidden Costs of Trump’s Economy: Skipped Meals, Rising Debt, and the Impossible Choices Facing American Families,” The Century Foundation, July 31, 2025, https://tcf.org/content/report/the-hidden-costs-of-trumps-economy-skipped-meals-rising-debt-and-the-impossible-choices-facing-american-families/.
- Irene Tung and Paul Sonn, “Fired with No Reason, No Warning, No Severance: The Case for Replacing At-Will Employment With a Just Cause Standard,” National Employment Law Project, December 2022, https://www.nelp.org/app/uploads/2022/12/2022-Just-Cause-Survey-Report-FINAL3.pdf.
- Jorge L. Capó-Matos, “Employment at Will: A State-by-State Survey, Puerto Rico,” Bloomberg Law, December 31, 2024, https://www.bloomberglaw.com/external/document/XQK451H8/aba-bloomberg-law-employment-at-will-a-state-by-state-survey-pue.
- Melissa C Rodriguez, “At a Glance: Termination of Employment in Puerto Rico,” Lexology, April 29, 2023, https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b642185b-0542-4444-b9fa-52d360e565dc.
- “The Forgotten Origins of Montana’s Just-cause Employment Law,” Niskanen Center, November 10, 2022, https://www.niskanencenter.org/forgotten-origins-montanas-just-cause-employment-law/.
- Kate Andrias and Alexander Hertel-Fernandez, “Ending At-Will Employment: A Guide for Just Cause Reform,” Roosevelt Institute, 2021, https://rooseveltinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/RI_AtWill_Report_202101.pdf.
- Juliana Feliciano Reyes, “City Council Approves ‘Just-cause,’ a Cutting-edge Worker Protection Law, for the Parking Industry,” Philadelphia Inquirer, May 16, 2019, https://perma.cc/L8K4-LBEB.
- Philadelphia Code, Chapter 9-4700, https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/philadelphia/latest/philadelphia_pa/0-0-0-280912.
- Irene Tung, Paul Sonn, Maya Pinto, and Josh Boxerman, “When ‘Bossware’ Manages Workers: A Policy Agenda to Stop Digital Surveillance and Automated-Decision-System Abuses,” National Employment Law Project, July 2025, https://www.nelp.org/app/uploads/2025/07/When-Bossware-Manages-Workers-Policy-Agenda-July-2025.pdf.
- Illinois HB 3530, 102ND General Assembly, State of Illinois, 2021 and 2022, https://www.ilga.gov/documents/legislation/102/HB/PDF/10200HB3530lv.pdf, and identical Senate bill, SB 2332.
- An Act To End At-will Employment, 130th Maine Legislature, First Special Session, February 24, 2021, https://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/display_ps.asp?ld=553&PID=1456&snum=130.
- Irene Tung and Paul Sonn, “Fired with No Reason, No Warning, No Severance: The Case for Replacing At-Will Employment With a Just Cause Standard,” National Employment Law Project, December 2022, https://www.nelp.org/app/uploads/2022/12/2022-Just-Cause-Survey-Report-FINAL3.pdf.
- “Noncompete Agreements: Use is Widespread to Protect Business’ Stated Interests, Restricts Job Mobility, and May Affect Wages,” GAO-23-103785, Government Accountability Office, May 11, 2023, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-103785.
- Alexander J.S. Colvin and Heidi Shierholz, “Noncompete agreements,” Economic Policy Institute, December 10, 2019, https://www.epi.org/publication/noncompete-agreements/.
- Evan P. Starr, J.J. Prescott, and Norman D. Bishara, “Noncompete Agreements in the U.S. Labor Force,” University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository, February 2021, https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles/2263/.
- Researchers found that when Oregon ended enforcement of noncompetes for workers paid by the hour, wages for that group rose by 2 percent to 3 percent, with stronger effects in occupations in which noncompetes were more prevalent. Michael Lipsitz and Evan Starr, “Low-Wage Workers and the Enforceability of Noncompete Agreements,” Management Science 68, no. 1 (April 5, 2021): 143–70, https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2020.3918; Tyler Boesch, Katherine Lim, and Ryan Nunn, “Non-compete contracts sideline low-wage workers,” Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, October 15, 2021, https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2021/non-compete-contracts-sideline-low-wage-workers.
- Matt Marx and Ryan Nunn, ““The Chilling Effect of Non-compete Agreements – the Hamilton Project,” The Hamilton Project, April 29, 2024, https://www.hamiltonproject.org/publication/post/the-chilling-effect-of-non-compete-agreements/.
- Matthew S. Johnson, Michael Lipsitz, and Alison Pei, “Innovation, Inventor Mobility, and the Enforceability of Noncompete Agreements,” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 314872023, https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w31487/w31487.pdf; Mary Hogan and Grace Ryan, “Minnesota’s Ban on Non-competes Marks Historic Change for Low- and Moderate-income Workers,” Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis,” January 23, 2024, https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2024/minnesotas-ban-on-non-competes-marks-historic-change-for-low–and-moderate-income-workers.
- These four states do not allow any non-competes in the employment context. However, all but Oklahoma have exceptions for exceptions that apply to the sale of a business and/or the dissolution of a partnership or limited liability partnership. See “State Noncompete Law Tracker,” Economic Innovation Group, September 9, 2025, https://eig.org/state-noncompete-map/ and “The Effects of Noncompete Agreement Reforms on Business Formation: A Comparison of Hawaii and Oregon, “ Economic Innovation Group, March 29, 2023, https://eig.org/noncompetes-research-note.
- “California Law: Noncompete Agreement Ban Takes Effect,” Purdue Global Law School, October 11, 2024, https://www.purduegloballawschool.edu/blog/news/california-noncompete-agreement-ban.
- “The Effects of Noncompete Agreement Reforms on Business Formation: A Comparison of Hawaii and Oregon, “ Economic Innovation Group, March 29, 2023, https://eig.org/noncompetes-research-note/.
- While courts may determine that other states’ non-compete laws apply to independent contractors as well as employees, Minnesota’s law makes this clear and certain. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/181.988
- For example, Minnesota’s law prohibits employers from requiring workers who primarily live and work in the state from forfeiting their protections under the law or litigating outside of the state, regardless of where the employer is based. Minnesota Statutes, Section 181.988, https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/181.988.
- “Antitrust Guidelines for Business Activities Affecting Workers,” U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, January 2025, https://www.justice.gov/atr/media/1384596/dl?inline.
- “2023–2024 State and Local Policy Agenda,” Economic Policy Institute, National Employment Law Project, and Economic Analysis and Research Network, October 30, 2023, https://www.nelp.org/insights-research/2023-2024-state-and-local-policy-agenda/.
- “Antitrust Guidelines for Business Activities Affecting Workers,” U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, January 2025, https://www.justice.gov/atr/media/1384596/dl?inline.
- “AI and digitalization are transforming safety and health at work,” International Labour Organization, April 23, 2025, https://www.ilo.org/resource/news/ai-and-digitalization-are-transforming-safety-and-health-work; “American Job Quality Study: State of the U.S. Labor Force,” Gallup, June 10, 2025, https://www.gallup.com/analytics/691241/american-job-quality-study.aspx.
- UC Berkeley’s Labor Center reviews more than 350 state and federal bills on technology and work to compile its regularly updated resource, “The Current Landscape of Tech and Work Policy in the U.S.: A Guide to Key Laws, Bills, and Concepts,” https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/tech-and-work-policy-guide/. For a recent overview of trends in state regulation of AI, see: Mishal Khan and Annette Bernhardt, “Evaluating Trends and Challenges in State Regulation of Workplace Technologies,” Tech Policy Press, November 3, 2025, https://www.techpolicy.press/evaluating-trends-and-challenges-in-state-regulation-of-workplace-technologies/.
- “Building Worker Power in Cities and States: Regulating AI in the Workplace,” Center for Labor and a Just Economy at Harvard Law School, September 1, 2024, https://clje.law.harvard.edu/publication/building-worker-power-in-cities-states/regulating-ai-in-the-workplace/; “Worker Power and Voice in the AI Response,” Center for Labor and a Just Economy at Harvard Law School, January 24, 2024, https://clje.law.harvard.edu/worker-power-and-voice-in-the-ai-response/. The AFL–CIO recently published eight priorities for worker-centered AI; see “Artificial Intelligence: Principles to Protect Workers,” October 15, 2025, https://aflcio.org/reports/workers-first-ai.
- “Building Worker Power in Cities and States: Regulating AI in the Workplace,” Center for Labor and a Just Economy at Harvard Law School, September 1, 2024, https://clje.law.harvard.edu/publication/building-worker-power-in-cities-states/regulating-ai-in-the-workplace/.
- A 2022 memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) makes clear that the NLRA protects private-sector workers against surveillance and algorithmic management technologies that are intended to interfere with their right to organize and form a union; see Matt Scherer, “NLRB Memo Takes Aim at Intrusive Workplace Surveillance & Algorithmic Management Systems,” Center for Democracy and Technology, December 21, 2022, https://cdt.org/insights/nlrb-memo-takes-aim-at-intrusive-workplace-surveillance-algorithmic-management-systems/.
- Alexander Hertel-Fernandez, “Estimating the prevalence of automated management and surveillance technologies at work and their impact on workers’ well-being,” Washington Center for Equitable Growth, October 1, 2024, https://equitablegrowth.org/research-paper/estimating-the-prevalence-of-automated-management-and-surveillance-technologies-at-work-and-their-impact-on-workers-well-being/.
- Teke Wiggin, “Weaponizing the Workplace: How Algorithmic Management Shaped Amazon’s Antiunion Campaign in Bessemer, Alabama,” Socius Sociological Research for a Dynamic World 11 (January 1, 2025), https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23780231251318389; Alexander Hertel-Fernandez, “New workplace surveillance bill would protect U.S. workers and address new technological risks,” Washington Center for Economic Growth, May 2, 2024, https://equitablegrowth.org/new-workplace-surveillance-bill-would-protect-u-s-workers-and-address-new-technological-risks/; Irene TungPaul K. SonnMaya PintoJosh Boxerman, “When ‘Bossware’ Manages Workers: A Policy Agenda to Stop Digital Surveillance and Automated-Decision-System Abuses,” National Employment Law Project, July 15, 2025, https://www.nelp.org/insights-research/when-bossware-manages-workers-digital-surveillance-automated-decision-system-abuses/.
- Mishal Khan and Annette Bernhardt, “The Current Landscape of Tech and Work Policy in the U.S.: A Guide to Key Laws, Bills, and Concepts,” UC Berkeley Labor Center, September 18, 2025, https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/tech-and-work-policy-guide/.
- The bill has not yet been signed by the governor. Maine LD 61, https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1766446/.multi-collapse.
- “Building Worker Power in Cities and States: Regulating AI in the Workplace,” Center for Labor and a Just Economy at Harvard Law School, September 1, 2024, https://clje.law.harvard.edu/publication/building-worker-power-in-cities-states/regulating-ai-in-the-workplace/.
- Mishal Khan and Annette Bernhardt, “The Current Landscape of Tech and Work Policy in the U.S.: A Guide to Key Laws, Bills, and Concepts,” UC Berkeley Labor Center, September 18, 2025, https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/tech-and-work-policy-guide/#s-7; California’s No Robo Bosses Act (CA SB 7) (Sen. Jerry McNerney, 2025), https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB7. While California’s governor vetoed the legislation in October 2025, lawmakers and advocates will likely continue to try to advance the bill’s ideas in future efforts. See Chase DiFeliciantonio, “Newsom vetoes ‘No Robo Bosses Act,’” POlitico Pro, October 13, 2025, https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2025/10/newsom-vetoes-no-robo-bosses-act-00606608. As NELP notes, while SB 7 could stand alone, there are several complementary efforts on workplace AI in the California legislature, including bills to notify workers of surveillance tools and restrict certain facial and biometric recognition (AB 1221); require AI developers to test for discriminatory outcomes (AB 1018); and prohibit surveillance in private places and off-duty times (AB 1331). See Irene Tung, Paul K. SonnMaya PintoJosh Boxerman, “When ‘Bossware’ Manages Workers: A Policy Agenda to Stop Digital Surveillance and Automated-Decision-System Abuses,” National Employment Law Project, July 15, 2025, https://www.nelp.org/insights-research/when-bossware-manages-workers-digital-surveillance-automated-decision-system-abuses/.
- VT H.114 (2023), https://legislature.vermont.gov/bill/status/2024/H.114.
- “Worker Power and Voice in the AI Response,” Center for Labor and a Just Economy at Harvard Law School, January 24, 2024, https://clje.law.harvard.edu/worker-power-and-voice-in-the-ai-response/; Irene Tung, Paul K. Sonn, Maya Pinto, Josh Boxerman, “When ‘Bossware’ Manages Workers: A Policy Agenda to Stop Digital Surveillance and Automated-Decision-System Abuse,” National Employment Law Project, July 15, 2025, https://www.nelp.org/insights-research/when-bossware-manages-workers-digital-surveillance-automated-decision-system-abuses/.
- Mishal Khan and Annette Bernhardt, “The Current Landscape of Tech and Work Policy in the U.S.: A Guide to Key Laws, Bills, and Concepts,” UC Berkeley Labor Center, September 18, 2025, https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/tech-and-work-policy-guide/#s-8
- N.Y. Civil Service Law § 80(10); see also https://nyassembly.gov/Press/?sec=story&story=110765; Irene Tung, Paul K. Sonn, Maya Pinto, Josh Boxerman, “When ‘Bossware’ Manages Workers: A Policy Agenda to Stop Digital Surveillance and Automated-Decision-System Abuse,” National Employment Law Project, July 15, 2025, https://www.nelp.org/app/uploads/2025/07/When-Bossware-Manages-Workers-Policy-Agenda-July-2025.pdf.
- Washington, SB 5422 / HB 1622 (2025 proposals), https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/House/1622%20HBR%20APP%2025.pdf.
- For an overview of states’ legislative efforts, see Mishal Khan and Annette Bernhardt, “The Current Landscape of Tech and Work Policy in the U.S.: A Guide to Key Laws, Bills, and Concepts,” UC Berkeley Labor Center, September 18, 2025, https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/tech-and-work-policy-guide/.
- “Negotiating Tech: An Inventory of U.S. Union Contract Provisions for the Digital Age,” UC Berkeley Labor Center, https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/negotiating-tech/. Algorithmic management refers to the use of automated tools to make decisions that were traditionally made by human supervisors, such as on hiring, firing, pay, scheduling, promotions, and discipline.
