How States Can Stop the Corporate Campaign To Roll Back Child Labor Protections

BI AB010 ORGANI M 20150707112322

How States Can Stop the Corporate Campaign To Roll Back Child Labor Protections

Download the Report
SIXlogo horizontal RGB highres
EARN EPI combined logo
Table of Contents
  1. Executive Summary
  2. Introduction
  3. The Campaign To Weaken Child Labor Protections
  4. Opportunities To Strengthen Child Labor Protections
  5. Conclusion
  6. Additional Resources
  7. Acknowledgements

Executive Summary

The enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in 1938 marked the passage of the first federal standards for child labor in the U.S., prohibiting the long hours, dangerous jobs, and abusive practices that many children suffered at the time. Now, nearly nine decades later, state legislatures, spurred by political operatives working on behalf of deep-pocketed corporate interests, are the epicenters of a national campaign to turn the clock back on child labor protections. 

Since 2021, at least 61 bills to roll back child labor protections have been introduced in 29 states, and at least 17 bills have been enacted in 13 states. The proposals, some of which would directly conflict with federal standards, include provisions that would repeal work permit requirements, extend work hours, legalize employment in hazardous occupations, allow children to be paid less than the state minimum wage, lower the minimum age for alcohol service, and preempt the passage of stricter child labor protections at the local level. Without adequate federal or state enforcement capacity, the recent onslaught of legislative activity to bring back 19th-century child labor standards promises to intensify a growing national crisis of child labor violations, especially among migrant youth.

State lawmakers and advocates have the power to organize and push back against these coordinated attacks and to put forward a different vision for the future where labor policies safeguard the safety, well-being, and education of children. This publication is intended to serve as a resource to legislators and state advocates in resisting efforts to deregulate child labor protections. It offers policy options that can strengthen labor protections for young workers. A stronger framework for child labor standards at the state level should consider the following:

  1. Enhancing child labor protections. States can and should establish labor protections that go above and beyond federal standards for young workers. Examples include time and hour restrictions for 16- and 17-year-olds, prohibitions on hazardous occupations, rest or meal break requirements, work permit requirements, repealing youth subminimum wage laws, and strengthening protections for children in agricultural work.
  2. Enhancing enforcement and penalties. States should adopt an enforcement strategy that maintains a credible ability to enforce against violations and includes a penalty regime that provides effective deterrence.
    • State lawmakers can establish strong civil and criminal penalties, including minimum penalties and damages payable to workers, in addition to enhanced penalties for egregious violations. 
    • Legislators can also enhance enforcement by establishing anti-retaliation protections, extending the statute of limitations on violations, expanding agency enforcement powers, and boosting enforcement capacity, particularly by adding language and cultural capacity to appropriately support migrant children.
    • State legislators can consider strategies that support enforcement on behalf of the state, like community enforcement programs, private attorneys general laws that authorize aggrieved employees to bring enforcement actions on behalf of the state, or dedicated grant funding to local prosecutors to support labor enforcement actions.
    • Lawmakers can ensure that children have appropriate legal remedies when they are harmed by child labor violations by ensuring that injured or killed workers are not limited to workers’ compensation as an exclusive remedy and by establishing a private right of action.
  3. Extend liability to all entities that profit from child labor. State lawmakers should modernize child labor protections to account for 21st-century business structures that often allow the most powerful entities to evade accountability. Examples include laws that hold lead corporations responsible for violations committed within their supply chains and laws that establish joint liability for franchisors and franchisees.
  4. Establish public procurement compliance requirements. States can set a standard for strict compliance with child labor protections through the procurement process by requiring contractors to disclose child labor violations and maintaining compliance with child labor protections as a condition for eligibility for public contracts.
  5. Support education, outreach, and service coordination efforts. Legislators can also enable improved enforcement outcomes by supporting education and outreach efforts that ensure that children and their families are adequately informed of their rights under the law and by facilitating coordination among labor officials, public education systems, social services, and immigrant legal services to ensure that investigations of violations do not leave families without access to material and legal support.

The scheme to deregulate child labor state by state is inseparable from attacks on workers’ rights, safety net programs that help families get back on their feet during hard times, the right to an honest and quality education, a fair tax system where wealthy corporations pay what they owe, and our freedom to vote and our right to fair representation. Altogether, these conjoined efforts—driven by insatiable corporate greed and bolstered by outsized elite influence over our democracy—paint a bleak future of an endless race to the bottom for cheap labor, enshrined by the exploitation of children at the expense of their health, safety, and education.

Introduction

In recent years, state legislatures have been the focus of a national operation to repeal laws that protect young people’s health, safety, and educational rights. The campaign to drag labor protections back in time to the 19th century is part of a sweeping, multi-issue effort to further concentrate corporate power, undermine worker rights, and dismantle government regulation, all while cementing wealth inequality by stratifying access to public education and tearing down anti-poverty programs. Since 2021, at least 61 bills to weaken child labor protections have been introduced across 29 states, including 17 bills that have been enacted in 13 states.

The ultimate intent of the corporate lobby is clear: to pave a path to national deregulation of child labor, one state at a time. State lawmakers have the power to put a stop to the plot to build an economy that allows businesses to profit on the backs of children, even in the most dangerous jobs. This publication is intended to serve as a resource to legislators and advocates in responding to the ongoing efforts in state capitols to deregulate child labor. In addition to examining the industry-backed actors behind the corporate conspiracy to roll back child labor protections, the publication outlines the types of regressive legislation that states have considered and passed in recent years and offers potential policy options that legislators may consider to further strengthen state protections for young workers.

History Repeats Itself: A Look Behind the Curtain of the Campaign To Roll Back Child Labor Protections

In the years following the proposal of a constitutional amendment authorizing Congress to regulate child labor in 1924, a new organization called the Farmers’ States Rights League (FSRL) distributed over a quarter-million pieces of literature opposing the amendment, spreading false claims that children would be prevented from doing chores around the home and family farm. The propaganda spread through half-page advertisements in small-town newspapers, leaving readers with the misguided impression that the campaign was funded organically by a group of farmers who came together in opposition to the amendment.

In reality, the FSRL was operated by David Clark, a frontman for wealthy Southern textile factory bosses—an industry that thrived on child labor—to create the facade of public resistance to the amendment in rural America. Clark, a virulent white supremacist who frequently railed against integration as the publisher of the influential Southern Textile Bulletin, was also the mastermind behind a litigation strategy to stonewall new child labor protections. His efforts, which included selecting a friendly federal judge and cajoling young cotton mill workers to serve as plaintiffs in lawsuits he paid for, resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court striking down two newly enacted federal child labor protections. One of the plaintiffs handpicked by Clark, when interviewed by a reporter years later, reflected: “I’d been a lot better off if they hadn’t won it. Look at me! A hundred and five pounds, a grown man and no education.”

While the proposed amendment was never ratified, Congress eventually enacted the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in 1938, prohibiting children from being employed in certain types of hazardous work, establishing a minimum age of 16 for most types of work, and limiting the number of hours and the time of day that children are allowed to work to protect school attendance. Nearly a century later, a different set of actors, funded by the newest generation of billionaire industrialist barons, are playing the same cast of characters in another astroturfing production to fabricate the illusion of widespread support for policies that only serve to line the pockets of the wealthy through increasingly dangerous child labor.

Industry Fronts: Agribusiness, the Foundation for Government Accountability, and the Opportunity Solutions Project

Agricultural industry groups continue to be outspoken proponents of weakening child labor protections. In the same model as the FSRL, they point to these protections as being burdensome for family farmers when, in truth, these groups represent multinational agribusiness corporations. Groups opposing a proposed federal rule to increase child protections in the FLSA in 2011, for example, included some of the biggest actors in the industry, such as pesticide trade group CropLife America, the National Cotton Council, and the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF). The AFBF, in particular, was founded in 1919 as a contemporary of the FSRL but has remained a powerful lobby group in the century since—calling itself “the voice of agriculture” while representing large agribusiness interests. In addition to advocating for weaker child labor protections, the AFBF supported the repeal of both the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Affordable Care Act while consistently pressing for policies that harm the independent family farmers it claims to represent. 

Other proponents of child labor rollbacks in statehouses across the country reflect a similar array of lobbyists and trade associations for other businesses and industries that stand to benefit most from child labor, including the restaurant, hospitality, and retail industries. During a hearing on a bill to repeal work permits in Arkansas, the legislative sponsor acknowledged that the legislation came from a Florida-based organization called the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA). At the same time, emails obtained by reporters revealed that similar bills were sent by FGA lobbyists to Florida and Missouri lawmakers.

Before the organization turned its attention to making it easier for businesses to exploit child labor in recent years, the FGA spent over a decade parachuting into statehouses on behalf of corporate interests—in the past seven years, the FGA and its advocacy arm, the Opportunity Solutions Project (OSP), have deployed 130 lobbyists into 29 state capitols. The group’s parallel efforts to gut public assistance programs (which primarily serve children experiencing poverty and their families), push the long-discredited idea of work requirements for safety net eligibility, and weaken state unemployment benefits illustrate a clear agenda: to ensure that low-wage workers are forced to accept poverty wages or abusive working conditions. More recently, to dilute the political power of voters and lock states in minority rule, the FGA has also waged attacks on our freedom to vote and direct democracy.

Reflecting on its work during the 2021 legislative session in states across the country, the FGA boasted in its annual report that thanks to the expansion of its “Super State strategy, which involves doubling down in key states to drive national change with big reforms,” Arkansas legislators enacted 48 “FGA reforms,” while Florida had implemented 26 of the organization’s solutions. Just two years later, lawmakers in Arkansas and Florida, in addition to two of the newest FGA Super States, Iowa and Wisconsin, passed bills to weaken child labor protections.

The FGA and OSP are funded by a number of ultra-wealthy industrialists who have funneled billions into a vast network of organizations to do the bidding of large corporations and conservative extremists. Some known funders of the FGA and OSP are also behind other industry investments to capture judicial and legislative power:

The similarities between the tactics of modern pro-child labor groups and their forebears are striking: front organizations are financed by a wealthy network of elites to create the pretense of citizen-driven campaigns for policies that make benefactors even more profitable in their industries. When paired with the ongoing crusade to push our democracy, state by state, into crisis, policies designed to enact economic oppression on the most vulnerable workers promise to ensure that the power to hoard wealth and opportunity remains a feature of our nation’s laws for generations to come.

Federal and State Enforcement Capacity is Insufficient Amidst Increased Violations and Conflicting State Laws

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution provides that federal law takes supremacy over conflicting state laws. While states may enact laws that provide legal protections above federal law, they may not lower the “floor” set by federal law. State legislatures have a long tradition of establishing and enforcing higher labor standards for their residents, including establishing some of the country’s first child labor protections a century before the passage of the FLSA.

States that roll back state child labor standards are actively diminishing their important, long-standing roles in enforcing child labor protections, leaving more and more of the enforcement burden to an already short-staffed federal Department of Labor (DOL) at a time when employer violations are sharply increasing. Weakening state standards signals to unscrupulous employers that child labor violations are less likely than ever to be investigated in a certain state while creating new confusion, even for well-intentioned employers, about what is and is not legal, increasing the likelihood of additional violations.

During the 2023 legislative session, federal DOL officials responded to a request from Iowa lawmakers regarding a bill (2023 IA SF 542), which has since been enacted into law, to confirm that several provisions were inconsistent with federal law. The DOL more recently alerted employers that they remain legally obligated to comply with federal child labor protections rather than newly enacted and weaker state laws, reminding employers that “[w]here a state child labor law is less restrictive than the federal law, the federal law applies. Where a state child labor law is more restrictive than the federal law, the state law applies.”

Despite the legal impotence of some provisions contained in new state child labor laws, they are deliberately intended to introduce confusion to the existing regulatory framework, take advantage of a vastly under-resourced and understaffed federal labor enforcement agency, and heighten conflicts between state and federal standards to build a case for lowering standards nationwide. The ultimate goal, as the FGA outlined in a recent report, is to “open the door to federal regulatory reform” by getting “enough states to successfully implement a reform.” 

In response to an 88% increase in child labor violations since 2019, federal officials have announced new enhanced enforcement efforts and provided additional guidance to local Wage and Hour Division (WHD) offices to ensure full utilization of the agency’s enforcement authority. Still, the WHD recently reported that it lost 12% of its staff between 2010 and 2019 due to its funding remaining flat. In 2019, WHD investigators were responsible for twice as many workers as they were four decades ago, while compliance officers with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) were responsible for three times as many workers over the same time period.

The Realities of the Child Labor Catastrophe

Proponents of weakening child labor protections frequently trot out feel-good stories suggesting that the rollbacks will open opportunities for teenagers working at the local movie theater or grocery store to save up for a prom dress when, in reality, these types of jobs are already fully legal options for teens as young as 14 in all states. Deregulation is instead aimed at stripping long-standing safety and scheduling standards that protect the health and education of children. Removing these guardrails will have the most dire, life-threatening consequences for children who are working to survive in some of the most dangerous and hidden jobs in our economy. This is made all the more urgent by a recent increase in unaccompanied migrant children driven from their home countries by economic desperation. State legislatures are the most important stopgap today for preventing the continued abuse, serious injury, and death of children in the workplace.

Compounded by violence and the disastrous effects of climate change, the economic fallout from the pandemic pushed many in Central America into a severe economic crisis. Many families facing extreme hunger and poverty had little choice but to send their children to the U.S. through a narrow opening in an otherwise broken immigration system that, until recently, closed the southern border to unauthorized arrivals and asylum seekers, except for children. 

Nearly 350,000 unaccompanied children were released by federal officials in a three-year period between 2020 and 2023—almost a 180% increase from the previous three years. Whereas the majority of unaccompanied minors in years past were primarily released to parents already living in the country, today, only one-third are sponsored by parents, with the remainder being sent to relatives, acquaintances, or strangers. Unaccompanied children are held temporarily at shelters under the care of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) while caseworkers vet sponsors to identify red flags for potential trafficking, such as sponsors that have claimed responsibility for dozens of unrelated children. 

About one-third of unaccompanied children who are identified as high-risk continue to receive case management services after release. In most instances, children are released to sponsors with the number of a national hotline and receive a phone call from federal officials within a month of release. In 2022, HHS reported not being able to contact one-third of minors in the month after their release to sponsors, while trafficking reports to the national hotline have increased by 1,300% in just five years. 

AdobeStock 389408806 scaled

Child Labor Violations Are Widespread and Largely Unchecked

The stories gathered from interviews with migrant children themselves, as well as the caseworkers, teachers, and community members around them, all bear strikingly repetitive refrains. Upon arriving in the country alone and without work permits, unaccompanied migrant children, often saddled with debt from their journey and with the obligation to support families back home, inevitably end up filling some of the most undesirable jobs that are often outsourced and persistently vacant due to the refusal of corporations to pay fair wages. These children frequently end up dropping out of school or never enrolling at all.

Though federal law prohibits children from being employed in many of these roles, employers frequently look the other way, as was in the case of a 13-year-old worker who presented documents that identified them as a 30-year-old. Even when multimillion-dollar corporations are caught in a federal investigation, the maximum civil penalty for child labor violations—less than 1% of the penalty for insider trading—is trivial to those corporations when balanced against the profits generated by ignoring labor protections. Some of the most egregious violations have been at worksites that are within the supply chain of major household brands like Tyson, Hyundai, and General Mills, which are insulated from liability by layers of subcontractors and third-party agencies.

Over and over, reporters and federal investigators have laid bare the widespread nature of child labor violations in today’s economy. Each story below, alongside many more, shares similar themes of exploitation and willful ignorance by employers, who often face little to no accountability, even in cases involving serious injury or death:

On its own, the idea of allowing children to work full-time or on graveyard shifts while attending school, to operate dangerous industrial equipment sharp enough to butcher cattle, to work in a bar at the age of 14, to toil in fields while inhaling toxic pesticides at 12, or to handle caustic cleaning solutions while wearing protective gear several sizes too large for less than minimum wage and without oversight is shocking and dangerous. But when taken together with the other priorities of the shadowy network of industry-funded groups that have cloaked their campaign to deregulate child labor as simply a matter of cutting “red tape,” the effort presents an existential threat to the future that most of us envision for our children.

Given the improbability of federal action on child labor, even in the face of rising violations, new conflicting state laws, and lack of federal enforcement capacity, state lawmakers have a central role to play in protecting the health and safety of children in the workplace. In addition to fighting back against continued child labor rollbacks, legislators can strengthen child labor standards and boost enforcement capacity at the state level.

The Campaign To Weaken Child Labor Protections

Since 2021, at least 61 bills to weaken child labor protections have been introduced across 29 states:

Recent legislation to weaken protections for children in the workforce has generally included some combination of the following provisions.

See Table 1 for a summary of legislation to weaken child labor protections that have been considered since 2021.

AdobeStock 521449699 scaled

Strategies for Organizing Against the Rollback of Child Labor Protections 

In organizing against the campaign to deregulate child labor, state legislators should consider the following strategies: 

Table 1. State Child Labor Legislation

Note: This table summarizes the provisions of state legislation related to child labor identified by the authors as of February 9, 2024. The status of each bill reflected in this table may not reflect its current status.

Opportunities To Strengthen Child Labor Protections

State lawmakers have the power to take immediate action to protect young workers against the staggering uptick in child labor violations, especially among children working in dangerous industries. The following sections include examples of provisions that lawmakers may consider in developing a stronger framework for child labor protections in their states, drawn from bills that have been considered at the federal and state levels. In addition to legislation specific to child labor, this section also includes enforcement approaches from other areas of labor law that may be effective against child labor violations.

See Table 1 for a summary of bills referenced in the following sections, in addition to other bills with similar provisions.

AdobeStock 334357363 scaled

Enhancing Labor Protections

State lawmakers have the power to counteract the spread of child labor deregulation by ensuring that state-level protections continue to prioritize the health, safety, and education of young workers. At a minimum, legislators in states where child labor protections are weaker than the FLSA should raise state standards to align with federal requirements.

Modernizing Agricultural Labor Protections

While federal law clearly identifies the certain occupations considered unsafe for children under 18, the law remains extremely weak when it comes to employment in agriculture: even children under the age of 12 can work on farms in certain circumstances. The exclusion of farmworkers from child labor protections, much like the exclusion of farmworkers and domestic workers from other areas of labor and employment law, has deep roots in slavery and subjugation in the name of profit. 

Much of the progress that has been made to improve conditions for farmworkers, including children, has been the result of decades of sustained organizing by farmworkers and their allies across the country. Some of these efforts have yielded legally binding codes of conduct between farmworkers and employers, which prohibit child labor and provide other important standards for worker safety and dignity. The Fair Food and Milk With Dignity Codes of Conduct are two models; these may offer inspiration for policy change. 

Lawmakers can bring protections for farmworkers into the 21st century by raising state standards to minimize the risks that children face in agricultural work.

AdobeStock 101026118 scaled

Enhancing Enforcement and Penalties

The growing incidence of egregious child labor violations suggests that existing enforcement mechanisms—and the likelihood that enforcement will occur at all—are insufficient to deter employers from violating the law. For profit-driven corporations, the decision is simple math: one analysis of DOL data found that federal penalties for minimum wage and overtime violations are “often relatively small when weighed against the small probability of detection of the violation for many firms.” In other words, an effective enforcement strategy must consider the cost of noncompliance in addition to maintaining a credible ability to enforce.

Increasing Penalties

Research shows that higher penalty amounts are an effective deterrent for labor violations; one study comparing minimum wage violations with state employment laws across all 50 states and the District of Columbia found that “the stronger the state’s employment laws, the lower the incidence of minimum wage violations…states that implemented the strongest penalties—treble damages—experienced statistically significant drops in violation rates.” 

Enhancing Enforcement

State lawmakers can also ensure that more employers are compelled to comply with child labor laws by the plausible belief that officials have the capacity to enforce the law. In order to be effective, an enforcement regime must give aggrieved workers the confidence that they will be protected and made whole throughout the process of an investigation.

Authorizing Enforcement on Behalf of the State

To add to state enforcement capacity, state legislators can also consider options that empower other entities to carry out enforcement actions on behalf of state officials. As recent reporting on the child labor crisis shows, migrant children and their families, concerned by the looming threat of deportation, are fearful of government officials. However, they may be eligible for programs like the Deferred Action for Labor Enforcement (DALE) program, which provides temporary protection against deportation and work authorization to noncitizen workers who have witnessed or been victims of labor violations.

As an additional layer of deterrence against the most grievous violations of child labor protections, lawmakers can also ensure that aggrieved children have pathways to seek adequate legal remedies against their employers. 

AdobeStock 136129814 scaled

Extending Liability to All Entities That Profit from Child Labor

The increasingly complex nature of businesses that utilize temporary workers, staffing agencies, contract workers, independent contractors, and other work structure strategies “challenge the nearly century-old workplace policies built around direct, bilateral employment relationships.” Federal employment law generally holds that more than one entity may be held responsible as joint employers for the purposes of labor violations. In announcing its Interagency Child Labor Task Force, the DOL recently signaled that its enhanced enforcement efforts would apply scrutiny to violations committed by entities within an employer’s supply chain, including contractors or staffing agencies. At the state level, legislators can extend liability to include the most powerful and well-resourced entities that have escaped accountability.

Establishing Public Procurement Requirements

State lawmakers can also amend public procurement processes to require strict compliance with child labor protections by government contractors and their supply chains.

Supporting Education, Outreach, and Coordination of Services

Adequate enforcement of any labor law requires that workers are supported with knowledge that empowers them to exercise their rights. In the case of children, who are new to the workforce and may be unaware of their rights under child labor laws, education and outreach efforts can yield long-term benefits in a workforce well-versed in their rights. States can also fill a critical role by identifying service gaps that exist for children vulnerable to labor exploitation, especially migrant children and children in families with language or literacy barriers. 

AdobeStock 82129123 scaled

Conclusion

Industry-driven attacks on child labor standards rely on a false narrative that children universally have the opportunity to “choose” a job where they can learn important lessons for adulthood and “sock away” savings in a Roth IRA. And yet, that narrative couldn’t be further from reality for the children who would be most affected by the deregulation of child labor. As recent reporting and data show, the children most subject to child labor violations have no good choices; they have only the choice to survive.

Trapped in the jaws of our nation’s profit-driven economy and brutally inhumane immigration system, both designed by a relentless corporate lobbying machine that has captured statehouses and courts, migrant children are pushed into the shadows where they are exploited without recourse. In some of the most shocking investigations, employers receive a slap on the wrist, if any at all, and continue operating with their reputations and profit margins intact. Even in cases of injury and death, these children’s families are not afforded the dignity of any measure of accountability or care. 

In defending against the corporate conspiracy to deregulate child labor, state legislators should be clear that the campaign is just one piece of a massive and generational project to remake the economy into one that gives corporations license to extract exorbitant profits from increasingly unregulated and dangerous child labor. Other critical pieces of the destructive plan seek to eviscerate the social safety net to ensure that workers have no choice when faced with unsafe and abusive working conditions; to dismantle critical institutions like public schools by robbing taxpayer coffers to pay for colossal corporate tax subsidies; and by demonizing and punishing immigrants, to create a class of workers who suffer violations in silence for fear of deportation and family separation.

Additional Resources

Economic Policy Institute

Migration Policy Institute

Acknowledgements

A special thank you to Jenn Round, the Director of Beyond the Bill at the Workplace Justice Lab@Rutgers University, for her insightful comments and valuable improvements to this publication.

SiX Holds Innovations Accelerator Conference in Denver

SiX Holds Innovations Accelerator Conference in Denver

By: Ida Eskamani, Senior Director, Legislative Affairs

We just held our second-ever Innovations Accelerator Conference, bringing together over 150 legislators and movement partners from 29 states to strategize on our work to advance tax justice, gender justice, paid family and medical leave, and taking on corporate monopolies. 

image

SiX joins with movement partners and Legislators at the 2023 Accelerator Conference in Denver. 

We are incredibly proud of the diverse states we convened on various issue-specific tracks, from Alaska to Florida and everywhere in between.  

Here are a few highlights from the conference:

We are grateful to the state and national organizations we collaborated with to organize the conference – including the Progressive Governance Academy. We could not have done this work without our sponsors: the Economic Security Project, National Women’s Law Center, Women’s Democracy Lab, and State Revenue Alliance. 

As we continue building momentum from this conference, we invite you to explore our latest publication, “States Leading on Leave: A Playbook on Winning Paid Family and Medical Leave," released in partnership with A Better Balance and New America. Based on lessons learned from state lawmakers and advocates, the playbook outlines strategies around expanding paid family and medical leave (PFML) laws in state legislatures nationwide. It provides guidance for coalition building and management, campaign strategy, policy design, and planning for successful implementation, drawn from SiX’s experts and interviews with state legislators and advocates who have recently won PFML enactment in DE, ME, MD, MN, and OR. 

Check out the playbook at: https://stateinnovation.org/pfml.

Anti-Racist State Budgets: The Social Safety Net


About This Primer

This primer is part of a series on anti-racist state budgets. To understand the concept of creating anti-racist state budgets, it is important to understand the difference between racist and anti-racist ideas and policies. The following excerpts are from How To Be An Antiracist (2019) by Ibram X. Kendi:

Racist vs. Anti-Racist Ideas

A racist idea is any idea that suggests one racial group is inferior or superior to another racial group in any way. Racist ideas argue that the inferiorities and superiorities of racial groups explain racial inequities in society … An antiracist idea is any idea that suggests the racial groups are equals in all their apparent differences—that there is nothing right or wrong with any racial group. Antiracist ideas argue that racist policies are the cause of racial inequities.

Racist vs. Anti-Racist Policies

A racist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial inequity between racial groups. An antiracist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial equity between racial groups … There is no such thing as a nonracist or race-neutral policy. Every policy in every institution in every community in every nation is producing or sustaining either racial inequity or equity between racial groups.

For additional race-equity concepts and definitions, please visit the Racial Equity Tools glossary.

Introduction

Latina mother teaches daughter how to wash vegetables in kitchen sink

We all benefit when public policies move us closer to realizing our nation’s promise of full and equal opportunity for all. Social safety net programs that help people get back on their feet during hard times and build thriving communities have proven that ending poverty is within reach. To continue our march toward prosperity for all, we must first confront and dismantle a long history of racism and discrimination in our nation’s response to poverty.

For decades, the modern social safety net has kept millions of Americans out of poverty, many of them children. These public assistance programs represent our shared investment in ensuring that all families, regardless of their income, can keep food on the table and go to work knowing that their children are in a safe and enriching environment. Without our social safety net, 37 million more Americans, including 7 million children, would be living in poverty.

Public assistance programs were originally designed as temporary supports for those who fall on hard times, but more and more, they have supplemented the earnings of workers trapped in a lopsided economy rigged in favor of the wealthy and large corporations at the expense of the working class. Walmart, for example, employs the most workers receiving SNAP, leaving taxpayers on the hook for $6.2 billion annually to help their workers make ends meet and access healthcare, all while using tax breaks and loopholes to avoid an estimated $1 billion in federal taxes each year.

In this report, we consider state policy changes to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and the child care subsidy program. Though there are additional safety net policies that state lawmakers can consider, like tax credits for low-income families, school nutrition and early childhood programs, or housing assistance, in this report, we focus on three federally funded, means-tested assistance programs that are generally administered through state human services agencies.

The Pervasive Legacy Of Racism In The Social Safety Net

Exterior of convenience store in Philadelphia; signs read "EBT Aceptamos" and "ATM here" Jana Shea / Shutterstock.com
Jana Shea / Shutterstock.com

Public assistance programs should be accessible and effective in moving families out of poverty. But since its inception, racism has shredded the nation’s social safety net, weaving in discriminatory policies designed to leave out Black families and other families of color. Over time, these policies have not only failed the people they were intended to exclude, but they have also left all communities worse off for generations.

A Brief History of Racism in the Social Safety Net

The construction of arbitrary obstacles to prevent people of color from accessing social welfare programs is as old as the nation’s first safety net policies. Federal and state lawmakers have turned anti-poverty policy on its head, using it not to help those living in poverty, but as a tool to preserve a racist economic system dependent on the exploitation of Black workers and other workers of color. Though not a comprehensive historical overview, the following racist ideas and movements were instrumental in the design of the modern social safety net:

Racism Undermines Anti-Poverty Policy

The cumulative result of decades of racist policymaking in the social safety net has undermined its effectiveness in reducing poverty and helping families achieve long-term financial security. The decentralization of TANF administration with the passage of the PRWORA left recipients at the mercy of states with a long history of political and economic disenfranchisement of people of color. Nearly three decades later, the unmistakable legacy of the 1996 reforms was its orchestration of a flawed response to child poverty that disproportionately failed the nation’s Black children. Indeed, research shows that the least accessible and least generous cash welfare programs are in states with higher shares of Black residents. By one estimate, equalizing the differences in how states use TANF funds to address poverty would narrow the Black-white child poverty gap by 15 percent.

While many of the changes contained in the PRWORA had the effect of reducing access to the safety net for Black families and other families of color, the changes have undermined our nation’s efforts to reduce poverty overall. Research shows that in the long term, the changes contained in the PRWORA failed to improve the well-being of families in poverty. Additionally, the work-centric reforms to the social safety net resulted in an alarming long-term trend: growing shares of families living in deep poverty. Fifteen years after PRWORA, the share of households living on less than $2 per day had increased by 153 percent. The rise in deep poverty was especially pronounced for children of color: in the first ten years after the 1996 changes, the percentage of Black children in deep poverty increased from 4.1 percent to 5.8 percent, and from 5.8 percent to 6.8 percent for Latinx children, while the deep poverty rate declined slightly for white children.

Building an Anti-Racist Social Safety Net

child reaching for strawberries on kitchen counter

We all have a role in ensuring that no child goes hungry, that parents can afford the childcare they need to go to work, and that families living in poverty have what they need to make ends meet. Policymakers have the power to confront and dismantle the legacies of racism in their states’ public assistance programs. At the state level, there are significant opportunities to reverse harmful policies of the past and make investments in policies to strengthen the reach of the safety net:

When considering ways to build an anti-racist social safety net, state legislators should refer to the following recommendations and work with national and local advocates, especially groups that center race equity, to develop the best policies for their states, which may include administrative solutions in addition to the legislative options highlighted below.

TANF Family Cap

During the height of welfare changes in the 1990s, 24 states adopted “family cap” policies that punished families receiving cash assistance through TANF for having another child. Without any evidence beyond racist and sexist stereotypes of welfare recipients, proponents of family caps falsely claimed that cash assistance programs incentivized low-income mothers to have more children to receive additional public assistance.

Family cap policies are a modern recasting of 20th century eugenics laws that promoted reproductive control and forced sterilization of people of color, people living in poverty, and people with disabilities. Within cash assistance programs, the family cap policy is the latest in a long history of policies intended to exert reproductive control over Black women, including contraceptive requirements, “suitable home” laws, policies barring unwed mothers from eligibility, and even forced sterilization. In spite of its racist roots, family cap policies remain in place today in 12 states, even though conclusive research confirms that the policy drives families deeper into poverty and does not affect or reduce childbearing among recipients.

Lawmakers in California (2016 CA AB 1603), Massachusetts (2019 MA H 4800), Minnesota (2013 MN SF 1034/HF 1233), New Jersey (2020 NJ S 2178/Chapter 99), and Virginia (2020 VA SB 690) recently enacted legislation to repeal the family cap in their TANF programs. Legislators in Georgia considered, but failed to pass, such a bill (2021 GA HB 741).

In Connecticut, families with children born after the initial ten months of receiving TANF cash assistance receive a 50 percent reduction in the benefit. Additionally, families with children born within ten months of program participation are prohibited from qualifying for an exemption from program time limits. A bill (2021 CT HB 6635) that was recently introduced, but failed to advance, would have eliminated both family cap penalties.

Work Requirements

Strict work and reporting requirements within the social safety net ignore steep and multiple barriers to steady employment, which disproportionately affect Black workers. Behavioral science research also shows that work reporting requirements add another burden while also promoting harmful narratives among agency staff. The urgency of this failed policy design has been intensified by the pandemic recession, in which the lowest quartile of workers lost 7.9 million jobs, while the highest quartile gained nearly 1 million jobs.

Work requirements and penalties are used more harshly against Black and Latina women than white women, and ample evidence shows that work requirements have failed to increase employment and reduce poverty among participants. For the most part, adults receiving TANF and SNAP are subject to work requirements under federal law, but states have some flexibility in both programs to establish exemptions, set the severity of sanctions, and define work activities.

TANF Sanctions

In the TANF program, states have broad authority to determine sanctions for non-compliance with work requirements that range from an initial warning to penalties as severe as immediate case closure and a loss of benefits. All but three states—California, New York, and Vermont—adopted full-family sanctions that cut off benefits to the entire family. In recent years, several states have repealed these harsh sanctions and no longer prevent children from receiving benefits for work-related sanctions.

The District of Columbia amended (2017 D.C. Law 22-33, § 5002/D.C. Code § 4-205.19f) its TANF non-compliance sanctions to minimize the impact of a benefit reduction on children by capping the sanction at 6 percent of the total benefit amount.

Illinois lawmakers enacted a bill (2019 IL HB 3129) that designated 75 percent of the TANF benefit for the children in a household and 25 percent for adult members, and provided that no part of the benefit designated for children shall be reduced due to a sanction. Under the new law, sanctions for cases of non-compliance are limited to 30 percent of the adult portion of a benefit.

Legislation (2020 MD SB 787/HB 1313) enacted in Maryland establishes a similar designation of benefits for children and adults, and limits the reduction of benefits for non-compliance to 30 percent of the adult portion, and prohibits the reduction or termination of any portion of the child or children’s benefit.

In Maine, lawmakers enacted a bill (2021 ME LD 78) to repeal the state’s full-family sanctions and limit the termination of benefits to the non-compliant adult and allow the children and compliant parents to continue receiving benefits.

Volunteers load food into the trunk of vehicles during a ''Let's Feed L.A. County'' drive thru food distribution by the Los Angeles Regional Food Bank, April 23, 2021, in Rosemead, California. Ringo Chiu / Shutterstock.com
Ringo Chiu / Shutterstock.com

SNAP Requirements and Sanctions

In SNAP, most adults must comply with basic work-related requirements, such as registering for work or not voluntarily leaving a job. States can require participation in job training activities, which range from job search requirements to educational programs, in addition to setting the number of hours required. Employment and training (E&T) programs must meet some federal requirements, but states have broad latitude in program design. Many states enroll participants in E&T programs on a voluntary basis, which is more effective than mandatory programs.

States can also set sanctions and disqualifications for SNAP recipients who fail to comply with work requirements. There are federal minimums for disqualification that apply only to the individual who is out of compliance (which allows the household to receive a reduced benefit amount), starting with a 1-month sanction for the first instance, and escalating to 6 months for the third instance. States can use the minimum, or use some combination of a longer disqualification period, or extend the disqualification to the entire household. The range of sanctions includes 26 states that use the federal minimum, and the most punitive state, Mississippi (Miss. Code Ann. § 43-12-37), which applies sanctions against an entire household and imposes a permanent sanction for non-compliance after the third instance.

Legislation introduced in Texas (2021 TX SB 1912/HB 1353) would roll back the state’s disqualification policy to the federal minimum by allowing a household to continue to receive benefits when an individual is out of compliance.

Similar legislation was introduced, but failed to pass, in Nebraska (2020 NE LB 1037) to limit the disqualification to the non-compliant household member.

TANF and SNAP Bans on Individuals with Prior Drug-Related Felony Convictions

The federal lifetime ban on individuals with drug-related felony convictions gave states the option to opt out of or modify the ban through state legislative action. Not only does the ban establish a lifetime punishment for a drug conviction, but it also effectively extends the punishment to the children and family of the individual, as the household receives a smaller benefit as a result of the ban.

The ban—which applies to no other type of felony conviction—plainly targets Black and Latinx people, who are disproportionately arrested and imprisoned for drug offenses, despite similar drug use rates among Black, Latinx, and white people. Drug arrests of women, who are more likely to be the primary caregivers of children, have increased by 216 percent in the past 35 years, compared to 48 percent for men. Access to TANF and SNAP has been shown to reduce the risk of recidivism within the first year of release by 10 percent.

Many states have lifted the ban in either or both programs, while others have modified their bans to limit those affected by narrowing the types of felonies, shortening the length of the ban, or providing an exception for those that have successfully completed treatment or parole requirements.

Legislators in Illinois (2021 IL HB 88) and South Dakota (2020 SD SB 96) enacted legislation to lift the ban in TANF, lawmakers in Michigan approved a bill (2020 MI SB 1006) to lift the ban in SNAP, while lawmakers in Kentucky (2021 KY HB 497) and Virginia (2020 VA SB 124/HB 566) enacted legislation to lift the bans in both programs.

A bill (2021 NV AB 138) enacted by Nevada lawmakers would lift the bans in both SNAP and TANF. Under current law, the state’s modified bans require participation in, or successful completion of, a substance use disorder treatment program, which can be costly and difficult to access.

Drug Testing for TANF Applicants and Recipients

The passage of the PRWORA also gave states the option to require drug tests for TANF recipients, and to establish penalties for those who test positive for drugs. Eligibility requirements for SNAP are more narrowly prescribed, and state efforts to impose drug testing in the program have been blocked by the federal government. Some states have circumvented the federal prohibition on drug testing in SNAP by requiring drug tests as a part of their modified ban on individuals with drug-related felony convictions, requiring it for unemployed SNAP recipients participating in state employment and training programs, and carrying over drug-testing disqualifications from TANF to those also receiving SNAP.

Drug testing requires a reasonable basis or suspicion; Michigan and Florida enacted “suspicionless” drug testing for TANF applicants and recipients, which required drug testing without reasonable suspicion of drug use, that were later rejected by courts as a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Subsequently, at least 13 states currently require applicants to submit to drug screening questionnaires that are used, along with other information, including criminal history records or even “visual observations” by agency staff, as a basis for reasonable suspicion to require drug testing. Drug screening and testing policies are also costly and ineffective; an analysis of 13 states with existing drug testing policies found that, collectively, the states spent over $200,000 and identified only 338 positive tests, or 1 percent of all applicants.

Legislators in Utah enacted a bill (2016 UT HB 172) that, as introduced, would have repealed the state’s drug screening and testing requirements. As amended, TANF applicants who are screened as likely drug users would be required to take a drug test only upon the recommendation of a licensed clinical social worker.

In Wisconsin, the 2021-23 Executive Budget (2021 WI AB 68/SB 111) proposed by Governor Evers would repeal the state’s drug screening and testing requirements in the SNAP Employment and Training program, but lawmakers declined to include the recommendation in the final enacted budget.

Exterior window of retail store; sign reads, "EBT Accepted here! SNAP"
Child Support

Cooperation with child support enforcement is required at varying degrees within the social safety net as a cost recovery mechanism, but many non-custodial parents cannot keep up with payments. A quarter of non-custodial parents live in poverty, and 300,000 of them fell into poverty from paying child support. Children with parents living outside of the home are much more likely to be living in poverty and are more likely to be Black or Latinx. As a result, child support enforcement efforts leave low-income children no better off, since the payments collected are oftentimes reimbursed to the state and not the child, while pushing non-custodial parents into financial precarity and debt.

Under federal law, subject to good cause exemptions, families must cooperate with child support enforcement programs to receive TANF benefits. For SNAP and childcare subsidy recipients, states can require both custodial and non-custodial parents receiving benefits to cooperate with child support enforcement and impose their own sanctions for failure to cooperate.

Child Support Pass-Through and Disregard in TANF

As a condition of receiving TANF benefits, applicants must cooperate with child support enforcement agencies in establishing and collecting support. Child support payments collected on behalf of current TANF participants are shared between the state and federal governments, but the federal government waives its share for child support that is passed through to the family and disregarded as income for eligibility purpose, up to $100 per month per child, or $200 for two or more children.

Half of the states keep all of the child support and do not pass it to the family, but in 26 states, the state agency collects child support payments on behalf of children receiving TANF, but then passes the payment, fully or partially, onto the child. Pass-through policies provide a meaningful boost to TANF recipients, who receive benefits that are woefully inadequate and have been declining relative to the cost of living over the years. Research shows that pass-through policies incentivize cooperation for non-custodial parents while also increasing compliance with child support orders among non-custodial parents.

Many states’ pass-through policies reflect the amounts waived by the federal government, while others pass through smaller amounts, and some pass through the full amount collected to the TANF family, above the federal amount waived.

Legislators in Colorado enacted a bill (2015 CO SB 15-012) to allow TANF recipients to receive the full amount of the child support that the state collects on their behalf, in addition to ensuring that the additional payments are not counted as income for eligibility in the program. In a recent study, the state’s Department of Human Services reported that the average family received an increase of $167 per month. The state also reported that monthly child support collections increased by 76 percent in the first 18 months of implementation.

Maryland enacted legislation (2017 MD SB 1009/HB 1469) to allow up to $100 per child, or $200 for two or more children, to be passed through to TANF recipients, and to disregard the payment for eligibility for the program.

In New Jersey, a bill (2021 NJ S 2329/A 3905) that was vetoed by the governor would have allowed a portion of child support to be passed through to TANF families, in addition to excluding the pass-through amount from the program’s definition of income.

Child Support Sanctions for SNAP and Child Care Subsidies

States can also choose to impose child support-related sanctions for SNAP and childcare subsidy recipients. Severe sanctions for non-cooperation can have dire consequences, including a loss of subsidies that help parents afford childcare, or reduced food assistance and increased food insecurity for children. Although most states have good cause exemptions for non-cooperation, such as in cases of domestic violence, concerns about how child support enforcement may affect their family relationships can leave some families reluctant to participate.

In Mississippi, where custodial parents can be disqualified from receiving SNAP for failure to cooperate, and non-custodial parents can be disqualified for being in arrears with court-ordered child support payments, legislators considered, but failed to pass, a bill (2020 MS HB 1319) that would have repealed the state’s SNAP enforcement requirements. The state also requires child support enforcement cooperation for child care eligibility, and failed to advance a bill (2021 MS HB 65) that would have eliminated the requirement in the program.

Kansas legislators are considering a bill (2021 KS HB 2371) that would eliminate the requirement for child support enforcement cooperation for SNAP and child care subsidy applicants.

Time Limits in TANF

The passage of the PRWORA in 1996 instituted a dramatic federal 60-month lifetime limit for receiving TANF benefits, though states can—and several states do—impose a shorter limit. Enabled by racist narratives about welfare recipients, proponents argued that the policy would force recipients to find jobs, ignoring the reality that many TANF recipients, especially Black and Latina mothers, face steep and systemic barriers—employment and skills gaps, employment discrimination, lack of access to reliable transportation—to stable jobs that pay enough to make ends meet. Indeed, research shows that time limits are ineffective and do not result in increased long-term earnings.

Black mother and Black father playfully hold their toddler daughter in field outdoors

State lawmakers can ease time limit penalties by providing extensions beyond the 60 months for up to 20 percent of the caseload, by stopping the clock on the time limit for certain groups of families, and continuing benefits for children beyond the time limit. Additionally, state TANF funds are not limited by the federal 60-month limit, so states can use funding flexibly to set their own time limit policies. One way to ensure that families are not punished is by using “good faith” extensions when recipients are participating in work activities but are otherwise prevented from working.

In Washington, where researchers found that time limits were most likely to penalize Black and Indigenous families, lawmakers enacted a bill (2019 WA HB 1603/Chapter 343) that expanded good faith extensions for families facing barriers to work, such as the need for mental health or substance use disorder treatment, or homelessness or risk of loss of housing. Under the new law, recipients are also eligible for an extension if they demonstrate that the time limit would cause undue hardship to the recipient or their family.

Another bill (2021 WA SB 5214) enacted by Washington legislators establishes a hardship exemption for all families receiving TANF since March 1, 2020, when the unemployment rate was equal to, or greater than, 7 percent.

A bill (2020 NJ S 2329/A 3905) that was vetoed by the governor in New Jersey would have continued benefits for children and other household members if at least one adult recipient becomes ineligible as a result of the 60-month lifetime limit.

Arizona legislators considered a bill (2021 AZ HB 2253) that would have increased the state’s lifetime limit of 12 months, the most restrictive in the country, to the federal limit of 60 months.

Asset Limits

Today, the average Black household has just 12 percent of the wealth of white households, and early data shows that the pandemic recession threatens to widen the gap. The racial wealth gap has grown over the course of centuries of discriminatory policymaking and institutional practices that built wealth for white families while preventing families of color, especially Black Americans, from achieving the same generational wealth.

States have broad authority to set asset limits in most public assistance programs. Asset limits introduce unnecessary administrative complexity and cost, and research from states that have relaxed asset limits has seen no effect on the number of monthly applicants and no evidence to suggest that applicants shelter significant assets in order to become eligible for assistance.

Included in that broad authority are the states’ abilities to set asset limits for TANF, though in 7 states, the asset limit has remained unchanged at $1,000 in the four decades since it was first imposed at the federal level, while 8 states have eliminated the asset test altogether. While federal rules set the asset limit in SNAP at $2,250 for most households, states can establish their own limit by adopting broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE); 37 states have utilized this option to eliminate asset tests in SNAP. In the child care subsidy program, Congress established uniformity for asset limits in 2014, when it required states to allow for self-certification that their assets did not exceed $1,000,000.

In Indiana, legislators considered, but failed to pass, a bill (2014 IN SB 413) that would have eliminated asset limits for SNAP and TANF applicants. The state is one of 14 states that has not eliminated the asset test in SNAP, and one of the seven states where the asset limit is $1,000.

Lawmakers in New York are considering legislation (2021 NY S 742/A 2214) to eliminate asset limits across all public assistance programs in the state. The state has already eliminated the asset test in SNAP, and the bill would eliminate the current asset test of $2,000, or $3,000 for households with someone age 60 or older.

Income Eligibility

Public assistance program eligibility requirements often trap people further into poverty instead of sufficiently counteracting multiple economic forces—labor market discrimination, stagnating wages, and rising inequality, leaving children in households headed by single mothers, especially single Black, Indigenous, and Latina mothers, most likely to live in poverty.

States have considerable flexibility in setting income eligibility requirements across social safety net programs. Aligning income tests with a living wage ensures that people aren’t turned away from the social safety net, even when their jobs don’t pay enough to make ends meet. Rising child care costs that far outpace wages create significant employment instability for parents, especially mothers of young children. By one estimate, a nationwide increase in income eligibility for child care subsidies would result in 270,000 mothers joining the workforce.

Workers who receive a small raise or extra hours at work can also fall farther behind because they lose more in benefits than they received in increased income, in a phenomenon called the public assistance “cliff effect,” which is particularly pronounced for child care subsidies. The cliff effect forces workers into declining pay increases or promotions to maintain the benefits that allow them to pay the bills. Instead of promoting long-term financial stability, the public assistance cliff effect keeps workers on unstable financial footing, which contributes to increased administrative costs resulting from enrollees cycling on and off programs.

TANF Income Eligibility

States have significant flexibility in determining eligibility criteria for cash assistance programs funded by TANF dollars, resulting in wide variation in eligibility for TANF across the country. For example, a family of three in Alabama can earn no more than $268 per month to be eligible for TANF, while the same family in Minnesota would be eligible with monthly earnings of up to $2,231. States can expand access to TANF cash assistance by increasing income thresholds, adjusting income measurement methods, or allowing some portion of a household’s income to be disregarded in determining eligibility.

Young Asian child in wheelchair laughs with caretaker or family member at the park

Lawmakers in Indiana failed to advance a bill (2021 IN SB 233) that would have increased the income threshold for TANF cash assistance to 50 percent of the federal poverty level over the course of 3 years. The bill would increase eligibility while ensuring that the threshold is updated annually as costs rise. Currently, eligibility for TANF in Indiana is based on a fixed dollar amount that was last updated in 1988.

In Maine, legislators enacted a bill (2019 ME LD 1772) to broaden income disregards in determining TANF eligibility. Prior law provided earnings disregards and childcare expenses for calculating benefit levels; the new law applies existing earnings disregards and child care expenses for the purposes of determining eligibility, in addition to significantly expanding disregards for calculating benefit levels.

SNAP Income Eligibility

Within SNAP, states have much less flexibility in setting income eligibility requirements. States that adopt broad-based categorical eligibility can increase the gross income threshold for the program above the federal minimum of 130 percent of the FPL, which 31 states and DC have already done. While some states have considered legislation to accomplish the change, the option can also be adopted through administrative means.

In Illinois, legislators approved a bill (2015 IL SB 1847) to increase the gross income limit in SNAP from the federal minimum to 165 percent of the FPL, or 200 percent for families with an elderly, blind, or disabled household member.

Minnesota lawmakers are considering legislation (2021 MN SF 759/HF 611) to increase the gross income limit for SNAP from 165 percent of the FPL to 200 percent.

Lawmakers in Nebraska overrode a gubernatorial veto to enact a bill (2021 NE LB 108) to increase the gross income threshold from 130 percent of the FPL to 185 percent. As amended and enacted, the threshold is increased to 165 percent of the FPL through September 30, 2023, and includes legislative intent language that the increase shall be funded through new federal funds provided through the American Rescue Plan Act.

Child Care Subsidy Income Eligibility

States also have broad authority to set income thresholds for childcare subsidy eligibility up to 85 percent of the state median income (SMI). Recent federal changes to index eligibility to SMI instead of FPL ensures that the threshold moves alongside economic conditions and costs within the state. There is significant variation across the country in access to child care assistance: a family of three can earn no more than 39 percent of the SMI in Nebraska to be eligible for child care subsidies, compared to 85 percent of the SMI in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Vermont.

Virginia legislators enacted a bill (2021 VA HB 2206) that temporarily increased income eligibility for child care subsidies to the federal maximum of 85 percent of the SMI if “the family includes at least one child who is five years of age or younger and has not yet started kindergarten.” The increased threshold is effective through August 1, 2021, though families who become enrolled continue to be eligible for a year.

In Iowa, lawmakers enacted legislation (2021 IA HF 302) to ease the cliff effect in the child care subsidy program by establishing a gradual eligibility phase-out to allow families to continue receiving assistance if their income is between 225 and 250 percent of the FPL, compared to current law under which families lose eligibility when they earn more than 225 percent of the FPL. The bill also establishes a higher threshold of 275 percent of the FPL for families with children needing special needs care.

The Utah legislature recently enacted a bill (2021 UT HB 277) to increase eligibility for child care subsidies, funded by new federal funds available to states, to the federal maximum of 85 percent of SMI. The bill also eliminates the co-payment obligations for families earning up to 75 percent of the SMI. Under existing law and regulations, the income limit is a percentage of the SMI as determined by the Department, and co-payments are required for any family earning more than 100 percent of the FPL.

State-Funded Programs for Immigrants Excluded from Federal Funds

Many states have established state-funded assistance programs for immigrants who are otherwise ineligible for federally funded programs, including cash assistance and nutrition assistance substitute programs. States can also use their portion of spending on TANF, which is already required to receive federal funds, to provide benefits to immigrants who are federally barred from eligibility until they have been in the country for five years. At least 22 states have a state-funded TANF replacement program and 6 states have a state-funded food assistance program available to some immigrants who are otherwise excluded from federally funded programs.

Legislators in California introduced a bill (2021 CA SB 464) that would extend eligibility for the state-funded California Food Assistance Program (CFAP) to any noncitizen, including undocumented immigrants. Current law restricts CFAP eligibility to specific categories of lawfully present immigrants.

New Jersey legislators enacted a bill (2020 NJ S 2329/A 3905), which received a conditional veto by the governor, that would have expanded access to TANF for lawful permanent residents, individuals granted relief through the federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, and any other non-citizens who are authorized to live in the United States.

In Washington, lawmakers enacted a bill (2019 WA SB 5164) to extend state-funded food and cash assistance to noncitizen victims of human trafficking and other serious crimes, and asylum seekers and their family members. Under the new law, individuals are eligible if they have filed, or are preparing to file, an application with the appropriate federal agency for their status. Prior legislation created the Food Assistance Program (FAP) and the State Family Assistance Program, which helps lawfully present immigrants who are otherwise ineligible for federally funded benefits.

Increasing TANF Benefits

The dismantling of direct cash assistance with the passage of PRWORA was the latest iteration of a long history of anti-Blackness in public assistance policymaking. In handing over substantial policy and programmatic authority to the states, Congress created opportunities for states to misuse vast amounts of public funds intended to help the nation’s poorest children. States took full advantage of the lax requirements, especially states with higher shares of Black residents, by spending increasingly larger amounts of TANF funds on programs for non-impoverished families that it was never intended to fund, or by accumulating vast slush funds instead of providing direct cash assistance to families in poverty. States now spend just 21 percent of TANF funds on basic assistance, with 14 states spending less than 10 percent. At the same time, in every state except for New Hampshire, TANF benefits still leave families in deep poverty because states have failed to adjust benefit levels alongside increases in the cost of living.  

Decades of systematic efforts to disassemble the social safety net have disproportionately fallen on Black children—41 percent of Black children live in states where TANF helps less than 10 families for every 100 living in poverty, and 55 percent of Black children live in states where TANF benefits are below 20 percent of the federal poverty level. Lawmakers can ensure that their states’ TANF funds are spent effectively toward reducing child poverty by increasing direct assistance to families in poverty and providing for automatic annual adjustments to benefit amounts.

A bill (2021 GA HB 92) that failed to advance in Georgia would have allowed for automatic annual increases to the maximum TANF benefit, which has been fixed at the same dollar amount for 30 years, by amending the definition of cash assistance to being “based on a standard of need that is equal to 50 percent of the federal poverty level for the applicable family size, and which equates to a maximum monthly amount equal to 75 percent of such amount for each such family size.” By tying the benefit to the FPL, which is adjusted annually, lawmakers could have reversed the declining value of benefits in the state, which has decreased by 40 percent since 1996.

Latina custodian wearing mask cleans bathroom sink or washbasin with towel

In Mississippi, legislators recently enacted a bill (2021 MS SB 2759) that raises the maximum monthly TANF benefits. Though the state has the highest child poverty rate in the nation, prior to the passage of the bill, TANF benefits in the state were the lowest in the nation; under the new law, a family of three would receive a monthly benefit of $260, an increase from $170 per month.

Massachusetts lawmakers considered legislation (2019 MA S 36/H 102) to increase the monthly benefit annually by 10 percent until the benefit amount reaches 50 percent of the federal poverty level. The bill also would provide an annual adjustment thereafter to align the benefit level with 50 percent of the federal poverty level. The bill failed to advance, but the final FY 2021 budget included a one-time 10 percent increase to the state’s TANF benefit levels. Similar legislation (2021 MA S 96/H 199) has been re-introduced in the 2021 session that contemplates 20 percent annual increases, which are reflected in budgets proposed by both the House and Senate.

In Minnesota, legislators introduced a bill (2019 MN SF 905/HF 799) to increase the benefit amount by $200 gradually in $50 increments through October 2022, and require 2 percent increases annually thereafter. Though the legislation failed to advance, the final enacted biennial budget included a $100 increase to the monthly benefit amount, the state’s first increase in over three decades.

Virginia lawmakers considered a budget amendment in 2020 that would have increased the benefit amount by 18 percent annually until the standard reached 50 percent of the federal poverty level. Although the amendment was not adopted, lawmakers included one-time increases of 15 percent and 10 percent in the 2020 and 2021 budgets. The 2021 budget bill also requires the Department of Social Services to “develop a plan to increase the standards of assistance by 10 percent annually until they equal 50 percent of the federal poverty level.”

Lawmakers in Washington (2021 WA SB 5092/HB 1094) approved a 15 percent increase to benefits for TANF families in the state’s biennial budget, effective July 1, 2021.

Additional Resources

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP)

Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP)

Center for the Study of Social Policy (CSSP)

National Immigration Law Center (NILC)

National Women’s Law Center (NWLC)

Prosperity Now

The Sentencing Project

The Urban Institute

Messaging

Polling

2021-2022 Session Highlights: How States Build a Fairer Economy for Working Families

This publication was originally released on September 14, 2021 and was updated on September 1, 2022 to include highlights from the 2022 legislative session.

Background

State lawmakers across the country faced pressing and urgent issues when they convened in 2021 and 2022. Although the recent rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine drastically reduced deaths and infection rates, inequitable access to vaccines compounded existing barriers to health care and Black, Latinx, and low-income communities have reported lower vaccination rates. At the same time, the pandemic-induced economic recession is also widening the wealth gap between the average worker and the wealthy few, and workers of color and low-wage workers are the majority of essential workers—the heroes that are helping us get through this—yet continue to experience the worst and most extended employment losses.

During the 2021-2022 sessions and bolstered by a $195.3 billion federal relief package to state governments, legislators had a historic opportunity to ensure that everyone, whether Black or white, Asian or Latino, Native or newcomer, can support their families and contribute to their communities. Lawmakers across the country took action to build upon the lifesaving and poverty-reducing provisions of the American Rescue Plan and the measures passed during the 2020 state legislative sessions. 

The 2021-2022 legislation outlined below highlights how bold and forward-thinking state lawmakers are working to build a fairer economy by tackling long-standing structural inequalities that were magnified by the health and economic crises of the COVID-19 pandemic. The policy areas discussed in this publication are:

Please note that this is neither a comprehensive policy list nor necessarily a list of the most progressive solutions on this subject; when moving forward with legislation, we recommend working with local and national advocates to craft the best solution for your state. Please reach out to SiX if you would like help connecting with national experts.

Paid Family and Medical Leave

Everyone deserves to be able to take paid time off to care for themselves and their families. Lawmakers in eleven states and DC have enacted legislation to establish a paid family and medical leave insurance (FMLI) program. In 2021, Colorado voters overwhelmingly approved a paid family and medical leave ballot measure, while lawmakers in Maryland and Delaware enacted paid family and medical leave bills in 2022. State family and medical leave insurance programs ensure that more working people can take time off from work to recover from a serious illness or care for a loved one or a new child. The federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) provides job-protected, unpaid leave to some workers. But low-wage workers who can least afford to take unpaid leave are also the least likely to have access to paid leave through their employers: 91 percent of workers in the lowest wage quartile have no access to paid family leave, compared to over two-thirds of workers in the highest wage quartile.

During the 2021-2022 legislative sessions, policymakers considered legislation to level the playing field so that all workers can afford to take time off from work to be with their families. Lawmakers considered bold policy solutions that would allow workers to take more than the 12 weeks guaranteed by the FMLA in some instances, bringing some parts of the country closer to paid family leave requirements in the rest of the world. In early-adopter states, legislators considered proposals to expand access to and eligibility for existing paid family and medical leave insurance programs. 

Parent holds newborn in hospital; Photo by Christian Bowen
(Photo by Christian Bowen/Unsplash)

State Legislators Take Bold Steps on Paid Leave

Recently enacted legislation in Delaware (2022 DE SB 1) establishes a family and medical leave insurance program that provides workers with up to 6 weeks of paid leave in any 24-month period to address a worker's own serious health condition or that of a family member or to address the impact of a family member's military deployment. The new law also provides up to 12 weeks of paid leave during a single year to bond and care for a new child.
Legislation in Maryland (2022 MD SB 275), which was vetoed by the governor but overridden by the state legislature, establishes a family and medical leave insurance fund to provide up to 12 weeks of paid benefits to workers for the purpose of caring for a newborn or newly fostered or adopted child, caring for the covered individual or a family member with a serious health condition, or caring for a U.S. service member or dealing with issues arising from their deployment. An additional 12 weeks of paid benefits in a year if the worker needs to address another serious health condition or to care for another new child.

A bill enacted in South Carolina (2022 SC SB 11) provides six weeks of paid family leave for state employees after the birth of a “newborn biological child” or after the initial placement of a foster child with them. 

In Arizona, lawmakers introduced but failed to advance legislation (2021 AZ HB 2858) that would have provided up to 26 weeks of medical leave and up to 24 weeks for parental, caregiving, exigency (family leave related to active duty deployment), and safe leave. The new insurance program, funded by employee and employer contributions, would have adopted a progressive wage replacement structure, which ensures that lower-wage workers receive a larger portion of their wages. The bill would have established enforcement protections, including the right to bring a lawsuit for aggrieved workers. A similar package (2022 AZ SB 1644/HB 2767) was reintroduced by Arizona legislators in 2022.

In Illinois, lawmakers introduced a bill (2022 IL HB 5029) that would provide up to 26 weeks of paid family and medical leave, including leave related to a public health emergency or other disaster, and an additional 26 weeks for individuals for leave taken in connection with pregnancy, recovery from childbirth, or related conditions. Importantly, the bill includes certain domestic workers and contractors in its definition of covered workers, and includes a three-part test, or ABC test, for independent contractors.

Under a bill proposed in Pennsylvania (2021 PA SB 580), workers would be able to access up to 20 weeks to welcome a new child into their family or to recover from a serious health condition, while workers who need to care for a family member with a serious health condition would be able to take up to 12 weeks. Workers would receive a portion of their wages replaced through a new employee-funded insurance pool.

North Carolina legislators are considering a bill (2021 NC SB 564/HB 597) that would allow workers to take up to 18 weeks to recover from a serious health condition; 12 weeks to welcome a new child, to care for a family member with a serious health condition, or for exigency leave; and 26 weeks to provide care for a servicemember with a serious injury or illness. 

Lawmakers in Florida (2021 FL HB 1245/SB 1596 and 2022 FL SB 688/HB 627), Georgia (2021 GA SB 55 and 2022 GA HB 1517), Hawaii (2022 HI HB 1506), Illinois (2021 IL HB 3433 and 2021 IL HB 2625), Minnesota (2021 MN HF 1200/SF 1205), Nebraska (2021 NE LB 290), New Mexico (2021 NM HB 38), Tennessee (2021 TN SB 672/HB 1295), Vermont (2021 VT S 65), Virginia (2022 VA SB 1), and West Virginia (2022 WV SB 491/HB 4434) also considered but did not pass legislation to establish a state insurance fund to provide paid family and medical leave to more workers.

Lawmakers Work to Expand Paid Leave in Pioneering States

Establishing an Inclusive Definition of “Family Member”

A bill (2021 NY S 2928/A 6098) enacted by lawmakers in New York would amend the state’s existing definition of family member for the purposes of caregiving leave to include siblings, defined as “a biological or adopted sibling, a half-sibling or stepsibling.”

Policymakers in Washington approved legislation (2021 WA SB 5097) to expand the definition of “family member” in the state’s existing paid family and medical leave program, which was limited to “a child, grandchild, grandparent, parent, sibling, or spouse of an employee,” to include “any individual who regularly resides in the employee’s home or where the relationship creates an expectation that the employee care for the person, and that individual depends on the employee for care.”

In California, a bill (2021 CA AB 1041) enacted by legislators and awaiting the governor's signature would create a more inclusive definition of family by striking a provision that allows “any other individual related by blood or whose close association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship” and replace it with a “designated person,” defined as “a person identified by the employee at the time the employee requests family care and medical leave.”

Increasing Wage Replacement Rates

A bill (2020 CA AB 123) that was approved by lawmakers, but vetoed by the governor in California would have ensured that more workers, especially lower-wage workers, can afford to take paid leave. The bill would have increased the wage replacement rate for workers earning less than 33 percent of the statewide average wage from 70 percent of their wages to 90 percent of their weekly wages based on their highest-earning quarter.

Black mother with baby post partum
Leave for Bereavement, Miscarriages, and Stillbirths

Legislators in Washington enacted a bill (2022 WA SB 5649) to expand the state’s existing paid family and medical leave program to include up to seven days of bereavement leave for the death of a family member for whom a worker would have qualified for medical leave or parental leave. The bill also made clarifications on the use of medical leave in the postnatal period, required the publication of a current list of all employers that have voluntary plans under the state paid family and medical leave program, and established new forms of legislative oversight over the program.

New York legislators are considering several bills (2021 NY S 6198/A 6958, 2021 NY A 6865, 2021 NY S 6026, and 2021 NY S 6026) that would ensure that workers can take time off from work or give workers up to four weeks of paid family leave to recover from and mourn the loss of a child when they have experienced a miscarriage or stillbirth. 

A California bill (2021 CA AB 867) would amend existing definitions in the state’s family leave program to provide “leave for a parent who was pregnant with a child, if the child dies unexpectedly during childbirth at 37 weeks or more of pregnancy.”

Paid Leave During a Public Health Emergency

Oregon legislators enacted a bill (2021 OR HB 2474) that expands the state’s paid family leave program to include leave required to provide child care due to the closure of a school or child care provider as a result of a public health emergency. The bill also expands eligibility for paid leave benefits during a public health emergency and provides eligibility to workers who are laid off and rehired within 180 days.

Washington lawmakers enacted a bill (2021 WA HB 1073) to provide “pandemic leave assistance employee grants” for workers, particularly part-time workers, who were unable to meet the hours-based eligibility threshold for the program. The bill also provides grants to small businesses for costs associated with an employee who has or will take leave under the new grant program. The program is funded entirely by federal funds received by the state in the American Rescue Plan and expires on June 30, 2023.

In Massachusetts, a bill (2021 MA H 2017) introduced by lawmakers would expand the state’s existing paid leave program to include medical leave “due to his or her potential exposure to a pathogen for which a public health emergency has been declared by the Federal, State, or local authorities, regardless of whether the covered individual is symptomatic or asymptomatic.” Self-quarantine as advised by a health care provider for one individual would apply to all other members of the same household.

Paid Sick and Safe Leave

No one should have to choose between their health or the health of their family and a paycheck. The COVID-19 crisis has underscored how worker health and well-being affects us all. In 13 states and DC, workers can earn paid sick time to recover from an illness or to care for a sick family member without worrying about losing their job; 12 states and DC also provide safe leave coverage for workers who need time off to attend to their needs or a family member’s needs if they are a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. State legislation to guarantee paid sick and safe days keeps families and workplaces healthy, especially for low-wage workers and workers of color, who are least likely to have access to a single paid sick day at their job. 

State lawmakers considered legislation during the 2021-2022 sessions to expand access to paid sick and safe leave for workers on a permanent basis, in addition to a flurry of activity in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. New Mexico became the 14th state to enact a paid sick leave law, while other states created emergency sick leave protections for workers during public health emergencies.

Two middle aged Latina women sit laughing on park bench Photo by Dario Valenzuela
(Photo by Dario Valenzuela/Unsplash)

States Continue to Lead the Way in Guaranteeing Paid Sick Leave

New Mexico became the latest state to protect the health of workers when the legislature enacted the Healthy Workplaces Act (2021 NM HB 20), which allows workers to take up to 64 hours of paid sick time each year to care for themselves or a loved one. The bill includes strong protections for broad access to leave for workers who are often excluded, including part-time, seasonal, or temporary workers, in addition to establishing financial and legal penalties for employer violations of the act, including misclassification of workers as independent contractors.

Rhode Island legislators enacted a bill (2021 RI SB 434/HB 6011) to amend the state’s existing paid sick time law, which already allows workers to earn up to five days of sick and safe time per year, to include workers in the construction industry who may lose their accrued benefits when moving between short-term projects. Under the new law, construction employers that are a part of multi-employer collective bargaining agreements must adhere to the state’s paid sick time law and would be required to contribute to a central trust for benefits available to workers under the agreement.

The Virginia legislature enacted a bill (2021 VA HB 2137) to guarantee paid sick leave to home health workers who provide care for patients who are enrolled in Medicaid. Eligible workers can accrue and use up to 40 hours of paid sick leave every year. The original bill, as introduced, would have applied the new protections more broadly to essential workers.

Lawmakers in the Minnesota House approved a bill (2021 MN HF 41) that ultimately failed to pass that would have allowed eligible workers to earn at least one hour of paid sick and safe time for every 30 hours worked, up to 48 hours per year. Under the bill, workers would be able to carry over up to 80 accrued hours from year to year, but would be limited to a total of 80 hours of accrued but unused time unless otherwise permitted by an employer.

Legislators in Connecticut failed to advance a bill (2021 CT HB 6537) that would have added all private sector workers, including domestic workers, to those eligible for sick leave. Current law only applies to certain service workers at employers with 50 or more employees. The bill also increases the rate of accrual and eliminates the waiting period for use of leave. Finally, the bill expands the definition of “family member,” which is currently limited to children and spouses, to include adult children, siblings, parents, grandparents, grandchildren, and anyone else related by blood or affinity.

Lawmakers in Iowa are considering a bill (2021 IA HF 275) that would provide paid sick and safe time up to 83 hours per calendar year. Under the bill, workers would be allowed to carry over sick and safe time from year to year up to the annual maximum. In addition to sick and safe leave, workers would be entitled to use such leave during public health emergencies when their place of work is closed for caregiving needs resulting from closure of a school or place of care or to provide care for a family member under quarantine orders.

In New Hampshire, lawmakers are considering legislation (2021 NH SB 67/HB 590) to guarantee that workers, including part-time workers, can earn 1 hour of paid sick and safe time off for every 30 hours worked. Under the bill, workers would be able to accrue and use up to 72 hours of sick or safe leave each calendar year. The bill also provides civil penalties for employer violations and a private right of action for workers who are denied sick leave or receive retaliation from employers for using sick leave.

Policymakers in Illinois introduced legislation (2021 IL HB 3898) that would provide at least 40 hours of paid sick and safe leave to full-time and part-time employees, who would accrue 1 hour of leave for every 40 hours worked. A three-part test for independent contractors is also included in the definition of “employee” under the bill to avoid employee misclassification. 

Lawmakers in Mississippi (2021 MS SB 2349/HB 810 and 2022 MS HB 1044), Nebraska (2021 NE LB 258), West Virginia (2021 WV HB 3115), and Texas (2021 TX HB 1298 and 2021 TX HB 87) also considered proposals to establish paid sick leave protections for workers.

Girl looking at doctor examining with stethoscope

States Move to Protect Worker Health During Public Health Emergencies

In California, where workers already have access to paid sick days, lawmakers enacted a bill (2021 CA SB 95) to establish up to 80 hours of supplemental paid sick leave for workers who are unable to work or telework due to COVID-19 through September 30, 2021. The new leave protections apply to employers of more than 25 employees, and workers can use the leave for quarantine, to receive and recover from a vaccine, to recover from COVID-19, to care for a family member subject to quarantine or isolation, or to care for a child whose school or place of care is closed due to COVID-19.

The Massachusetts legislature approved a bill (2021 MA H 90) to expand access to emergency paid sick leave. The bill would have guaranteed workers access to 40 hours of emergency sick leave for full-time workers and an equivalent amount for part-time workers. Workers would receive their full pay for leave taken for reasons related to COVID-19, including caring for a family member. The bill established a state fund to reimburse employers not eligible for the federal reimbursement under Families First Coronavirus Response Act. Although the bill was returned with amendments by the governor, lawmakers rejected the amendments and passed another bill (2021 MA H 3702) with the emergency sick leave provisions.

A bill (2021 MD SB 727/HB 1326) that failed to pass in Maryland would have amended the state’s existing sick and safe leave protections to provide public health emergency leave. The bill would have provided 112 hours of leave for full-time workers during a public health emergency and would have expanded eligibility for the state’s permanent paid sick and safe leave law to agricultural workers, temporary staffing or employment agency workers, or on-call workers. Finally, the bill would have amended the existing definitions of “family member” and “spouse.” 

Pennsylvania legislators introduced a bill (2021 PA HB 657) to establish 112 hours of public health emergency leave for full-time workers. Part-time workers would also be eligible for paid sick time equal to the amount of hours worked on average in a 14-day period. The leave would be available to workers for themselves, to provide care for a family member, for instances where their place of business is closed, or to provide child care when a school or place of care has been closed.

Minimum Wage

For too many workers, wages haven’t kept pace with the cost of rent, health care, child care, and other basic household expenses. While the federal minimum wage has remained at $7.25 since 2009 and the federal subminimum wage for tipped workers at $2.13 since 1991, 30 states and DC have approved a higher state minimum wage, in addition to 45 localities that have enacted a minimum wage higher than the state minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage ensures that workers can support their families while also narrowing the racial and gender wage gap that disproportionately leaves workers of color, especially Black women, in jobs that don’t pay enough to make ends meet.

In 2021-2022, state legislators across the country considered legislation to raise the minimum wage, address the erosion of minimum wage values by requiring automatic adjustments for inflation, eliminate or raise the subminimum wage for some workers, and repeal state preemption laws that prevent local governments from taking action to increase the minimum wage above the state minimum wage.

Tattooed white essential workers in service and delivery industry with face mask during covid pandemic

State Lawmakers Take Action to Raise the Minimum Wage for More Workers

Lawmakers in Delaware enacted a bill (2021 DE SB 15) that would gradually increase the state minimum wage from $9.25 per hour in 2021 to $15 per hour by 2025.

A recently enacted bill in Hawaii (2022 HI HB 2510) ramps up the state’s minimum wage every two years from the current $10.10 per hour (75 cents for tipped workers) to $18 per hour by the start of 2028 ($1.50 per hour for tipped workers). This law also makes the state’s earned income tax refundable.

Rhode Island legislators also enacted a bill (2021 RI SB 1) increasing the state minimum wage gradually from $11.50 to $15 by 2025. 

Arizona lawmakers failed to advance a proposal (2021 AZ SB 1758) that would have increased the state minimum wage for all workers to $20 starting on January 1, 2022, and increased it on an ongoing basis for inflation. The bill would have allowed tipped employees to be paid $3 less per hour than the minimum wage if their employer can prove the tips their employees receive make up the difference. 

In Georgia, lawmakers are considering a minimum wage increase to $15 starting in 2022. A bill (2021 GA HB 116) under consideration in the House incorporates this wage increase but allows employers to count tips toward 50 percent of employees’ minimum wage, and it exempts small employers, students, newspaper carriers, and caretakers. The Senate companion bill (2021 GA SB 24) also establishes a yearly cost-of-living adjustment to the minimum wage starting in 2023.  

A bill (2021 IA HF 122) introduced by Iowa lawmakers would increase the state minimum wage gradually to $15 by July 2025, and to $13.20 for employees employed for less than 90 days by July 2025. The bill also establishes annual cost-of-living increases beginning in July of 2026.

In Minnesota, lawmakers are considering a bill (2021 MN SF 2031) to raise the state minimum wage starting in 2022. Larger employers with more than $500,000 in gross sales must pay employees a minimum wage of $17 per hour, while smaller employers who do not meet this requirement must raise their wages to $15 per hour. After 2022, this minimum wage is adjusted annually, using the cost of inflation. 

Legislators in North Carolina are considering legislation (2021 NC HB 612/SB 673) to increase the minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2023 with a cost-of-living adjustment implemented starting in 2024.

Ohio lawmakers are considering a bill (2021 OH SB 51) that would increase the state minimum wage to $12 by 2022 and provide for gradual increases by $1 annually until the minimum wage reaches $15 in 2025. The state minimum wage is adjusted annually thereafter for inflation.

Oregon lawmakers failed to advance a bill (2021 OR HB 3351) that would have increased the state minimum wage to $17 per hour starting on July 1, 2022. The bill would have also provided an annual cost-of-living adjustment beginning on July 1, 2023.

In Texas, lawmakers failed to advance a bill (2021 TX HB 615) that would have raised the state minimum wage to $11.25 in 2022 and $15 in 2023. Starting in 2024, the minimum wage would increase with a cost-of-living adjustment. The bill also would have established that tipped workers must be paid at least 50 percent of the base minimum wage.

Black chef preparing food for those most in need during the economic crisis
Eliminating Exemptions to Minimum Wage Protections

Minimum wage laws apply to most workers, but employers are allowed to pay less than the federal minimum wage in some instances. Under federal law, employers can pay workers with disabilities and student workers or workers in training a subminimum wage by obtaining a special certificate. For workers who typically receive tips—a racist custom rooted in slavery that continues to harm Black service workers today—employers are only required to pay the federal tipped minimum wage of $2.13. Thirty-four states and DC have increased the minimum wage for tipped workers, while 16 states continue to use the federal tipped minimum wage, which was last updated in 1991. Another direct legacy of slavery, prison labor, allows incarcerated individuals, who are disproportionately Black, to work for little to no wages.

Tipped Workers

Idaho lawmakers failed to advance a bill (2021 ID SB 1028) that would have gradually raised the minimum tipped wage to $7.50 by July 1, 2023.

Lawmakers in Nebraska (2021 NE LB 122), New York (2021 NY A 4547), Rhode Island (2021 RI HB 6012), and Wisconsin (2021 WI AB 278/SB 286) all considered legislation that would gradually raise the tipped minimum wage to align with the state minimum wage for all workers over the course of several years.

Legislators in North Carolina are considering legislation (2021 NC HB 612/SB 673) to repeal sections of existing state law that exempt agricultural and domestic workers from minimum wage and overtime protections. The bill would also increase the tipped minimum wage and gradually phase it out by 2025.

Individuals with Disabilities

Colorado lawmakers enacted a bill (2021 CO SB 21-039) to phase out subminimum wage for workers with disabilities by July 1, 2025, and require each employer to submit a transition plan to the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment detailing how the employer plans to comply. 

Rhode Island enacted a bill (2022 RI HB 7511/SB 2242) to repeal the subminimum wage for workers with physical or mental disabilities, thereby requiring the state’s minimum wage instead. A similar bill (2021 HI SB 793) was passed by lawmakers in Hawaii.

New York lawmakers are also considering legislation (2021 NY S 1828/A 3103) that would eliminate provisions exempting employees with disabilities from the minimum wage law. 

Legislation in South Carolina (2021 SC SB 533) introduced in 2021 and enacted in 2022 removes the subminimum wage for employees with disabilities and instead requires that they be paid at least the federal minimum wage. Similar legislation enacted in Tennessee (2022 TN SB 2042) provides for the federal minimum wage as the floor wage instead of a subminimum wage.

In California, lawmakers enacted a bill (2021 CA SB 639) directing a state agency to develop a plan to phase out the use of subminimum wages for disabled workers by 2025. Delaware lawmakers enacted a bill (2021 DE HB 112) to phase out the subminimum wage for disabled workers by July 1, 2023.

Employees in Training

The Delaware General Assembly enacted a bill (2021 DE HB 88) to remove the training minimum wage (for employees in their first 90 days on the job) and the youth minimum wage (for employees under the age of 18). 

Nebraska passed a new law (2022 NE LB 1012) that raises the minimum wage for student interns from the federal minimum wage to the state’s $9 hourly minimum wage, with state grants to support employers with less than 50 FTE employees.

Idaho lawmakers failed to advance a bill (2021 ID SB 1028) that would have eliminated the training wage of $4.25 for the first 90 days of employment for workers under 20 years old. 

Individuals in Prison

Enacted legislation in Colorado (2022 CO SB 50) will increase the minimum wage for prison labor in correctional facilities from the federal minimum wage to the state’s minimum wage. In Washington, lawmakers enacted a bill (2022 WA HB 1168) to require that inmate forest fire suppression and support crews be paid no less than the local minimum wage.

In Arizona, lawmakers failed to advance legislation (2021 AZ SB 1751) that would have raised the minimum wage for individuals in prison from $1.50 to match the federal minimum wage. The bill would have also increased the maximum balance that incarcerated individuals can hold in their spending accounts.

States Consider Rollbacks of Local Minimum Wage Preemptions

In 26 states, state law prohibits local governments from setting a minimum wage that is higher than the state minimum wage. During the 2021 legislative session, lawmakers in Florida (2021 FL SB 304/HB 6031), Georgia (2021 GA HB 499), Idaho (2021 ID S 1028), Indiana (2021 IN SB 334), Missouri (2021 MO HB 409), Oklahoma (2021 OK SB 101), and Texas (2021 TX HB 224/SB 389) introduced but failed to advance legislation that would have repealed the state’s minimum wage preemption law. Pending legislation to roll back minimum wage preemption laws are also pending in Iowa (2021 IA HF 122) and Ohio (2021 OH SB 51).

Unemployment Insurance

Unemployment benefits ensure that workers can pay the bills while they search for work, while also stabilizing communities during economic downturns. During the unprecedented job losses of the COVID-19 recession, lawmakers sent unemployment benefits, billions of dollars in lifesaving aid, to families across the country. State laws and regulations vary significantly across the country, leaving many jobless workers ineligible for benefits or without enough benefits to offset lost wages, particularly in southern states with higher shares of Black residents.

Across the country, legislators worked to strengthen unemployment insurance programs during the 2021 legislative session with proposals to increase benefit adequacy, expand eligibility for benefits, and to protect workers from overpayment recovery in non-fraud cases.

Masked worker in truck prepares for shift

State Legislators Boost Unemployment Benefits

A bill (2021 WA SB 5061) enacted by Washington lawmakers would increase the minimum weekly benefit amount in the unemployment insurance program from 15 percent to 20 percent of the state average weekly wage, and it caps the benefit amount at the individual’s weekly wage. 

In Vermont, a bill (2021 VT S 10), as passed by the Senate, would establish a dependent allowance of $50 per week for claimants with one or more dependent children.

A bill (2021 AZ SB 1748/HB 2884) that failed to pass in Arizona would have increased the maximum unemployment benefit amount incrementally over three years from a fixed amount of $205 to 55 percent of the state average weekly wage for all covered workers.

Another bill (2021 AZ HB 2662) that failed to advance in Arizona would have established a dependent allowance for unemployment benefits. Individuals would have received an additional $25 per dependent, not to exceed $50 per week, in addition to their weekly benefit amount.

Florida lawmakers failed to advance a bill (2021 FL HB 207/SB 592) that would have increased the maximum weekly benefit amount from $275 to $500, in addition to increasing the minimum weekly benefit amount from $32 to $100. The bill would have increased the maximum duration for receipt of assistance to 26 weeks. 

In Massachusetts, legislators are considering a bill (2021 MA S 1214/H 2033) to increase unemployment benefits for low-wage workers. The bill would ensure that more workers with low or unstable incomes would be able to access unemployment insurance by providing an alternate calculation method spread over two quarters, instead of one quarter, for workers who did not earn enough to meet the wage-based eligibility test. The bill also establishes a minimum weekly benefit amount of 20 percent of the state average weekly wage or 75 percent of the individual’s average weekly wage, and it increases the total benefit that an individual can receive during a benefit year to a larger share of their wages from 36 percent to 60 percent.

A bill (2021 NE LB 171) introduced by Nebraska lawmakers would increase a claimant’s weekly benefit amount by 5 percent for each dependent of the individual, up to a maximum increase of 15 percent. 

North Carolina legislators are considering a bill (2021 NC SB 320/HB 331) that would increase the maximum weekly benefit amount from $350 to $500 and establish an annual adjustment for inflation, provided that the change is positive. The bill would adopt a more generous method for calculating weekly benefit amounts by using a worker’s wages in their highest paid quarter instead of wages paid in the last two completed quarters. Finally, the bill extends the maximum duration of benefits to 26 weeks.

Black butcher talking to customer at butchers shop

Lawmakers Take Steps to Increase Access to Unemployment Benefits

Oregon lawmakers enacted a bill (2021 OR HB 3178) that eliminates an existing requirement that part-time workers may only be considered unemployed if their weekly wages are less than their weekly benefit amount.

Michigan lawmakers enacted legislation (2021 MI SB 445) that expands eligibility for federal pandemic unemployment assistance (PUA) to part-time workers. Under prior state law, part-time claimants were only eligible for benefits if they were able and available for full-time work; the bill applies to claims filed after March 1, 2020.

Legislators in Arizona failed to advance a bill (2021 AZ SB 1748/HB 2884) that would have amended the definition of “unemployed” from a weekly wage that is less than the weekly benefit amount to a weekly wage that is less than 140 percent of the weekly benefit amount. The bill would have eliminated the one-week waiting period before workers can receive and qualify for benefits. Additionally, the bill would have allowed more low-wage and part-time workers to be eligible for benefits; existing law requires workers to have been paid wages in one calendar quarter equal to at least 390 times the state minimum wage, and the bill would lower the threshold to 200 times the minimum wage.

In Florida, legislators failed to advance a bill (2021 FL HB 207/SB 592) that would have expanded access to unemployment benefits to more low-wage and nontraditional workers by establishing an “alternative base period” of the four most recently completed calendar quarters before a benefit year if they are ineligible because their wages were too low. Additionally, the wage-based eligibility requirement would have been lowered from $3,400 during a base period to $1,200. The bill would have lowered job search requirements for claimants from five contacts with prospective employers per week to three while allowing claimants to accept only part-time work of at least 20 hours per week. Finally, the bill would have required the Department of Economic Opportunity to establish two alternative methods for submitting a claim for benefits, such as telephone or email, in addition to claims via postal mail or a website.

Lawmakers in Massachusetts are considering legislation (2021 MA S 1202) to expand access to unemployment insurance for workers with fluctuating work schedules. The bill would amend the calculation for an individual’s average weekly wage to allow workers who do not meet the earnings minimum to use an alternate calculation method with a longer base period of two quarters instead of one.

Protecting Against Employee Misclassification

Iowa lawmakers are considering legislation (2021 IA HF 176) that would establish a financial penalty for employers who are found to have willfully failed to pay contributions for state unemployment insurance by misclassifying an employee’s wages equal to the amount that the employer failed to pay.

A bill (2021 MA H 2016) introduced by Massachusetts lawmakers would amend the definition of employer as it applies to unemployment insurance to clarify that employers who contract with independent contractors are responsible for making unemployment insurance contributions.

Access to Unemployment Benefits for Excluded Immigrant Workers

Colorado legislators enacted a bill (2021 CO SB 21-233) that, as introduced, would have established the Left-Behind Workers Program within the Division of Unemployment Insurance that would provide benefits to individuals who are ineligible for unemployment benefits due to their immigration status. Workers would receive benefits equivalent to 55 percent of their average weekly wage, not to exceed the maximum weekly benefit amount for unemployment benefits, for up to 13 weeks. The program was struck from the bill by committee amendments and replaced with a feasibility study before passage.

In 2022, Colorado lawmakers enacted a bill (2022 CO SB 234) to establish the Benefit Recovery Fund to provide benefits to unemployed workers who are ineligible for unemployment benefits due to their immigration status. Under the new law, a portion of existing employer premiums for unemployment insurance is diverted to the fund, and the state is required to award grants to a third-party administrator to provide benefits. Eligible workers will receive benefits amounting to 55 percent of their average weekly wage for up to 13 weeks.

A bill (2021 NE LB 298) that received first-round approval by Nebraska lawmakers would clarify that work-authorized immigrants are eligible for unemployment benefits. 

Provisions of a bill (2021 NY S 4543/A 5421) to establish the Excluded Worker Fund were incorporated into the final budget (2021 S 2509/A 3009) passed by New York lawmakers. The new fund will provide cash assistance to residents of the state who have suffered a loss of earnings due to the COVID-19 pandemic and during the state of emergency but do not qualify for unemployment benefits and federal relief payments. Workers with $26,208 or less in earnings in the last 12 months and documentation of their work and earnings are eligible for a one-time payment of $14,820; all other workers without work and earnings documentation are eligible for a one-time payment of $3,040.

Washington legislators failed to advance a bill (2021 WA SB 5438) that would have established the Washington Income Replacement for Immigrant Workers Program to “provide unemployment benefits to low-income workers who are unemployed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and not eligible for state or federal unemployment benefits.” Workers who experienced a week of unemployment after January 1, 2021, and before June 20, 2022, due to COVID-19-related reasons would be eligible for a $400 payment for each week of unemployment. 

Work-Sharing Programs

Maryland legislators enacted a bill (2021 MD SB 771/HB 1143) to expand the state’s existing work-sharing plan to include workers who are rehired after a temporary closure or layoff due to COVID-19. Under prior law, employers who reduced their workforce by 20 to 50 percent were eligible for work-sharing programs; the bill widens the range for eligibility employers who reduce their normal weekly work hours by anywhere between 10 and 60 percent.

In Tennessee, legislators enacted a bill (2021 TN SB 958/HB 1274) that establishes a voluntary shared work unemployment benefits program. Under the new law, employers can submit and receive approval from the state for a plan to reduce employee work hours in exchange for employee access to unemployment benefits. In order to receive approval, an employer’s plan must meet certain criteria, including the maintenance of health and retirement benefits for workers and a reduction of work hours by no less than 10 percent and not more than 40 percent.

Under a bill (2021 WV HB 3294) enacted by West Virginia lawmakers, employers can participate in an optional “work sharing plan.” After receiving approval for their plan from the Workforce West Virginia Commissioner, employers can avoid layoffs by reducing the hours of their workforce by no less than 10 percent and no more than 60 percent, while affected employees are eligible for short-term compensation through unemployment benefits.

Wyoming legislators enacted a bill (2021 WY HB 9) to establish the Short Time Compensation Program, which allows employers to submit a plan for approval to request the payment of short time compensation to employees to avoid layoffs. To be eligible for the program, employers must demonstrate that at least two or more employees’ hours will be reduced between 10 percent and 60 percent. 

A bill (2021 HI HB 462) introduced in the Hawaii legislature would establish a work-sharing program for eligible employers. Employers whose work-sharing plans are approved can reduce between 10 and 50 percent of weekly hours of work for eligible employees in lieu of temporary layoffs that would affect at least 10 percent of eligible employees and would result in an equivalent reduction in work hours. 

Indiana legislators failed to advance multiple proposals (2021 IN SB 44, 2021 IN SB 312, 2021 IN HB 1235, and 2022 IN HB 1215) that would have created a work-sharing unemployment insurance program. Under each bill, full- and part-time workers who have been continuously employed for at least 16 months prior to the work-sharing plan would have been able to receive unemployment benefits proportional to their reduction in work hours.

Asian barber in mask cutting hair
Good Cause for Voluntary Separation from Employment

Generally, workers are ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits if they voluntarily quit their job or refuse suitable work without “good cause.” While the definition varies by state, good cause exemptions typically protect workers who leave their jobs due to safety concerns, unfair wage or hour violations, to escape domestic violence, or discrimination by their employer. The COVID-19 pandemic spurred many lawmakers across the country to clarify statutory definitions of good cause to accommodate new caregiving needs or health and safety concerns about the work environment.

Nebraska legislators enacted a bill (2021 NE LB 260) that expands the definition of good cause for voluntarily leaving employment to include leaving a job to care for a family member with a serious health condition. Under the new law, family members include children, parents, spouses, grandparents, grandchildren, and siblings, and the definition of serious health condition is the same as defined under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.

A bill (2021 NY A 6080/S 2623) enacted by New York legislators would amend existing law to provide that a claimant shall not be disqualified from receiving benefits for separation from employment due to “the need for the individual to provide child care to the individual’s child if such individual has made reasonable efforts to secure alternative child care.”

A bill (2021 WA SB 5061) approved by legislators in Washington provides that during a public health emergency, an individual who is at a higher risk of severe illness or death from the relevant disease, or lives with someone who is at higher risk, is eligible for unemployment benefits if they voluntarily leave employment. The bill also amends the definition of “suitable work” for the purposes of work search activities to include “the degree of risk to the health of those residing with the individual during a public health emergency.”

Arizona lawmakers introduced a bill (2021 AZ HB 2663) that failed to advance but would have provided eligibility for unemployment benefits for individuals who leave their employment or refuse an offer of employment or reemployment for reasons related to unsuitable health and safety conditions. The bill also creates good cause provisions that apply during a public health emergency, including violations of public health guidance, a need to provide care for a child or a household member, or if they leave to care for a seriously ill or quarantined family or household member.

In Kentucky, a bill (2021 KY HB 406) that failed to pass would have expanded good cause for leaving employment for the purposes of eligibility for receiving unemployment benefits to include circumstances directly resulting from domestic violence and abuse, dating violence and abuse, sexual assault, or stalking.

A bill (2021 NY S 731/A 2115) introduced by New York lawmakers would provide that a claimant shall not be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits in cases where they have left their employment because “the employer maintained or refused or failed to cure a health or safety condition that made the environment unsuitable.”

Legislation (2021 VT H 359) that is stalled in Vermont would have expanded the definition of good cause for voluntarily leaving employment to include a change in the location of their place of work that is more than 35 miles from their residence or a location that takes more than one and a half hours to commute to; working conditions that pose a risk to their health and safety as certified by a health care provider; an unreliable work schedule; to care for a family member who is ill, injured, pregnant, or disabled; or to care for a child due to the unavailability of adequate or affordable child care.

A bill (2021 WA HB 1486/SB 5064) introduced by Washington lawmakers would expand good cause circumstances to replace “immediate family member” with “family member,” and add care for a child or vulnerable adult if caregiving is inaccessible, so long as the claimant has made reasonable efforts to a leave of absence or changes in working conditions or work schedule that would accommodate their circumstances. Additionally, the bill expands the existing good cause definition to include a change in the claimant’s usual work shifts or a relocation that makes care for a child or vulnerable adult inaccessible.

warehouse worker transporting a pallet of cardboard boxes

Lawmakers Protect Workers from Clawbacks in Non-Fraud Overpayment Cases

A bill (2021 OR SB 172) enacted by Oregon lawmakers would allow the state to waive clawbacks in cases where an individual received an overpayment of unemployment benefits if recovery of overpayments would be against “equity and good conscience” and if the overpayment was not due to willful misrepresentation by the recipient.

Legislators in Illinois are considering a bill (2021 IL HB 2773) that would permanently waive recovery or recoupment of unemployment benefits from individuals if their benefit year began during the state’s disaster proclamation in response to COVID-19.

In Indiana, lawmakers introduced a bill (2021 IN SB 237) that failed to advance but would have required the Department of Workforce Development to waive repayment of unemployment benefit overpayments made if they were received without fault of the individual.

A bill (2021 KY HB 240) that failed to advance in Kentucky would have allowed the Secretary of Labor to waive an overpayment of benefits upon request if it was determined that recovery would be against “equity and good conscience,” and the overpayment was due to administrative, clerical, or office error; or not the result of fraud, misrepresentation, willful nondisclosure, or the fault of the recipient.

In New Hampshire, legislators introduced a bill (2021 NH SB 161) that would prohibit the commissioner of employment security from charging interest on unemployment benefit overpayments unless an individual willfully made a false statement or knowingly failed to disclose a material fact, and from requiring repayments by any collection method unless the individual has exhausted all administrative remedies. The bill also directs the commissioner to suspend collection of non-fraud overpayments during the state of emergency, including overpayments that occurred or were established prior to the state of emergency.

New York lawmakers are considering legislation (2021 NY S 6169/A 6666) that would protect unemployment insurance claimants from being held liable for overpayments if the overpayment was not due to fraud or a willful false statement or representation, if the overpayment was received without fault on the part of the claimant, and if the recovery of such overpayment would be against “equity and good conscience.” The bill also provides notice requirements for claimants when a determination is made regarding recovery of overpayments.

In North Carolina, legislators introduced a bill (2021 NC SB 320/HB 331) that amends an existing requirement that any person who has been paid benefits to which they were not entitled shall be liable to repay the overpayment and to create an exception for cases where the error was on the part of any representative of the Division of Employment Security.

A bill (2021 VT H 97) that is stalled in Vermont would provide that “an individual shall not be liable to repay any overpayment of benefits that resulted from something other than the individual’s own act or omission.”

West Virginia legislators failed to advance a bill (2021 WV HB 2873) that would allow the Commissioner of Labor to waive repayment of overpayments of unemployment benefits for which the claimant is not at fault. The Commissioner would be authorized to waive repayment when it would be against “equity and good conscience” and cause financial hardship.

Worker in mask curbside pickup to driver

State Legislators Expand Workers’ Compensation Coverage

A (2021 NY S 3291/A 6077) bill enacted by legislators in New York expands eligibility for workers’ compensation to domestic workers. Domestic workers working a minimum of 20 hours a week will be eligible, up from 40 hours a week. 

Another bill (2022 NY S 7843) enacted by New York legislators requires the state workers’ compensation board to provide translations of certain documents and forms. Under existing law, documents and forms used by or issued to injured employees must be published in the 10 most common non-English languages spoken by individuals with limited-English proficiency in the state; under the new law, “all board documents that provide general information to injured employees on the process of applying for workers’ compensation benefits” must be translated.

Virginia lawmakers enacted a bill (2021 VA SB 1310) to expand coverage of employment protection laws to domestic workers. As introduced, the bill ensured that more domestic workers can access workers’ compensation. The workers’ compensation provisions were removed in the enacted version of the bill, which extends wage protections and safety standards to domestic workers.

Washington legislators enacted a bill (2022 WA SB 5701) that amends the benefit calculation for claimants who are injured working while incarcerated. Under prior law, benefits for incarcerated workers are calculated based on wages paid to other employees engaged in like or similar occupations; the bill requires the benefit calculation to be based on the much-higher wages of similar workers who are not incarcerated.

In Kansas, a bill (2021 KS HB 2016) introduced would amend existing workers’ compensation law from requiring that an accident be “the prevailing factor in causing the injury” to “a substantial factor in causing the injury.”

New York legislators introduced a bill (2021 NY A 284) that would provide nail specialists a private right of action against employers who violate workers’ compensation and wage laws. The bill also creates financial penalties for health and safety violations and for unlawful retaliation against nail specialists.

States Strengthen Anti-Retaliation Protections

Lawmakers in New York are considering legislation (2021 NY S 3732/A 6775) to clarify that discrimination and retaliation by an employer against a worker who claims workers’ compensation includes the threat of reporting the citizenship status of a worker’s or a worker’s family member.

Oregon lawmakers enacted a bill (2022 OR HB 4086) to strengthen anti-retaliation protections for workers seeking workers’ compensation. Existing law prohibits retaliatory behavior by an employer—under the new law, anyone acting on behalf of an employer is also prohibited from discriminating against a worker seeking or receiving workers’ compensation. The bill also expands the definition of prohibited retaliatory actions to include actions against a worker who inquires about workers’ compensation. Finally, the bill establishes a more expansive definition of family members eligible for benefits upon the death of a worker to include a worker’s stepparents, stepsiblings, stepchildren, grandparents, grandchildren, or any spouse or domestic partner thereof.

Vermont legislators introduced a bill (2021 VT H 139) to amend existing anti-discrimination protections under workers’ compensation statutes to prohibit employers with 15 or more employees from firing an employee because of their absence from work during a period of temporary total disability.

Legislators Ensure That Workers Have a Right to Choose Their Own Doctor

A bill (2021 CO SB 21-197) that failed to advance in Colorado would have allowed injured workers to choose their treating physician from an existing list of accredited physicians through the Department of Labor and Employment. Existing law limits the selection of treating physicians to a list of designated providers as provided by the employer or by the worker’s compensation insurer.

Indiana lawmakers failed to advance a bill (2021 IN HB 1339) to allow employees to choose the physician for services required as a result of an employment injury or occupational disease for the purposes of workers’ compensation. Under current law, workers are required to receive treatment from a physician supplied by their employer.

In Montana, a bill (2021 MT HB 412) that failed would have amended workers’ compensation statutes to allow workers to choose their own treating physician. Existing law allows workers to choose the treating physician for initial treatment, but insurers may designate another treating physician or approve the worker’s chosen physician.

Wage Theft Protections

Each year, employers steal billions of dollars from the paychecks of workers, most frequently from workers of color, women, immigrants, and low-wage workers. Employers, especially corporations that intentionally refuse to pay workers for wages earned, must be held accountable for wage theft violations to ensure that workers can seek justice without fear of losing even more of their hard-earned wages. Enforcement of wage theft violations vary significantly across the nation and is dependent on a state’s enforcement capacity, legal protections and penalties for violations, and anti-retaliation protections for workers. 

State legislators took steps to rein in and deter employer wage theft violations during the 2021 legislative session by strengthening state enforcement practices, increasing compensation for workers, enhancing employer penalties, and closing loopholes that allow employers to evade labor protections.

Asian manicure therapist filing customer nails in nail salon with protective screen

Lawmakers Strengthen State Enforcement of Wage Theft Violations

Colorado lawmakers passed legislation (2022 CO SB 161) to increase employer penalties for wage theft and redefining wage theft as criminal theft. Additionally, the bill creates a private right of action for employees who have experienced discrimination or retaliation by an employer for filing a wage complaint or testifying or providing evidence in a wage theft proceeding. Such employees are eligible for back pay, reinstatement, interest on unpaid wages, penalties, and inductive relief. Finally, the bill creates new protections against worker misclassification by establishing the Worker and Employee Protection Unit under the direction of the attorney general, which is responsible for investigating worker misclassification.

A bill (2021 MA S 1179/H 1959) introduced by Massachusetts lawmakers would authorize the state attorney general to file a civil action for injunctive relief, damages, and lost wages and benefits on behalf of an employee or group of employees. Where such cases prevail, employees are entitled to treble (or triple) damages and the state shall be awarded the costs of litigation and reasonable attorneys’ fees. The bill also authorizes the attorney general to issue a stop work order against a person or entity found to be in violation of certain wage laws. The bill also creates whistleblower and anti-retaliation protections for workers involved in wage theft claims by creating a rebuttable presumption of a violation of law where an employer discriminates or takes adverse action against a worker within 90 days of their exercise of rights under the law.

New York lawmakers are considering the “Empowering People in Rights Enforcement (EMPIRE) Worker Protection Act” (2021 NY S 12/A 5876), which would allow workers to initiate a public enforcement action on behalf of the state for violations of labor laws and regulation, including wage theft. Under the bill, workers would also be able to authorize a labor union or nonprofit organization to initiate a public enforcement action on their behalf. The bill designates that a portion of civil penalties recovered, depending on whether the state was an intervener in the case, be remitted to the Department of Labor for future enforcement actions.

Introduced legislation in New York (2021 NY AB 8092), which passed out of both chambers in 2022, would add the use of “any legally protected absence” to the reasons that an employer cannot retaliate against an employee, and would include deducting allotted leave time as a potential prohibited employer method “to threaten, penalize, or in any other manner  discriminate or retaliate” against an employee.

Another bill (2021 NY A 1893) proposed by New York legislators would require that cities with a population of one million or more residents shall reject bids for contracts where the bidder “has had any safety, wage theft, or other violations involving the mistreatment of employees or contractors,” among other new considerations regarding the bidder’s history of compliance with the law or project performance.

In Texas, legislators failed to advance a bill (2021 TX SB 1834/HB 190) that would have established a publicly accessible wage theft database of employers that have been assessed a penalty, ordered to pay a wage claim, or convicted of a wage penalty offense. Employers would remain on the database for three years after their assessment or conviction.

Lawmakers Improve Recovery of Lost Wages, Damages, and Legal Costs

In Arkansas, legislators introduced but failed to advance the “Right to Know and Get Your Pay Act” (2021 AR SB 600), which would have entitled workers to damages in the amount of twice their wages due. The bill also would have established an employee’s right to file civil action against an employer who fails to comply with the new law. Workers who prevail in such cases are entitled to unpaid wages, an additional 25 percent of unpaid wages as damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation costs; in cases that are found to be an intentional violation, workers are entitled to double damages. Finally, the bill would have provided new anti-retaliation protections for workers who engage in wage theft enforcement actions, and employers who are found to have retaliated are subject to civil action and a penalty of $5,000.

Lawmakers in Illinois passed legislation (2021 IL SB 2476/HB 118) to increase the amount of damages that workers can recover in cases of wage theft. Under current law, workers are entitled to the amount of underpayments, in addition to damages of 2 percent of underpayments for each month following the date of payment during which such underpayments remain unpaid; the bill would increase damages to 5 percent of lost wages.

A bill (2021 NY S 2762/A 766) introduced in New York would ensure that workers can recover wage claims ordered in court judgments or administrative decisions when an employer transfers or hides assets. The bill creates an employee’s lien, where wage claims can be resolved against an employer’s interest in property.

North Carolina legislators are considering a bill (2021 NC SB 446) that would increase the amount of damages that an aggrieved worker is entitled to in recovering unpaid wages. Existing law provides damages equal to the amount unpaid in addition to 8 percent interest; the bill would increase damages to twice the amount unpaid, plus interest. The bill also authorizes courts to award statutory damages of up to $500 per employee per violation in cases where an intentional violation of wage theft is found, in addition to requiring legal fees to be paid by the defendant. Finally, the bill allows for recovery of unpaid wages to be enforced through a lien on property of the employer or property upon which the employee has performed work.

cleaning staff disinfecting elevator

State Legislators Enhance Employer Penalties for Wage Theft Violations

Lawmakers in California approved legislation (2021 CA AB 1003) that would create a new crime of grand theft for the intentional theft of wages, including benefits or other compensation, in an amount greater than $950, in aggregate, by an employer. As amended, the bill includes theft of gratuities and includes independent contractors within the definition of employee. 

Enacted legislation in Oregon (2022 OR HB 4002) provides a “carrot and stick” approach to overtime compensation for agricultural workers. This new law phases in a 40-hour regular workweek for agricultural workers and provides for a civil penalty for any employer violations and also creates a tax credit to employers for a percentage of overtime compensation paid due to this new law.

In Kentucky, lawmakers failed to advance a bill (2021 KY HB 63) that would have created a new Class A misdemeanor for employer theft of wages in cases where the value of unpaid wages was less than $500. Under the bill, wage theft of $500 or more but less than $10,000 would be a Class D felony, and cases of wage theft of $10,000 would be a Class C felony.

A bill (2021 NY S 4009/A 2022) that has passed the Senate in New York would amend the definition of property relating to the existing crime of larceny to include wage theft.

North Carolina lawmakers are considering a bill (2021 NC SB 446) that would establish civil penalties for employers who violate minimum wage, overtime, wage payment, and employee wage notification laws. Under the bill, the maximum penalty would be $500 for the first violation and $1,000 for each subsequent violation.

In Rhode Island, legislators failed to advance a bill (2021 RI S 195/H 5870) that would have strengthened penalties for wage theft and employee misclassification. The bill would have created a new felony for misclassification and wage theft, punishable by up to three years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000 for the first offense of lost wages of $1,500 to $5,000, or up to five years in prison and a fine of three times the wage amount or $20,000, whichever is greater, for subsequent violations in excess of $5,000. 

Legislators Close Employer Liability Loopholes

Georgia legislation (2021 GA HB 389), which passed in 2022, provides the following test for subcontractor misclassification by clarifying that someone who is NOT an employee: “(i) Is not prohibited from working for other companies or holding other employment  contemporaneously; (ii) Is free to accept or reject work assignments without consequence; (iii) Is not prescribed minimum hours to work or, in the case of sales, does not have  a minimum number of orders to be obtained; (iv) Has the discretion to set his or her own work schedule; (v) Receives only minimal instructions and no direct oversight or supervision  regarding the services to be performed, such as the location where the services are to  be performed and any requested deadlines; (vi) When applicable, has no territorial or geographic restrictions; and (vii) Is not required to perform, behave, or act or, alternatively, is compelled to  perform, behave, or act in a manner related to the performance of services for wages.”

Lawmakers in New York enacted a bill (2021 NY S 2766/A 3350) targeting the evasion of wage theft enforcement by construction subcontractors. The bill would clarify that the general or prime contractor of a construction project assumes liability for unpaid wages, benefits, damages, and attorneys’ fees resulting from civil or administrative actions for wage theft claims against its subcontractors. Additionally, the bill authorizes contractors to withhold payments to subcontractors for failure to comply with wage theft prevention measures, including the provision of payroll records.

In Massachusetts, a bill (2021 MA S 1179/H 1959) under consideration would subject lead contractors to joint and several civil liability (in cases where multiple parties are at fault, each party is independently liable for the full amount of damages) for wage theft violations of any contractor or subcontractor that performs labor or services “that has a significant nexus with the lead contractor’s business activities, operations or purposes.” Under the bill, lead contractors who receive notice of wage theft violations against a person performing labor for them through a contractor or subcontractor may provide the unpaid wages directly to the person or withhold payments to the contractor or subcontractor in the amount of unpaid wages.

Anti-Racist State Budgets: Transportation Equity

About This Primer

This primer is part of a series on anti-racist state budgets. To understand the concept of creating anti-racist state budgets, it is important to understand the difference between racist and anti-racist ideas and policies. The following excerpts are from How to Be an Antiracist (2019) by Ibram X. Kendi: 

Racist vs. Anti-racist Ideas

A racist idea is any idea that suggests one racial group is inferior or superior to another racial group in any way. Racist ideas argue that the inferiorities and superiorities of racial groups explain racial inequities in society. . . . An antiracist idea is any idea that suggests the racial groups are equals in all their apparent differences – that there is nothing right or wrong with any racial group. Antiracist ideas argue that racist policies are the cause of racial inequities.

Racist vs. Anti-racist Policies

A racist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial inequity between racial groups. An antiracist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial equity between racial groups. . . . There is no such thing as a nonracist or race-neutral policy. Every policy in every institution in every community in every nation is producing or sustaining either racial inequity or equity between racial groups. 

For additional race-equity concepts and definitions, please visit the Racial Equity Tools glossary.

The following primer examines how policymakers have impacted low-income communities and communities of color through racist transportation policies and practices and, drawing from existing research, analyzes how state budgets can guide racial equity outcomes. It also outlines progressive considerations for state legislators to take into account when crafting related anti-racist legislation. We hope that a better understanding of the effects of state budgets on transportation equity will support progressive legislative efforts to create transportation systems that promote public health, sustainability, and equitable opportunity. 

History of Racist Transportation Policies

Sculpture of Rosa Parks at the National Civil Rights Museum
Sculpture of Rosa Parks at the National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis, Tennessee. (Photo: Gino Santa Maria / Shutterstock)

Our ability to access affordable and reliable transportation is a basic right that many communities have been deprived of as a result of inequitable transportation investments. Low-income communities and communities of color bear the largest burden of our states’ transportation decisions.

Race and transportation have long been intertwined. In 1955, Rosa Parks became the icon of the Montgomery Bus Boycott by refusing to give up her bus seat to a white rider. Her arrest led Montgomery’s Black community to launch a massive boycott, demanding better treatment for Black riders and equitable access to public transit. In the early 1960s, Freedom Riders challenged segregation laws and asserted their rights to ride interstate transportation.

Although the civil rights movement helped increase the accessibility of transportation, the issue of inequity has persisted. Discriminatory practices, such as redlining, have locked communities of color out of certain neighborhoods and left them without many transportation options. Redlining was followed by other detrimental efforts, such asurban renewal—a nationwide program established by the Housing Act of 1949—that provided federal grants to cities for the purposes of rebuilding their downtowns.

African american woman wearing medical mask while travel in public transport

Urban renewal allowed cities to raze and rebuild entire areas, clear slums and blighted properties, and develop highways. This program led to the widespread development outside city centers, also known as urban sprawl. Investments in these developments have changed the urban geographical landscape and displaced communities, disproportionately impacting low-income people and people of color. Similar racist policies and practices persisted after the 1960s and continue today, leading to increased traffic congestion and air pollution, ongoing negative health effects (e.g., respiratory illnesses, lung cancer, and impaired lung development), evictions of marginalized groups, dangerous road conditions for biking and walking, and the destruction of thriving neighborhoods.

Current departments of transportation and transit agencies are still operating systems grounded in racism and guided by the inequitable policies of the civil rights era. Not only do current highway projects continuously displace Black and Brown communities across the country, but also transit agencies have designed their routes and systems around the stereotype that there are only two kinds of riders: “captive” and “choice” riders, with this binary design disproportionately disadvantaging marginalized communities. 

Impacts on Marginalized Communities

Line graph from the US Department of Transportation entitled “Trends in Expenditure by Mode” shows billions of dollars spent on y-axis ($0-$200) and years on the x-axis (2008-2018.) Graph shows significantly higher spend for highways than for public transit. Full graph available at https://explore.dot.gov/views/GTFSVisualizationsUpdated/
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation
Development of Highways & Displacement of Communities

In 2018, state and local governments collectively spent about $70 billion on public transportation. At the same time, these governments devoted over $232 billion to highways. Greater investment in highways is one of many examples of how transportation policy priorities have led to an underinvestment in sustainable infrastructure within marginalized communities. 

Many highway construction projects have also displaced communities by creating changes in the land value of a neighborhood and destroying the units occupied by low-income households and households of color. These projects contribute to a loss of affordable housing and the disintegration of communities, significantly affecting the quality of the neighborhood and its residents. Similar to the ways urban renewal programs destroyed the homes of marginalized communities to resolve urban blight, the prioritization of highway expansion over public transportation projects has inequitable and disproportionate effects on low-income and minority residential neighborhoods.

Accessibility of Public Transit
Wheelchair user at top of stairs subway entrance

Financial Accessibility

Since 1995, public transit ridership has increased by 28%. Contributing to this ridership increase, income and wealth disparities have led many people of color to have relatively less access to cars. As a result, people of color are the ones most likely to rely on public transportation as their main form of travel. Especially in urban areas, Black, Latinx, and Asian people take public transit more often than their white counterparts to access public services and get to work and school. However, the restriction of public funds for transit, along with governments’ prioritization of highways, has shifted resources away from alternative transportation options. If and when municipalities rely on fare increases to manage their budget crises, these increases hurt transit-reliant communities and decrease the financial accessibility of buses. Cities and states can mitigate these issues if they make targeted investments in public transit. One study in Boston found that a 50% reduction in transit-pass costs for low-income riders resulted in about 30% more trips and an increase in trips to health care and social services.

Physical Accessibility

Forty-five percent of Americans have no access to public transportation. Some areas, especially sprawling cities, do not support public transportation due to certain land patterns and the separation of homes from places of work and services, creating longer travel distances and a greater dependence on automobiles. Residents in these areas are then forced to rely on cars, which is an expense many cannot afford, leaving them with few good transportation options and compounding the cycle of poverty. Low-income people of color are already less likely to own a car and their lack of car ownership combined with inadequate and inaccessible public transit further exacerbates their circumstances. Even when people are presumed to have access to transit, these individuals often have to navigate dangerous roadways in order to do so. For more information on the impacts of dangerous road infrastructure, see the section below on Road Safety for Civilians. 

Road Safety for Civilians
person stepping onto bus

Walking, bicycling, and public transit need to be not only accessible to but also safe for everyone. Motor vehicle crash data comparing 2010 to 2019 shows that in urban areas, pedestrian fatalities increased by 62% and bicyclist fatalities increased by 49%, and the proportion of total traffic fatalities that were non-occupant (e.g., bicyclists and pedestrians) fatalities jumped from 15% in 2010 to 20% in 2019. Similar to how states are not investing in public transit, states are also allocating only a small portion of their budgets to improve pedestrian infrastructure. People of color and low-income people often use active transportation to get from one place to another, with Hispanic, African American, and Asian American populations experiencing the fastest growth in bicycling. Yet the street conditions are often more dangerous for these individuals in comparison to the walking and bicycling conditions of their white, middle-class counterparts. 

People of color are already twice as likely to be killed while walking than other groups. Not only do high-speed, multi-lane avenues and poorly designed streets contribute to traffic-related deaths, but they also affect the abilities of communities, especially those composed of low-income individuals and people of color, to be physically active. These conditions have the potential to shorten lives and impair people’s ability to thrive. 

Environmental Effects on Public Health
Air pollution scenic with cars on highway and yellow smoke in city.

The transportation sector emits more than half of the nitrogen oxides in our air and accounts for about 28% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Urban and metropolitan areas with traffic congestion typically experience the most significant pollution, which is often traced to inefficient land use patterns, sprawling development, and policies that favor highway development over transit. Long-term exposure to pollutants can lead to lung cancer, heart disease, respiratory illnesses, and impaired lung development and function in children and infants. These issues are further compounded when unsustainable transportation projects invade communities where poor air and water quality is already an issue. Oftentimes, it is low-income neighborhoods and communities of color who face greater environmental and health consequences from the underinvestment in sustainable transportation infrastructure.

Traffic Enforcement and the Role of Police
Crowd inside subway train holds straphangers

Instead of investing in equitable transportation projects, 25 states have used portions of their state highway fund dollars to finance highway patrols as of 2017. Dedicating highway fund dollars for state police not only takes away funding for more equitable transit, but also severely affects people’s ability to benefit from the transportation system. Transportation inequities take place in low-income communities and communities of color, which are often over-policed and under-protected in comparison to higher-income, majority-white neighborhoods. 

State and local law enforcement compound such inequities by using traffic laws and minor violations as a pretext for stopping and searching drivers, especially people of color. Coupled with racial bias, these stops often escalate and lead to unnecessary use of force or arrests that disproportionately impact Black people and communities of color. In addition, disparate targeting of fare evasion enforcement on transit systems has led to increased police-civilian interaction for harmless infractions and the criminalization of poverty in Black and Brown neighborhoods. 

Policy Considerations

Union Station lightrail stop in downtown Denver, Colorado

When planning and proceeding with transportation projects, states should promote equity and prioritize community needs by evaluating accessibility in transportation planning decisions and considering the following recommendations:

  1. Incorporate inclusive community engagement practices into transportation planning and decision-making processes. Low-income communities and communities of color bear most of the burden of unsustainable transportation outcomes yet have been historically excluded from the decision-making process. Communities should have the power to decide which transportation projects best meet their needs. Thus, state legislators and departments of transportation should sustain avenues for increased public involvement in transportation planning so communities can directly influence transportation priorities, choices, and budget allocations. 
  1. Develop a mechanism for prioritizing and evaluating transportation projects based on sustainability, accessibility, and community priorities. Car-centric transportation planning often result in policies that physically, economically, and environmentally harm low-income communities and communities of color. To better serve those most impacted by transportation projects, state legislators should create a prioritization process that integrates equity principles and considers community needs.
  1. Increase funding for public transportation to provide and maintain quality and affordable transit facilities and services, especially for transit-dependent communities. Currently, many states rely on outdated technology, tools, and policies to inform their decisions on which transportation projects to prioritize and fund. For example, some states prioritize highway projects because they have constitutional prohibitions that limit the use of gas tax revenues to highways only. To ensure equitable investments in public transportation, state legislators should reallocate funding toward sustainable modes of infrastructure by modernizing the policies and systems of their departments of transportation.
  1. Address our crumbling roadway infrastructure by reallocating funds from highway construction projects to maintenance and infrastructure that benefit disadvantaged communities. Federal law provides states with the flexibility to spend funds they receive from highway formulas. However, such flexibility grants the states the ability to focus on expanding highways instead of fixing crumbling roads first. While it is critical to put pressure on Congress to prioritize highway formula dollars for maintenance, states can also take immediate action by ensuring their statewide transportation packages emphasize repairing potholes, unfixed highways, and crumbling roads over expansion projects. State legislators should also devote a percentage of their transportation funds to low-income or high-need communities.

    In addition, policymakers should consider implementing life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) programs. Such programs enable transportation planners to examine the total costs of a project over its expected life and compare differing life-cycle costs between alternative options. As a result, LCCAs help identify the most beneficial and cost-effective projects and require decision-makers to think more about maintenance over expansion.
  1. Support transit-oriented development and smart growth initiatives that promote community economic development and incorporate equity principles. Transit-oriented development promotes alternative modes of sustainable transportation and increases access to affordable housing, jobs, and schools for low- and moderate-income families. State legislatures should: 

6. Call on municipalities to adopt and implement Complete Streets policies in low-income, high-need communities. Designing transit-friendly streets and safe roadways for all users will make walking and biking safer and more convenient for pedestrians and cyclists. Complete Streets policies promote infrastructure that reduces reliance on cars, resulting in increased engagement in physical activity and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. State legislators should encourage the implementation of this policy in high-need communities that have more dangerous street conditions.

7. Redirect funds and responsibilities away from state police and toward investments in communities. Legacies of discrimination and racism pervade our transportation system and policies. Not only do communities of color have a lack of access to mobility options, but they also suffer disproportionately from police-involved violence initiated by traffic stops. In order to achieve transportation equity and ensure safe streets for all populations, states must address both policies that disadvantage biking and walking and the ongoing racist police enforcement of traffic laws that lead to disproportionate harms for Black and Brown drivers. 

Additional Resources

Man wearing protective mask sits on bus during the day

Urban Sprawl and Highway Expansion

Transit Accessibility

Environmental and Public Health Impacts

Active Transportation and Pedestrian Safety

Effects of Traffic Enforcement

Racial Equity and Transportation

Bold Public Investment Is Popular and Key to Ending This Crisis

By: Azza Altiraifi, Senior Program Manager at the Groundwork Collaborative

In the year since the COVID-19 pandemic first gripped the United States, over 525,000 people have perished and millions more - disproportionately people of color, disabled people, women, and those at the intersection of these identities—are still struggling to get by. The historic scale of the economic and public health crises we’ve faced was not inevitable. It was the result of decades of austerity policies and systematic disinvestment in the public sector at local, state, and federal levels. We cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past. 

Over a decade of research shows that the economics of austerity are flawed, broadly unpopular, and racist. And while accelerating vaccine distribution and imminent federal fiscal aid are promising, it will take robust, sustained, and equitable public investment at state and local levels to get out of these crises and build a resilient economy that works for everyone, instead of the wealthy few.

Austerity is Racist and Economically Destabilizing


Even before the coronavirus emerged in the US, state and local budgets and tax systems were in bad shape. In the aftermath of the Great Recession, the federal government cut aid short prematurely, leading many state and local governments to pursue austerity measures to address budget shortfalls and mitigate the economic shock. States and localities eliminated public jobs, deferred necessary maintenance on critical infrastructure like roads and bridges, and shrunk social programs and services.

Group of diverse students at daycare or classroom
A racially diverse group of elementary school students in classroom

Not only did limited federal stimulus prolong the recovery from the Great Recession, but it exacerbated race and gender inequities. Consider that while the Great Recession technically ended in June 2009, it took until 2018 for Black women’s employment to fully recover. Now, with the economy plunged into crisis again, the very austerity measures implemented in the past have left states more economically vulnerable and exacerbated the financial harms faced by low-income workers and people of color. 

Since February 2020, states and localities have lost 1.3 million jobs. But safety-net programs such as the unemployment insurance system struggled to scale up and distribute life-sustaining benefits in the face of such precipitous job loss and economic upheaval. This is largely because federal austerity over the past decades has shifted more responsibilities to state and local governments. Further still, austerity politics at all levels of government fuel scarcity myths and racist ideas of “deservedness,” which are then used to justify shrinking benefits and imposing cumbersome administrative barriers throughout the benefits application process.

Austerity politics at all levels of government fuel scarcity myths and racist ideas of “deservedness” which are then used to justify shrinking benefits.

Not only do cuts to benefits programs serving low-income people disproportionately impact Black and brown workers, they reduce state economic activity overall. Lower-income people tend to put every dollar they receive in benefits back into their state and local economy, so when programs that serve low-income households are slashed, state economies correspondingly contract. 

The cumulative effects of these austerity measures and mindsets are seen in the millions of workers and families who waited months in a pandemic to access aid that was insufficient to meet their needs. And since Black and brown people are most likely to work in the hardest-hit sectors, they face the brunt of these cascading economic harms.

People-Centered Spending Will Help End This Crisis

As states face plummeting revenues and soaring investment needs due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the case for implementing progressive tax systems to raise revenue is incontrovertible. The majority of pandemic job losses are concentrated among low-income workers, but largely white upper-income households continue to see their assets grow during the pandemic. If states had more progressive tax systems, they could tax those income gains at the top to shore up revenue, reverse concentrations of wealth and power, and promote greater racial and gender equity.

A drive-up food pantry in Sherman, TX
A drive-up food pantry in Sherman, Texas

Instead, many state budgets are more vulnerable, income inequality is worsened, and consequently, Black and brown workers are bearing an even heavier economic burden. On average, state tax systems take a 50% greater share of income from the poorest quintile of taxpayers than they take from the top one percent. Replacing these upside-down tax structures with progressive taxes on the highest earners can shore up budgets and create space for legislators to make meaningful investments in infrastructure, public health, green jobs, and more. And years of research have proven that in a depressed economy, increased public investment more than pays for itself in economic growth — more than $1 in growth for each $1 spent.

Replacing upside-down tax structures with progressive taxes on the highest earners can shore up budgets and create space for legislators to make meaningful investments in infrastructure, public health, green jobs, and more.

Recently, New Jersey passed a millionaires tax, which is a crucial step in addressing enduring racial and socioeconomic inequities within the state’s tax code. Heeding the call of advocates and economists, New Jersey’s state leadership rejected harmful and counterproductive budget cuts that would have exacerbated inequality and further eroded health and social infrastructure. Instead, they prioritized smart investments such as expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and restoring funding for an array of environmental programs.

States facing unprecedented spikes in spending due to COVID-19 and tumbling revenues can also pursue progressive taxes to balance their budgets and redistribute power and resources. And such investments are broadly popular. Polling confirms that the public opposes state budget and service cuts by wide and bipartisan margins.

Ultimately, an abundance approach to policy recognizes that people-centered spending—to restore and expand social services, revitalize key infrastructure, and build public power— is a matter of strategic investment to build a more just and equitable future. Robust public investment is broadly popular, economically sound, and necessary to advance racial justice. It’s time for state and local policies to reflect that.

Groundwork Collaborative is a research and policy advocacy organization working to advance a coherent and persuasive progressive economic worldview capable of delivering meaningful opportunity and prosperity for everyone. 

Americans Want Community Investment, Not Cuts

A recent poll surveying Americans in Michigan, Nevada, Arizona, Florida, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Tennessee, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas commissioned by the State Innovation Exchange (SiX) and conducted by TargetSmart, shows voters’ strong support for: state investment in ensuring residents are safe, healthy, and economically secure; progressive solutions to revenue shortfalls; and policies that benefit workers like paid sick days, enhanced unemployment benefits, and child care. A majority  also believe the state government should address economic barriers that impact Black people. The survey was conducted online and by phone in late June/early July and included results from more than 5,000 respondents.

Voters are against budget cuts

By a three-to-one margin, voters want their state government to invest in residents to ensure they are safe, healthy, and economically secure (60%) rather than lowering taxes and cutting funds to services like education, infrastructure, and unemployment insurance (19%). Voters see a major or some role for state government in: 

Voters support progressive solutions to revenue shortfalls

Voters support a wide range of proposals to raise revenue to prevent large budget cuts to things like education, health care, infrastructure, and human services, including: 

Voters are with workers

Voters strongly support policies that would provide immediate pocketbook relief for families and workers, including:

A majority of voters side with workplace safety requirements (55%) over liability protections for corporations (26%). 

Voters want state government to remove racial barriers in the economy

Nearly 7-in-10 voters across the target states believe state government should play an active role in acknowledging and addressing systemic racism (68%). Voters also believe the state government should address economic barriers faced by Black Americans (57%). 

Click here for more results.

Multi-State Poll: Opinions on Economic Response to COVID-19

During the briefing, you’ll hear:

SiX and TargetSmart fielded a poll in ten states to assess voter concerns and preferences on a variety of revenue and economic policies. The poll was fielded in late June/early July while economic and budget implications of the pandemic intensified and with racial justice protests sweeping the country.

COVID Response: Resources for State Legislators

As the coronavirus situation continues to unfold, we’re compiling resources here to help you navigate the many challenges this presents to your community.  We know that crises like these have disproportionate impacts on vulnerable and low-income communities and want to make sure we stand up for those most at risk. As legislators, you are uniquely positioned to find solutions that mitigate the harm for at-risk medical populations (people with chronic health conditions, people with disabilities, the elderly), hourly workers, the millions of Americans without access to health care or paid sick days, and everyone who is one health emergency away from financial ruin.

The resources we've linked to below can help you use your platform to provide clear, scientifically-based information to the public and advocate for better policies.

If you have actions or new policies that are happening in your states, please share them so we can provide them to other legislators across the country. Please email helpdesk@stateinnovation.org.

Canva null scaled

Race and the Virus: Bias, Data, Testing, and Impact

The spread of COVID-19 took longer to reach rural America, however, once it did, it highlighted some basic infrastructure needs that are lacking for rural residents. During COVID-19, rural people have faced many of the same challenges as urban residents, yet have struggled to access adequate information, medical services, food and medicine due to an erosion of public investment in rural infrastructure. 

See more here.

hospital scaled

Health Care

In addition to the risks to individuals’ physical health, the COVID-19 pandemic affects every health care system in the United States (medical, public health, insurance) and each of their corresponding workforces. State legislatures have a responsibility and opportunity to ensure that these systems are operating effectively and equitably for the health of all people.

See more here.

business office scaled

Unemployment and Worker Protections

The Covid pandemic has had devastating impacts on every single worker and every aspect of our economy, particularly women and Black, Brown, and Indigenous workers. Too many are grappling with how to pay for the basic necessities they need to survive and many are being forced to decide between going back to a job that may be unsafe or protecting their health. Fortunately, legislators and partners can implement  innovative solutions that will make our workforce and our local economies safer and stronger.

See more here.

projects housing apartments scaled

Preventing Evictions

Our nation is in the midst of a housing crisis, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Under our nation’s system of racial capitalism, housing serves more as a financial asset or investment than a basic human right. The current system disproportionately harms working-class, Black, Indigenous, and communities of color (BIPOC)—leaving them out of both asset building opportunities and housing protections. Evictions already place a disproportionate harm on Black women and their families, who are almost four times as likely to be evicted as households led by white men. Housing stability has always been a civil rights issue that directly descends from our nation’s history of segregation and racist housing practices. 

See more here.

Official Election mail voting register scaled

Democracy and Voting

2020 Census 

Voting & Elections

albany

Reproductive Rights

COVID-19 poses specific threats to reproductive health care access and needs; further, some states have taken advantage of the crisis to play politics and restrict abortion care access. But research shows that even in the midst of COVID—and despite disinformation spread by the anti-choice opposition—people continue to oppose restricting access to reproductive freedom. 

See more here.

education young black student writing on white board

Education

The Department of Education and the White House are pressuring schools to open in the fall but are providing little to no guidance for doing so safely, threatening to withhold funding for states or districts who do not comply. While the pressure to reopen schools in the fall grows, so does the number of coronavirus cases, leaving school districts and states scrambling to keep up with a quickly changing situation. States will have to consider how to keep all students, teachers, faculty and support staff safe—not just those in wealthy communities—through budget considerations, remote learning options, financial aid, school meals, testing and tracing, and more.

See more here.

tolu bamwo nappy

Food Systems and Agriculture

Covid-19 demonstrated that the corporate food supply chain is one crisis away from failing, which puts communities at risk of being food insecure and could cause barriers for local farmers working to address the food needs of their community. In order to ensure that communities are resilient in their ability to access food during a crisis, legislators should work to ensure that there is a sound regional and/or local alternative food supply chain with a plan to get food to those who need it while also ensuring that food and farm workers are adequately protected in their workplaces.

See more here.

Canva Close up of Globe scaled

Immigration

Undocumented Immigrants make up a disproportionate share of frontline workers and are especially concentrated in high-risk industries such as food production, health care, and transportation. However, these same immigrant workers have been excluded from any economic relief included in the CARES Act and are unable to access unemployment insurance. To compound this devastating situation, Trump’s immigration enforcement machine continues to target undocumented residents and separate families at astounding rates, which has led to extreme health risks within immigration detention centers across the United States.

See more here.

rural wind turbine scaled

Rural Communities

The spread of COVID-19 took longer to reach rural America, however, once it did, it highlighted some basic infrastructure needs that are lacking for rural residents. During COVID-19, rural people have faced many of the same challenges as urban residents, yet have struggled to access adequate information, medical services, food and medicine due to an erosion of public investment in rural infrastructure. 

See more here.

shutterstock 1091186714 scaled

Defend Against Harmful Policies

State legislatures are on the frontlines of the coronavirus pandemic, trying to do their best to protect and provide vital social services to their constituents. While some states are passing inclusive policies to stabilize our local economies, others are using the pandemic as an opportunity to pass harmful policies that will have devastating impacts on our communities. Additionally, some policies are intended to support struggling families but are having unintended consequences. 

See more here.

10 State Poll: Americans Support Bold Policy Solutions

Intense support for commonsense election reforms and solutions to create economic security

A recent poll surveying voters in Michigan, Nevada, Arizona, Florida, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Tennessee, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas commissioned by the State Innovation Exchange (SiX) and conducted by TargetSmart, shows voters support policies to ensure accessible elections and a desire for more state investment to ensure people are economically secure.

Masked women packing food

DEMOCRACY 

Voters Support Steps to Ensure Safe and Accessible Elections

Voters in the ten states overwhelmingly believe that the state government has a role to play in safely and fairly administering elections (91%). States strongly support policies to ensure the election is safe and accessible for all eligible voters:

Voters Are Concerned About USPS and Having Their Vote Counted

The politicization of Vote by Mail and the partisan attacks on the United States Postal Service have eroded faith in the ability to have mail-in ballots count. The poll shows that half of all voters are concerned that the mail system in their state cannot be relied upon to get vote-by-mail ballots to election officials in time to be counted in the election. This concern is higher among Black voters (60%) and Latinx voters (53%).

Voters Want State Government to Remove Racial Barriers to Voting

Nearly 7-in-10 voters across the target states also indicate that they believe state government should play an active role in acknowledging and addressing systemic racism (68%). Accordingly, two-thirds of voters across these target states believe their state government should reduce barriers that prevent Black people from voting (65%).

HEALTH AND THE ECONOMY

Voters Concerned about Health and Safety, Want Protections and Investment 

By a three-to-one margin, voters want their state government to invest in residents to ensure they are safe, healthy, and economically secure (60%) rather than lowering taxes and cutting funds to services like education, infrastructure, and unemployment insurance (19%). Voters also believe the state government should address economic barriers faced by Black Americans (57%). 

A majority of voters side with workplace safety requirements (55%) over liability protections for corporations (26%).

Respondents support expanding unemployment insurance and other economic policies

Nearly three in five voters support extending the length of time that workers can receive expanded unemployment benefits. Support for this policy is particularly high among Black voters (84%) and voters under 50 (67%). Voters also strongly supported policies that would provide immediate pocketbook relief for many, including:

Click here for more results.

Floridians Want State Lawmakers to Act on Threats Created by COVID Crisis

Strong support for progressive solutions to help working families and ensure the elections are accessible and safe

A recent poll commissioned by the State Innovation Exchange (SiX) shows Florida voters hold deep concerns over the risk that COVID-19 poses to their health and the impact on the economy and the election.  Two in three Floridians believe the worst of the pandemic is yet to come (65%). 

The Role of Government in Issues Facing Florida

When asked if the state government should play a role in some of the issues facing working families, voters overwhelmingly supported government engagement in:  

Voters Support Steps to Ensure Safe and Accessible Elections

Florida voters overwhelmingly believe that the state government has a role to play in safely and fairly administering elections (92%). The majority of Floridians report that they will vote by mail (52%). However, 47% still plan to vote in person, with 27% planning to vote on Election Day and 20% planning to early vote.

Whether or not they are choosing to vote in person or by-mail, voters supported policies to ensure the election is safe and accessible for all eligible voters:

Voters Concerned about COVID Impact and Strongly Support Progressive Economic Policies

By a four to one margin voters believe Florida state government should invest more in its residents to ensure they are safe, healthy, and economically secure (64%) rather than state government keeping taxes low and cutting funds to key services like education, infrastructure and unemployment insurance (16%).

Florida has been hard hit by the pandemic with one in three of Floridians responding that they have been laid off or had their hours cut (34%).  Two out of three Floridians support extending and expanding unemployment for those workers who have been laid off (65%).    Support for this policy cuts across partisan lines  with Democrats (78%), Republicans (52%)  Independents (65%) in favor.

The pandemic is a top of mind concern for Floridians who report they are concerned about the people losing work and income due to the virus (84%), small businesses and restaurants closing down permanently (84%), Floridians contracting the virus and dying (79%), people of Florida unable to afford their rent or mortgage (79%) and people in Florida being forced to choose between their health and their job (71%).

Given the current crisis, Floridians support policies that will address the hardships being faced by many and make life easier for working families:

Click here for more results.

###

Michiganders Want State Lawmakers to Act on Threats of COVID Crisis

Strong support for progressive solutions to help working families and ensure the safety and security of elections

A recent poll commissioned by the State Innovation Exchange (SiX) shows Michigan voters hold deep concerns over the risk that COVID-19 poses to their health and the impact on the economy.  The poll showed that Michiganders believe that the government should play a constructive role in people’s economic lives.  

The Role of Government in Issues Facing Michigan

When asked if the state government should play a role in some of the issues facing working families, voters overwhelmingly supported government engagement in:  

Voters Overwhelmingly Support Steps to Ensure Safe and Accessible Elections

Michigan voters overwhelmingly believe that the state government has a role to play in safely and fairly administering elections (87%). The majority of Michiganders report that they will vote by mail in the November election (60%). However one-in-three believe that they will go to the polls (34%). 

Voters overwhelmingly supported policies to ensure the election is safe and accessible:

Voters Concerned about COVID Impact and Strongly Support Progressive Economic Policies

By a three-to-one margin, voters believe Michigan state government should invest more in its residents to ensure they are safe, healthy, and economically secure (58%) rather than state government keeping taxes low and cutting funds to key services like education, unemployment, and health insurance (18%).

As for how legislators should address the potential budget shortfalls due to COVID, respondents overwhelmingly favored closing corporate tax loopholes (90%) and increasing taxes and financial penalties on companies that pollute Michigan’s air and water (88%). There is also strong support–77%–for increasing taxes on the wealthiest individuals in Michigan. 

Eight-in-ten voters are concerned about people in Michigan losing work and income due to the coronavirus outbreak. Michiganders are equally concerned about small businesses and restaurants closing down permanently in Michigan (81%). 

A majority of voters also support measures that would benefit those returning to work and those who remain unemployed, including requiring businesses to provide safe working conditions and penalties if workers get sick (56%) and extending the length of time that laid-off workers can receive unemployment compensation and increasing the amount they receive (55%).

Given the current crisis, Michiganders support policies that will address the economic hardships being faced by many and make life easier for working families:

Click here for more results.

###

The COVID Crisis Reveals Deep Fissures in American Society

“Many Americans are now experiencing what poor communities live with daily. We have communities perennially facing lower wages, higher poverty, lack of access to health care, and lack of access to child care. Shift workers, low-wage workers, agrarian workers, and service workers are now being pushed over the edge. We must be intentional about identifying these challenges and concrete about naming and pursuing the solutions. These issues aren’t ancillary. They are central to who we are. The poor deserve expanded and deepened support. The poorest among us are often the people working the hardest. And they deserve to be protected. It is not socialism to have a social safety net.”

-- The Hon. Stacey Abrams, former GA House Minority Leader,  on COVID as featured in Elle Magazine April 15, 2020

For over 40 years, we’ve witnessed the erosion of our public structures and social safety net programs while extremists have weaponized the idea of who is worthy of care or support during moments of need. By using a divide-and-conquer framework that devalues some people because of the color of their skin or where they come from, we are all left with a system that is incapable of weathering the current storm. COVID shows us that this old approach to policymaking leaves all of us—Black, white, and brown alike—too vulnerable to ongoing harm.

SiX believes this analysis is central to the work ahead for state legislators and must be core to our collective response. Based on this framework, we want to offer specific guidance to state legislators seeking clarity on how to orient to the weeks and months ahead:

1. Advance race-forward policies and analyses.

From expanded COVID testing to access to health care to paid sick time to expanded medical leave to unemployment insurance to managing state budgets, legislators will uniquely be faced with balancing bold ideas with impactful implementation. Essential workers—nurses and health care workers, delivery workers, farmworkers, restaurant staff, and many others —are more likely to be women and people of color and are disproportionately impacted by this crisis. As you consider any policy topic, we encourage you to make an explicit commitment to ensure your actions have equitable impacts by centering those most impacted in your policy response. 

2. Protect and expand our democracy.

If we understand the current crisis as an extension of our underlying economic and societal challenges, we must expand and protect access to democratic safeguards—from voting-at-home to transparent governance to equitable decision-making in public life.

3. Use all of the tools you can to effect change.

Some of you may return back to legislative sessions while others of you are facing indefinite recesses, early adjournment, or uncertain special sessions. Although each of your circumstances may differ, we implore you to be bold in advocating for your communities by using a wide array of tools to meet your policy objectives. 

4. Focus on resilience, not nostalgia.

For many of us, we eagerly want to return to a time before this crisis—when thousands of our friends and families were not taken by COVID, when millions of our neighbors weren’t unemployed or facing eviction, and when gathering at the local watering hole was more common than wearing a face mask in public. But nostalgia can cloud our thinking, even when done with the best of intentions. We must remember how precarious our democracy, economy, and society were before this crisis and remind ourselves of what we’ve learned from seeing the failures of our systems in full view. With this clarity, focus your efforts on rebuilding a resilient, healthy, and prosperous country for generations to come.

We have faith in your ability to lead, even in the most difficult of circumstances, and SiX is ready to help you in the weeks and months to come.

North Carolinians Supported Economic Reform Even Before the COVID-19 Crisis

A recent poll commissioned by the State Innovation Exchange (SiX) shows North Carolina voters held deep concerns over pocketbook economic issues and support for progressive policy solutions even before the full impact of COVID-19 was felt. The poll showed that North Carolinians believe that the government should play a constructive role in people’s economic lives.  

The Role of Government in the Top Issues Facing North Carolina

When asked if the state government should play a role in some of the top issues facing working families, voters overwhelmingly supported government engagement. Voters’ top priorities include:  

Voters Support Action on Economic Policies

North Carolinians believe that a job should allow workers to earn a wage to support a family (82%), provide a steady consistent income (81%) and allow access to affordable health insurance (78%). North Carolinians overwhelmingly support these policies that help working families:  

These results showed that even before the economic dislocation from the current crisis, North Carolinians wanted economic policies to make life easier for families. Now more than ever, those policies are vitally important.

Click here to see the poll memo and here for the presentation.

April Update

In late April, SiX tested the same issues again to see whether the COVID-19 crisis has changed support for those policies. These recent results show that NC voters continue to strongly support progressive policies. The vast majority of voters believe that the government should have a role in enacting progressive policy changes that would provide economic fairness, more access to affordable health care, and investments in public education. More information here.  

Coronavirus Response: Resources for State Legislators

As the coronavirus situation continues to unfold, we’re compiling resources here to help you navigate the many challenges this presents to your community.  We will use this space to share policy, communication, and organizing resources that you can use to respond to the health, economic, and social impacts this is having on your communities.  

We know that crises like these have disproportionate impacts on vulnerable and low-income communities and want to make sure we stand up for those most at risk. As legislators, you are uniquely positioned to find solutions that mitigate the harm for at-risk medical populations (people with chronic health conditions, people with disabilities, the elderly), hourly workers, the millions of Americans without access to health care or paid sick days, and everyone who is one health emergency away from financial ruin.

The resources below can help you use your platform to provide clear, scientifically-based information to the public and advocate for better policies.

If you have actions or new policies that are happening in your states, please share them so we can provide them to other legislators across the country. Please email helpdesk@stateinnovation.org.

The Basics

Legislative Sessions and Operating Remotely

Race and the Virus: Bias, Data, Testing, and Impact

Structural racism puts people of color at greater risk to both the health and economic impacts of COVID-19.

Racial data
Coronavirus data released from the CDC does not yet include breakdowns by race. We cannot continue to fight this pandemic blindly.

Impacts
The Coronavirus Pandemic and the Racial Wealth Gap
Coronavirus Compounds Inequality and Endangers Communities of Color
On the Frontlines at Work and at Home: The Disproportionate Economic Effects of the Coronavirus Pandemic on Women of Color

Health Care

Unemployment and Protecting Stimulus Paychecks

See SiX’s Paid Family and Medical Leave Policy playbook here.

Policy Recommendations:

Examples of States’ Paid Leave Legislation in response to COVID-19

Additional Resources

Preventing Evictions

Preventing Utility Shut Offs and Payment Deferment

Democracy and Voting

2020 Census 

Voting & Elections

Reproductive Rights

Medical and Research Resources

Education

Rural Communities and Agriculture

See SiX's talking points and policy solutions for rural communities and local agriculture and our memo outlining how stimulus money is expected to come into states to aid agriculture and rural communities. There are still a number of unknowns and we are continuing to monitor the situation closely.

The $2 trillion stimulus package included $9.5 billion dollars for agricultural producers impacted by coronavirus, including producers of specialty crops, producers that supply local food systems, including farmers markets, restaurants, and schools, and livestock producers, including dairy producers. You can read a summary compiled by the National Farmers Union here. Here is an analysis from the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

The United States Senate Committee on Finance has a breakdown on their website of the rural healthcare resources in the recent Stimulus package. You can read it here.

Resources for Farmers in Your District

Resources for Farm Workers

Here is a guidance from NC Health & Human Services for migrant farm workers and their employers (only in English)

Immigration

Other Policies to Consider

Child Care

Consumer Protection

Criminal Justice

Economic Development

Judicial

Social Services

Hate Crime Prevention

Broadband Access

Quarantined Individuals

Miscellaneous

State Budgets

Messaging and Connecting with Constituents during Social Distancing

Messaging

Connecting with Constituents

Here are some ideas and examples to help you connect with your constituents remotely:

Reach out if we can help you plan or execute any of these ideas.

National Resources on Economic Impact

Overview of the Federal Response Package

Overview of the Federal Response Package

Defend Against Harmful Policies

Opportunistic Abortion Bans

Elected officials in numerous states --including West Virginia, Alaska, Texas, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, Iowa and Indiana-- have taken steps to restrict abortions under the pretense of preserving medical supplies and hospital beds, claiming abortions are not “nonessential” procedures that can delayed till the end of the epidemic and most abortions do not take place in hospitals. See the Reproductive Health Care section on this page for more.

Reopening Too Soon?

Elected officials in Pennsylvania, Minnsota, Michigan, Idaho, and Florida have pushed back against stay-at-home orders, non-essential work bans, and school closures. The premature calls for returning to ‘business as usual’ threaten the safety and lives of communities.

Check out the LSSC Virtual Training on What Local Governments Can and Should Do to Respond to the Public Health Crisis for further guidance on the importance of local and state governments using their authority to protect communities from the virus.

Also check out the CAP tracker on how states and localities are enforcing stay-at-home orders

Limits to Voting Expansions

As states grapple with how to prepare their electoral systems to handle the pandemic’s unique challenges, legislators across the country have pushed for reforms (mail-in-ballots, absentee voting, deadline extensions, etc.) as a safe, secure, and accessible way for voters to participate without risking their health. However, opposition to such expansions, in states like Minnesota, Arizona, and Wisconsin, jeopardize citizens’ abilities to safely vote. See the Democracy and Voting section on this page for more.

New Resource: Paid Family and Medical Leave Playbook

Ultimately, nearly all workers need to take time away at some point to deal with a serious personal or family illness or to care for a new child. Laws providing paid family and medical leave allow workers to meet these needs without jeopardizing their economic security, which strengthens working families and thereby grows the economy. 

Our Paid Family and Medical Leave Policy Playbook is a summary of resources that we have compiled from state and national advocates, organizers, and leading policy organizations across the country. You will find communications and messaging guidance, a menu of policy solutions, example legislative language, and national organizations and experts who can support your efforts.

Screen Shot 2020 03 12 at 4.04.54 PM

State Innovation Exchange's own polling in six states shows strong support for paid family and medical leave programs:

Wage Theft Policy Playbook

No matter where we come from or what our color, most of us work hard for our families. But today, our families, local economies, and communities are being exploited by certain greedy CEOs who are stealing billions of dollars in wages earned by working Americans.

Fortunately, thanks to progressive state legislators, anti-wage theft policies are being advanced across the nation to punish greedy employers and support workers. Check out our brand new Wage Theft Policy Playbook for communications and messaging guidance, a menu of policy solutions, and additional resources to support your efforts to combat wage theft in your state. 

See the playbook for more information about the problem, the solution, and how to advocate for workers. 

As always, reach out to helpdesk@stateinnovation.org with any questions or suggestions. 

Restoring A Fair Workweek

State Policies to Combat Abusive Scheduling Practices

By the Center for Popular Democracy (CPD) and SiX

Today a majority of working Americans – over 80 million people – clock into a job with an hourly wage. As millions of families benefit from higher minimum wages (thanks to the work of many of you!), these victories are undermined by unstable work hours. Many hourly workers are expected to be available 24/7 to work part-time jobs with no guaranteed hours, and experience huge fluctuations in weekly income.

That's why we've teamed up with the Center for Popular Democracy (CPD) to bring you resources on how you can restore a Fair Workweek for workers in your states.

See below for a new policy brief, video and audio interviews with experts, an example op-ed, and sample social media. 

Download the brief here.

Screen Shot 2020 01 17 at 4.41.59 PM

We all need a workweek we can count on – one that allows all of us to care for our families, stay healthy, and get ahead. This new policy brief outlines the problem, the research, and the ways to create new work hour protections that ensure that hourly workers at large service-sector chains have a greater voice in their workweek, predictable schedules, and the opportunity to work full time. 

Also check out these video and audio interviews on Fair Workweek legislation that break down research on the problem, policy reforms, and legislative strategy:

Action on Health Care Affordability Is a Top Priority for Coloradans

Voters Support Health Care Reforms and Tax Savings for Working Families

A recent poll conducted by Strategies 360 for the State Innovation Exchange (SiX) shows that voters strongly support progressive solutions to make health care more affordable and put more money in the pockets of working people.

Health Care

The skyrocketing cost of health care and prescription drugs remains a top issue for Colorado residents. The findings highlight that progressive policy solutions like limiting hospital profit margins, increasing competition in the health care market, and capping prescription drug costs would make a real difference for Colorado families.

Economic Issues

Voters continue to support measures that expand tax savings for low- and middle-income families. There is robust support for the state to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit, which would provide desperately needed economic relief for families making less than $75,000 per year.

For the polling on health care and economic issues, see results here. For analysis on the health care results see here.

Survey Methodology: Strategies 360 conducted a survey of 600 registered voters in Colorado from January 2-5, 2020. Interviews were conducted on landlines and cell phones. The margin of error for a survey of 600 interviews is ±4.0% at the 95% confidence level; error is higher among subgroups.

Health care costs, support for working people top concerns in new Michigan poll

Voters support health care reforms and progressive economic initiatives

A recent poll conducted by Lincoln Park Strategies for SiX shows that economic concerns around the skyrocketing cost of health care and prescription drugs remain key issues for Michigan residents. It highlights that progressive policy solutions like addressing the abuses of drug companies, capping copays, and demanding more transparency are priorities for voters and would make a real difference for Michigan families.

Voters continue to support working people when it comes to measures that expand eligibility for overtime protections, prevent wage theft and payroll fraud, and create a student bill of rights for higher education loan borrowers. They also favor corporations paying their fair share of taxes, particularly as the state continues to grapple with finding enough revenue to invest in priorities like roads and schools.

Residents want action to improve election security

The survey also explored attitudes around the status of election security, openness to further voting reforms, and census participation. Michigan residents value more secure election systems and expect state lawmakers to address it. A majority of respondents supports taking the reforms approved by voters last year a step further by automatically mailing a ballot to all voters. A plurality are also interested in using the new online option for participating in the census next year.

For the polling on health care and economic issues, see more results here and analysis here. For the polling analysis on election security and the census, see here. 

Survey Methodology

Grateful for Michigan Lawmakers and a Governor who Fight for Working People

During this season of reflection and gratitude, we would like to pause to acknowledge the bold steps some lawmakers and Governor Gretchen Whitmer are taking on behalf of people in Michigan who work more than 40 hours each week but who aren’t being compensated for their extra hours. Several weeks ago, the Governor announced a plan to initiate a new rule that would qualify nearly 200,000 additional salaried workers in Michigan for overtime protections. This follows strong legislative proposals introduced in both chambers spearheaded by Senate Minority Leader Jim Ananich (Flint) and House Minority Leader Christine Grieg (Farmington Hills). The bills have 46 cosponsors.

For decades, middle-class Michiganders have been working longer and harder than ever, but the wages they take home are falling further and further behind. The current overtime eligibility situation exacerbates those dynamics. A recently announced weak federal rule would still mean that salaried workers earning anything over $35,568 a year would not be paid time-and-a-half when they work more than 40 hours in a week. Fortunately, these Michigan lawmakers and Governor Whitmer are proposing much stronger standards that would help hundreds of thousands of workers and pump more than $30 million into our economy.

It’s not just numbers on a spreadsheet that make sense when it comes to this issue. We have heard from actual workers like “Julia,” the West Michigan retail manager who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of retaliation. She regularly works over 50 hours a week and still struggles just to pay her bills because her employer is not required to provide overtime pay, regardless of the number of hours she works. Too many Michiganders can relate, which is why there is broad public support for expanded overtime protections.

Lawmakers and the Governor heard directly from business owners and workers who would benefit from increased overtime protections when they recently sat down together in a New Boston diner. Representatives Darrin Camilleri (Brownstown), Mari Manoogian (Birmingham), and Matt Koleszar (Plymouth) joined the Governor in listening to the concerns of local families and shared how the proposals they support would make a real difference in people’s lives. The Governor will continue to hear from residents and share support for strong pro-worker policies when she holds a telephone town hall on Tuesday, December 10 from 5:30-6:30 EST with Representatives Lori Sone (Warren), Nate Shannon (Sterling Heights), and Senator Paul Wojno (Warren).

As 2019 comes to a close and we head into an important legislative season at the beginning of 2020, it will be more important than ever to continue the fight for an economy that works for everyone. Officials in other states like Pennsylvania and Washington have already moved forward on expanded overtime protections and several others like Maine, Massachusetts and Colorado are also considering measures. We must remain united in pushing back against conservative opponents who would prefer stalling or who advocate for weakened versions. Hundreds of thousands of working people are counting on it.

Mainers Concerned About Economy and Health Care, Support the Recent Actions Taken in the 2019 Legislative Session

A recent poll commissioned by the State Innovation Exchange (SiX) shows Mainers are concerned about pocketbook economic issues, the affordability of health care, and education. Mainers also support recent state legislative actions to address these issues and the direction Maine is going after the 2019 legislative session.

Legislators took significant steps in the 2019 session to address the concerns of Mainers and this polling demonstrates ongoing support for progressive policy solutions to the problems facing the state.

Mainers Support Action on Economic Concerns

On a scale of 1 to 10, voters supported legislative action to: 

Voters Support Action on Health Care 

Maine voters prioritize action on health care with a focus on affordability and addressing the opioid epidemic. On a scale of 1 to 10, voters supported legislative action to: 

Mainers Support Action on Education

Maine voters are concerned about the affordability of higher education and support action to increase access to early childhood education. On a scale of 1 to 10, voters supported legislative action to:

Click here to see the poll memo and here for a presentation on full results.

###

The State Innovation Exchange commissioned Lincoln Park Strategies to complete the research.  The survey was conducted June 14 to June 20 with 600 respondents and has a margin of error ± 4 percent at the 95% confidence interval.

Broad Popular Support for Economic Security Reforms Among Colorado Voters

SUPPORT FOR A PAID FAMILY LEAVE PROGRAM

A recent poll conducted by Strategies 360 for State Innovation Exchange (SiX) revealed that Colorado voters overwhelmingly support a paid family and medical leave program that is available to all Colorado workers. Across age, gender, and geography, a strong majority of Coloradans favor the creation of a paid insurance program that is funded by employees and employers. From working families who are expecting children to older adults who face potential medical emergencies, Coloradans have spoken in favor of an insurance program that works for everyone in their most difficult moments.

Click here for the full results.

SUPPORT FOR A STATE-BACKED RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN

Coloradans are equally enthusiastic about a proposal to create a retirement savings plan accessible to all workers and backed by the State of Colorado. The popularity of this program transcends ideology and income, as 69% of Colorado voters support the idea. With nearly a quarter of respondents reporting that they have no retirement plan, a state-wide program has obvious appeal. Additionally, there remains intense support for the program even for those with an existing retirement plan. In the 21st century, Colorado workers understand the value of a retirement plan that moves with an individual from job to job.

Click here for the full results.

SURVEY METHODOLOGY

Strategies 360 conducted an online survey among 600 registered voters in Colorado. The survey was conducted June 21 - 26, 2019. The margin of error for a survey of 600 interviews is ±4.0% at the 95% confidence level for each individual sample. Respondents were randomly selected from a statewide panel of residents and screened on their voter registration status.

Arizona Progressives Hold Steady and Stem Conservative Overreach

Progressive legislators stood strong in the 2019 legislative session and were able to continue to articulate the bold vision outlined in the Sunrise Agenda. Progressive discipline helped produce better policy outcomes on education, the environment and democracy for Arizonans.  

In Defense of Democracy

While progressives do not control either chamber, they were able to exert their influence and temper conservatives’ overreach. They successfully killed bills that would have made voting less accessible for eligible voters in Arizona. They successfully stopped legislation that would purge voters on the permanent early voting list and legislation that would cripple the ability to have voter registration drives.  

Environmental Wins

Progressives were also able to work across the aisle and exert their influence to pass one of the most significant pieces of water legislation in Arizona’s history. The Drought Contingency Plan allows Arizona to join six other western states and Mexico in signing onto an inter-state water agreement and spells out ways Arizona will contribute to conserving more water from the Colorado River.

The Budget Fight

The conservatives refused to debate many of the priorities that Arizonans identify as critical—like affordable healthcare and housing—and instead fought for priorities that rig the rules for the wealthy and big businesses and protect their own power.

Conservatives prioritized big tax cuts to the wealthy and big corporations while attacking minimum wage. In the budget, Flagstaff—the only city in Arizona to pay higher than the state minimum wage of $11—is now forced to reimburse the state for the difference in wages of state employees who make more than the state minimum wage.

Progressives were able stand strong, creating a political environment that forced a compromise on funding for education.  Spending for K-12 will be $5.2 billion, about $500 million more than in the current year--not nearly enough to deal with our current education crisis, but still a win for Arizona students.

Looking Forward

While the 2019 legislative session saw little progress on issues to help everyday Arizonans, progressive partners and legislators will continue to work with constituents and colleagues to build on the groundwork laid in 2019 to advance the priorities in the Sunrise Agenda: a stronger democracy; strong public schools; welcoming communities; a fair economy and cleaning up the tax code; and good stewardship of the state’s air, water and public lands.

In Nevada: First Female Majority Legislature Makes Significant Progressive Gains in 2019

In 2019, Nevada made history by becoming the first female majority legislature in the history of the United States. With this historic majority, the Nevada Legislature made momentous headway into improving our democracy and economy for working people. Through recently passed legislation, thousands of Nevadans will now have improved access to the ballot box and greater protections in the workplace.

4 Ways Nevada Progressives Made Our Democracy Stronger

Native American Voting Access

Assemblyman Watts championed AB 137, which removes the requirement for tribal governments to gain approval from election officials every election cycle to establish polling sites. Unless tribal leaders request a change, election clerks are required to continue to recognize the established polling places. This was Assemblyman Watt’s first piece of legislation that was signed into law.

IMG 3161
Photo courtesy of Kit Milller.

Voting Restoration

Speaker Frierson led the charge to pass AB 431, a bill to restore the right to vote for convicted persons upon release from prison or discharge from parole or probation. Previously, a formerly incarcerated person had to petition to have their rights restored, as well as confusion about the law and process prevented many eligible Nevadans from voting. An estimated 77,000 citizen will regain their right to vote.

AB431SigningPic
The signing of AB431

Voting Omnibus Bill

The most comprehensive voting rights bill, AB 345, aims to ensure any eligible voter seeking to access the polling booth is able to cast a ballot. There are four key provisions in this legislation including voting anywhere, online registration, same day registration and improved accommodations. Clerks gain the ability to designate polling places where anyone registered in the county may vote, regardless of the assigned polling place. Voters will now be able to register to vote on Election Day and cast their ballot, as well as register online the same day. Individuals with disabilities, deployed oversees and the elderly can now request absentee ballots for all elections instead of having to request every election.

Census

The Nevada Legislature is laying the groundwork for a fair and accurate Census count and did so through three different pieces of legislation. AJR 6, championed by the late Assemblyman Tyrone Thompson, is a resolution urging Congress to not include the citizenship question. $5 million of funding for Census outreach to underserved communities was appropriated through SB 504. Finally, AB 450 was signed into law, which is legislation that counts prison inmates in their home districts instead of prison districts for redistricting purposes.

4 Ways Nevada Progressives Made Our Economy Stronger

The Nevada Legislature took important steps toward bringing economic security to Nevada workers through several pieces of legislation, including equal pay for equal work, raising the minimum wage, earned sick days, and protecting the right to join together in union.

Equal Pay

After four years and three sessions, Senator Pat Spearman passed her Equal Pay for Equal Work legislation. Women finally have state protections if they are paid less than their male counterparts to seek justice.

Minimum Wage

After ten years without an increase in the state minimum wage, Assembly leadership sponsored legislation to begin a stepped increase to raise the minimum wage to $12 incrementally over the next five years. Additionally, the process to remove the health care provision tied to minimum wage in the Constitution was initiated.

Earned Sick Days

Previously, workers in Nevada did not legally have access to earned sick days, even if they worked full time. The new law allows for the accrual of 5 days off of earned sick time annually at employers with 50 employees or more.

EarnedSick2
Earned sick day advocates at the Nevada State Capitol

State Employee Collective Bargaining 

The bill protects the rights of state employees to join together in union to negotiate wages, vacation, sick leave, safety issues, hours and days of work, and more. Senator David Parks carried the bill for ten years before its passage this year.

Pic 2 photo cred AFSCME Local 4041
Photo from AFSCME Local 4041 at a collective bargaining rally

Widespread Support for Progressive Agenda Among Michigan Voters

Key Findings from Michigan Statewide Polls for the State Innovation Exchange (SiX) reflect voter support for democratic reforms and progressive solutions to economic issues

A recent poll conducted by TargetSmart for SiX revealed that Michigan voters are hungry for concrete improvements in the everyday life of the average person and their family. From safe, modern roads to affordable auto insurance, prescription drugs, and doctor’s visits, Michiganders prioritize tangible impacts that help working people. Moreover, Michigan voters see a clear role for government in delivering these improvements and more broadly providing opportunities that help working families.

Voters are tired of seeing big banks book record profits while the streets they drive on every day are ridden with potholes. Their frustrations are easy to observe when they can’t afford their prescription drugs or their newly hiked up auto insurance bill but see pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies doing better than ever. Public opinion calls for an agenda that ensures everyone pays their fair share, corporations are held accountable, and state government provides opportunities that proactively make life better for working Michiganders.

Support for Democracy Reforms

A second survey found strong support for early voting and vote by mail options. Across all regions and demographics, citizens wanted to reduce the influence of money on policymaking and increase transparency. 

For the polling on economic issues, see more analysis here and results here. For the polling on democratic reforms, see here and here.

Survey Methodology

TargetSmart designed and administered this multi-modal survey. Five-hundred interviews were conducted via professional telephone agents (330 wireless respondents, 170 landline respondents) from May 14-23, and 509 interviews were conducted online among panelists who were matched to the TargetSmart voter file from six opt-in panel providers from May 5-23. All respondents indicated they were 18 years or older and registered to vote in Michigan. Quotas were designed to reflect the demographic and geographic distribution of registered voters in Michigan. The data were weighted by gender, age, race, TargetSmart Partisan Score, TargetSmart High School Only Score, and region by county and county council district to ensure an accurate reflection of the population.

Progressives Fight for Sunrise Agenda in Stormy Legislative Session

By James Chan, Florida State Director

Progressive legislators and partners kicked off the 2019 legislative session with a bold Sunrise Agenda focused on the economy, affordable health care, education, the environment and a welcoming Florida.  

But during the legislative session, conservatives, who control both chambers, refused to debate the priorities that Floridians identify as critical—like affordable healthcare and housing—and instead fought for priorities that rig the rules for the wealthy and big businesses and protect their own power. The legislative session showed how out of step conservatives are with the will of the people. The contrast between conservatives and progressives couldn’t be more clear.

Our Economy

Instead of focusing on helping Floridians make ends meet, conservatives passed legislation to ban Florida cities from requiring big developers to build any affordable housing as part of new construction. This just further lines the pockets of big businesses and the wealthy, while exacerbating the challenge in creating affordable housing in our cities and surrounding areas.  

Progressive Representatives Jacquet and Joseph with Senators Rodriguez, Cruz and Stewart advanced legislation that would help improve the lives of all Floridians. The legislation which would address equal pay, paid family leave and an increase to the minimum wage was introduced but never heard in committee, debated or voted upon.

Our Health Care

Floridians are deeply concerned about the cost and accessibility of health care and prescription drugs. Instead of addressing these issues, conservatives sought to limit women’s access to health care and the right to choose by sponsoring a six-week abortion ban, a 20-week abortion ban and a parental consent law, which was voted out of the House.  

Progressive Representative Cindy Polo and Senator Taddeo proposed expanding Medicaid to Floridians under 65 who are at or below 138% of the federal poverty line. This would provide health coverage to an estimated 850,000 hard-working Floridians currently lacking coverage—like single-moms working hard to support their families and adults working multiple jobs but still not making enough money to make ends meet. Conservatives shut down the proposal, refusing to even hear it in committee.

Our Students

Strengthening the public education system that supports 90% of Florida students is a priority for all progressive legislators. Instead of taking steps to improve public education, address the root cause of gun violence in schools and ensure Florida is able to stay competitive and keep great teachers, conservatives prioritized arming teachers and funding vouchers and charter schools in an effort to privatize our public education.  

Progressive Representative Margaret Good filed a bill that would address the critical teacher shortage. Her legislation, which had bipartisan support in the Senate, would have allowed retired educators to immediately fill substitute teacher positions helping to fill some of the 2,000 teacher vacancies across the 67 counties. The conservatives shut down this legislation and it was never heard in committee.

Our Environment

The red tide and the other impacts of climate change have taken a toll on our health, our communities and our economy. The short- and long-term economic and health impacts have Floridians along the Gulf Coast struggling. The conservative-controlled legislature took no significant action to help address these challenges.

Progressive Representatives Diamond, Eskamani and Good with Senator Rodriguez filed legislation to help us understand and address these critical issues that will shape our economy and health into the future. Progressives advanced legislation to create a climate change research program, develop a renewable energy plan and address water quality and a decrease in the use of herbicides that created the red tide. All these bills were introduced, but never heard in committee.

Our People

After the 2018 election, Florida again received national attention for our difficulty in making sure that every eligible voter’s ballot was counted. Instead of taking steps to modernize and secure the process for all eligible voters, conservatives made unnecessary changes to the rules for vote-by-mail—which is used by many Florida voters to avoid long lines at the polls. They also took steps to obstruct the will of the people by placing exorbitant fees and other requirements on those formerly incarcerated before they are allowed to vote. This after the progressive community worked to bring the Constitutional amendment restoring these rights to a vote—which was supported by 65% of the people in November 2018.

Finally, conservatives changed the process by which signatures are gathered by everyday Floridians to amend the state constitution. Over the last decade this process has been used by  the voters to address some of Florida’s most pressing issues—from pocketbook issues to who has the right to vote—because conservative lawmakers refuse to enact the policies that reflect the will of the majority of Floridians.

While the 2019 legislative session saw little progress on issues to help everyday Floridians, progressive partners and legislators will continue to work with constituents and colleagues to build on the groundwork laid in 2019 to advance the priorities in the Sunrise Agenda.

Polling Shows Overwhelming Support for Laws That Help Families Thrive

Recent polls coordinated by SiX in states across the country show that state policies that will help families thrive are overwhelmingly popular. SiX tested support for policies that would ensure equal pay, overtime pay, paid sick leave, paid family leave and childcare funding in North Carolina, Maine, Washington, Arizona, Virginia, Maryland and Colorado. Those opposed? Wealthy special interests.

Equal Pay

Equal pay is supported by 84% of North Carolina voters, 79% in Maine and 92% in Washington. In all of these states, voters understand that wages have not kept up with the cost of living and, for women and people of color, the wage gap exacerbates that challenge.

Overtime Pay

After concerns from people in their states, several legislators are advocating laws to strengthen overtime pay for workers who work more than eight hours a day or 40 per week. Voters in North Carolina (84%), Maine (79%), Washington (92%) and Arizona (90%) strongly support these stronger laws.

Earned Paid Sick Leave

Voters in North Carolina (73%) and Maine (70%) believe workers should have access to paid sick leave.

Paid Family Leave

The federal Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was passed 26 years ago, ensuring many American workers don’t lose their job when caring for family members, including the birth or adoption of a child. Voters believe they shouldn’t lose their paychecks while they take care of themselves or their loved ones. Respondents in Maryland (83%), Virginia (84%) and Arizona (83%) support paid family leave.

Child Care Funding

More and more data shows a crisis for families trying to make ends meet and accessing child care amid rising costs. Voters understand that a strong workforce must include helping workers with child care costs. Some families must leave their jobs in order to care for their children because the cost of childcare exceeds the income of one parent. In single-parent households, this is not an option. When businesses lose workers to child care, they lose institutional memory and expertise and must deal with unnecessary turnover. Voters in North Carolina (72%), Maine (68%), and Washington (77%) support increased funding for childcare to support both families and businesses.

Healthcare

The opioid epidemic gripping our nation is of great concern for voters.  Policies that address the crisis through education and funding are strongly supported by voters in Colorado (74%), North Carolina (8.0/10), and Virginia (8.0/10).  

Voters also want state legislatures to address the rising cost of  healthcare. Across the country voters support policies like Medicaid buy-in Arizona (69%), Colorado (78%), Maine (6.89/10), Virginia (7.5/10) and North Carolina (7.4/10).

Funding Public Education

Voters view access to a world-class public education as necessary for opening doors and leveling the playing field for future generations. Voters in Maryland (72%) and North Carolina (7.7/10) support the expansion of  Pre-K programs and voters in Arizona (85%) and Maine (8.13/10) support strengthening funding for public education.


While Federal Gridlock Dominates the News, State Legislators are Fighting for Families

By Jessie Ulibarri, Executive Director of the State Innovation Exchange

While many pundits and politicos have been focused on Washington this week, we at the State Innovation Exchange (SiX) are focused on the progressive legislators who are fast at work in state capitols advancing legislation to improve the lives of working families. That is why we created our #FightingForFamilies Week of Action: to highlight the work of state legislators who are taking on greedy special interests and fighting for people from all walks of life.

When it comes to education, health care, and raising incomes, the vast majority of policy change will happen on a state level.

And it is working! In New Jersey, a bill to increase the minimum wage to $15 was signed by Gov. Murphy and expanded paid leave (up to 12 weeks, from six) is already on his desk. And in North Carolina a bill was introduced last Friday to expand Medicaid and provide health care for more than 600,000 people.

These are not just progressive issues! Polling conducted in nearly a dozen states shows broad bipartisan support for economic issues like lowering cost of health care, investing in education, raising wages and increasing access to paid sick days.

This week also marks the 26th anniversary since the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was signed into law, guaranteeing many American workers unpaid time off from work to care for sick family members or to welcome a child through birth or adoption. While a majority of Americans understand that job security in the face of medical challenges is one of the things critical to make life better for working people, we know this federal measure falls short of what is needed for families to thrive. Today, state legislators are leading the fight for the next step: paid family and medical leave--because no one should have to choose between caring for a loved one and their paycheck.

And it’s not just paid family leave, across the country progressive state  lawmakers are advancing a progressive agenda that that centers the needs of working families – issues like paid sick days,, equal pay, expanding overtime pay, combatting wage theft, lowering the cost of prescription drugs, increasing access to affordable housing and raising the minimum wage.

Progressive state legislators, in conjunction with SiX, are showing what responsive, transparent and accountable government should look like. For example, state lawmakers in Ohio and West Virginia hosted Facebook live town halls, in Maryland, there was a “Fight for $15” press conference and progressive legislators in Minnesota hosted a press conference focused on wage theft. Legislators in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Maine, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Maryland and Pennsylvania are hosting tele-town halls that will connect with tens of thousands of Americans this week. In states across the country, people are being heard and lawmakers are acting on the priorities that impact families most.

Federal gridlock might dominate the news, but working families can’t wait any longer for bold action. State legislatures show that a different and more immediate path is possible. Progressive state lawmakers demonstrate daily the power of an inclusive and accessible democracy, and the world should take note.

Jessie Ulibarri is the Executive Director of the State Innovation Exchange. Before this role, he served as a Colorado State Senator, where he represented the community in which he was raised, including the trailer park where he spent his earliest years of his life. He currently lives with his family in Pennsylvania.

Are the Best States for Workers Also the Best States for Business?

By: Michelle Sternthal, Senior Domestic Policy Advisor, Oxfam America

Popular rhetoric in the U.S. pits workers against businesses. How often does one hear, “Worker protections saddle businesses and stall the economy! Increasing the minimum wage will scare away businesses! Regulations kill jobs!” In so many policy conversations, we are told that labor laws must be sacrificed to achieve a stable and sound economy. This excuse is often trotted out by federal lawmakers as they squash laws that would provide paid sick days, paid family leave, or minimum wage increases to working Americans.

Luckily, state lawmakers across the country have rejected this false choice between being pro-worker and pro-business. They know—and an impressive body of evidence confirms—that economies thrive when businesses invest in their workers and their workplaces. Increasing wages reduces employee turnover, cuts employers’ costs, and increases worker purchasing power. Providing paid sick days keeps employees healthy and productive. Ensuring that workplace environments are free from discrimination helps keep talented women and people of color in the workplace, increasing productivity and diversifying work environments.

Oxfam America’s newly released Best States to Work Index confirms just this. In this new ranking of states, Oxfam examined 11 different labor policies across the fifty states and Washington, D.C.  The index broke down these policies into three domains:  wages, worker protections, and the right to organize. States were ranked and given an overall score, in addition to scores for each domain. An interactive map enables users to explore each state in depth.

What Oxfam found: Washington, D.C., ranks first in the nation in worker-friendliness and neighboring Virginia ranks last. Washington state, California and Massachusetts appear at the top, while Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi are at the bottom.

But the report also examined how scores on the index correlated with indicators of overall wellbeing in the states. We found that the states that scored higher in the index were more likely to have a higher median income, higher labor force participation, and greater GDP per capita. They were also the states with better health outcomes—lower infant mortality rates and longer life expectancies. While correlation is not causality, this evidence suggests that labor policies, at the least, are not damaging to the economy or the health of the population, and that they may in fact support them.

Also striking, three of our top performing states on the index were ranked by U.S. News and World Report as the states with the best business environments, with California, Massachusetts, and Washington scoring #1, #2, and #4, respectively.

Our index illustrates what so many policymakers and state advocates already know: good jobs that treat workers well are not just good for employees, but good for businesses, and good for the state.

Despite progress in some states, policymakers still have their work cut out for them. According to our index, many states still lag in worker protection policies. Although the majority of states have made progress on basic equal pay legislation and on a basic sexual harassment law, not enough have passed paid sick leave, paid family leave, and fair scheduling laws.  And many states have a ways to go to pass a wage law that begins to meet the needs of working families in their state.

Instead of heeding the fear-mongering about supposed economic catastrophes caused by sound labor laws, we need bold leadership by state policymakers to champion a comprehensive worker rights agenda.  This Labor Day, we are counting on progressive state leaders to take up this mantel.

Are you a state legislator interested in working on these issues? Contact info@stateinnovation.org to get connected with resources and support.