Making the Connection Between LGBTQ+ Liberation, Racial Justice, and Economic Power
Making the Connection Between LGBTQ+ Liberation, Racial Justice, and Economic Power
By: Ida Eskamani, SiX's Senior Director, Legislative Affairs
The Economic Power Project (EPP) is SiX's national economic justice initiative, organizing legislators committed to building economies that empower people and advance justice. For Pride Month, originating from the Stonewall Uprising of June 28, 1969, we’re highlighting the intersection of LGBTQ+ liberation, racial justice, and economic power.
As a legislator advocating for the LGBTQ+ residents in your state, it is imperative to work in collaboration with our state-based LGBTQ+ organizations and organizers. Need help getting connected? SiX can help. Contact SiX’s Ida V. Eskamani, Senior Director, Legislative Affairs, ida@stateinnovation.org.
By embracing inclusive definitions of family, our laws can better support the diverse structures of all families, including chosen family members, crucial for LGBTQ+ workers. States like Minnesota and Maine are at the forefront, implementing comprehensive paid leave programs that include all families.
From family rejection leading to LGBTQ+ youth experiencing homelessness, to LGBTQ+ elders facing new forms of discrimination in retirement, and every stage of life in between; housing and LGBTQ+ justice are connected. Tenant organizers across the country are working with legislators to advance this agenda, via just cause eviction, rent hike caps, and opportunity to purchase; as well as regulating corporate landlord AI-rent setting and private equity buyouts.
Pride in Criminal Legal System Reform
Criminalization in itself is a profit-driven agenda: incarceration is a multi-billionaire dollar industry that we all subsidize with tax dollars. The Stonewall Uprising of 1969 was in response to police brutality and criminalization targeting queer communities, and queer people have always been over-criminalized and over-incarcerated. According to the Sentencing Project, LGBTQ+ adults are incarcerated at three times the rate of the general population. Among trans people, 1 in 6 report being incarcerated at any point in their lives, and nearly half of those are Black trans people. From queer youth to adulthood, criminalization sits on the intersection of LGBTQ+ identities, racism, and classism. This brief by the Sentencing Project examines the criminalization and over-incarceration of LGBTQ+ people in the United States, highlighting the drivers of overrepresentation and presenting recommendations for reform.
Pride in Our Irresistible Futures
When we dismantle the structural barriers LGBTQ+ people face, we are all more free. We hope you can join us and 600 state legislators and partners as we build an irresistible future, where all people have power and agency over our lives at SiX's 2024 National Conference in Atlanta, Georgia from December 11-13. Early Bird Registration is now open.
The Economic Power Project is an effort spearheaded by SiX’s Legislative Affairs team. Contact SiX’s Ida V. Eskamani, Senior Director, Legislative Affairs, ida@stateinnovation.org.
States Leading on Leave: A Playbook on Winning Paid Family and Medical Leave
States Leading on Leave: A Playbook on Winning Paid Family and Medical Leave
No one should have to worry about losing their job for putting their family first during some of the most important moments in life. From the first moments of a child’s life to the last moments in the life of a loved one, we all need time to care for our families, and yet the United States is one of just six countries in the world that does not guarantee paid leave for workers. Although some workers are eligible for up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), just 39% of workers are eligible for and can afford to take six weeks of unpaid leave—workers of color, especially Hispanic immigrant workers, are the least likely to be able to access federal FMLA protections.
In the absence of federal action, lawmakers in 13 states and the District of Columbia have enacted legislation establishing a social insurance program that most workers can access to take paid family and medical leave (PFML) to recover from a serious illness, to bond with a new child, or to provide care to a family member with a serious illness.
Momentum for paid family and medical leave legislation has grown rapidly, with eight PFML campaigns celebrating success in the last five years. This publication summarizes some of the lessons learned by the legislative champions and advocates who led the way in ensuring that no one has to choose between caring for their loved ones and the paycheck that their family relies on.
The Basics of Paid Family and Medical Leave
PFML insurance programs vary from state to state but generally cover leave taken by workers for some combination of the following purposes:
Medical leave to recover from a worker’s own serious illness;
Bonding leave for parents to bond with a new child, including for foster and adoptive parents and those standing in loco parentis to a child;
Caregiving leave to provide care for a family member with a serious illness;
Military family leave to address needs arising from a family member’s military service; and
Safe leave to address personal or family needs arising from domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
In most states with PFML, workers are eligible for at least 12 weeks of benefits for covered purposes, often capped cumulatively for workers requiring multiple types of leave within the same year. Some of the earliest programs for paid leave were implemented by building on the infrastructure of an existing state temporary disability insurance (TDI) program. However, since only a handful of states had preexisting TDI programs, in most states, enacting a PFML law is only the beginning of a multi-year process of building administrative infrastructure, collecting payroll deductions, and conducting outreach to employers and employees before benefits can be distributed to workers. Typically, family leave costs are paid for by workers, while medical leave costs are shared between workers and employers.
Eligible workers apply for and receive a weekly benefit amount from the insurance pool that reflects a percentage of their average weekly wages. Most states utilize a progressive wage replacement calculation that ensures that lower-income workers receive a higher percentage of their wages, and in all states, benefits are capped at a maximum weekly rate that is adjusted annually. To ensure that all workers can access the benefits they are entitled to, PFML statutes also generally include provisions that protect workers from being fired or retaliated against by their employer for exercising their rights under the law. Critically, most states also give many workers the right to return to their job following a period of leave.
Click here for more information on the key elements of PFML policy.
Paid Family and Medical Leave Across the U.S.
Lessons Learned for Paid Family and Medical Leave Champions
This publication shares insights on campaign and strategy decisions gathered from interviews with legislators and advocates in states that have advanced PFML. This resource is intended to support champions who are leading on paid leave in their states in building and winning successful campaigns alongside community advocates and workers, as a complement to a wealth of existing literature on PFML, from its many social, health, and economic benefits, to resources that assess how proposals can be designed to promote equitable and inclusive access, particularly for workers of color and low-wage workers.
The following sections synthesize key themes in coalition building and management, campaign strategy, policy design, and implementation shared in interviews with legislators and advocates in states that have won PFML enactment in Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Oregon.
Delaware Governor John Carney (seated) signs the state's PFML bill into law surrounded by legislators and supporters, including the bill's sponsor, Delaware State Senator Sarah McBride (center-left, in pink). Courtesy of Liz Richards
Section 1: Coalition Building and Management
A well-organized coalition is critical to the success of any legislative campaign, and paid leave champions consistently attribute their success to the many strengths that a diverse membership and a values-based approach to governance bring to a coalition.
Diverse Membership and Capacity
The passage of PFML legislation was often the culmination of many years of organizing, trust- and relationship-building, and collaboration between lawmakers and coalition members. “The workload for this bill was very heavy, and the amount of information, the amount of conversations that needed to be had were certainly more than one person could handle. You have to have a core group of people who understand what the program is, understand what it does, understand the benefits, and they go out and they talk to people,” said Minnesota State Senator Alice Mann. “So I would reach out to coalition members regularly, even daily, to either ask them to talk to more people or to ask them again how the changes we were making as we went along would affect them.”
For Minnesota State Representative Ruth Richardson, the diversity of the coalition brought strength to the campaign: “It takes a village to do this work and to do it well. In terms of the coalition that was built in Minnesota, one of the things that I loved about it was the diversity of the coalition because you had the voices of families with their powerful stories that were so important and critical to putting a face on this issue that can seem theoretical. Working with the faith community, labor, community-based nonprofits, those in the disability community, those who were focused on maternal health issues, our seniors—it was such a strong coalition because we were able to really show the breadth and the need for leave across the life span, and I think that was really powerful.”
It takes a village to do this work and to do it well. In terms of the coalition that was built in Minnesota, one of the things that I loved about it was the diversity of the coalition because you had the voices of families with their powerful stories that were so important and critical to putting a face on this issue that can seem theoretical.
Minnesota State Representative Ruth Richardson
Minnesota State Representative Ruth Richardson (center-right, in green) and Minnesota State Senator Alice Mann (center-left, in floral) celebrates the passage of their PFML bill in the state House with supporters. Courtesy of Rep. Ruth Richardson
Values-Based Governance
The Time to Care Oregon coalition included over 50 member organizations and had a smaller steering committee that was representative of the entire coalition and tasked with making and executing strategy decisions. “Before we ever got to thinking about how we would draft a specific bill, we wanted there to be an agreement on what the components were,” said Courtney Veronneau, Senior Political Director at Family Forward Oregon. “When initially setting the table for a coalition, we’ll discuss and agree on policy principles and values.”
The shared understanding of values and goals within the coalition also extended to legislative sponsors in Oregon. “Lawmakers and advocates each play their own role, but in order for them to do it effectively on their own and in partnership, everyone needs to be working at the same level and have a discussion before a legislative session really takes off about the strategy,” said Courtney Veronneau, Senior Political Director at Family Forward Oregon. “It’s really important that advocates and lawmakers also have that discussion and come to an agreement. That’s not to say that everyone’s going to get everything that they want. We had to negotiate a lot to get to the finish line, but there was an understanding and shared agreement on some core things.”
We were really fortunate to have a coalition that, at the end of the day, put their trust in us to move the policy forward, to not give too much but to hold strong in the places where it was important to hold strong. That is ultimately what allowed us to get this over the finish line.
Maine State Representative Kristen Cloutier
Maine State Representative Kristen Cloutier (right) embraces Maine State Senator Mattie Daughtry (left). Courtesy of Rep. Kristen Cloutier
For many legislators and advocates, the practice of developing shared values and principles over the course of years created the critical foundation of trust and relationships necessary to meet the urgent and time-sensitive demands of the legislative session. “One of the things that I’m really thankful for—and I think this is really hard when you’re working with a coalition or any group of advocates—was our ability to maintain trust. The legislature is a really hard place to maintain trust in people and to maintain trust in the process. We were really fortunate to have a coalition that, at the end of the day, put their trust in us to move the policy forward, to not give too much but to hold strong in the places where it was important to hold strong. That is ultimately what allowed us to get this over the finish line,” said Maine State Representative Kristen Cloutier.
Section 2: Campaign Strategy
Successful PFML campaigns are often part of a long-term and generative collaboration between lawmakers and advocates to improve the lives of workers in their communities, driven by years of intentional community organizing and thoughtful engagement with all stakeholders.
Preempting Progress: The Intersection of Democracy and Paid Leave
For many states, advancing PFML in the legislature may be a distant reality that will require long-term organizing and investments over many years. In these states, advocates may wish to consider focusing on state employee paid leave campaigns first. Campaigns to pass statewide or local paid sick leave for short-term medical needs, including preventive care, could be another option.
However, lawmakers in 23 states have enacted laws prohibiting localities from passing their own paid leave laws. Across the country, state lawmakers have increasingly wielded abusive preemption laws to take power away from people and local communities in ways that disproportionately harm Black workers, women, and low-income workers. In addition to statewide PFML for government employees and repealing anti-worker state preemption laws, community benefit agreements (CBAs) for public works projects with paid leave requirements for government contractors may be another window of opportunity in these circumstances.
In many states, the passage of PFML legislation was just one piece of a multi-year and multi-issue vision for a care system and economy that works for all of us won by building power with communities historically marginalized by public policy. “This was work that had been going on well before I even thought about running for office—lots of work and lots of different people are part of this chain that got us to this point of getting paid family and medical leave across the finish line this session,” said Minnesota State Representative Ruth Richardson. “One of the very first conversations that I had with members of the coalition was to ensure that we were going to focus on ensuring those who have so often been left out of the safety net were centered within the work. Getting the bill passed, that’s just the first step. And there’s all of this work that needs to happen so that there really truly is equitable access for folks who have historically been left out of this conversation,” Rep. Richardson added.
Paid leave champions often utilize the formal structure and gravitas of a legislative process to work through the complex details of the program alongside stakeholders over the course of several years. Work to develop legislative buy-in began in 2001 when Maine lawmakers established a legislative study committee. Two decades later, Maine State Senator Mattie Daughtry and State Representative Kristen Cloutier co-chaired the legislature’s Commission to Develop a Paid Family and Medical Leave Benefits Program for three years before the bill finally passed in 2023. “We started every commission meeting with public comment,” said Sen. Daughtry. “So a lot of the people who were very opposed or very excited about it already had spent three years going through the process with us. They saw their comments get run in simulation models, and we always did our work out in the open.”
Because we really nailed the coalition building and the values and principle setting process, partners knew that we were going to build an effective coalition that was really based in our values and principles and would have good power-sharing practices.
Senior Political Director at Family Forward Oregon Courtney Veronneau
The Time to Care Oregon coalition worked alongside lawmakers to advance policy campaigns that built upon each other. “Paid family and medical leave was actually the second policy in a series of policies that we’ve been working on,” said Courtney Veronneau, Senior Political Director at Family Forward Oregon. “It started when we built the campaign and coalition to pass paid sick days in 2015. Then we used that win—that momentum and foundation—to build toward paid family and medical leave.” The same year that Oregon lawmakers finally enacted PFML in 2019, they also established the Task Force on Access to Quality Affordable Child Care. Just three years later, the coalition won a historic $100 million investment in child care informed by the recommendations of the task force. “Because we really nailed the coalition building and the values and principle setting process, partners knew that we were going to build an effective coalition that was really based in our values and principles and would have good power-sharing practices,” Veronneau added.
“Ripping the Band-Aid Off”: The Urgency of Care in a Public Health Crisis
Under the best of circumstances, our nation’s lack of accessible paid leave exposes families and communities to health risks and economic precarity, but during a pandemic, the urgent need for care altered the discussion of paid leave in state houses. “The COVID-19 pandemic ripped the Band-Aid off of the charade we had that everything’s okay in our country and our state and our communities,” said Maine State Senator Mattie Daughtry. “Even the folks who are against paid family and medical leave had lived that experience of everyone needing time off. People seeing it firsthand is what got it across the line.”
Similarly, in Minnesota, the need for time off during the pandemic helped accelerate the window of possibility for passing PFML legislation. “The tone and the tenor around paid family and medical leave on the floor and in the committee changed while I was carrying this bill,” said Minnesota State Representative Ruth Richardson. “Instinctively, we all know we need time to care for ourselves, but when you’re in the middle of a global pandemic, I think it becomes harder for people on the other side to say, ‘No, no one needs time away.’”
Moreover, passing paid leave legislation in the wake of a pandemic that worsened health and economic disparities for communities of color, immigrant communities, and low-wage workers was an important opportunity to connect the dots between how fundamentally flawed systems that exclude some of us affect all of us. “I spent a lot of time telling the story about the way that safety nets in our country have been built in a way that, oftentimes, people who look like me were left out of those safety nets,” said Minnesota State Representative Ruth Richardson. “Being able to trace the historical context of that back, thinking about that for my own ancestors that were enslaved, this whole idea that you’re not worthy of rest—that your humanity is not recognized. We have a system that is disproportionately leaving out Black, Latine, Indigenous folks, women, LGBTQ+ communities. I really framed conversations around how we have a system where the people who are most likely to have access to leave are the people who are most able to afford leave on their own, versus all of these folks who don’t have access to leave and are a paycheck away from losing everything.”
We have a system that is disproportionately leaving out Black, Latine, Indigenous folks, women, LGBTQ+ communities. I really framed conversations around how we have a system where the people who are most likely to have access to leave are the people who are most able to afford leave on their own, versus all of these folks who don't have access to leave and are a paycheck away from losing everything.
Minnesota State Representative Ruth Richardson
Minnesota State Representative Ruth Richardson (left) and Minnesota State Senator Alice Mann (right) at the PFML bill signing. Courtesy of Sen. Alice Mann
Community Organizing and Outreach
For many legislators and advocates, the wide-reaching scope of a new social insurance program meant that gathering public input early and often was critical to the success of PFML campaigns. “It’s hard for the average person to be able to make it to their state capitol,” said Maine State Senator Mattie Daughtry. “So we went out on tour. We asked people what they thought and got their feedback. By the time the bill hit the news, people had some sort of experience talking to us or looking into the policy. It made a better piece of legislation. And I think it smooths what is a very rocky road for a bill like it to pass anywhere.”
“People are really not used to being asked for input on legislation. And not only are they not used to being asked, but they’re not used to somebody coming to their community to ask that question,” added Maine State Representative Kristen Cloutier. “I think our genuine interest really helped to bring the temperature down a bit in a lot of contentious spaces.”
Similarly, legislators and advocates in Delaware took to the road to bring discussions about PFML to communities. “Once we had a bill and were kind of pushing for it, we did a three-county tour, where we brought a variety of stakeholders to basically have roundtable discussions on it,” said Delaware Cares Director Liz Richards. “It was a really great mechanism to learn, but also to organize and create a shared sense of mission and investment. The legislative sponsors were key to that. That was another way to build champions, like giving folks a platform to share their stories, share their support, and get more invested in the issue.”
For Maryland State Senator Antonio Hayes, the fight for paid leave was about centering the workers who need paid leave. “My advice to my legislator colleagues is: this is an issue that touches families in a way that’s immeasurable. And so, oftentimes, I would allow the space for the affected families to really take the lead and give their testimony as to why this is important to them,” said Sen. Hayes.
At the same time, the bill’s passage was deeply personal to Maryland State Senator Antonio Hayes: “At a very early age, my grandmother was my caregiver. Fast forward to today, I’ve shared the responsibility of caregiving for my grandmother, which often called for me to step away from work at times to take care of her. In February 2022, I took a week off to spend time with my newborn son, but then I came back to work to make sure this bill got passed. I had to get back to make sure that other families had that opportunity—if they were having a child, that they could actually step away from work and not suffer the consequences of not being compensated by their employer.”
At a very early age, my grandmother was my caregiver. Fast forward to today, I've shared the responsibility of caregiving for my grandmother...In February 2022, I took a week off to spend time with my newborn son, but then I came back to work to make sure we got this bill passed. I had to get back to make sure that other families had that opportunity.
Maryland State Senator Antonio Hayes
Engaging with the Opposition
Legislators and advocates approached their engagement with opponents, particularly corporate business interests, with an open mind, often over the course of years in ways that smoothed final negotiations ahead of bill passage. “We never said ‘no’ to any request to meet,” said Maine State Representative Kristen Cloutier. “You still learn from meetings with opponents. When people see that you’re willing to be uncomfortable in order to listen, it builds trust in the process.”
As a small business owner, Maine State Senator Mattie Daughtry deeply understood the concerns of many business interests about PFML legislation. “I’ve seen firsthand as an employer not only the cost of keeping your doors open, but also how the best investment you have is in your employees, and I’ve actually lost employees because we weren’t able to provide this type of benefit,” said Sen. Daughtry. “For any large policy, when you really take the time to sit with someone who’s opposed to it, you might not entirely win them over, but they’re going to leave the conversation knowing that you listened.”
I've seen firsthand as an employer not only the cost of keeping your doors open, but also how the best investment you have is in your employees, and I've actually lost employees because we weren't able to provide this type of benefit. For any large policy, when you really take the time to sit with someone who's opposed to it, you might not entirely win them over, but they're going to leave the conversation knowing that you listened.
Maine State Senator Mattie Daughtry
Maine State Senator Mattie Daughtry (left) and Maine State Representative Kristen Cloutier (right) speak at a press conference to introduce their PFML bill with coalition members. Courtesy of Rep. Kristen Cloutier.
Paid leave champions also frequently note that opposition often comes from a place of misunderstanding about how PFML programs function as an insurance program and can benefit business owners. “Myself and other co-authors would have one-on-one conversations with people who are on the fence or were opposed to it,” said Minnesota State Senator Alice Mann. “But really, a lot of people that were on the fence or were opposed to it didn’t understand what the program was. We talked one-on-one with almost every single person in the legislature to educate them about the incredible, undeniable benefits of paid family and medical leave. And we did the same thing with business communities. We would talk to them, or we would ask business owners to reach out to other business owners to go over the benefits that businesses incur when they participate in the program.”
In Minnesota, these discussions resulted in provisions enacted into law designed to address small business owners’ concerns without excluding their employees, including premium reductions for small businesses and a grant program for temporary workers. “We ended up working out a space for businesses with less than 30 employees,” said Minnesota State Representative Ruth Richardson. “We really tried to be thoughtful around how we were negotiating that support for small businesses.”
Section 3: Policy Design
Navigating policy design and the compromises that come out of negotiations that pave the way to passage is challenging in any legislative campaign; when it comes to a policy as complex as establishing and implementing a multimillion-dollar insurance fund, equitable access and solvency can hinge on just a few key decisions.
Starting with a Vision
Both legislators and advocates describe the importance of finding alignment on key policy provisions and setting the expectation that some form of compromise will be necessary early on in the process. “You have to have a vision from the start of where you want this to end up, of how you want this program to look like,” said Minnesota State Senator Alice Mann. “That vision is a culmination of what you think is right, what the advocates think is right, and what will actually benefit people. So when you start crafting the bill, make sure that you have that vision in mind and always start above your vision.”
“With the coalition, in the early stages, we weren’t sure what the lines in the sand were for our partners,” said Maine State Representative Kristen Cloutier. “Getting to the point where we understood what the lines in the sand were for our partners, we understood what the lines in the sand were for ourselves, and knowing where we could give and where we needed to hold strong was really important.”
“You have to be really upfront that not everyone’s going to get something. It almost sort of felt like a headline that we’d walk into: everyone would get some wins; everyone would get some losses,” said Maine State Senator Mattie Daughtry. “And once you made it clear that it wasn't going to be ‘my way or the highway,’ I think that really helps. But really building that trust and having the people around you who can be those types of messengers who are not only involved in the policy but understand what the parameters are that have to be kept in check.”
You have to have a vision from the start of where you want this to end up, of how you want this program to look like. That vision is a culmination of what you think is right, what the advocates think is right, and what will actually benefit people. So when you start crafting the bill, make sure that you have that vision in mind and always start above your vision.
Minnesota State Senator Alice Mann
Minnesota State Senator Alice Mann (center) celebrates the passage of the PFML bill in the state Senate with supporters. Courtesy of Sen. Alice Mann
Weighing Compromise
With a vision in hand at the outset, legislators and coalitions can begin to weigh where compromise would and would not be acceptable based on shared values and goals. “Inevitably, you will get to a point where you have to negotiate, and I think the big question is likely going to be, ‘Do we cover everyone for less time? Or do we cover less people for more time?’” said Courtney Veronneau, Senior Political Director at Family Forward Oregon. “Are you essentially cutting some people out of the program, like part-time workers or low-wage workers? For our coalition—and lawmakers felt the same way—we were all in agreement that we’re going to go with less time off, but we’re going to cover everybody. That’s something you need to figure out before; I think it does make those things a little bit easier when it comes, if you can figure out those types of negotiation bottom lines first. Think about building the foundation for the best possible program you can absolutely get that covers everyone, that gets them the most time that you can get them, and that is set up in a way that people can actually use it.”
Some common compromises, however, are not only counterproductive to ensuring that workers who can least afford to take paid leave will be able to access the new program but can even undermine the solvency of the insurance fund. “There is always going to be an appetite to make an exception,” said Maryland State Senator Antonio Hayes. “The key to paid family leave is to have as much participation as possible so the fund can be and remain solvent. We’ve seen many cases throughout the country in states that have allowed certain exemptions or allowed certain carve-outs where the fund did not generate enough to support itself as it should. The whole idea behind this is for this insurance policy to be self-sustaining, and you don’t want to compromise in a way that jeopardizes the fidelity of the program.”
A Cautionary Tale: Voluntary Paid Leave and Other Alternative Paid Leave Models
The comprehensive programs adopted in 13 states and the District of Columbia are designed to provide access to PFML to all workers, but in recent years, some states have adopted a narrower approach that continues to leave most workers without adequate access. New Hampshire lawmakers enacted legislation (2021 NH HB 2) to provide six weeks of paid family leave to public employees. Under the new law, private employers can voluntarily opt in to the program, and workers can choose to purchase their own paid family leave insurance. A similar approach was adopted through executive action in Vermont.
Legislators in Virginia passed a bill (2022 VA SB 15), based on a model bill proposed by the insurance industry, to allow insurers to sell paid family leave insurance plans that meet certain requirements. Texas lawmakers recently enacted similar legislation (2023 TX HB 1996). This approach provides no guaranteed right to PFML for workers and is billed as a private market solution. However, the private market has not met the incredible demand for PFML nationwide. Moreover, legislation authorizing private insurers to offer voluntary paid family leave insurance policies to employers may not be legally necessary in some states.
Paid leave champions should approach both models with some caution. New Hampshire officials recently announced that only 1% of employers have signed up for the voluntary program, while only 644 individual workers have purchased the insurance. Meanwhile, only one insurer has sought and received approval to offer paid family leave insurance in Virginia.
Building Collaboration into Negotiations
Delaware State Senator Sarah McBride (center-left, holding mic) speaks at a roundtable discussion about PFML. Courtesy of Liz Richards
The Time to Care Oregon coalition would assemble its negotiating team based on which organizations would provide the necessary policy expertise and the power and influence to succeed in the room. “When it came to negotiations where we needed an even smaller set of folks, essentially we were able to then collaborate as a team to strategize heading into negotiations,” said Courtney Veronneau, Senior Political Director at Family Forward Oregon. “We would always have conversations with our legislative champions beforehand; we were always trying to work as much as we could to get on the same page as much as we could. We saw ourselves as having different roles, but when we were headed into that room, we were like part of a team.”
Long before it came to negotiations, the Time to Care Coalition also agreed to an inclusive process for decision-making on key policy provisions. “If there was ever a policy negotiation on a piece that directly impacted a constituency that was not represented in the room but was part of our coalition, we all had a very firm line and an agreement that whoever was in that room was not going to agree to anything before being able to go back and have conversations with that particular constituency,” said Courtney Veronneau, Senior Political Director at Family Forward Oregon.
This process was recently tested during the 2023 legislative session when lawmakers were considering legislation to amend the state’s PFML program, including expanding the definition of “family member” under the program. “The business lobby wanted to specify what ‘affinity’ meant, and there was a discussion on whether we wanted to specify that in statute or rules, and immediately we wanted Basic Rights Oregon to know about this and weigh in on definitions and what kind of language would be best,” said Lisa Kwon, Policy Manager at Family Forward Oregon.
When it came time for policy negotiations in Delaware, legislators continued to communicate developments with community members. “The willingness, the exercise of listening and continuing to have an open line of honest communication, which I think Delaware State Senator Sarah McBride did extremely well, even in communicating tough choices,” said Delaware Cares Director Liz Richards. “Continuing to talk to people, including the most impacted people, is critical, and frankly, remembering them when they’re not there because they can’t be there. More often than not, low-wage workers don’t have time or aren’t even invited into the room. It’s really, really hard work to advocate and go to powerful people and beg for things that are owed to you—that takes a lot. Legislators are sent there to fight for the people who aren’t in the room.”
Continuing to talk to people, including the most impacted people, is critical, and frankly, remembering them when they're not there because they can't be there. More often than not, low wage workers don't have time or aren't even invited into the room.
Delaware Cares Director Liz Richards
Section 4: Planning for Successful Implementation
Getting PFML legislation signed into law is just the beginning of a multi-year implementation process. Legislators and advocates have a critical role in this process, from working with the administering agency in the regulatory process to educating workers about their new rights.
Agency Partnerships and Regulatory Oversight
Legislators and advocates alike highlight the importance of maintaining a collaborative effort to engage in the implementation of the new law, particularly to monitor the influence of business interests in the rulemaking process. “One of the challenges that we experienced during implementation was continuing the momentum of the coalition that worked together to pass paid leave,” said Lisa Kwon, Policy Manager at Family Forward Oregon.
“Lawmakers shouldn’t underestimate their ability to push back on agencies,” said Courtney Veronneau, Senior Political Director at Family Forward Oregon. “It really helps if agencies are hearing from lawmakers in chorus with advocates. It has much more of an impact. You can pass the greatest, most inclusive, amazing bill that you want, but if you do not stick with it through implementation, where so many decisions can be made, that can undermine the intent of what it was that you were trying to pass. So make sure that you really plan that into your work as a lawmaker and into the work plans of your office and your office staff.”
In Maine, lawmakers also established an independent authority to help oversee the implementation and administration of the state’s new PFML program in future years. “We created an independent authority that has Senate confirmation and has a fiduciary duty to the fund so that we have a body beyond the legislature whose sole job it is to keep an eye on this,” said Maine State Senator Mattie Daughtry. “We built in all these different safeguards so even if there’s something that comes up, we built in the mechanism for it—we looked at what some other states have had to deal with in terms of solvency and some other issues.”
“All the major decisions when it comes to solvency, fund amount, benefit calculation are consistently linked away from legislators, away from politics, and tied into economic data and ongoing actuary science,” said Maine State Senator Mattie Daughtry. “We thought about building the fund to not only protect it from ourselves as a legislature, but also from the economy, and also from proponents or opponents. So it’s a well-guarded economic engine. Not only did we get a great policy, but we built in mechanisms to make it more responsive and be able to adapt and be flexible in itself.”
Public Outreach and Education
The successful utilization of new PFML programs requires an extensive and thoughtful approach to educating the public about how the new law will affect their lives. “One of the things that I’ve learned since passing the legislation is that our outreach efforts need to be intense. This is a different way of doing business—it’s a culture shift. So, there needs to be some intentionality about reaching people in the community on what the benefit is,” said Maryland State Senator Antonio Hayes. “We need not underestimate what that will take and how much that will cost. I have been working with the implementing agency and helping them to understand the intensity and level of outreach that’s going to be needed to make sure that this is successful.”
We learned from California that without appropriate outreach the program essentially fails right in their first year...so what we did is we put money aside every year in our bill. That money is going out to community programs that have 'boots on the ground' that can talk to employers about the existence of the program, how to use the program, who qualifies, and how employers can appropriately use the program also. Minnesota State Senator Alice Mann
In the months and years after passage, legislators often face a great deal of confusion about new PFML programs among constituents and businesses alike who have heard about previous versions of the bill or read misinformed media reporting on the bill. “We learned from California that without appropriate outreach the program essentially fails right in their first year, no one knew it existed, and so what we did is we put money aside every year in our bill,” said Minnesota State Senator Alice Mann. “That money is going out to community programs that have ‘boots on the ground’ that can talk to employers and employees about the existence of the program, how to use the program, who qualifies, and how employers can appropriately use the program also.”
“Folks have so many questions about the program, and the rulemaking process hasn’t even started yet, so it’s hard to address some of the concerns being raised,” said Maine State Representative Kristen Cloutier. “There were different iterations of the bill that people are responding to. And so we’re having to figure out where their questions are coming from, which iteration of the bill they’re referring to, and answer those questions based upon what they think is factual, which may not actually be included in the law that was passed. That’s been challenging.”
“The other thing for policymakers that I think gets lost in a lot of legislation is to make sure that your authorizing agency has a marketing budget,” said Maine State Senator Mattie Daughtry. “Legislators are often quite keen in the budget process to jettison that type of expense, but I think any policy that applies to everyone needs to have posters, easy-to-navigate website, quality design, ensuring that you have the best staff—preferably in-state staff—answering calls and claiming benefits.”
Conclusion
Together, state legislators and advocates have led the nation in ensuring that all workers can afford to take time away from work to be with their loved ones during life’s most important moments. As paid leave champions look to make paid leave a reality in their own states, they can turn to some of the lessons of recent successful campaigns.
Building a diverse and values-aligned coalition of support. Coalitions are made stronger with a breadth of expertise, capacity, perspectives, and political power among their membership, and by strong working relationships founded upon trust and shared values.
Executing a campaign with a vision that extends beyond policy passage. Successful campaigns take the time to center communities and deep discussions with stakeholders to ensure that each policy win builds to the policy win over the course of a generation.
Developing a shared vision for policy while planning for principled compromise. Legislators and coalitions work together to understand where there is and isn’t room for compromise ahead of time and develop a process that prioritizes continued collaboration in the face of time-sensitive negotiations.
Planning for continued coordination through implementation and rollout. Success can only come when policy changes the lives of families and communities; legislators and advocates must continue to collaborate and engage through rulemaking and outreach to ensure that the program achieves the policy’s goal.
Additional Resources
Lessons Learned from State PFML Campaigns and Programs
We are grateful to the following people who generously offered their time and expertise on paid family and medical leave in interviews to inform this publication:
Maine State Senator Mattie Daughtry
Maine State Representative Kristen Cloutier
Maryland State Senator Antonio Hayes
Minnesota State Senator Alice Mann
Minnesota State Representative Ruth Richardson
Courtney Veronneau — Senior Political Director, Family Forward Oregon
Lisa Kwon — Policy Manager, Family Forward Oregon
Liz Richards — Director, Delaware Cares
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.
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:
Paid Family and Medical Leave
Paid Sick and Safe Leave
Minimum Wage
Unemployment Insurance
Workers’ Compensation
Wage Theft Protections
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.
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 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.
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.
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 legislatorsenacted 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Workers who become injured or ill on the job deserve access to medical benefits and adequate compensation as they recover until they are able to return to work. Employers, especially those in low-wage or hazardous industries, should be held responsible for work-related injuries, but increasingly, the financial burden has fallen on workers. This unequal burden falls hardest on Black workers and other workers of color, who are more likely to work in high-risk industries and disproportionately punished for raising health and safety concerns with their employers. Lawmakers have the power to make state workers’ compensation systems fairer for workers and take additional measures to protect workers who file claims.
During the 2021 legislative session, state legislators took steps to rebalance workers’ compensation systems to ensure that employers assume appropriate liability for workplace injuries and unsafe working conditions. Lawmakers expanded coverage of workers’ compensation, including expanding coverage for workplace transmission of infectious diseases like COVID-19, strengthened anti-retaliation protections for workers, and ensured that workers could access necessary medical care and other benefits.
Lawmakers Consider Public Health Emergency Protections
A bill (2021 CT SB 660) enacted by Connecticut legislators would expand eligibility for workers’ compensation benefits to include post-traumatic stress injuries suffered by emergency medical services personnel, Department of Corrections employees, and emergency dispatchers; and, under circumstances related to COVID-19, health care providers.
The DC Council enacted legislation (2021 DC B24-0058) to amend the definition of injury for the purposes of workers’ compensation to include the contracting of COVID-19 in the course of and within the scope of employment. The definition is an emergency act and will remain in effect for no longer than 90 days.
Virginia legislators enacted legislation (2021 VA SB 1375/HB 2207) that establishes a presumption that COVID-19-caused deaths, health conditions, or impairment resulting in total or partial disability of a firefighter, law enforcement officer, correctional officer, or regional jail officer and are classified as occupational diseases suffered in the line of duty for the purposes of workers’ compensation. Another bill (2021 VA HB 1985) enacted by Virginia lawmakers would create a similar presumption for health care providers.
California lawmakers introduced a bill (2021 CA SB 213) that establishes a presumption of workplace transmission when hospital employees who provide direct patient care in an acute care hospital contract an infectious disease. The bill creates a broad definition of “infectious disease” that includes COVID-19.
Hawaii lawmakers are considering legislation (2021 HI SB 1415/HB 1224) that would allow receipt of workers’ compensation as an exclusive remedy by allowing workers who contract COVID-19 due to an employer’s failure to maintain adequate workplace protections against exposure to bring civil action. The bill also creates a presumption of compensability when COVID-19 “has been proximately caused by an employer’s failure to maintain adequate workplace protections against exposure to the novel coronavirus.”
A bill (2021 MD HB 765) that failed to advance in Maryland would have created the presumption of compensability as an occupational disease for public safety workers, including firefighters, police officers, and correction officers, certain health care workers, and certain child care workers who have been diagnosed with COVID-19.
Michigan lawmakers are considering legislation (2021 MI SB 161/HB 4748) that would create a presumption of personal injury for the purposes of workers’ compensation for essential workers who become injured or ill as a result of their exposure to an infectious disease during a declared emergency.
In Minnesota, lawmakers introduced a bill (2021 MN SF 105/HF 37) that would create the presumption of an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of employment in workers’ compensation cases where a school employee contracts COVID-19.
Montana legislators failed to advance a bill (2021 MT HB 550) that would have created a rebuttable presumption that an essential worker contracted COVID-19 in the workplace if the worker receives a diagnosis by a health care provider, presumptive positive test result, or a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis.
A bill (2021 TX HB 3623) that failed to advance in Texas would have provided workers’ compensation coverage for certain health care providers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder caused by one or more events occurring in the course and scope of their employment during a public health disaster.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nine states and Washington D.C. currently have paid family leave laws on the books, but there is no federal paid family leave policy.
Most Marylanders agree that paid family leave is essential but big business lobbyists are putting up a fight to keep their profits high and benefits for their workers minimal.
In May 2021, advocates and members of the Maryland legislature held a telephone town hall to discuss the issue.
Why do we need a paid family leave policy in Maryland?
Ruth Martin, MomsRising: Last year, my mom was diagnosed with cancer. And I was able to immediately take time off from work to be by her side at the hospital. I live in Silver Spring, Maryland, and my mom is in West Virginia. Though I live the farthest away from her, I was the only one in my family who had paid leave; because of that, I was able to care for her when she needed me the most.
Paid leave is key to our long-term health, stability, and prosperity. It saves jobs, and it can save lives. If we want to build back better from this pandemic, paid leave has got to be part of our care infrastructure.
State Sen. Arthur Ellis: We can develop a workable solution, similar to the pay structure for unemployment insurance, that allows working adults to support themselves and their families during the times of need that happen in all of our lives.
Paid leave is key to our long-term health, stability, and prosperity. It saves jobs, and it can save lives. If we want to build back better from this pandemic, paid leave has got to be part of our care infrastructure.
Del. Edith Patterson: Even before the Covid-19 pandemic, I saw constituents have to decide between work or caring for a sick child. When an ill child has to be sent to school, they may infect other children and teachers.
Some families can afford to take the leave without pay, and others need the money.
Delegate CT Wilson: Nobody's arguing the need, but we must remember that for those 12 weeks that you're not in your position, that business also has to hire someone to fill your place. Coming out of the COVID pandemic, when many small minority businesses are operating at 1% and 2% margins, that's just not tenable.
So again, I don't believe anybody disputes the need for this. The issue is how it's going to be paid for in these trying times. And I've spoken to many businesses; I've not heard any of them say that they want it to be mandatory, and most would rather be state-funded.
What is the Time to Care Act?
Myles Hicks, Time to Care Coalition: The Time to Care Act would establish a family and medical leave program in Maryland. The program would allow employees to take up to 12 weeks of paid leave from their jobs to care for new children, family members with serious health conditions, or themselves.
The program would cost about $7.24 per week, equally split between the employer and employee.
An OpinionWorks poll from December 2020 found that 88% of Maryland voters favor creating a family and medical leave insurance program. Paid family leave will add a new level of economic security that we do not currently have in Maryland. Nine states and Washington D.C. have already passed paid family leave legislation, and we're excited for the opportunity for Maryland.
Why would businesses want to pass this legislation? What are their concerns?
Del. Edith Patterson: It's really important that employees come to work with a clear mind, ready to do the job, and also that they're medically fit. As a mom, I know if you have to leave a sick child, sick parent, or are ill yourself, you're not going to be able to perform 100%.
And in this bill, businesses are not paying 100%—they are splitting contributions with the employee. I think it mustn't be a win for one group, but a win-win for both.
Delegate CT Wilson: My number one concern for this bill is our minority and small businesses. I believe that generational wealth is how a vast majority of my people will escape poverty. And it cannot be done if we don't own our own businesses and ensure that bills like this don't negatively impact African-Americans ability to own business in Maryland, which is already fairly difficult.
We've had one-third of our businesses shutter due to COVID issues. I just met with a group of 20 African-American business owners from Charles County this afternoon, and they were all very fearful of the impact of this bill. An increase of $3.45 per week, per employee would be very difficult for many of them to deal with right now.
I believe in this legislation, and if the state believes in this legislation, they should put their money where their mouth is: instead of forcing businesses to cover the other half of the paid family leave costs, the state should.
State Sen. Ellis: The bill introduced this past session exempted employers with fewer than 15 employees. But they could choose to opt-in if they can.
We are very mindful to look out for small businesses. We understand their struggles; years ago, I was a small business owner, and I've worked with quite a bit of small businesses. So we do take care to make sure we do absolutely nothing legislatively to cause harm to small businesses.
How do other states fund their paid family leave programs?
Ruth Martin: We know that business owners see employees as their most valuable asset, and many small business owners even see their employees as family—so they want to be able to do what they can for them. But competing with larger employers that have the funding to offer lengthy amounts of leave is not on the table for a lot of small businesses.
In some states, only the employees pay a small amount per paycheck into a shared contribution pool, which helps fund the program.
In other states, it is a shared contribution between employer and employee.
Some states like Washington state have also baked in additional incentives to make it easier for small businesses to get up and running with their paid leave programs.
Many businesses in states with paid family leave have found it incredibly useful because the financial burden is no longer solely on an employer. So it levels the playing field in many ways by taking some pressure off smaller businesses and allowing them to compete with businesses with more resources.
What is the difference between paid family leave and sick days?
Ruth Martin: So paid sick days—which is a law that Maryland has, thank you very much, Maryland—is what you would use if you have a minor illness or doctor's appointment. So it's for the short term.
Paid family medical leave is for longer-term use when you're going to need more than a couple of days away from work: like when a new baby has arrived in your family, or you're recovering from surgery.
Paid leave can also be used intermittently for yourself or a loved one. For example, if you have cancer or have to help a loved one get to cancer treatments, you may need a day or two every couple of weeks. So the difference is really about the length of time.
This Q&A was excerpted from a State Innovation Exchange telephone town hall that took place on May 18, 2021. Answers have been edited for length and clarity.
88% of Maryland voters favor creating a family and medical leave insurance program.
What Marylanders Are Saying
The quotes below are from participants who phoned into the town hall meeting.
"I work in D.C., but I'm a Maryland resident and have been for over 40 years. I'm at home now on FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) because my 24-year-old son had COVID and came out of the hospital grossly debilitated. So I had to take FMLA to take care of him.
Fortunately, I have been working for a long time, and I have financial resources available to sustain me and utilized some of the COVID relief options. Had it not been for [that], this would have been a very financially traumatic experience for my family. And it was already emotionally traumatic."
Town Hall Participant
"I understand that we expect people to be fiscally responsible and save. However, I also believe that an employee is giving his or her time and energy so that the company can be prosperous and realize its goals.
And while that employee makes that investment in that company, I'd like to think that employers would demonstrate that they value the worth of their employees by being willing to invest in that employee in their moment of need, with family paid time. In other words, a mutually beneficial employer-employee relationship, where each gives their best for the well-being of the other."
Town Hall Participant
Sign Up For Updates
Fill out the form below to receive e-mail updates about the next State Innovation Exchange Town Hall with Maryland state legislators.
[newsletter_form lists="2"]
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:
Access to K-12 public education (86%);
Equal pay for equal work regardless of race (84%);
Access to healthcare for those struggling to make ends meet (80%);
Access to food for those struggling to make ends meet (79%); and
Affordable healthcare (77%).
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:
Create a paid family and medical leave insurance program, funded through shared contributions between employers and employees (85%); and
Require all North Carolina employers to provide a minimum amount of earned, paid sick days for workers (88%).
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 hereto 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.
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.
State Innovation Exchange's own polling in six states shows strong support for paid family and medical leave programs:
63% of Virginians support creating a state insurance fund to pay for medical or family leave
Paid Family and Medical Leave Playbook
The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) was a momentous piece of federal legislation that secured the right of working Americans to take up to 12 unpaid weeks off of work for the birth of their child, to care for their newborn or newly adopted child, to care for a loved one with a serious illness, or to respond to their own serious illness. Its passage represented a consensus that hardworking individuals should not lose their jobs if they become seriously ill, and new parents should be given time to recover from pregnancy and bond with their new child.
However, nearly 30 years later, our country has fallen behind the rest of the world in paid leave protections. Approximately 40% of Americans do not qualify for leave under the FMLA at all, and many of those who are covered cannot afford to take unpaid leave without falling into financial distress. The United States remains the only wealthy nation in the world that does not guarantee any form of paid leave.
For working families who are living paycheck to paycheck, lack of access to paid family and medical leave policies can have dramatic effects. For example, in the year following a child’s birth, women who are able to take paid leave are 39% less likely to need public assistance than those who did not take leave. And a study on the impact of California’s paid family leave program found that paid family and medical leave decreased the risk of poverty for new mothers by just over 10%. 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 Policy Playbook is a summary of resources that we have compiled from state and national advocates, organizers, and leading policy organizations across the country. Here you will find communications and messaging guidance, a menu of policy solutions, legislative language, and national organizations and experts who can support your efforts.
New Maine Focus Group Results Show Support for Progressive Ideas from the Legislature
Recently concluded focus groups built on polling conducted last year and reveal Mainers strongly support many of the policies the state legislature has recently passed or considered with residents most supportive of legislation to make prescription drugs more affordable, ones that will hold pharmaceutical companies accountable for the opioid crisis, and establishing more protections for workers.
As the 2019 legislative session came to a close, SiX commissioned Lincoln Park Strategies to conduct a poll to gauge voters’ feelings on the progress of the legislative session. To build on that knowledge, SiX commissioned focus groups of Mainers prior to the 2020 legislative session to gauge swing residents’ feelings about the state’s future and their views on the legislative leadership’s policy agenda. One thing is clear: Mainers are looking for solutions to their everyday problems and largely support the progressive ideas the legislature has passed and considered.
Mainers are most worried about issues around healthcare, especially access to quality and affordable care, the cost of prescription drugs, and opioid abuse.
Voters are also very worried about job opportunities in the state, the cost of higher education, property taxes, income tax fairness, access to quality education, and climate change.
Our 10 Favorite Moments from State Legislatures this Year
2019 was a big year in state legislatures. Important battles to strengthen our democracy, improve the lives of working families, advance reproductive freedom, defend civil rights, and protect the environment were won and lost in states across the nation. These battles impact the lives of Americans every day, yet so many of these stories never reached the eyes or ears of most Americans. There are too many legislative victories to include in a list like this, so below are ten of our favorite moments of legislators standing up for their values.
Note: When looking back over the year, we did not screen for gender, and yet women took center stage. More women are running for office than ever before, yet still make up just 28.7% of state legislators. But as you’ll see below, these women are making an impact.
1. Women Took Charge in NV with the First Female-Majority Legislature in the Nation
Nevada became the first state in the nation’s history where women outnumbered men in the state legislature. More people of color were in Nevada’s legislature this session too, and all of these new voices in the legislature shaped which issues were discussed and which become policy. “I think growing up, you have this idea that politicians aren’t us. They don’t look like me. They don’t have my type of hair. They don’t come from our background. They don’t have to send money back to El Salvador to make sure that their family can make ends meet,” Assemblywoman Selena Torres said in an interview with the Washington Post. “But then you come to realize: That’s the problem.”
2. When OR Rep. Tiffiny Mitchell Donated A Kidney to a Stranger
This year, Oregon Rep. Tiffiny Mitchell donated her kidney to a stranger, survived a conservative recall attempt, and worked on legislation to include protections for organ donors under Oregon’s just-passed Paid Family and Medical Leave law, one of the most progressive leave policies in the nation. While Rep. Mitchell didn’t benefit from the law for her own surgery--the law goes into effect in 2020--she hopes her process and the passage of this bill inspires more people to consider becoming a donor. 2019 was also a huge year for paid family and medical leave progress in the states. Connecticut joined Oregon and also passed a new statewide law; California and New Jersey expanded their paid leave laws.
3. NC State Representative Deb Butler Did Not, and Will Not, Yield.
When Republicans in the North Carolina state legislature lied to progressives about whether they would be voting to override the Governor's budget veto in an effort to keep them off the floor, Rep. Deb Butler stood strong for her values and earned national attention for protesting the measure from the House floor. Standing up for progressive budget priorities, like education, clean water, and affordable health care, she refused to yield while calling attention to the trickery and deceptiveness at play. See the MSNBC story here.
4. Rep. Lamar Fought TN’s Abortion Ban as Only Female Legislator of Child-Bearing Age
In March of this year, the mostly-male Tennessee legislature (111 out of 132 members are men) was debating a six-week abortion ban. Rep. London Lamar fought against the ban, pointing out that she was one of, if not the only, female legislator of child-bearing age. “Access to abortion cannot be separated from human rights,” she said.
5. MI Rep. Tenisha Yancey Fought to Give Michiganders a Second Chance
Rep. Tenisha Yancey of Michigan said the crimes she committed when she was 17 continue to “haunt her and follow her,” as she encouraged her colleagues to vote for a package of criminal justice reform bills. The legislation is notable not only for the impact it will have on the lives of Michiganders but also its strong bipartisan support and continues to the state Senate.
6. Crossing State Lines, Women Came Together to Stand Up for Abortion Access
Faced with dangerous abortion restrictions in their own states, Missouri Rep. Cora Faith Walker and Georgia legislators Sen. Nikema Williams and Rep. Dar’shun Kendrick traveled to visit the Illinois legislature for a press conference to underscore the urgency of the issue of abortion bans as Illinois considered a proactive measure on abortion access, known as theReproductive Health Act. With a broader understanding of the national effort to prohibit abortion, the IL legislature ultimately passed the Reproductive Heath Act.
MO Rep. Cora Faith Walker, IL Sen. Melinda Bush, GA Sen. Nikema Williams, GA Rep. Dar'shun Kendrick
7. Sen. Stephanie Flowers Fought AR’s Stand Your Ground Bill: “You are not going to silence me!”
During a Judiciary Committee hearing on a so-called “stand your ground” bill, Arkansas State Senator Stephanie Flowers delivered stinging criticism of the bill. When committee leadership tried to speed debate along and cut her comments short, Sen. Flowers refused to be silenced. Fortunately, the bill died in the committee.
8. If You Can’t say “Tampons,” You Shouldn’t Restrict Them
“If you don’t want to say the word ‘tampon,’ then you shouldn’t restrict access to one,” said Colorado State Representative Leslie Herod advocating on behalf of incarcerated women who have limited access to feminine hygiene products in prison. The bill, which ensures incarcerated women have access to the products they need, is now law.
9. “If you’re not here fighting for the most vulnerable, why are you here?” Asks PA Sen. Katie Muth
When Republicans in the Pennsylvania Senate called for a vote to eliminate funding that supports the state’s poorest residents, Sen. Katie Muth took the podium and read the testimony of a formerly homeless man who benefited from the program that conservatives wanted to defund. While she read, Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman continuously shouted over her—so much so that he became hoarse. Sen. Muth refused to be silenced and read the testimony in full, guaranteeing that the testimony would make it onto the official record.
10. Rep. Howse Unleashes on Abortion Ban After El Salvador Trip
Five state legislators traveled to El Salvador with SiX staff to see the impacts of the country’s strict abortion bans. During the trip, conservatives in Ohio brought forward one of the most draconian abortion bans in the nation. Ohio Rep. Stephanie Howse returned from El Salvador recommitted to defending abortion access and unleashed on the bill in this interview with Scene Magazine. “Lawmakers are talking about ‘pro-life,’ but then give zero care about what sort of lives people are living. If they did, we'd have affordable housing. We'd have great education systems. We'd have family sustaining wages. We'd have access to healthcare,” said Rep. Howse.
There were so many more moments from 2019 that demonstrated the dedication progressive state legislators bring to their work. We are thankful to every state legislator who works tirelessly to strengthen our democracy, fight for working families advance reproductive freedom, defend civil rights and liberties and protect the environment. Follow @stateinnovation on Twitter for highlights throughout the year.
Senator Jessie Danielson and Representative Janet Buckner
have been pushing the legislature to address the gender pay gap since 2016 and finally
this year they found a path with SB-85, the Equal Pay for Equal Work Act. Women
in general, and women of color in particular, will soon have the opportunity to
file formal complaints of wage discrimination through the state, bringing us
one step closer to creating an economy that guarantees equal pay for equal work
and a system that holds discriminatory employers accountable.
And just for a bit of fun: here is Republican Senator Vicki Marble thanking white men for their contributions to the state legislature before voting against the Equal Pay for Equal Work Act.
Senator Steve Fenberg has been quietly improving Colorado’s election system over the past three years, but the 2019 session marked a transformative moment for our state’s democracy. Automatic Voter Registration passed through the Senate in the last week of session, ushering in one of the nation’s most expansive registration programs. Of course, the ceaseless Fenberg did not stop there. He helped guide HB-1278 through the legislature as well, which will place polling locations on college campuses and allow 17-year-olds to vote in the primary if they would turn 18 by the general. But don’t take in from us, as Colorado Public Radio’s Sam Brasch wrote in his April 24th headline, "Youth Voter Turnout is Already Ridiculously High in Colorado. State House Democrats Want it Even Higher."
Representative Rochelle Galindo of Greeley and Sen. Dominick
Moreno came out swinging this year with HB-1210, which made Colorado one of the
first states in the country to repeal a state ban on cities setting their own
minimum wage. These top leaders within Colorado’s Latino Caucus understand the
impact of wage stagnation in the face of the ever-increasing cost of living,
especially in Latino communities. This bill will provide local governments with
a powerful tool to provide dignity and fairness to hard-working Colorado
Families.
After two years of
Colorado’s Paid Family and Medical Leave program sailing through the House only
to be killed in the Republican-controlled Senate, Sen. Faith Winter believed
that 2019 was the year for paid leave in Colorado. Yet pressure from the 215 paid business lobbyists fighting against the bill, debate over the
financial solvency of the program, and a slate of potential Republican amendments,
Sen. Faith Winter chose to turn the bill into an implementation plan that would
study the financial solvency of the program and provide results just before the
start of the 2020 session. Expect the sponsors to come back stronger than ever
next January.
Some might say that a legislative study is not a hot news
tip, but Sen. Kerry Donovan has been angling since 2016 to have Colorado officials
study state savings plan models. SB-173 creates the Colorado Secure Savings Plan
Board which will present an official recommendation on how to create a
portable, state-sponsored retirement savings plan before the 2020 legislative
session.
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.
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.
States Are Fighting for Families by Advancing Paid Leave, Building Momentum Toward a National Policy
By Ellen Bravo and Vicki Shabo
Ellen Bravo is a
co-founder and director of Family Values @
Work, a network of broad coalitions working for—and
winning—policies such as paid sick days and family leave insurance.
When the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) reached President Bill Clinton’s desk 26 years ago today, similar laws had already passed in multiple states. The FMLA was an important first step in transforming our workplaces and culture – and it wouldn’t have succeeded without state laws laying the groundwork for progress.
Advocates for paid family leave in New Jersey.
The FMLA has allowed millions of working people to manage their care responsibilities without risking a job or health coverage; and in 26 years it has been used more than 200 million times. Despite its popularity, it is clear: unpaid time is not enough. In fact, nearly 40 percent of the workforce is not eligible even for unpaid leave under the FMLA, and millions more simply cannot afford to take unpaid time away from their jobs. The need for paid family and medical leave will only grow as our workforce and population ages and the number of available family caregivers shrinks.
State legislators and the organizations that serve them,
like the State Innovation Exchange, aren’t waiting around for federal lawmakers
to address this looming crisis. Just as they led on unpaid leave, states are fighting for families again, acting as laboratories
for paid family and medical leave programs. Today, paid family and medical
leave laws are in place and working well in four
states – California, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island. State and citywide paid leave programs will soon be
in place in the District of Columbia, Massachusetts and Washington as well.
Each program is sustained through small payroll contributions from employers,
workers or both, so people can draw a wage while providing care for themselves
or a loved one.
Just weeks into new legislative sessions paid leave bills
have been introduced in 20 state legislatures, including Virginia, Connecticut,
Colorado, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon and Vermont - all bolstered by broad
and diverse coalitions.. Legislators have also filed policies in deep red
states like Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma and West Virginia.
It is not surprising that lawmakers
across party lines are eager to ensure working people in their states have
access to paid leave given the positive outcomes the programs are yielding in
states with established funds. Studies in Rhode Island and California found
that the states’ paid leave programs help families care for a new child and
arrange child care. Research on New Jersey’s paid leave program show that, for
low-income families, mothers who use the paid leave program breastfeed longer
than those who do not. These programs also help working people care for aging
relatives. California’s statewide paid leave law is credited with reducing the use of nursing homes.
Businesses in states with paid leave laws benefit as well
since paid time to care can have a positive impact on employee morale, increase
productivity and improve employee retention, especially among workers who are
paid low wages.
The state policies also provide guidance on designing policies that are more
responsive to the needs of working people, especially people with jobs that pay
lower-wages, communities of color and part-time workers. For example, state
innovation shows that creating higher wage replacement rates for lower-wage
workers; broadening the range of family members eligible to provide care to an
ailing loved one; and ensuring that the jobs of part-time workers and employees
of smaller companies are protected when they take leave are all essential to
promoting program use, gender and racial equity and workers’ economic security.
While we celebrate state-level progress, and expect more
victories in 2019, overall access to paid leave in this country remains far too
rare. No matter where they live or work, everyone deserves time to care for
themselves or a loved one without risking their economic security. Yet only 17 percent of all working people have
paid family leave through their job and less than 40 percent have personal medical leave
through an employer-provided short-term disability program. Disparities in
access to paid leave between lower- and higher-wage workers are actually
growing.
Working families in the United States need a national paid
family and medical leave policy that covers all working people for the full
range of caregiving needs reflected in the FMLA; provides a meaningful duration
of leave and a substantial share of their wages; protects workers from
retaliation for taking leave; and is sustainably funded without harming other
essential government programs. The Family And Medical Insurance Leave (FAMILY)
Act is the only federal proposal that aligns with these criteria. Members of
Congress should support the FAMILY Act to strengthen our nation’s families,
businesses and the economy.
As federal lawmakers work toward paid leave for all, we urge
them to look to state paid leave models, research and best practices. Every
statewide law proposed, every expansion considered and every bill signed builds
momentum toward a strong, comprehensive national paid family and medical leave
policy.
#FightingForFamilies Week of Action: Feb 4-8, 2019
The annual SiX #FightingForFamiliesWeek of Action is a national, coordinated effort to highlight the work of progressive state legislators to create an economy that works for all, not just the wealthy few. The next Week of Action will be February 4-8, 2019.
WHY YOU SHOULD JOIN
Join a national movement to highlight the work of progressive state legislators to ensure every American can thrive and support their families. By joining the week of action, you are helping to build a national movement of progressive leaders and demonstrating the positive momentum behind progressive policies that make life better for working people by investing in education; creating better-paying jobs; making health care more affordable; and advancing economic security for all.
Colorado state legislators during 2018’s Week of Action.
2018’s #FightingForFamilies Week of Action engaged over 200 state legislators from all 50 states, earned national and local media attention, reached 14.6 million users on social media, reached nearly 100,000 people through telephone town halls, and engaged more than 30 partner organizations.
Join together with progressives across the nation and make2019’s Week of Action even stronger.
HOW YOU CAN JOIN
Reach out to woa@stateinnovation.org to sign up today. We will continue to send information and resources to the SiX legislator network to explain how you and your legislative colleagues can engage. As in years past, below are some examples of actions you can take to join this effort:
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.
Fighting for Families Means Fighting for National Paid Family and Medical Leave
As part of SiX's 2018 #FightingForFamilies Week of Action, Vicki Shabo, the vice president for workplace policies and strategies at the National Partnership for Women & Families, wrote a guest blog commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and explaining the importance of fighting for a real national paid family and medical leave plan that doesn’t leave anyone behind.
By Vicki Shabo
The signing of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) 25 years ago this week was a landmark moment for women, families and America’s workplace culture. Since 1993, people have taken unpaid leave under the FMLA more than 200 million times to welcome a new child, care for a sick loved one or recover from a serious medical issue without having to risk their jobs. Today, we are in the midst of another watershed moment for the country as national attention to the need for fairer, more equitable workplaces reaches historic levels. But if this national reckoning is going to bring about real and lasting change, it needs to result in policies that value women and care – and few things would bring more meaningful change than a national paid family and medical leave program.
State and local lawmakers, like private sector employers, have a critical role to play in the fight for paid leave. After all, they see firsthand the challenges working families, businesses and the economy face when people have to choose between their jobs and their health or the health of their families. New state-based data released by the National Partnership for the FMLA’s anniversary demonstrate the scope of these conflicts between work and family by state – and just how much worse it could get.
Take, for example, New Hampshire. In less than 15 years, the share of the state’s population age 65 and older will grow by nearly 45 percent. In Colorado, more than one in five workers are age 55 and older. In more than 70 percent of all Virginia households with children – more than 1.2 million homes – all parents have paying jobs. When people, and especially women, cannot take the time they need to provide and receive care, they end up leaving the workforce, forfeiting income and their retirement security. In fact, in Nevada, there is a 15-percentage point gap in labor force participation between men and women.
Considering that women, particularly women of color, are often key breadwinners for their families, in addition to being primary caregivers, paid leave means more than taking time to bond with a new child or care for aging parent – it means economic stability and a greater ability to survive life’s inevitable changes and unforeseen challenges. It is also inextricably linked to women’s health, especially in their reproductive years, at this time when access to comprehensive reproductive health care is being pushed further and further out of reach. Paid leave means women have the time and resources to choose when, and if, they want to start a family.
Already, legislators in five states – California, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Washington – and the District of Columbia have enacted paid family and medical leave programs. New York’s program took effect on Jan. 1 and the programs in Washington state and D.C. will take effect in coming years. But the three longest-standing programs are having widespread benefits for working people and families, businesses and the states’ economies. These states are leading the way on paid leave and demonstrating what works.
Lawmakers in other states, across political and ideological spectrums, are considering paid leave proposals too. State-level proposals were introduced in 31 states in 2017 and are under active consideration in a number of states already in 2018, including in deep red states like Georgia and Mississippi, as well as in places like New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Colorado and Maine. This is a clear sign of growing consensus around the need for a paid leave policy that helps people better meet the dual demands of work and family while strengthening businesses and boosting the economy.
State lawmakers and the organizations that serve them, like the State Innovation Exchange, are playing a pivotal role in securing the progress that will ultimately lead to the national paid family and medical leave plan we need: the Family And Medical Insurance Leave (FAMILY) Act. The FAMILY Act would create a national paid leave insurance program similar to those working so well in several states. The bill currently has the support of more than 170 members of Congress.
At this critical time for the country, 25 years after the FMLA, the paid leave momentum must continue. So, during this #FightingForFamilies Week of Action, share what #PaidLeaveMeans to you as part of the #FMLA25 celebration and call to action. Because fighting for families means fighting for a real national paid family and medical leave plan that doesn’t leave anyone behind. It is long past time to fulfill the FMLA’s promise of truly family friendly workplaces with paid family and medical leave for all working people.
