State Legislatures: The Real Champions for Workers?

For decades, US states have advanced more pro-worker legislation 

than the federal government.  

It’s time to pay attention.

Source: The All-Nite Images

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fight_for_$15_on_4-15_(16954296607).jpg

Labor and employment laws are very popular with the American public.  2017 Pew polling shows that 85 percent of adults support paid sick leave in the US, 82 percent support paid maternity leave, and 69 percent support paid paternity leave.  An increase in the minimum wage has been passed via ballot initiative 28 times in states in the last 15 years. 

Despite their popularity, the Federal Government has been relatively inactive in passing labor and employment legislation in recent decades.  Arguably, the last major piece of legislation was the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, which already celebrated its 25^th anniversary in 2018.  More recently, targeted changes include the right to pump under the Affordable Care Act of 2010 and the Lilly Ledbetter Act of 2009, which expanded equal pay provisions.  The last piece of legislation to increase the federal minimum wage was passed in 2007.

There is a stark difference in the legislative activity of the federal government and state governments, both overall and especially in labor and employment laws.  In terms of the quantity, the total number of laws passed in states highlights the overall trend towards productivity in state legislatures.  For example, according to one estimate, in the 113^th Congress that ran from 2013-2014, the federal government passed 352 bills and resolutions.  In contrast, states and Washington, DC passed 45,504 bills and resolutions; 38 state legislatures and the Washington, DC  city council individually passed more bills and resolutions than Congress.  The total number of labor and employment laws mirrors this trend.  In 1980, state governments passed 81 labor and employment laws; this number increased to 204 in 2014.  As of late 2018, 28 states and Washington, DC have a minimum wage above the federal level, with Washington State leading at $11.50 per hour. In contrast, Congress passed two labor and employment bills in 2014, while the minimum wage last increased in 2009.

The activity at the state level inspired us at Oxfam to complete the Best States to Work Index, which has generated interest from legislators and advocates from around the country (see #beststatestowork and this link for interactive maps). 

One might think that this movement is happening only in states with a democratic trifecta (control of both the executive and the legislature), meaning that there is little that advocates can accomplish unless the political winds change.  And even if they do, according to this reasoning, nothing can be done in states that do not flip.  However, this is not the case.  South Carolina recently passed pregnancy protections.  Massachusetts passed a $15 minimum wage with a Republican Governor.  And there are a number of states that have used ballot initiatives to support labor policies, such as minimum wages and more recently, striking down a ‘right-to-work’ law in Missouri.

Unfortunately, there is much more focus from citizens and the media on the federal government than on state governments, or local governments for that matter.  My personal impression is that the same goes for labor and employment law advocates, academics and think tanks, though they often have strong state programs.   The shine of Washington, DC, with its political drama and vast policy infrastructure, grabs too much of our public attention.

The imbalance in focus is dangerous, and misses the vast opportunities at the state level.  Instead, it is time for the media, the public, advocates, think tanks, and legislators to build on these remarkable trends in state policy-making, and get critical pro-worker laws passed.

The Best States to Work Index: A new tool to rank US states in labor policies

This is a blog first posted on Oxfam here.

Workers in the United States are facing wage stagnation and poor employment conditions that are holding their families back. This index measures which states are taking action.

The US economy fails many workers and their families in several ways. Wages are mostly stagnant when adjusted for the cost of living, even though the US is experiencing record low unemployment rates. Over 40 percent of workers earn a wage below $15 per hour. Over 51 million workers in the United States do not have access to paid sick leave, including over half of workers of Hispanic descent. Even fewer workers have paid family leave benefits, at just 14 percent of the workforce.


One reason for these shortcomings is that federal labor and employment laws in the United States are less advanced than those of other countries. This point emerged strongly from recent Oxfam research on policies to combat income inequality, which showed that the United States is the only Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country without national paid maternity leave, and has a comparatively low minimum wage compared to other OECD countries.


Despite the lack of progress in federal legislation, many states are charging ahead with increases in the minimum wage, mandates for paid parental leave, and even laws to ensure the right to organize for public sector workers. The United States has a unique government system in which progress often happens at the state and city level, later followed by the federal government.


To rank states on their progress, we at Oxfam created the Best States to Work Index, which is detailed in a report and a website. It measures states (including Washington, DC) in 11 policy areas that fall in three dimensions: wage policies, worker protection policies, and the right to organize policies.


Through the rankings on the Best States to Work Index, we show the following:

• Washington, DC ranks first in the nation and neighboring Virginia ranks last. Washington State, California, and Massachusetts appear at the top, while Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi are at the bottom.
• No state provides a living wage, a critical determinant of the adequacy of the minimum wage.
• States 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, few have passed paid sick leave, paid family leave, or fair scheduling laws.

We also looked more closely at the relationship between the Best States to Work Index and the well-being of people in a state, correlating the index with economic and social indicators. Overall, the data show a correlation between high scores on the Best States to Work Index and desirable economic and social indicators. Our analysis found a moderate correlation with lower rates of infant mortality and poverty, and with higher rates of life expectancy, median income, GDP per capita, and labor force participation rates. While correlation is not causality, this evidence suggests that these policies are not damaging to the economy or the health of the population, and that they may in fact support them. At the very least, the lack of any clear negative economic impact and the strong evidence of positive impacts on measures of well-being indicate that more states should pursue these policies.

Over the next few months, we will further develop some critical insights from the Best States to Work Index through this blog series. Stay tuned for updates.

We Should Understand Policy to Change Policy

John Lennon says, ‘We all want to change the world’. If we specify what exactly we want to change, two very common targets are the private sector and government. Many advocates devote their lives and careers to influencing these two sectors.  However, commensurate with this dedication, we need greater conceptual understanding regarding the conditions under which government policy and corporate behavior change.  In other words, advocates need to grapple with when that change happens. 

In this post, I focus on my favorite book on government policy changes.  The single best resource I have found to date for understanding the conditions under which government policy changes is John Kingdon’s Agendas, Public Policy and Streams (though a colleague coauthored another great article here).  This book, which is primarily based on interviews with federal government politicians and officials in the late 1970s, helps to organize the many aspects of policy change into a basic conceptual framework. 

Stage 1: Agenda ----------à  Stage 2: Alternatives ------à            Stage 3: Policy

Problem & Politics                 Solutions emerge                             

The diagram roughly sketches the main elements of the conceptual framework of Kingdon.  The main idea is that there are three streams - problem, politics and policy alternatives – that must align for a policy to change.  In other words, each is a necessary but not sufficient condition.

In stage one, he first describes two principal ways that issues move to the top of the government policy agenda, which involves the problem stream and the politics stream.  The problem stream relates to the perception of the importance and urgency of a particular issue.  When politicians consider an issue as a national crisis, as follows a large terrorist attack or the spread of a disease, then they are generally moved to action. On the other hand, sudden political events can drastically shift agendas, most obviously swings in political party control of the government.  Either one of these events can bring about what Kingdon calls a ‘policy window’, in which an issue may see movement.  However both of these streams must at least support the issue in order for it to move forward.  

In stage 2, Kingdon describes a process by which a few solutions addressing the particular policy issue emerge from a policy community.  The community includes academics, policy wonks, civil servants, advocates, lobbyists and others, who jointly develop a large variety of potential policy alternatives.    Through debate, discussions, advocacy and many other actions, a few solutions will rise to the top.  For a solution to be seriously considered, it shouldn’t just be technically appropriate, but also politically acceptable, especially to the elected officials in power.

The main reason I like this simple framework is that it breaks down the messy policy process into more coherent phases, and offers insight into how each phase works.  Using this framework and identifying the dynamics of each phase, advocates should be able to work more effectively – for better or for worse.  Here are a few specific ways that the basic ideas of Kingston help.

Policy organizations aim to influence all three of these streams, though different organizations are more capable of influencing particular streams. An organization can seek to raise awareness of a problem, providing evidence of a public crisis and communicating that message either to the public at large or within the policy community.  Many non-profit advocacy groups focus here, highlighting social issues and emphasizing the urgency to address the problem, without in-depth analysis of solutions or a massive political coalition to push the issue.  Second, an organization can work to change the political makeup of the government, through mobilizing membership to vote a certain way or through threatening negative press.  Mass membership organizations such as teachers unions or hospital associations are effective here, given their widespread membership in many congressional districts, but so are media savvy organizations.  Third, an organization can engage with the policy community to develop solutions.  This area of work is the primary function of Washington think tanks, though universities are often on the cutting edge of innovative solutions. 

If a community of concerned actors cannot influence all three of these dynamics at once, then absent a sudden crisis, it is likely that policy change will not happen in the short term.  But at least the framework can help identify the main impediment for a particular issue to move forward, whether on the problem front, the politics front, or the policy alternatives front; and the community of concerned actors can focus greater efforts to address that impediment.

Moreover, if a policy organization or a researcher is flexible in their issue area and want to find relevance in a relatively short period of time, then understanding these dynamics and choosing an area of expertise accordingly can help.  For example, foresight of a surge in crime or an imminent housing crisis would suggest that policy makers will be looking at these issues closely soon.  Of course, in an environment in which a policy community has developed, a newcomer might cause tensions with the organizations that have spent years on a particular issue. 

On a more personal level as a researcher, Kingdon’s book also provides a sense of how research makes a difference.  I often lament that, no matter how good the ideas, research usually does not find its way into policy.  Kingdon recognizes the difficulty in discerning a direct path by which an idea comes to influence policy, but discusses how this community of scholars, practitioners and others is essential to developing policy proposals that are ripe to respond to the agenda that emerges. 

In sum, while none of these are revolutionary ideas, the framework helps organize and prioritize factors involved in the policy process in a useful and even actionable way.