While still lagging the rest of the country regarding workers’ access to paid leave, several states in the South—including Alabama and Mississippi this year—have begun to take the small but welcome step of ensuring paid parental leave to some public employees. While these laws cover only certain groups of workers and solely provide the paid parental portion of Paid Family and Medical Leave, they nevertheless represent an important step toward achieving more comprehensive paid leave access across the South.

Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) and paid sick leave are essential benefits that help workers maintain their livelihoods while taking care of themselves and their families. Paid sick leave allows workers to take time off from work, while still being paid, to recover from illness or injury. This is not only good for the welfare and productivity of workers but also for employers (and the public at large) because it helps reduce the spread of infectious disease. 

PFML is generally paid leave provided to workers for the birth or adoption of a child, or when they must take more extended time away from work to recover or provide care to loved ones. Studies show that access to PFML improves outcomes for parents and children, workforce participation, and job retention, and that this a beneficial policy for both employees and employers. Access to paid leave also bridges racial gaps in care and pay.

Still, the United States Congress has yet to codify a universal PFML program into law. While the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) provides job protection for workers who need time off for some medical and family circumstances, it does not guarantee pay during leave. Only 27% of workers have access to comprehensive PFML and access is uneven across income levels, occupations, and regions; for example, management and professional occupations are more than twice as likely to have access to this benefit than service workers. Researchers estimate that workers are losing $22.5 billion annually in wages due to a lack of access to PFML.

In the absence of federal action, many states have adopted PFML and paid sick leave policies that have proven to be both effective and popular. But access to PFML and paid sick leave remains especially scarce in the South, reflecting a long history of low wages and limited benefits that are rooted in racist efforts to exploit Black and brown workers and suppress labor costs. Seven of the 10 states with the lowest rates of paid sick leave access are in the South. Within those states, fewer than 70% of workers had access to paid sick days compared with roughly 78% of workers nationwide. Currently, 13 states and the District of Columbia have PFML programs for all workers in the state. As of 2026, along with D.C., the only two states in the South (as defined by the Census) with comprehensive PFML programs will be Delaware and Maryland—neither of which are in the Deep South.

Expanding paid leave access in the South has important equity implications. Workers are paid lower wages in the South than in other regions of the country—even after adjusting for regional cost-of-living differences. And Black and brown workers—who make up a disproportionate share of the low-wage workforce nationally and in the South—are less likely to be offered paid time off than their higher-paid counterparts and less likely to be able to afford unpaid leave. To address this deficiency, 21 Southern organizations affiliated with EPI’s EARN in the South initiative have prioritized paid leave as part of a shared pro-worker agenda Agenda for a Thriving South, advocating for expanded paid leave across several Southern states over the past two years.

This year, in a near breakthrough for Southern paid leave, the Virginia legislature passed comprehensive PFML legislation, but it was vetoed by Governor Youngkin (R). While state employees in Virginia have had access to paid parental leave since 2018 (achieved via gubernatorial action), this still leaves a large share of Virginia workers without access to PFML benefits.  The Commonwealth Institute (a member organization of EPI’s EARN network) reports that over 40% of Virginia workers do not have access to paid family and medical leave. Federal FMLA provides unpaid leave to 56% of workers, but taking time off without pay is not an option for many—particularly for Black and brown workers. According to the Commonwealth Institute, only 34% of Black workers and 23% of Hispanic workers in the state say they could afford to take unpaid leave if it was available to them, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive paid leave program that would support all Virginia workers.

States in other regions of the country are making progress on paid sick leave laws. Currently,18 states plus D.C. have paid sick leave policies. This includes the three states (Missouri, Nebraska, and Alaska) where voters approved ballot initiatives in 2024 to enact paid sick days in states where legislatures had resisted the policy. Workers still need a national paid sick leave policy as court challenges and legislation threaten new state paid sick leave initiatives, even after they were approved by majorities of voters.

Paid parental leave policies covering some public employees are gaining traction in the South

Two Southern states (Mississippi and Alabama) passed laws this year, bringing the total number of states (plus D.C.) that currently provide paid parental leave for certain public employees to 39. Many of the newest Southern paid parental leave policies solely cover state employees, making this limited benefit easy for states to enact as a direct employer. Prior to 2025, several Southern states—including Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia—had passed paid parental leave laws for state employees.

Some states are now looking to build upon their initial law. Notably, a South Carolina bill to expand the definition of covered state employees who would qualify for six weeks of paid parental leave passed the state Senate this year and is making its way through the House Ways and Means Committee. If the bill is enacted, employees of technical colleges and four-year institutions in South Carolina would also receive paid parental leave. In addition, legislation to double the number of weeks of paid leave for state employees passed the House. This bill would guarantee 12 weeks of paid leave for eligible state employees.  

Several other paid parental leave bills have made progress in Southern states in the 2025 legislative cycle. The types of public employees covered include workers in state government, educators in public and charter schools, and employees of public universities or community colleges.

Table 1 shows the status of paid parental leave laws for certain public employees in the deep South. To provide a benchmark for how these paid parental leave bills compare with a strong comprehensive PFML program, the first row of the table lists the key components that comprise a strong PFML law.

!function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",(function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}}))}();

Newly passed legislation in both Alabama and Mississippi had broad and bipartisan support. In Alabama, advocates such as Alabama Arise noted the strong benefits of paid parental leave for workers, the state economy, and for improving maternal health—which were emphasized by Alabama’s governor, Kay Ivey (R) in her State of the State address.  

Advocates for the Mississippi legislation also uplifted the maternal health gains associated with paid parental leave. As in Alabama, the support of a state-level elected official, Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch, helped propel the bill forward.

Guaranteeing paid parental leave to state employees is a modest step, but it will motivate private-sector employers to provide similar benefits

Southern state lawmakers have historically been opposed to establishing new requirements for private businesses—particularly around job quality and workplace rights. Yet expanding parental leave access to a significant share of public employees will have the effect of raising standards and expectations for individual employers’ paid leave policies across the broader labor market. Private employers who compete with the state to attract and retain staff will feel compelled to offer at least comparable benefits.

As shown in Table 2, state employees represent a meaningful share of the workforce in the Southern states that now provide paid parental leave for state employees. The percentage of state employees in each state’s workforce ranges from 2–9%, with a median of 5.4%.

!function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",(function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}}))}();

Focusing on paid parental leave for public employees has allowed Southern states to take a small step toward comprehensive paid leave access. This added benefit can also help improve employee recruitment and retention in state agencies. Since paid leave is widely regarded as a family-supporting policy, recent instances of Southern legislation on parental leave for public employees have encountered little opposition and garnered support across party lines and a wide array of constituencies. It is also one of the easiest forms of paid leave for states to enact; paid parental leave for state employees can in most cases be implemented without legislation, via executive action or state agency personnel policy.

After a state employee paid parental leave bill failed to pass the Kentucky legislature in 2024, Governor Andy Beshear (D) initiated the process to update administrative regulations to provide six weeks of paid parental leave to state employees (with a target date of summer 2025 for implementation). Analysis from the Kentucky Center for Economic Policy research showed that instituting paid parental leave for state employees would help align Kentucky’s employment practices with others in the region and would have minimal fiscal impact on the state budget.1

Other limited expansions of paid leave for public employees have advanced this year in other Southern states. For example, a bill increasing the number of paid sick days for school personnel passed both legislative chambers in Georgia. Also, Tennessee and Arkansas passed paid bereavement leave bills for state employees this year. The Arkansas legislation guarantees 40 hours of leave, while Tennessee provides up to 10 days of leave for grieving state employees depending on the familial relationship.

A good start but a long way to go

Paid leave is an important policy that helps workers, families, and the economy thrive. Yet on paid leave and many other pro-workers policies, the South continues to lag behind other regions of the country. In this context, new Southern laws extending paid parental leave to state employees are a promising development that could help open the door to more expansive paid leave proposals. State employees covered by new paid parental leave policies make up a nontrivial portion of the workforce, and new paid leave policies will allow state governments to demonstrate the positive benefits of one type of paid leave for Southern workers and employers alike. Building on this recent progress, Southern lawmakers should consider more comprehensive paid family and medical leave policies covering all workers in their states.

1. Because this regulation has not yet been confirmed, the author did not include it in Table 2.

Late last Wednesday night, the Missouri Republican-controlled legislature overrode the will of the state’s voters by repealing the paid sick leave portion of Proposition A, a ballot measure passed with 58% support in the 2024 election. This short-sighted decision is a step backward for Missouri’s working families and a violation of the democratic process.

Workers will briefly enjoy the benefits of paid sick leave before it is taken away. On May 1, workers started earning one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked, and they will continue to accrue leave until the repeal takes effect on August 28. Within this period, someone working a full-time schedule would have earned 24 hours of sick leave. It is not immediately clear if those hours will be available for a workers’ use after August 28. Additionally, the legislation also amends the part of Proposition A that raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour and indexed it to inflation. While the minimum wage will remain at $15 an hour (where it has been since January 1), it will no longer be indexed to inflation—meaning inflation will eat away at the value of the state minimum wage in future years unless lawmakers (or voters) take action.

This legislation will cause meaningful harm to working families in Missouri. The Missouri Budget Project estimated that 728,000 Missouri private-sector workers did not have paid sick leave prior to the passage of Proposition A. Workers without paid sick days are mostly working in low-wage jobs, and Black and Hispanic workers are disproportionately overrepresented in the low-wage workforce.

The lack of paid sick leave erodes working families’ economic security and needlessly spreads illness. As EPI noted earlier this year, paid sick leave laws improve public health by reducing the spread of illness, and their costs to businesses are extremely modest—generally requiring no measurable change to business practices. Paid sick leave reduces job separation rates among women, which is good for family stability and suggests paid leave creates a more level playing field for all workers. EPI reports that “paid sick leave policies allow workers to not only maintain their employment but also add work hours, suggesting that such policies function as work support for workers earning low wages.”

This is not the first time Missouri’s legislature has rolled back benefits for workers that were already in place. In 2017, legislators undid St Louis’s local minimum wage, which had been set at $10 an hour, meaning the minimum wage reverted to the state minimum of $7.70 an hour after four months. Additionally, in 2021, Missouri legislators tried to block a voter-approved expansion of Medicaid only to be blocked by a judge.

The Missouri legislature’s repeated efforts to thwart the clearly expressed will of the voters is an example of the increasingly common practice of GOP-led states attempting to limit the capacity of voters to enact pro-worker changes through ballot measures. This follows a slew of progressive policy measures passed by referendum in 2024, including minimum wage increases and paid sick leave measures in Alaska and Missouri, expanded abortion rights in seven states (also including Missouri), and rejections of school vouchers in Colorado, Kentucky, and Nebraska.

This decision is a slap in the face to the 1.7 million Missourians who voted for the ballot measure in November 2024, and to all working families in the state. It is bad policy that will harm Missourians, provide no help to businesses, and further demonstrate that the Missouri legislature is not enacting policies that support working people’s interests.  

 

Key takeaways:

• Some state lawmakers are abetting Trump’s far-right, anti-worker agenda laid out in Project 2025 by proposing legislation that intentionally conflicts with federal worker protection laws.
• State-by-state efforts to erode workers’ rights—including protections against hazardous or exploitative child labor, the right to a minimum wage, and a safe workplace—build pressure for eventual relaxation or elimination of standards for the whole country.
• These attacks are not new, but they are an increasing threat under an administration that has launched an all-out war on workers and the federal agencies that safeguard their rights.
• State lawmakers have a responsibility and opportunity to resist such attacks and strengthen state worker protections.

Following a growing trend, Republican lawmakers this year proposed legislation in Florida, Kentucky, and Ohio that would undermine federal laws on child labor, minimum wage, and worker health and safety protections. These proliferating state challenges to federal law are laying the groundwork for more extreme and dangerous Project 2025 proposals to allow employers across the country to hire children for hazardous jobs or to allow states to “opt out” of various federal labor standards like the minimum wage.

Multiple states have enacted or proposed legislation to weaken state child labor and minimum wage protections in ways that conflict with federal law

The Trump administration’s first 100 days have closely followed the Project 2025 policy roadmap. Mass firings of federal civil servants, closures of field offices with labor enforcement roles, and deep cuts have quickly imperiled the federal government’s capacity to ensure U.S. workers get paid what they’re owed, stay safe at work, have the freedom to form a union, and work in environments free from discrimination.

Meanwhile, many states have weakened child labor protections in recent years, and some states like Iowa have openly defied long-standing federal laws like the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which has set a national floor for minimum wages, overtime pay, and child labor standards since 1938. State laws can provide more protection than the federal statute mandates, but they cannot provide less. Where state standards are weaker than those provided in FLSA, federal law preempts the state standard.

This year, legislation in both Ohio and Florida attempts to weaken state child labor standards in ways that challenge federal law. In Ohio, Republicans have reintroduced a proposal to extend the hours employers can schedule 14- and 15-year-olds to work during the school year, conflicting with FLSA guardrails in place to ensure that young teens can enter the workforce without jeopardizing their health or education. A concurrent resolution introduced with the child labor bill calls on Congress to amend the FLSA to align with weaker hours guidelines proposed for Ohio. As of this publication, the legislation has passed the state Senate and is now being considered in the House.

As Ohio’s concurrent resolution illustrates, state legislators have often been clear that they understand these weaker standards conflict with FLSA rules (and therefore only apply in non-FLSA-covered employment contexts)—and that such conflict is in fact part of the point. In 2024, an Indiana lawmaker speaking in support of a child labor bill that would have violated federal law promised that, if elected to Congress, he would “throw out all the book of regulation of employing our youth.” In 2023, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds signed an unprecedented package of rollbacks to child labor standards, over many public objections that the extreme changes conflicted with federal law and would create confusion and increased legal liability for employers. A year later when some Iowa employers were fined for FLSA violations after following the state’s weakened child labor laws, Governor Reynolds enlisted the state’s congressional delegation in protesting the federal fines and published her own editorial arguing that the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) should “look to Iowa as an example” of how to relax child labor standards and enforcement.

In Florida, lawmakers are seeking to treat minors like adults with regard to work hours while paying them a subminimum wage. Proposed legislation would eliminate all hours of work guidelines for 16- and 17-year-olds, allowing employers to schedule these teens for unlimited hours year-round, including overnight shifts during the school year. The House version of the bill initially proposed also allowing employers to schedule 13-year-olds to work during the summer of the calendar year in which they turn 14, even though federal law has set 14 as the minimum age for employment in most jobs. In response to concerns raised by youth advocates, the provision to allow 13-year-olds to be gainfully employed was amended out of the bill.

Meanwhile, a separate bill in Florida would allow employers to pay youth “interns” or work-study participants an hourly wage lower than the constitutionally mandated state minimum wage, attempting to reestablish a subminimum wage loophole that was closed by a Florida ballot measure in 2020. FLSA rules are clear that individual workers cannot legally be induced to waive their right to a minimum wage, and employers may only pay subminimum wages under narrow special circumstances that require DOL certification. Yet, this long-standing FLSA protection has faced repeated challenges. An Arkansas legislator, for example, suggested in 2023 that the state should allow high school students to complete required community service hours by working for free for local businesses.

Fortunately, after significant public opposition, both Florida bills are expected to fail this session. While the child labor rollback bill passed in the House, as of this publication it was not slated to be taken up by the Senate before Florida’s legislature adjourns this year.

However, by repeatedly proposing and—in some cases—implementing standards that conflict with federal law, these states are chipping away at the already fragile federal floor for workplace protections. At the same time, they are shifting the entire burden of enforcing worker protections to chronically underfunded federal agencies that, amid Trump administration attacks, are now facing even more pronounced staffing shortages that will limit enforcement capacity.

Some states are already modeling Project 2025 proposals to allow states to “opt out” of federal labor laws

While Project 2025 proposes allowing all states to seek exemptions from the FLSA, some states have already adopted systems for employers to sidestep child labor laws. Florida has long maintained a system to grant individual employers approval to schedule minors to work beyond the limits of state child labor laws. Legally, the only state child labor protections that a state could legitimately “waive” would be those that exceed federal standards, but Florida’s statute on granting waivers does not spell out this limitation, leaving the system ripe for abuse by employers who may see it as an opportunity to gain state sanction to ignore federal law with little oversight (Florida’s labor department was dismantled in 2002).

In 2023, Iowa lawmakers created a system that even more explicitly violates federal law, allowing the state to grant “waivers” to employers seeking to employ minors in violation of federal hazardous occupations orders. Under the new system, the agency has begun to grant such waivers despite objections raised by the state’s department of inspections and state Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

State lawmakers are also challenging federal workplace health and safety protections

Beyond child labor laws, some states have proposed legislation that conflicts with federal OSHA standards that set a floor for workplace safety for workers of all ages.

This year, Kentucky enacted legislation that could be in violation of federal requirements that states with their own OSHA plans must maintain standards and enforcement that is “at least as effective” as provided by federal OSHA. The new law prohibits the state from enforcing any worker health and safety regulations that are more protective than federal standards—effectively dismantling existing state standards—and also makes it harder to file complaints and hold employers accountable (making fines “optional” for violations, for example) in ways that fall below the minimum threshold of expectations set by federal OSHA.

In 2021, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis proposed creating a state OSHA agency, but only because he did not want the state to be subject to federal OSHA standards and falsely believed that a state agency would allow Florida to enact weaker health and safety protections for Florida workers.

Lawmakers can resist these threats by strengthening state worker protections

Many aspects of these current attacks bear close resemblance to past industry-backed attempts to block or dismantle federal worker protections, from the New Deal to OSHA. For example, today’s conservative calls to weaken federal child labor laws hearken back to 1982 proposals from Ronald Reagan’s labor department to extend maximum daily and weekly work hours for minors, expand youth subminimum wages, and roll back hazardous occupations orders that protect minors from being employed in particularly dangerous jobs. And arguments for rolling back child labor laws (re)surfacing in states today often closely echo those used by the business interests that aggressively fought passage and implementation of the FLSA from the 1930s up to the present.

Most of these past assaults on federal minimum labor standards were largely defeated, but not without persistent, coordinated responses from workers, unions, advocates, and policymakers. As Project 2025-style threats to workplace rights continue to mount today, it is particularly urgent to defend against state-level attacks on labor standards and seize opportunities to shore up state worker protections—at a minimum to ensure more states are equipped to maintain and enforce basic protections should at-risk federal standards disappear or go largely unenforced under the Trump administration. The crisis also presents opportunities for states to do much more, such as remedying long-standing gaps and exclusions in weak or outdated employment and labor laws that leave millions of workers without coverage; advancing new policies that address the economic challenges of growing income inequality, persistent racial and gender wage gaps, and declining job quality; and reasserting states’ roles in raising the floor for labor standards rather than driving a race to the bottom.