States That Work: A Labor Policy Roadmap Across America – 4th Edition

Introduction

The American Dream is a defining quality of this nation, and it is a promise worth protecting. Central to that promise is the freedom to pursue a work arrangement that best serves individuals and their families. States play a critical role in honoring that promise by expanding flexible options and removing unnecessary barriers to work. When states get labor policy right, the American Dream becomes an American reality.

Introductory chapters of this report discuss key labor policy events from recent months and explain the 10 labor policies promoted and highlighted throughout the publication. Each state then receives its own page that provides an overview of key labor facts, including unionization rates for both the private and public sectors and private sector job growth rates.

To rank the 50 states on how they prioritize labor freedom, this publication provides a snapshot and ranking of each state’s labor policies and landscape. Using this information, workers, businesses, and lawmakers can identify if a state’s policies are hindering or protecting workers’ freedom and flexibility. The publication also includes trusted policy solutions developed by ALEC’s Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force to expand worker and workplace freedom.

For the second consecutive year, Arizona earned the first-place ranking in this publication. Not only has Arizona been a leader in passing gold standard universal recognition of occupational licensing reform, but it also passed a first-in-the-nation reform banning union release time. The percentage of government jobs is the eighth lowest in the nation, meaning the private sector provides noticeably more employment and opportunity to Arizonans than the government.

Alaska placed last, as the legislature has not passed any recommended reforms. The policy it came closest to earning a star for is the Public Employee Rights and Authorization Act. However, the Alaska Supreme Court overturned the Administrative Order.

This publication reflects data and policies that were effective as of July 2026. State minimum wage information reflects rates effective as of July 1, 2026. All changes after this date will be reflected in the next edition of this publication.

As Americans consider options for pursuing their goals, they can use this publication to determine if a specific state is the best choice for them. Businesses can use this resource for determining which states prioritize policies that welcome skilled workers. And, for American lawmakers, the rankings can assist in identifying existing protections for labor choice and areas for improvement.

Increasing labor freedom not only increases flexibility and opportunity, but it also increases economic competitiveness and makes states more desirable locations for those looking to grow in their careers.

Chapter 1: The Time Is Now

Protecting Secret Ballots

Earlier this year, Mississippi joined Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama as the fourth state to require that any company choosing to accept state economic development incentives must hold a secret-ballot election before union representation can be established. Additionally, the law prohibits companies from entering into neutrality agreements and bans the sharing of employee contact information with union organizers without written consent from the employee.

Through this reform, Mississippi ensures that workers can make their choice on their own terms and in their own time, free from outside influence. As Sen. Josh Harkins explained in a February op-ed, the bill does not prohibit union organizing or interfere with an employee’s right to choose representation if it is supported by a majority of employees. It simply ensures that the decision is made privately.

“A private-ballot election is the gold standard for protecting an individual’s choice. It allows each worker to decide privately, without having to publicly disclose a position to coworkers, supervisors, union organizers, or anyone else. In any matter as consequential as workplace representation, confidentiality matters,” Sen. Harkins said.

The reforms in these four states resemble the ALEC model Taxpayer Dollars Protect Workers Act, one of the factors that go into the state rankings. This model policy states that companies receiving public economic incentives should be required to protect workers’ right to vote on union representation through a private, secret-ballot election. It highlights the principle that state taxpayer dollars should not be used to subsidize practices that undermine worker privacy.

Oklahoma Voters Reject Minimum Wage Hike

In June, Oklahoma voters rejected State Question 832, which would have increased the state minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $15.00 an hour by 2029, with over 55% of the votes going against the proposal. The voters understood the potential effects of the proposal and the impacts that would be felt by all businesses, but particularly small businesses.

A report by the NFIB estimated the economic and employment impacts if State Question 832 were implemented. It found that Oklahoma could have lost 16,000 jobs and $700 million in economic output by 2035, and that small businesses would have contributed 60% of the job losses.

Gov. Kevin Stitt condemned the damaging impacts that would be felt by small businesses and government overreach into private business activities. “Terrible policy. Government doesn’t need to get involved in private business and say, ‘Hey, you need to pay him this and this,” Gov. Stitt said. “The bigger issue with the state question is it also mandatorily climbs. It goes up every single year. If you look out over 10 years, we’re going to have higher mandatory minimum wage than they have in California. That is going to destroy some of the small businesses, right?”

Oklahoma is an outlier based on historical ballot measures aimed at increasing the minimum wage. Since 1996, there have been 33 ballot measures brought to the voters and only five of those have been rejected.

Minimum wage is one of fifteen policy variables included in the Economic Outlook Rankings in ALEC’s annual Rich States, Poor States report. This variable is a direct, state-controlled cost of labor and focuses on agreements between employers and employees rather than government mandates. Higher minimum wages can price out entry level positions that are invaluable to individuals looking to enter the workforce. If State Question 832 had been implemented, Oklahoma’s Economic Outlook Ranking would have dropped from 8th to 13th.

The rejection of State Question 832 is more than a single election result, rather, it is a statement about how Oklahomans believe their economy should work. In bucking a decades-long national trend, voters recognized that wages set by the labor market, not by government mandate, are what allow small businesses to grow, hire, and compete. Oklahomans saw through the promise of an artificial pay raise and understood the real price tag: thousands of lost jobs, hundreds of millions in lost economic output, and shuttered storefronts across the state.

When businesses are free to respond to market conditions rather than escalating mandates handed down from above, they position themselves and their employees for durable, long-term prosperity. Oklahoma’s voters chose economic freedom over government interference, and in doing so, they created an economic mandate to trust the people closest to the economy, not the government, to make it work.

Fifteen Years of Act 10

On March 11, 2011, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker signed Act 10 into law. This law restricted public sector collective bargaining and therefore, increased government accountability by ensuring that third party organizations do not have preferential powers over other groups in the state.

In 2010, Wisconsin faced a $3.6 billion deficit. In 2025, the signing of this legislation saved Wisconsin an estimated $35.6 billion. Act 10 repaired the budget by requiring public sector employees to contribute more for pensions and health care and, importantly, limited their ability to collectively bargain to only certain categories.

Gov. Walker sat down with ALEC to share insights into Act 10 and the results that came out of its passage.

“Act 10 was simply this idea of taking power out of the hands of the big government special interest, and putting it in the hands of the taxpayers, the workers, and the people that the taxpayers elect.” Collective bargaining was this thing that, ironically, started in Wisconsin. It was this government-run union boss technique, that, over time, not only took power away, but really left the decisions in the hands of those union bosses, instead of the people we elect to run our schools, our counties, our local governments. And we said ‘no.’ We took that away. We still put more money in the schools and the local government. We gave them more flexibility, but we just didn’t want the union bosses being the one making the decisions, because they’re not elected.”

Fifteen years later, Act 10 stands as one of the clearest examples of what happens when states put taxpayers back in charge. The results speak for themselves: a $3.6 billion deficit transformed into more than $35 billion in cumulative savings, school districts and local governments freed to manage their own budgets and personnel, and elected officials, not unelected union bosses, making the decisions voters hired them to make. Wisconsin proved that labor reform is not only possible but durable, and its success continues to serve as a roadmap for states looking to restore fiscal sanity and government accountability.

Chapter 2: Understanding the State Pages

Labor Policy Rank

For this report, 10 state-level labor policies were selected as consequential reforms that promote worker and workplace freedom. These are listed on each state page. States that have passed substantial versions of the reforms receive a full gold star, increasing their overall Labor Policy Rank. States that have passed similar reforms in need of improvement receive half stars. States that have not passed the reforms or that have repealed them receive no stars.

The states were then ranked according to these stars, with the higher number of stars earning a better rank on a 1-50 scale. The state ranked in 1st place earned the most stars and the state in 50th place earned the least. Ties were broken using state employment data comparing the number of government jobs with the total number of jobs in a state. Preference went to the states in which government jobs constituted a lower percentage of total jobs in the state.

Labor Policy Checklist

Each state page features a list of 10 labor model policies vetted and recommended by ALEC’s Commerce, Insurance, and Economic Development Task Force and featured in ALEC’s Essential Policy Solutions. Each policy is explained in detail on subsequent pages and can also be found at ALEC.org.

States receive one gold star for each law passed containing one of these reforms. Half stars indicate partial reforms that may include significant exemptions or non-recommended standards. Empty stars indicate that the reform is not active in a state.

1. Right-to-Work Act

The Right to Work Act provides that no employee must join or pay dues to a union, or refrain from joining a union, as a condition of employment. It establishes penalties and remedies for violations of the Act’s provisions.

Employment in Right to Work states has increased by 16.4% since 2014. States without this reform experienced half of the growth.

2. Taxpayer Dollars Protect Workers Act

The Taxpayer Dollars Protect Workers Act requires employers receiving taxpayer-funded economic incentives to agree to safeguard the personal information of their employees and use the secret ballot in unionization elections as a condition of receiving those incentives.

Secret ballots ensure voters can cast votes in private and away from interested parties. This protection from coercion and intimidation is among the many reasons federal, state, and local elections use secret ballots to protect voters’ rights and ensure election integrity. While efforts to protect election integrity usually focus on such governmental elections, states are expanding the effort to protect workers’ votes and voices

3. Open Contracting Act

The Open Contracting Act prohibits public agencies from imposing labor requirements as a condition of performing public works.

Government-mandated PLAs typically drive-up costs by 12% to 20% due to reduced competition. By prohibiting these agreements, the Open Contracting Act encourages more competitive bidding processes, potentially lowering project costs and ensuring that taxpayer money is spent efficiently. This helps in delivering better value and quality in public infrastructure projects without unnecessary financial burdens.

4. Uniform Worker Classification Act

The Uniform Worker Classification Act simplifies the criteria used to define independent contractors with respect to employment and imposes objective standards on the differentiation of independent contractors from employees. This Act also provides for uniformity of a state’s laws where the distinction between employees and independent contractors is relevant.

5. Model Interstate-Mobility and Universal-Recognition Occupational Licensing Act

The Model Interstate-Mobility and Universal-Recognition Occupational Licensing Act establishes a process for providing occupational licenses to qualified applicants from other states.

Obtaining an occupational license to work in a new state often requires workers to reapply for a license for the same profession they are already working in a different state. Many times, individuals must pursue additional training, education, and testing, even if they already have a license or years of work experience practicing the profession. This extra time, energy, and money impose great financial and personal burdens on professionals and often deters them from moving to or conducting business in new states. A universal recognition policy prevents the duplicative licensing process and allows individuals to get to work quicker in their experienced profession and contribute to the overall state economy.

*A full star is awarded if a state’s policy includes three or more of the most crucial elements: “scope of practice” language, recognition of private certifications and/or work experience, no residency requirement, minimal occupation exceptions, and a defined time period for determining parity.

6. Occupational Licensing Review Act

The Occupational Licensing Review Act establishes a sunrise and sunset review process for reviewing occupational licensing regulations. Often, occupation license regulations sit on books for years without proper review.

Sunrise review requires the state to evaluate whether proposed licensing regulations are necessary to protect public health and safety or if it adds unnecessary burdens to the applicants. Sunset reviews require reauthorization to make sure regulations are up to date with innovations.

*Half stars are awarded if a state has either a sunset or sunrise review process but not both.

7. Collateral Consequences Reduction Act

The Collateral Consequences Reduction Act presents a process for occupational licensing boards to revoke, suspend or limit an occupational license for a current licensee who has been convicted of a crime. It also allows an ex-offender who aspires to obtain an occupational license to petition a licensing board for review of their criminal record at any time for a determination of whether the individual’s criminal record will prevent them from obtaining a license. It also outlines the circumstances for which a licensing board can deny an ex-offender from obtaining a license.

The recidivism rate among non-violent offenders who are employed shortly after release and maintain employment after a year is only 16%. By creating an easier barrier of entry into the workforce for ex-offenders, communities are safer and more Americans are employed.

*A full star is awarded if a state’s policy includes three crucial elements: elimination of blanket bans, creation of a petition process, and requirement that a person’s committed crimes and the scope of a licensed occupation be “substantially” or “directly” related. Half stars are awarded if any of these sections are missing or if all three sections are included but contain significant inferior standards or significant exclusions.

8. Public Employee Rights and Authorization Act

The Public Employee Rights and Authorization Act requires notices to avoid public employees being misled into forfeiting freespeech rights and suffering financial losses.

*Half stars are awarded if the reform applies to only specific types of public employees or if types of employees are exempt.

9. Fair and Accountable Public Sector Authority Act

To better ensure government accountability to all residents and that third party employee associations do not have preferential powers beyond what other individuals and groups in the state have, the Fair and Accountable Public Sector Authority Act bans government sector collective bargaining. Nothing in this Act interferes with the freedom of public employees to voluntary support and join employee associations or employee associations and government employers from meeting with one another to discuss government workforce policies.

This model policy seeks to protect tax-payer dollars because of the high costs incurred by governments via collective bargaining. In the 2024 fiscal year, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management reported that the U.S. Government spent approximately $181.6 million dollars on collective-bargaining costs.

*Half stars are awarded if the reform applies to only specific types of public employees or if types of employees are exempt.

10. Prohibition on Paid Union Activity (Release Time) by Public Employees Act

The Prohibition on Paid Union Activity (Release Time) by Public Employees Act prohibits “release time”—the practice of paying a public employee a public salary for time spent in union recruiting and representation activities. Egregious examples of paid union activity are present all over the country. The city of Phoenix, AZ, for example, covered 67,511 hours of paid union release time in 2019, which cost taxpayers $3.7 million.

Jobs Overview

State Government Job Prevalence

Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we calculated the percentage of jobs that are government jobs in state. These percentages were then ranked, with the state with the lowest percentage of government jobs in April 2026 and 50th ranked 1st place being the state with the highest percentage of government jobs in April 2026 ranked 50th.

A chart listing these rankings can be found in Chapter 3.

Average 10-Year Private Employment Growth (2016-2026)

Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we calculated the average private sector employment growth in each state from 2016 to 2026. The state with the highest growth rate ranks 1st, and the state with the lowest growth rate ranks 50th.

A chart listing these rankings can be found in Chapter 3.

State Minimum Wage

Lists each state’s hourly minimum wage (as of July 1, 2026) as provided by the U.S. Department of Labor. Employers subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) must pay at least the Federal minimum wage of $7.25. Some states may have different minimum wages depending on the size of the businesses or type of employment, and many states also allow localities to pass minimum wages higher than the state minimum wage.

A graph comparing state minimum wages can be found in Chapter 3.

Union Membership

Lists current state public and private sector employment and union membership information. It also lists notable public sector unions and their membership numbers. Data comes from unionstats.com.

States’ union membership percentages were compared and ranked against each other, with 1st place indicating the lowest membership rate and 50th place indicating the highest membership rate.

Chart listing these rankings can be found in Chapter 3.

Political Landscape

Lists which political party holds control of the governorship and the chambers of the state legislature.

Chapter 3: State Comparison Charts

State Ranking

State	Stars	Government jobs / total non-farm jobs	State rank
Arizona	5.5	13.03%	1
Mississippi	5.5	19.77%	2
Georgia	5	14.22%	3
Arkansas	5	15.21%	4
West Virginia	5	20.30%	5
Florida	4.5	11.39%	6
Tennessee	4.5	13.43%	7
Idaho	4.5	14.65%	8
North Carolina	4.5	15.25%	9
Utah	4.5	15.54%	10
Louisiana	4.5	16.23%	11
Texas	4	14.81%	12
South Carolina	4	16.56%	13
Nebraska	4	16.93%	14
Iowa	4	16.95%	15
Wyoming	4	24.13%	16
Wisconsin	3.5	13.45%	17
South Dakota	3.5	17.22%	18
Kansas	3.5	17.67%	19
Virginia	3.5	17.89%	20
Oklahoma	3.5	20.68%	21
Indiana	3	12.92%	22
Missouri	3	14.42%	23
North Dakota	3	19.33%	24
Alabama	3	19.45%	25
Nevada	2.5	11.35%	26
Ohio	2.5	13.91%	27
Kentucky	2.5	15.57%	28
Colorado	2	16.41%	29
Montana	2	17.35%	30
Vermont	2	18.08%	31
New Mexico	2	21.41%	32
Pennsylvania	1.5	11.30%	33
New Hampshire	1.5	12.29%	34
New Jersey	1.5	14.17%	35
Michigan	1.5	14.17%	36
Delaware	1.5	14.46%	37
Minnesota	1.5	14.49%	38
California	1.5	14.74%	39
Washington	1.5	16.76%	40
Hawaii	1.5	19.43%	41
Illinois	1	13.87%	42
Maine	1	15.55%	43
Maryland	1	18.75%	44
Rhode Island	0.5	12.57%	45
Connecticut	0.5	13.61%	46
New York	0.5	15.22%	47
Oregon	0.5	15.96%	48
Massachusetts	0	12.79%	49
Alaska	0	22.86%	50

State Government Job Prevalence and Rankings

State	Government jobs / total non-farm jobs	State rank
Pennsylvania	11.30%	1
Nevada	11.35%	2
Florida	11.39%	3
New Hampshire	12.29%	4
Rhode Island	12.57%	5
Massachusetts	12.79%	6
Indiana	12.92%	7
Arizona	13.03%	8
Tennessee	13.43%	9
Wisconsin	13.45%	10
Connecticut	13.61%	11
Illinois	13.87%	12
Ohio	13.91%	13
New Jersey	14.17%	14
Michigan	14.17%	15
Georgia	14.22%	16
Missouri	14.42%	17
Delaware	14.46%	18
Minnesota	14.49%	19
Idaho	14.65%	20
California	14.74%	21
Texas	14.81%	22
Arkansas	15.21%	23
New York	15.22%	24
North Carolina	15.25%	25
Utah	15.54%	26
Maine	15.55%	27
Kentucky	15.57%	28
Oregon	15.96%	29
Louisiana	16.23%	30
Colorado	16.41%	31
South Carolina	16.56%	32
Washington	16.76%	33
Nebraska	16.93%	34
Iowa	16.95%	35
South Dakota	17.22%	36
Montana	17.35%	37
Kansas	17.67%	38
Virginia	17.89%	39
Vermont	18.08%	40
Maryland	18.75%	41
North Dakota	19.33%	42
Hawaii	19.43%	43
Alabama	19.45%	44
Mississippi	19.77%	45
West Virginia	20.30%	46
Oklahoma	20.68%	47
New Mexico	21.41%	48
Alaska	22.86%	49
Wyoming	24.13%	50

State Minimum Wage Rankings

State	State minimum wage	Minimum wage rank
Alabama	$7.25	1
Georgia	$7.25	1
Iowa	$7.25	1
Idaho	$7.25	1
Indiana	$7.25	1
Kansas	$7.25	1
Kentucky	$7.25	1
Louisiana	$7.25	1
Mississippi	$7.25	1
North Carolina	$7.25	1
North Dakota	$7.25	1
New Hampshire	$7.25	1
Oklahoma	$7.25	1
Pennsylvania	$7.25	1
South Carolina	$7.25	1
Tennessee	$7.25	1
Texas	$7.25	1
Utah	$7.25	1
Wisconsin	$7.25	1
Wyoming	$7.25	1
West Virginia	$8.75	21
Montana	$10.85	22
Arkansas	$11.00	23
Ohio	$11.00	23
Minnesota	$11.41	25
South Dakota	$11.85	26
Nevada	$12.00	27
New Mexico	$12.00	27
Virginia	$12.77	29
Michigan	$13.73	30
Alaska	$14.00	31
Florida	$14.00	31
Vermont	$14.42	33
Delaware	$15.00	34
Illinois	$15.00	34
Maryland	$15.00	34
Massachusetts	$15.00	34
Missouri	$15.00	34
Nebraska	$15.00	34
Oregon	$15.05	40
Maine	$15.10	41
Arizona	$15.15	42
Colorado	$15.16	43
New Jersey	$15.92	44
Hawaii	$16.00	45
New York	$16.00	45
Rhode Island	$16.00	45
California	$16.90	48
Connecticut	$16.94	49
Washington	$17.13	50

Average 10-Year Private Sector Employment Growth

State	Average 10-year private sector employment growth (Q1 2016 – Q1 2026)	Rank
Idaho	32.19%	1
Utah	27.89%	2
Nevada	26.39%	3
Arizona	25.22%	4
Florida	22.65%	5
Texas	21.77%	6
North Carolina	19.49%	7
South Carolina	19.31%	8
Georgia	16.97%	9
Tennessee	15.64%	10
Montana	15.41%	11
Washington	14.90%	12
Colorado	14.57%	13
Arkansas	13.56%	14
California	11.86%	15
South Dakota	10.42%	16
Alabama	10.37%	17
New Mexico	9.80%	18
Delaware	9.78%	19
New Jersey	9.69%	20
Virginia	9.48%	21
Oregon	8.66%	22
Oklahoma	8.55%	23
Kentucky	8.25%	24
Maine	8.06%	25
Indiana	7.66%	26
New Hampshire	7.07%	27
New York	7.01%	28
Pennsylvania	6.36%	29
Missouri	6.17%	30
Mississippi	5.80%	31
Minnesota	5.31%	32
Rhode Island	4.94%	33
Kansas	4.62%	34
Massachusetts	4.54%	35
Nebraska	4.51%	36
Wisconsin	4.25%	37
Ohio	4.10%	38
Michigan	3.75%	39
Maryland	3.23%	40
Connecticut	2.40%	41
Illinois	2.24%	42
North Dakota	2.20%	43
Alaska	2.03%	44
West Virginia	1.99%	45
Wyoming	1.87%	46
Louisiana	1.42%	47
Hawaii	0.04%	48
Iowa	-0.25%	49
Vermont	-0.36%	50

State Public Sector Union Membership

State	Membership percentage	Ranking
North Carolina	5.72%	1
South Carolina	7.31%	2
South Dakota	7.97%	3
Arkansas	8.04%	4
Mississippi	9.49%	5
Idaho	10.24%	6
Arizona	11.47%	7
Utah	12.12%	8
Louisiana	13.07%	9
Wyoming	13.10%	10
Kansas	13.66%	11
Virginia	13.78%	12
New Mexico	14.25%	13
North Dakota	15.44%	14
Tennessee	15.46%	15
Kentucky	16.04%	16
Colorado	16.60%	17
Georgia	16.73%	18
Texas	16.92%	19
Wisconsin	18.53%	20
Oklahoma	19.58%	21
Alabama	19.89%	22
Missouri	20.75%	23
West Virginia	21.61%	24
Nebraska	23.05%	25
Florida	23.94%	26
Iowa	24.18%	27
Indiana	25.97%	28
Maryland	32.01%	29
Nevada	34.40%	30
Montana	37.32%	31
Delaware	37.57%	32
Michigan	39.46%	33
New Hampshire	40.59%	34
Alaska	40.62%	35
Ohio	40.93%	36
Vermont	41.57%	37
Maine	44.48%	38
Washington	46.93%	39
Oregon	47.44%	40
Pennsylvania	48.27%	41
Illinois	48.42%	42
California	49.78%	43
Rhode Island	51.30%	44
Minnesota	51.80%	45
New Jersey	56.38%	46
Massachusetts	61.75%	47
Hawaii	62.75%	48
Connecticut	63.20%	49
New York	65.14%	50

State Private Sector Union Membership

State	Membership percentage	Ranking
South Dakota	1.46%	1
Arkansas	1.91%	2
North Carolina	1.92%	3
South Carolina	1.94%	4
Utah	2.16%	5
Louisiana	2.51%	6
Arizona	2.75%	7
Tennessee	2.86%	8
Florida	2.89%	9
Mississippi	2.91%	10
Texas	2.94%	11
Idaho	3.00%	12
Oklahoma	3.01%	13
Georgia	3.21%	14
Virginia	3.29%	15
New Mexico	3.48%	16
Nebraska	3.56%	17
Wyoming	3.57%	18
Colorado	3.66%	19
Alabama	3.72%	20
North Dakota	3.72%	21
Iowa	4.03%	22
New Hampshire	4.12%	23
Kansas	4.46%	24
Delaware	4.49%	25
Wisconsin	4.58%	26
West Virginia	5.51%	27
Montana	5.57%	28
Maryland	6.07%	29
Pennsylvania	6.25%	30
Maine	6.35%	31
Indiana	6.36%	32
Ohio	7.15%	33
Massachusetts	7.29%	34
Vermont	7.42%	35
Missouri	7.68%	36
Kentucky	7.72%	37
Illinois	7.78%	38
Minnesota	7.84%	39
California	7.94%	40
New Jersey	8.00%	41
Rhode Island	9.16%	42
Oregon	9.17%	43
Connecticut	9.34%	44
Nevada	9.64%	45
Michigan	9.83%	46
Alaska	10.43%	47
Washington	11.43%	48
New York	12.40%	49
Hawaii	13.17%	50

Chapter 4: 50 State Factsheets

Each state has its own page in the report. The table below carries every state’s labor policy rank and the jobs, wage and union membership figures from those pages; the full state pages, including the 10-policy star checklist and each state’s political landscape, are in the PDF.

State	Labor policy rank	Government sector job prevalence (April 2026)	Average 10-year private sector employment growth (2016–2026)	State minimum wage	Private sector union membership	Public sector union membership
Alabama	25	19.45% (rank 44)	10.37% (rank 17)	$7.25* (rank 1*)	65,009 of 1,748,873 — 3.72% (rank 20)	67,635 of 340,101 — 19.89% (rank 22)
Alaska	50	22.86% (rank 49)	2.03% (rank 44)	$14.00 (rank 31)	24,409 of 233,980 — 10.43% (rank 47)	32,720 of 80,551 — 40.62% (rank 35)
Arizona	1	13.03% (rank 8)	25.22% (rank 4)	$15.15 (rank 42)	75,862 of 2,762,468 — 2.75% (rank 7)	56,647 of 493,950 — 11.47% (rank 7)
Arkansas	4	15.21% (rank 23)	13.56% (rank 14)	$11.00* (rank 23*)	20,217 of 1,058,893 — 1.91% (rank 2)	15,450 of 192,095 — 8.04% (rank 4)
California	39	14.74% (rank 21)	11.86% (rank 15)	$16.90 (rank 48)	1,100,386 of 13,858,266 — 7.94% (rank 40)	1,386,350 of 2,784,964 — 49.78% (rank 43)
Colorado	29	16.41% (rank 31)	14.57% (rank 13)	$15.16 (rank 43)	82,026 of 2,242,922 — 3.66% (rank 19)	77,301 of 465,770 — 16.60% (rank 17)
Connecticut	46	13.61% (rank 11)	2.40% (rank 41)	$16.94 (rank 49)	135,237 of 1,447,413 — 9.34% (rank 44)	131,642 of 208,302 — 63.20% (rank 49)
Delaware	37	14.46% (rank 18)	9.78% (rank 19)	$15.00 (rank 34*)	16,637 of 370,795 — 4.49% (rank 25)	30,239 of 80,477 — 37.57% (rank 32)
Florida	6	11.39% (rank 3)	22.65% (rank 5)	$14.00* (rank 31)	237,361 of 8,221,107 — 2.89% (rank 9)	264,906 of 1,106,718 — 23.94% (rank 26)
Georgia	3	14.22% (rank 16)	16.97% (rank 9)	$7.25* (rank 1*)	126,337 of 3,933,896 — 3.21% (rank 14)	111,278 of 665,175 — 16.73% (rank 18)
Hawaii	41	19.43% (rank 43)	0.04% (rank 48)	$16.00* (rank 45*)	59,235 of 449,620 — 13.17% (rank 50)	85,566 of 136,369 — 62.75% (rank 48)
Idaho	8	14.65% (rank 20)	32.19% (rank 1)	$7.25* (rank 1*)	22,253 of 741,726 — 3.00% (rank 12)	13,697 of 133,794 — 10.24% (rank 6)
Illinois	42	13.87% (rank 12)	2.24% (rank 42)	$15.00* (rank 34**)	390,505 of 5,022,163 — 7.78% (rank 38)	367,760 of 759,568 — 48.42% (rank 42)
Indiana	22	12.92% (rank 7)	7.66% (rank 26)	$7.25* (rank 1*)	180,716 of 2,842,713 — 6.36% (rank 32)	79,392 of 305,693 — 25.97% (rank 28)
Iowa	15	16.95% (rank 35)	-0.25% (rank 49)	$7.25* (rank 1*)	51,198 of 1,271,696 — 4.03% (rank 22)	50,447 of 208,636 — 24.18% (rank 27)
Kansas	19	17.67% (rank 38)	4.62% (rank 34)	$7.25* (rank 1*)	49,070 of 1,100,913 — 4.46% (rank 24)	34,881 of 255,262 — 13.66% (rank 11)
Kentucky	28	15.57% (rank 28)	8.25% (rank 24)	$7.25* (rank 1*)	117,629 of 1,523,315 — 7.72% (rank 37)	39,200 of 244,389 — 16.04% (rank 16)
Louisiana	11	16.23% (rank 30)	1.42% (rank 47)	$7.25* (rank 1*)	37,344 of 1,487,832 — 2.51% (rank 6)	40,989 of 313,574 — 13.07% (rank 9)
Maine	43	15.55% (rank 27)	8.06% (rank 25)	$15.10 (rank 41)	32,701 of 515,008 — 6.35% (rank 31)	38,291 of 86,089 — 44.48% (rank 38)
Maryland	44	18.75% (rank 41)	3.23% (rank 40)	$15.00* (rank 34*)	122,364 of 2,015,602 — 6.07% (rank 29)	223,989 of 699,717 — 32.01% (rank 29)
Massachusetts	49	12.79% (rank 6)	4.54% (rank 35)	$15.00* (rank 34*)	217,002 of 2,976,004 — 7.29% (rank 34)	281,107 of 455,204 — 61.75% (rank 47)
Michigan	36	14.17% (rank 15)	3.75% (rank 39)	$13.73* (rank 30)	382,332 of 3,890,366 — 9.83% (rank 46)	181,621 of 460,271 — 39.46% (rank 33)
Minnesota	38	14.49% (rank 19)	5.31% (rank 32)	$11.41* (rank 25)	183,220 of 2,336,569 — 7.84% (rank 39)	201,754 of 389,455 — 51.80% (rank 45)
Mississippi	2	19.77% (rank 45)	5.80% (rank 31)	$7.25* (rank 1*)	26,063 of 894,458 — 2.91% (rank 10)	20,596 of 217,059 — 9.49% (rank 5)
Missouri	23	14.42% (rank 17)	6.17% (rank 30)	$15.00* (rank 34)	176,897 of 2,303,552 — 7.68% (rank 36)	94,522 of 455,426 — 20.75% (rank 23)
Montana	30	17.35% (rank 37)	15.41% (rank 11)	$10.85* (rank 22)	21,631 of 388,637 — 5.57% (rank 28)	30,915 of 82,829 — 37.32% (rank 31)
Nebraska	14	16.93% (rank 34)	4.51% (rank 36)	$15.00 (rank 34)	29,186 of 820,400 — 3.56% (rank 17)	35,213 of 152,776 — 23.05% (rank 25)
Nevada	26	11.35% (rank 2)	26.39% (rank 3)	$12.00 (rank 27*)	122,081 of 1,266,298 — 9.64% (rank 45)	66,687 of 193,832 — 34.40% (rank 30)
New Hampshire	34	12.29% (rank 4)	7.07% (rank 27)	$7.25* (rank 1*)	24,214 of 587,860 — 4.12% (rank 23)	36,111 of 88,964 — 40.59% (rank 34)
New Jersey	35	14.17% (rank 14)	9.69% (rank 20)	$15.92* (rank 44)	286,443 of 3,579,665 — 8.00% (rank 41)	326,356 of 578,868 — 56.38% (rank 46)
New Mexico	32	21.41% (rank 48)	9.80% (rank 18)	$12.00* (rank 27*)	22,567 of 647,638 — 3.48% (rank 16)	29,738 of 208,679 — 14.25% (rank 13)
New York	47	15.22% (rank 24)	7.01% (rank 28)	$16.00* (rank 45)	889,144 of 7,171,818 — 12.40% (rank 49)	945,028 of 1,450,767 — 65.14% (rank 50)
North Carolina	9	15.25% (rank 25)	19.49% (rank 7)	$7.25* (rank 1*)	75,521 of 3,937,070 — 1.92% (rank 3)	34,913 of 609,967 — 5.72% (rank 1)
North Dakota	24	19.33% (rank 42)	2.20% (rank 43)	$7.25* (rank 1*)	11,515 of 309,308 — 3.72% (rank 21)	11,646 of 75,447 — 15.44% (rank 14)
Ohio	27	13.91% (rank 13)	4.10% (rank 38)	$11.00* (rank 23)	321,626 of 4,497,653 — 7.15% (rank 33)	284,078 of 694,059 — 40.93% (rank 36)
Oklahoma	21	20.68% (rank 47)	8.55% (rank 23)	$7.25* (rank 1*)	42,985 of 1,430,077 — 3.01% (rank 13)	63,413 of 323,931 — 19.58% (rank 21)
Oregon	48	15.96% (rank 29)	8.66% (rank 22)	$15.05* (rank 40)	144,321 of 1,574,297 — 9.17% (rank 43)	137,531 of 289,883 — 47.44% (rank 40)
Pennsylvania	33	11.30% (rank 1)	6.36% (rank 29)	$7.25* (rank 1*)	315,461 of 5,047,797 — 6.25% (rank 30)	304,267 of 630,337 — 48.27% (rank 41)
Rhode Island	45	12.57% (rank 5)	4.94% (rank 33)	$16.00* (rank 45*)	38,990 of 425,439 — 9.16% (rank 42)	42,650 of 83,134 — 51.30% (rank 44)
South Carolina	13	16.56% (rank 32)	19.31% (rank 8)	$7.25* (rank 1*)	38,716 of 1,998,659 — 1.94% (rank 4)	24,027 of 328,894 — 7.31% (rank 2)
South Dakota	18	17.22% (rank 36)	10.42% (rank 16)	$11.85 (rank 26)	5,288 of 361,966 — 1.46% (rank 1)	4,248 of 53,317 — 7.97% (rank 3)
Tennessee	7	13.43% (rank 9)	15.64% (rank 10)	$7.25* (rank 1*)	74,518 of 2,606,740 — 2.86% (rank 8)	70,054 of 453,132 — 15.46% (rank 15)
Texas	12	14.81% (rank 22)	21.77% (rank 6)	$7.25* (rank 1*)	347,018 of 11,805,286 — 2.94% (rank 11)	326,654 of 1,930,773 — 16.92% (rank 19)
Utah	10	15.54% (rank 26)	27.89% (rank 2)	$7.25* (rank 1*)	29,120 of 1,348,322 — 2.16% (rank 5)	31,346 of 258,542 — 12.12% (rank 8)
Vermont	31	18.08% (rank 40)	-0.36% (rank 50)	$14.42 (rank 33)	18,164 of 244,732 — 7.42% (rank 35)	20,034 of 48,196 — 41.57% (rank 37)
Virginia	20	17.89% (rank 39)	9.48% (rank 21)	$12.77 (rank 29)	100,367 of 3,054,165 — 3.29% (rank 15)	101,976 of 739,899 — 13.78% (rank 12)
Washington	40	16.76% (rank 33)	14.90% (rank 12)	$17.13 (rank 50)	328,030 of 2,870,478 — 11.43% (rank 48)	302,947 of 645,480 — 46.93% (rank 39)
West Virginia	5	20.30% (rank 46)	1.99% (rank 45)	$8.75 (rank 21)	31,464 of 571,241 — 5.51% (rank 27)	28,615 of 132,431 — 21.61% (rank 24)
Wisconsin	17	13.45% (rank 10)	4.25% (rank 37)	$7.25* (rank 1*)	107,497 of 2,345,298 — 4.58% (rank 26)	64,466 of 347,852 — 18.53% (rank 20)
Wyoming	16	24.13% (rank 50)	1.87% (rank 46)	$7.25* (rank 1*)	6,369 of 178,302 — 3.57% (rank 18)	8,004 of 61,083 — 13.10% (rank 10)