SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
collective bargaining
America Runs on Care Work, and I’m Tired of Pretending Otherwise
The labor that sustains human life gets pushed to the margins, while the labor that scales software gets paraded on magazine covers.
Mar 08, 2026
A few days ago, I stared at a federal bar chart on my laptop and felt my stomach drop. I started asking people a party-trick question: What’s the biggest occupation in America? Almost everyone guessed something visible: teachers, retail, fast food, office work. That’s what our culture trains us to notice.
Then I pulled up the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) “largest occupations” data, and the answer was sitting there in plain English: Home Health and Personal Care Aides, 3,988,140 people.
I’m not reading that as an abstract statistic but something I see daily through my work in running CareYaya, a social enterprise that helps families find affordable in-home care support. I hear the voices behind those numbers every day: the exhausted daughter trying to keep her job, the older man determined to stay in his own house, the care aide who shows up anyway even when her own life is fraying.
What hit me wasn’t just the size of the workforce, but the silence with which society treats caregivers.
Care work sits at the intersection of everything America avoids looking at directly: aging, disability, dependence, death, and the truth that every “independent” adult is one accident, cancer, or dementia diagnosis away from needing help.
In a country that can’t stop talking about “the economy,” I rarely see the economy described the way it actually functions at street level. I see caregivers keeping older adults safe so that family members can work, so the bills get paid, so other industries keep humming. I see care work acting like the hidden scaffolding under everything else.
And, I see how quickly that scaffolding gets treated as disposable labor.
When I talk to families, they often whisper about their difficulties getting care support almost like they’re confessing a moral failure. “We’re trying,” they tell me, as if the need for help is some private weakness instead of a predictable part of aging or serious illness. When I talk to care aides, they talk about the stress from the care work. They talk about rushing between clients. They talk about loving the work and sometimes still not being able to make rent.
PHI’s snapshot of the direct care workforce puts numbers to what I keep hearing, that median annual earnings for direct care workers were just $25,015. I read that figure and think about what it really means in 2026 America: The largest job category in the nation is, effectively, a low-wage backbone.
I also think about who gets stuck holding the bag. Care work is still treated as “women’s work” in the cultural imagination, and that bias leaks into policy, pay, and prestige. I watch the same pattern repeat: The labor that sustains human life gets pushed to the margins, while the labor that scales software gets paraded on magazine covers.
What makes me angrier is that this isn’t a small sector we can ignore until later. The BLS projects 17% growth from 2024 to 2034 for home health and personal care aides, with about 765,800 openings each year on average. This is not a “future” problem but rather a present problem that is going to grow much worse, faster.
And yet I keep watching public conversations drift toward fantasy. I hear endless speculation about AI replacing workers, while the largest workforce in America can’t even get a stable ladder, a living wage, or basic respect. I hear investors pitch “aging tech” like it’s a consumer gadget category, while the core issue is whether a real human being can afford to do this work and stay in it.
I don’t think this is an accident, but rather, a choice embedded in our system.
Care work sits at the intersection of everything America avoids looking at directly: aging, disability, dependence, death, and the truth that every “independent” adult is one accident, cancer, or dementia diagnosis away from needing help. So we do what societies often do with uncomfortable truths. We outsource them, we underpay them, and we call them “personal responsibility.”
Even the funding structure says it all. Medicaid is the main payer of long-term services and supports in the US, and a recent Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services brief says so plainly: “Medicaid is the largest payer for long-term services and supports (LTSS) in the United States.” I read that line and think about the whiplash families face when they confront a vast public health need paired with political rhetoric that treats caregivers and recipients like line items to be squeezed.
So when I’m asked what to do, I start with a moral stance and then I get practical.
I want a country that pays the people who keep elders safe, like they truly matter. I want Medicaid rates and payment models that stop forcing providers into churn, and stop forcing workers into poverty. I want training and advancement pathways for care workers, and I want the caregiving workforce to have real power: bargaining power, scheduling power, and dignity at work.
I also want us to stop acting surprised when the care workforce pipeline breaks. If the biggest job in America is care, then the “care crisis” isn’t a niche issue, but a core labor rights issue; a public investment issue; and an economic issue that’s as critical as housing, wages, and healthcare.
When I look back at that BLS bar chart, I don’t see a pop-quiz type question anymore. I see millions of workers holding up millions of families. I see the work that makes the rest of American life possible.
And I can’t unsee the insult of how little we talk about it.
If I want anything from readers, it’s this: I want you to say the name of the job out loud, and then demand that we build an economy that treats it as essential, because it is.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Just Cause' Is a Worthy Cause
Activists in Ithaca, New York are mobilizing for the first city-wide ban on arbitrary firings in the US. Other cities should take note.
Nov 22, 2025
Activists in Ithaca, New York are trying something unique: They’re mobilizing support for an ordinance that would prohibit employers in that small city from firing their employees without just cause. If they succeed, they’ll have enacted the first such city-wide ban on arbitrary firings in the country.
Success in this effort will be a big deal, because in the United States, employment—unless otherwise restricted by law, collective bargaining agreement, or individual employment contract—is considered to be “at will.” This means that in the vast majority of cases, employers are entitled to fire workers at their whim, without warning or explanation.
A 2021 report from the National Employment Law Project (NELP) tells us that about half of US workers have been affected by unfair or arbitrary firings at some point in their lives, with devastating consequences for them and their families. Not surprisingly, then, a nationwide survey cited in the report found wide public support for just cause protections, including from 71% of voters in battleground states, with both Democratic and Republican majorities weighing in favorably.
Existing Restrictions on Employers' Right to Fire
Even without new federal, state, or local legislation, employers today face some limits to the at-will doctrine: federal and state laws, like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, that bar various sorts of discrimination in the workplace; anti-retaliation statutes, like those included in the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and many other whistleblower-protection statutes; and section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, that prohibits firing for union or other "concerted" activity. All these laws fall short of robustly protecting workers from retaliatory or discriminatory firings, however, largely because the burden is on the employee to prove the employer's illegal motivation—no simple feat—when under the general at-will rule the employer can fire the worker for no reason at all.
In addition to these limited statutory constraints on the at-will doctrine, over the past 50 or so years a number of state common law exceptions to the rule have developed. The most prevalent is the "public policy" exception, under which, in theory at least, employers can't fire workers for reasons that are contrary to public policy. Courts generally interpret the exception narrowly, applying it only to employees who exercise a clear legal right, perform a clear legal duty, or refuse to violate the law, or when the employer engaged in an “outrageous violation of a well-established public policy.”
Well-crafted state and local laws and ordinances, with accessible and effective enforcement mechanisms, have the potential to empower workers in new and game-changing ways, especially as federal protections erode before our eyes.
A second exception is the "implied contract of continuing employment" (at least theoretically available in 41 states and the District of Columbia). It's derived from employee handbooks, policies, and the like, that suggest protection from discharge except if the employee performs poorly, violates company policies, or has to be laid off because of the employer's economic necessity. Employers can generally get around this claim by expressly stating in their materials that the employee is working on an at-will basis, and that its various policies can be revised at any time, at the discretion of the employer.
Lastly, 11 states have read into the common law an "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing," imposed on employers and employees, to act fairly. While theoretically this should prohibit firings without cause altogether, in actuality courts rarely find it applies, and then only in the most abusive cases. In other words, none of these common law carve outs from at-will employment have been particularly helpful to workers.
The Ithaca Ordinance
Which brings us to Ithaca’s legislative proposal. As the core provision of its current draft version (embedded at the Ithaca Just Cause website), the ordinance would prohibit discharge of an employee who has completed their (maximum 90-day) probationary period, for any reason other than just cause or a bona fide economic reason. In considering whether the just cause standard has been satisfied, the fact finder is to consider, among other things, whether the employer trained the worker on its performance requirements and bases for discipline, and whether the employer’s policy, rule, practice, or performance standard, including its use of progressive discipline, was reasonable and applied consistently.
Also, except in cases of egregious misconduct, the employer has to specifically notify the worker of what rules they violated or requirements they fell short of, and must utilize progressive discipline prior to firing. Similar notice of reasons is required before discharging a worker on account of bona fide economic necessity. Significantly, if an employee termination is to be upheld, the burden is on the employer to satisfy these requirements by a preponderance of the evidence.
The proposed legislation also adds a "Worker Rights" section to the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, and establishes a commission that would adjudicate complaints of violation. Complaints of violation can also be filed in court.
Retaliation against workers who exercise any of the rights granted by the legislation is expressly prohibited, and use of electronic surveillance as a tool for determining employee performance is restricted. Remedies for employees vary depending on the violation, and include back pay and damages, rescission of discipline and reinstatement, penalties, severance pay, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees.
Other Just Cause Efforts
The proposed ordinance echoes the recommendations laid out in these NELP and Roosevelt Institute reports. Published in 2021, both make the case for why this kind of municipal ordinance, or more potently, a comparable state law (or, as an even more radical aspiration, federal legislation, as promoted by Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders) is justified and overdue for all workers—with NELP focusing particularly on the disproportionate impact of at-will employment on people of color and immigrant workers, who face higher rates of wage theft, discrimination, and retaliation for asserting their rights than the employee population at large.
It should come as no surprise, but it's still shameful, that this country lags far behind many other nations—Australia, Brazil, Japan, Mexico, the United Kingdom, and most of the European Union, to name a few—in providing just-cause protections against arbitrary and unfair firings. Which is why what the Ithaca coalition is doing is really worth noticing. But it's not the first city to take this on: Philadelphia led the (notably small) pack when, in 2019, its city council enacted a just cause termination ordinance for the city's approximately 1,000 parking lot attendants. New York City was next, enacting a comparable ordinance protecting its fast food workers in 2021. Also in New York City, a diverse coalition of unions, advocacy organizations, and high road employers are pressing for passage of a Secure Jobs Act covering all employees who work in the city. With its newly elected democratic socialist mayor Zohran Mamdani, it just might succeed.
The US territories of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands have just cause laws. In Illinois, a Secure Jobs Act, pressed by Raise the Floor Alliance and a broad array of allies, was introduced in the state legislature in 2021, but has yet to be enacted. In what might come as a surprise, Montana is the only state in the US to have enacted just cause legislation, and it's been on the books for decades. While not nearly as progressive as the Ithaca, New York City, and Illinois models, it is unique in prohibiting, state-wide, firings without good cause.
Will Just Cause Laws Hamper Unionization Efforts?
Some may be concerned that just cause legislation could undercut unions' ability to successfully organize, since that's a key benefit they can provide in collective bargaining agreements. But there are a number of arguments that cut the other way—including that if firing without good cause is made illegal and is readily enforceable, it creates a more effective impediment to employers' efforts to get rid of pro-union activists than the weak and slow remedies the National Labor Relations Act has to offer. And, just cause for all workers would provide a floor, not a ceiling, for union negotiations for even better protections against improper firings at unionized workplaces.
Parting Thoughts
Worker rights advocates should watch Ithaca Just Cause's initiative with keen interest. It also should give food for thought—and inspiration—for those of us who live in other cities and states. It’s clear that just cause protections are popular with workers across party lines. Well-crafted state and local laws and ordinances, with accessible and effective enforcement mechanisms, have the potential to empower workers in new and game-changing ways, especially as federal protections erode before our eyes. For those of us in locales where this might be possible, maybe it's time to give it a try.
Keep ReadingShow Less
3 Simple Things a Republican Congress Could Do to Help Workers (But Probably Won’t)
If Republicans in Congress were willing to listen to the voices of their constituents, they could act immediately to help millions of workers in tangible ways.
Sep 01, 2025
When US President Donald Trump prevailed on election night, headlines touted the emergence of the GOP as the party of the working class. Just as Trump has been quick to market himself as putting “America workers first,” a small but increasing number of Republicans in Congress have also taken up the cause, championing their pro-worker credentials and even expressing tentative support for initiatives to promote unions and workers’ rights—conversations that would have been unheard of a decade ago.
This shift in messaging is hardly surprising—recent polling shows increasing support for unions and pro-worker initiatives across the political spectrum, even in polling sponsored by Republican-leaning organizations. But while President Trump has publicly touted his support for proposals like “no tax on tips” (a misleading talking point for a proposal that may hurt more workers than it helps), the White House has simultaneously launched an all-out assault on workers’ rights—effectively shuttering the National Labor Relations Board, stripping collective bargaining rights from 1 million federal workers, and proposing to scale back minimum wage, overtime, and health and safety protections for millions of workers.
It’s clear that President Trump has no real interest in helping working people. But it’s equally noteworthy that “pro-worker” congressional Republicans are doing very little to counter these attacks, and have no real agenda of their own to help workers succeed.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Workers have told elected officials—again and again—what government can do to help them. When working people are given the opportunity to vote directly on pro-worker policies through state and local ballot initiatives, strong majorities of voters—across party lines—support these policies. If Republicans in Congress were willing to listen to the voices of their constituents, they could act immediately to help millions of workers in tangible ways.
(1) A $15 minimum wage by 2026. Even someone who is working full time, year-round at the current minimum wage of $7.25 will live in poverty. While Democrats have introduced the leading proposal to raise the minimum wage to $17 per hour, Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley has introduced a different bill that would raise the wage to $15 by 2026—still a huge improvement that would benefit nearly 40 million American workers.
Raising the minimum wage is immensely popular, with 34 states having already increased their minimum wages above the federal level. Ten states already have minimum wages of $15 or more, and by the end of 2026 Florida and Nebraska will join this group—through ballot initiatives that passed with overwhelming public support. If the Republican senators and representatives from Florida and Nebraska would follow their constituents’ lead and join Sen. Hawley to support a raise, there would be a majority vote to pass a $15 minimum wage in both houses of Congress.
(2) Paid sick days. As of March 2023, nearly 28 million US workers did not have a guarantee of even a single day of paid sick leave. The Healthy Families Act (HFA) would let private sector workers earn up to seven paid sick days per year, benefiting 34 million workers and ensuring that they do not have to make impossible choices between their jobs and caring for themselves or a sick family member.
In the absence of federal protections, many states have taken the initiative to help workers. As of December 2024, 18 states have enacted laws that require private employers to provide paid sick leave. The three most recent state laws passed last November in Nebraska, Alaska, and Missouri by wide voter margins (though the Missouri initiative was subsequently repealed by the legislature and the governor). Even excluding the Missouri delegation, a total of 48 GOP representatives and four senators come from states that have already passed a paid sick days guarantee similar to the HFA—thus, paid sick days should easily have enough votes to win majority support in both houses of Congress.
(3) Restoring the Federal Right to Organize. As of July, 2025 almost 3 million people were employed by the federal government. Federal workers comprise a significant portion of the workforce in many states across the country. These public servants have faced mass firings and unprecedented attacks in the new Trump administration, including an executive order purporting to strip nearly 1 million federal workers of their right to form and join a union.
Whether in federal, state, or local government, both public servants and the people they serve benefit from collective bargaining. The process is a valuable tool to resolve conflicts early, reduce litigation, improve morale, and help attract and retain a qualified workforce, all of which helps the government function better. Thirty-four states and the District of Columbia recognize this and provide some collective bargaining rights for their public sector workers. When politicians attempt to revoke these rights, voters can use ballot initiatives to protect them—as in 2011 when Ohio voters overwhelmingly rejected an effort to strip rights from their public servants.
The Protect America’s Workforce Act (PAWA), recently introduced in the House of Representatives, would reverse the Trump executive order and protect federal workers’ right to form and join a union. This popular legislation has 222 cosponsors, including seven Republicans. Two Senate Republicans—Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska—have already voted for an unsuccessful amendment on the Budget resolution to protect collective bargaining rights for federal workers. If the two GOP senators from Ohio would follow their constituents’ lead in supporting public sector collective bargaining rights, PAWA could pass both houses of Congress and restore these important protections to more than 1 million American workers.
More than seven months into this Congress’ work, the fact that none of these commonsense proposals are even under discussion by our nation’s elected leaders sends a strong message about this Congress’ priorities. And it is manifestly clear that Republicans in Congress stand with President Trump, and not with working Americans.
These three simple proposals are overwhelmingly popular with people across the political spectrum and would collectively benefit millions of American workers. A Republican-controlled Congress that was willing to work across party lines could move these proposals to the president’s desk in a matter of days. (While the filibuster might prove a stumbling block in the Senate, there are opportunities every Congress to consider legislation under rules that provide a simple majority vote if proponents are properly motivated.) It’s time for congressional leaders to step up this Labor Day and put helping working families front and center on their agendas.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular