New York City Voters Back Worker Protections Central to the Secure Jobs Act
By Tenneth Fairclough II and Isa Alomran
Introduction
In 2021, New York City adopted legislation protecting fast food workers against unfair firings. Building on that law’s successful implementation, in December 2022 the Secure Jobs Act (Intro 837) was introduced in the New York City Council. If adopted, the law would expand the protections of the fast food law to all workers in the city. Under the proposed legislation, employers would be required to give employees advance notice and show that they have a good reason before they discharge a worker.
New polling from Data for Progress shows that likely New York City voters overwhelmingly agree with the goals of the Secure Jobs Act and support protecting all workers from unfair firings.
First, we find that, after reminding voters of the employment law status quo, which enables some employers to terminate their employees without providing a reasonable justification, voters support requiring employers to provide a reasonable justification when firing their workers by a +66-point margin (81 percent support, 15 percent oppose). This sentiment is widely shared across bipartisanship, as Democrats, Independents, and Republicans support this requirement by +78 points, +53 points, and +38 points, respectively.
Under current labor laws, employers can also terminate their employees without a fair warning, such as alerting them to performance issues and providing opportunities for improvement. We find that likely New York City voters support requiring employers to provide their workers with a fair warning before discharging them by a +80-point margin (89 percent support, 9 percent oppose). Across partisanship, this requirement similarly enjoys strong majority support, by +90, +65, and +62 points among Democrats, Independents, and Republicans, respectively.
To measure whether a city council member’s support (or lack thereof) for this law matters to voters, we asked them whether they’d be more or less likely to vote for their own city council member if they oppose protecting workers from being fired without a reasonable justification or fair warning. We find that by a -53-point margin, voters say they would be less likely to vote for their city council member if they oppose these worker protections (18 percent more likely, 71 percent less likely). Voters across parties hold similar views: Democrats, Independents, and Republicans are less likely to vote for such a council member by margins of -57 points, -67 points, and -17 points, respectively.
Additionally, we sought to measure whether voters were more or less likely to support requiring these employee protections based on the size of the employer. Specifically, we asked voters whether they agreed or disagreed with requiring small businesses to provide their workers with fair warnings and reasonable justifications ahead of and at termination, and asked the same about large businesses. We find that voters are slightly more likely to agree with requiring larger employers to provide these protections than they are with smaller ones; 91 percent of voters say they agree that large businesses should be required to provide fair warning and reasonable justification, while 86 percent say the same of small businesses. This trend largely holds across partisanship, where voters across each party are slightly more likely to agree with requiring larger employers to provide these protections than they are with smaller ones.
We also measured the impact of opposition to these worker protections on city council member favorability. Specifically, we asked voters whether they would have a favorable or unfavorable view of their city council member if they place the interest of other organizations and corporations ahead of protecting workers from being fired without a reasonable justification or fair warning. We find that by a -49-point margin, voters say they would unfavorably view their city council member for holding such a stance. Meanwhile, Democrats, Independents, and Republicans share a similar view, by -47 points, -65 points, and -34 points, respectively.
Conclusion
The U.S. is unique among industrialized nations in that employees can be fired abruptly — without notice or a good reason — and left with bills due and no paycheck or severance pay. This hallmark of our system of employment law, known as at-will employment, can be extremely disruptive to the lives of U.S. workers and their families when the paycheck they depend on is there one day and gone the next. The destabilization resulting from unfair discharges hurts Black and Latino workers the most. They are more likely than white workers to face an extended period of unemployment after losing a job.
It is no surprise that New York City voters overwhelmingly support legislation that would protect workers against unjust and abrupt firings. A similar New York City law covering fast food workers went into effect last year and has been successful in helping unfairly discharged workers.
Support for these protections is strong across political party affiliation, race, gender, and age. With such a large majority of New York City voters indicating a need for legislation protecting workers from unfair discharge, the data underscores that lawmakers who ignore voters on this issue are doing so at their own political peril.
Tenneth Fairclough II (@tenten_wins) is a polling analyst at Data for Progress.
Isa Alomran is a lead analyst at Data for Progress.