CHARLESTON, W.Va. – They work hard to get you a hot cup of coffee in the morning or a quick dinner at night, but many minimum wage fast-food workers depend on public assistance to feed their own families.

According to research from the University of California at Berkeley, more than half of the country's fast food workers are now in public assistance programs.

Sean O'Leary, a policy analyst with the West Virginia Center on Budget & Policy, says his organization’s research shows that many of these workers are actually trying to support families on minimum wage, no-benefit jobs.

"But if you're working on the minimum wage right now, your wage is set below the poverty level,” he adds. “Two-person poverty threshold is above what a full-time working 40 hour a week 52 weeks a year worker can earn at the minimum wage."

According to the Berkeley study, public assistance for fast food employees costs U.S. taxpayers $7 billion a year.

UC Berkeley economist Sylvia Allegretto says the research uncovers broader problems in the U.S. economy.

She says corporate profits as a share of national income are at record highs, while the share going to workers is at a 55-year low – and falling.

"Low-wage workers really took it on the chin during the Great Recession,” she says. “Hours cut, pay that was frozen or cut. And now that the economy is growing again and corporate profits are soaring, the workers are not sharing in those benefits."

According to O'Leary, nearly 200,000 West Virginians would get a raise if the minimum wage increased to $10.10 an hour – enough to get many off public assistance.

Critics charge that would increase unemployment by forcing fast food restaurants to lay off workers or cut hours.

O'Leary counters that it actually it wouldn't increase costs that much, even at fast food places.

"That's where most of the minimum-wage jobs are, are in the service sector and the retail industry and in the food service sector,” he explains. “But while raising the minimum does increase business costs, it's not really a huge cost."



get more stories like this via email

Workers at a hospital on the Oregon coast are citing a victory in contract negotiations with their employer.

More than 100 members of SEIU Local 49 at Samaritan North Lincoln Hospital in Lincoln City will receive raises averaging 10% over the first year of their new contract. Brittany King, a CT special imaging technologist at the hospital, said many workers have been struggling to afford living in the community, and this raise makes the hospital's wages competitive with the local job market.

"There are a lot of members," she said, "that told me specifically that, 'I think this is a wage that I can live with, that means I don't have to leave Samaritan.'"

King said workers have dealt with a number of tragedies in recent years, including the pandemic and 2020 wildfires. Their new contract also expands education funding.

Rachel Eggleton, a certified nursing assistant at the hospital, said workers rallied over Memorial Day weekend when contract negotiations stalled and the community members showed their support.

"Once they saw us out in the rain rallying," she said, "they realized, 'OK, maybe there's something wrong. Maybe we need to help out our health-care workers, because they've been there through thick and thin for the entire pandemic, regardless of whatever's happening.' We still provided the care that they needed."

Eggleton said this support has been key.

"Getting everybody involved and getting the community involved," she said, "it will always bring us better things."

A new Minnesota law, which goes into effect Sunday, removes requirements restricting Social Security recipients from receiving full jobless benefits as well.

Bill sponsors noted Minnesota was the last state to have the offset requirement. It reduced by 50% unemployment aid for laid-off workers who, within the first year, either received or started to apply for Social Security.

Kate Schaefers, volunteer state president of AARP Minnesota, said it had a profound effect on older workers as the pandemic began to take shape. She pointed to testimony from a Rochester man who had worked part-time in retail and lost his job but had no unemployment benefits to supplement his income.

"He told us that he cut back on expenses, including his medication, because he couldn't afford them living just off of his Social Security check," Schaefers recounted.

Schaefers pointed out they are disappointed the changes are not retroactive, leaving out many residents devastated by the crisis. But she noted supporters secured a compromise with the Senate by starting the repeal date this year, as opposed to waiting longer to appease concerns about the unemployment fund's balance.

Schaefers said looking ahead, the repeal will be beneficial to the growing number of older adults who cannot afford to solely rely on their pension in the face of rising consumer costs.

"This is a key part of their retirement ... continued work," Schaefers explained. "This is going to benefit them if they get laid off; that they can access those unemployment benefits."

The group estimated 16% of Minnesotans 62 and older receiving Social Security are still in the labor force. It added the benefits are modest, averaging nearly $1,600 a month in Minnesota.

The so-called "great resignation" isn't playing out for all workers. A new survey covering North Dakota and Minnesota shows people on the lower end of the income scale face obstacles in jumping to other job opportunities.

The Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank, along with Community Action agencies in both states, heard from more than 200 individuals, mainly working in social services, education and health care. Most expressed a desire to move up the career ladder, but said they lack the resources to learn new skills, or that expenses such as child care get in the way.

Erick Garcia Luna, regional outreach director at the Minneapolis Fed, said it becomes more pronounced for people earning very little in their current job.

"If a family is making minimum wage," he said, "they're going to have a harder time taking the time, for example, to get trained for another job."

Nearly 60% of respondents making between $10,000 and $25,000 dollars a year said it's either "somewhat or very difficult" to make an occupational change. Community Action Partnership of North Dakota said the survey also revealed these individuals are finding it harder to meet basic needs amid rising inflation, but also can't afford to pursue a better-paying job.

Ashley Littlewolf, workforce development case manager lead at the Southeastern North Dakota Community Action Agency, said she sees a lot of overlap with these barriers.

"They're feeding each other, the barriers are increasing each other," she said. "That need for new skills, and then finding the day care - and also, the jobs not paying enough."

While some employers are offering better pay, Littlewolf said the findings should prompt more action to boost starting wages. She said expanding the hiring pool can help, too.

"Taking a chance on someone who may not have that experience," she said, "but offering on-site training, offering the opportunity for them to enter that career path without the experience or education."