Labor Laws by State: Right-to-Work, Minimum Wage & Non-Competes

There is no national American labour market. There are fifty, and the rules that govern what you can be required to join, what you must be paid, what you can be stopped from doing after you quit, and what you are allowed to know before you apply all change at the state line.

This guide covers the four state policies that most shape that: right-to-work, minimum wage, non-compete enforceability, and pay transparency. Each restricts a different party — one limits what unions may require, one limits what employers may pay, one limits what employers may demand after you leave, and one limits what they may conceal before you arrive.

The short version

• 26 states have right-to-work laws; Michigan repealed its own in 2024, the first reversal in nearly 60 years.
• The federal minimum wage has been $7.25 since 2009 — 20 states still use it as their floor.
• Four states plus DC void non-competes outright; the FTC's nationwide ban was struck down in 2024.
• 14 states plus DC have pay-transparency laws, and 11 require a range in the posting itself.
• Right-to-work is about union dues. At-will employment is about being fired. They are unrelated.

Right-to-work

A law making union membership and dues optional, barring "union security" clauses that would require payment as a condition of employment.

At-will employment

The default doctrine in nearly every state under which either party may end the employment relationship at any time for any lawful reason.

Union security clause

A contract term requiring all covered workers to pay at least partial dues. Right-to-work laws ban these.

Non-compete

A clause barring a departing employee from working for a competitor for some period within some area.

Good-faith range

A salary range an employer genuinely intends to pay — as opposed to a meaninglessly wide range posted to satisfy the letter of a disclosure law.

Salary-history ban

A rule barring employers from asking what you currently earn, so past underpayment does not anchor your next offer.

Right-to-work: about dues, not firing

A right-to-work law guarantees that union membership and dues cannot be made mandatory. Even at a unionized workplace, an employee may decline to join and decline to pay, while keeping the job and the protections of the collective agreement.

Without such a law, a union and employer may agree to a "union security" clause requiring all covered workers to pay at least partial dues. Right-to-work voids those clauses.

Twenty-six states have one:

The map is mostly stable, but it does move — and in 2024 it moved backwards for the first time in decades when Michigan repealed its law, which is why the count is 26 rather than 27. That repeal matters beyond the arithmetic: right-to-work had been treated as a one-way ratchet for sixty years, and Michigan demonstrated it is not.

The empirical fight over right-to-work is genuinely unresolved. Supporters argue it protects individual choice, prevents compelled speech, and attracts employers. Critics argue it weakens union finances and bargaining power and is associated with lower average wages. Studies disagree on the size and sometimes the direction of the wage and employment effects, which is exactly why the issue keeps getting relitigated state by state.

Minimum wage: the longest freeze in its history

The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, set in 2009 and unchanged since — the longest period without an increase since the wage was created. It remains the national floor; no state may go below it for covered workers. But states and cities may go above it, and most have.

Twenty states still use the federal rate as their own:

In those states a full-time minimum-wage worker earns roughly $15,000 a year before tax — the same nominal figure as in 2009, worth substantially less in real terms.

At the other end, a cluster has pushed well past $15:

Washington, D.C. — highest in the nation

$17.95 — Washington, D.C. — highest in the nation.

Washington state

$17.13 — Washington state.

California

$16.90 — California.

Connecticut sits just under Washington at about $16.94, and Hawaii is at $16.00 with a scheduled path to $18 in 2028.

In a freedom-focused index a higher mandated wage counts as a heavier labour regulation, because it narrows the range of terms an employer and worker may agree to. Whether that constraint is worth its benefits is a value judgement, and one the rankings let you weight yourself.

Non-competes: back to the states

For a moment it looked as though this section would not need to exist. In 2024 the Federal Trade Commission issued a rule banning most non-competes nationwide — and it never took effect. In November 2024 a federal court struck it down, holding the FTC had exceeded its statutory authority, and the rule was subsequently removed from the federal regulations.

So enforceability is once again decided entirely by state law. Four states plus DC make non-competes void and unenforceable for most workers:

California is the famous case, and its broad ban is frequently credited as one ingredient in Silicon Valley's unusually high job mobility. Washington, D.C. also bans them, and Washington state has enacted a sweeping ban taking effect in 2027.

Outside the ban states, roughly 34 more restrict non-competes rather than voiding them, typically enforcing one only if it is reasonable. Courts weigh:

• Scope — is it limited to genuinely competing work, or to the whole industry?
• Duration — months are far more defensible than years.
• Geography — a local radius beats a nationwide bar.
• Salary — many states now exempt workers below an income threshold outright.
• How you left — some courts will not enforce against an employee laid off without cause.

Pay transparency: the law that escaped its borders

Fourteen states plus DC now regulate pay disclosure, and eleven require a good-faith salary range in the job posting itself:

Coverage thresholds matter as much as the map. Colorado's law reaches any employer with even one in-state worker; New York's starts at four employees; Hawaii's only at fifty.

Beyond the posting requirement, these laws commonly add pay on request for applicants and sometimes current employees, salary-history bans, and in Colorado and Illinois a description of benefits alongside the range.

The most interesting thing about these laws is that they do not stay inside the states that passed them. Because a remote role could be filled by someone in Colorado, New York, or Washington, a company headquartered in a no-disclosure state often has to post a range regardless. Rather than maintain two versions of every posting, many national employers simply post ranges everywhere. That is why salary ranges now appear on listings for jobs based in states with no such law at all — a handful of states effectively set national practice, without any of the others voting for it.

The direction of travel is toward more disclosure. Delaware passed a posting-range law in 2025 that takes effect in September 2027, and bills surface in most legislative sessions elsewhere.

How states rank on regulatory burden

All four policies feed a state's broader labour and regulatory climate, alongside occupational licensing and reporting rules:

1. 1. Idaho —
   10.0/10 (A+).
2. 2. South Dakota —
   9.8/10 (A+).
3. 3. North Dakota —
   9.6/10 (A+).
4. 4. Montana —
   9.4/10 (A+).
5. 5. Alaska —
   9.2/10 (A+).
6. 6. Arizona —
   9.0/10 (A+).
7. 7. Nevada —
   8.8/10 (A).
8. 8. Wyoming —
   8.6/10 (A).
9. 9. Kansas —
   8.4/10 (A-).
10. 10. Nebraska —
    8.2/10 (A-).

See all 50 states ranked on Regulatory Burden

See all 50 states ranked on regulatory burden

Occupational licensing, labor rules, and red tape — the full ranking with a color-coded map.