The Living Wage For All Act would substantially raise the federal minimum wage and tie it to a long-term living-wage standard. It amends the Fair Labor Standards Act to create a phased wage schedule that reaches $25 per hour for large employers by 2031 and for other employers by 2038, while also requiring the minimum wage to track two-thirds of the national median hourly wage once that benchmark is reached. The bill directs the Department of Labor to publish annual wage determinations and notices in advance of each increase, and it uses Bureau of Labor Statistics data and Congressional Budget Office projections to calculate the applicable wage path.
The bill also restructures several special wage rules. It phases out the separate subminimum wage for tipped workers, eventually requiring tipped employees to receive the full minimum wage, while preserving employees’ right to keep tips. It similarly phases out the youth subminimum wage for workers under 20 and ends the special wage certificate system for workers with disabilities under section 14(c), while providing transition assistance to employers and workers. In addition, it expands the Fair Labor Standards Act to cover incarcerated workers employed by public agencies or private prison contractors and bars certain deductions from their wages, including board, lodging, and amounts taken to pay court-imposed fees.
The bill’s impact on state and federal labor law would be significant because it directly amends the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, setting nationwide wage floors and eliminating several long-standing exceptions. Because federal wage standards generally preempt lower state standards, the bill would raise the baseline for covered workers across the country and likely affect state wage laws, tipped-wage systems, disability employment programs, prison labor arrangements, and employer payroll practices. It would also create new compliance and notice obligations for the Department of Labor and employers.
The overall sentiment in the available record appears supportive in concept, but the bill has only been introduced and referred to committee, with no recorded votes or committee debate provided. The bill’s findings frame the measure as a pro-worker, anti-poverty policy intended to align wages with living costs and reduce reliance on public assistance. Because there is no transcript or vote history, there is no documented opposition in the supplied materials, though the structure of the bill suggests likely debate over the pace of wage increases, the higher obligations on large employers, and the elimination of subminimum wage categories.
Notable points of contention likely center on the economic effects of a large federal wage increase, especially for small and mid-sized employers, and on the phase-out of tipped, youth, and disability subminimum wages. The bill explicitly gives large corporations a faster schedule than other employers, which reflects an attempt to address concerns about business capacity while still moving all employers toward the same wage floor. The inclusion of incarcerated workers is also likely to be controversial because it expands wage protections into prison labor and restricts deductions tied to incarceration-related costs and court fees.
The bill would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to establish a new federal minimum wage schedule, add a national median-wage indexing formula, and revise rules for tipped workers, young workers, workers with disabilities, and incarcerated workers. It would create a higher nationwide wage floor, phase out several subminimum wage regimes, require Department of Labor publication of annual wage notices, and impose new wage and recordkeeping obligations on employers and the federal government.
No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment in the supplied materials. The bill’s text and findings are strongly pro-increase and pro-worker, presenting the measure as a living-wage and economic-security reform. The absence of recorded opposition or amendments means the available record shows introduction-stage support only, not a measured legislative consensus.
The main likely points of contention are the size and speed of the minimum wage increase, the differential treatment of large employers versus other employers, and the elimination of subminimum wages for tipped workers, youth workers, and workers with disabilities. Business groups would likely object to higher labor costs and compliance burdens, while worker advocates would support the bill’s broader wage floor and anti-subminimum-wage provisions. The incarcerated-worker provisions may also draw scrutiny because they expand wage coverage in correctional settings and limit deductions for board, lodging, and court-related fees.