Missouri Gov Repeals Voter-Approved Sick Leave, Caps Min Wage

A battle over worker rights and democracy unfolds as lawmakers override the will of Missouri voters.

Missouri’s promise to protect its workers took a dramatic turn when Governor Mike Kehoe signed House Bill 567, repealing a voter-approved paid sick leave law and capping the minimum wage increase at$15 per hour. Despite 58% of Missouri voters backing the original measure, changes driven by business groups and Republican lawmakers now put worker rights—and the very notion of direct democracy—in jeopardy. This article explores the legislative reversal, its economic and social impacts, and the broader implications for democracy in Missouri and beyond.

The Ballot Box Promise: Voter-Approved Measures

The Rise of Proposition A

In November 2024, Missouri voters decisively approved Proposition A with nearly 58% support. The measure was designed to advance worker security in a state where low-wage jobs were prevalent. Key elements of Proposition A included:

• A minimum wage increase that would raise pay to$13.75 in early 2025 and ultimately reach$15 by 2026, with additional annual adjustments based on inflation beginning in 2027.
• A mandate requiring employers to offer one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked, ensuring that small businesses (with 15 or fewer employees) provided a minimum of five days of leave, while larger companies would offer seven days.
• Provisions allowing workers to use sick leave for personal or family illness and to carry over up to 80 hours of unused leave annually.

Proponents argued that these measures were essential for lifting working families out of economic precarity and promoting public health. As Caitlyn Adams, Executive Director of Missouri Jobs with Justice, remarked, “This was about dignity and security for Missouri’s workers.”

Why Voters Chose Change

The appeal behind Proposition A extended beyond the numbers at the ballot box. It symbolized a broader desire for direct democratic action—a means for everyday Missourians to address systemic inequality and support families facing rising living costs. Voters saw paid sick leave not only as a personal benefit but as a public health safeguard, ensuring that workers did not have to choose between their health and their paycheck.

The Legislative Reversal: House Bill 567

What Changed Under House Bill 567

Only months after Proposition A set its course, the political winds shifted dramatically. In a move that stunned many, Governor Mike Kehoe signed House Bill 567 in mid-2025. This bill made two pivotal changes to the voter-approved measure:

• Repeal of Paid Sick Leave: The law that once mandated paid sick leave for Missouri workers was repealed entirely. No longer would employers be required to provide paid sick time, leaving workers vulnerable if they fell ill or needed to care for family members.
• Capping the Minimum Wage: Although the minimum wage was set to increase, the new legislation halted annual inflation-based wage adjustments beyond the$15 per hour mark. This meant that while wages would rise initially, they would not keep pace with the cost of living over time.

The Business Case and Political Justifications

Supporters of House Bill 567, including influential business groups and Republican lawmakers, contended that the original mandates imposed an undue financial burden on employers. The Missouri Chamber of Commerce, for instance, argued that the paid sick leave requirement and automatic wage adjustments would be “job killers” that could stifle economic growth and hurt small businesses.

Governor Kehoe maintained that the repeal and cap were necessary to protect Missouri’s competitive edge in a challenging economic climate. “Our priority is to keep Missouri competitive and ensure that businesses can continue to thrive without the weight of costly mandates,” he explained in a press briefing.

Republican lawmakers further echoed these sentiments, stating that flexibility for employers was crucial. By eliminating standardized mandates, they believed businesses could better tailor policies to their unique operational needs.

Reactions from the Ground: Workers, Democrats, and Labor Groups

Voices from the Opposition

The legislative rollback was met with anger and disappointment, particularly among Democrats and labor advocates. Senate Minority Leader Doug Beck condemned the move as an affront to the voters, stating, “The Republican supermajority took away sick pay for millions of workers in the state of Missouri without regard for the people who trusted them to act in our best interest.” Senator Stephen Webber added his discontent: “When the will of the voters is overridden like this, it undermines every part of our democratic process.”

Mark Boyko, another vocal critic, argued that the rollback was a betrayal of public trust. “Missouri voters set forth a clear mandate to support working families. Repealing paid sick leave not only hurts workers—it erodes the very fabric of democracy,” he noted during a recent town hall meeting.

Labor Union Outcry and Public Protests

Labor organizations such as Missouri Jobs with Justice have been at the forefront of organizing protests throughout the state. Richard von Glahn, policy director for the advocacy group, expressed his dismay: “It hurts my heart to see families forced into impossible choices. Without paid sick leave, parents might have to decide between tending to a sick child and paying rent.”

In Kansas City, a group of dedicated protesters gathered outside the state capitol, holding signs urging lawmakers to “Respect the Vote” and “Protect Our Rights.” Focus groups conducted by labor advocates revealed that even voters with conservative leanings felt betrayed by the legislature’s decision.

The Voter Sentiment

For many Missourians, the repeal has generated a profound sense of disenfranchisement. Several protestors voiced a common frustration: “Why should my vote matter if lawmakers can simply ignore the will of the people?” Such sentiments underscore the growing distrust between voters and elected officials—a trend that has significant ramifications for future ballot initiatives.

Economic and Social Impacts

Short-Term Economic Considerations

Supporters of the legislative changes argue that repealing paid sick leave will reduce business costs. The Missouri Chamber of Commerce cites studies suggesting that mandated benefits can lead to increased operational expenses and, ultimately, fewer jobs. In the short term, some economists believe that lower regulatory costs might stimulate hiring among small businesses concerned about cash flow.

Long-Term Economic Risks and Wage Erosion

Critics warn that the removal of annual inflation adjustments will have serious long-term consequences. Without automatic increases to match the rising cost of living, the real value of Missouri’s minimum wage is projected to fall over time. The Missouri Budget Project estimates that over 728,000 workers could lose the safety net of paid sick leave, further widening the income gap and intensifying economic inequality.

Public Health and Family Well-Being

The repeal of paid sick leave carries significant public health implications. Without a mandated period to recover from illness, workers may feel compelled to come to work when they are sick, increasing the risk of contagion in workplaces and communities. Families, particularly those with low incomes or single parents, now face even tougher choices between caring for loved ones and meeting financial obligations. As one lay protester lamented, “We are sacrificing our health and our stability for an economy that no longer cares about the everyday person.”

Worker Morale and Productivity

Several studies have demonstrated that proper paid sick leave benefits boost worker morale and reduce turnover, factors that contribute to increased productivity and reduced training costs for businesses. The absence of such benefits, critics argue, could lead to a less stable workforce in the long run, with more frequent absences and higher healthcare costs for all.

Democracy at Stake: Broader Political Implications

Erosion of Direct Democracy

Missouri’s decision to override a voter-approved measure is part of a broader national trend where legislatures dismantle or dilute direct democratic actions. Similar instances have been observed in states like Nebraska and Alaska, where legislative bodies have weakened the impact of ballot initiatives. By sidelining the will of the voters, lawmakers risk eroding public trust in the democratic process.

A Cautionary Tale for Voter Rights

The ability of a legislative majority to reverse decisions made at the ballot box sends a powerful message. Constitutional experts note that in states like Missouri—where veto power over voter-approved measures exists—the democratic process is highly vulnerable to partisan maneuvers. In contrast, states such as Arizona have enacted safeguards to protect ballot measures from legislative interference, offering a potential model for preserving direct democracy.

Gregory Magarian, a constitutional law professor, emphasizes, “When legislatures have unchecked authority to overturn the public’s choices, the fundamental premise of direct democracy is undermined. Missouri’s case should prompt a national conversation about protecting voter rights.”

The Road Ahead

In response to the legislative rollback, grassroots organizations are mobilizing to propose a new constitutional amendment aimed at permanently protecting worker benefits from political interference. Advocates hope that by reinforcing the voter’s power in the state constitution, former gains can be safeguarded for future generations.

The Fight for Worker Rights and Democratic Integrity

Missouri’s recent repeal of a voter-approved paid sick leave law and the capping of the minimum wage are more than just policy changes—they are emblematic of the ongoing struggle between direct voter influence and legislative control. As workers, lawmakers, and citizens grapple with the fallout, the broader implications for economic stability, public health, and democratic governance remain profound.

This contentious decision underscores the need for all Missourians to remain vigilant and engaged in the democratic process. Whether through voting, organized protests, or legislative advocacy, the battle for worker rights and true democratic representation is far from over.

If you believe in empowering workers and upholding the will of the people, now is the time to get involved. Share your thoughts, join local community meetings, and let your voice be heard. The future of Missouri—and perhaps the nation—may well depend on it.