1
Hidden Threat: California COVID-19 Surges and Worker Distress
By Edward Orozco Flores, Ana Padilla
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Low-wage work is associated with the
spread of COVID-19, and to mitigate COVID-
19 spread it is not enough to simply regulate
business openings and public gatherings—
policymakers must also innovate health and
safety reforms focused on the workplace
and provide a greater safety net for workers.
Our analysis examines the relationship
between low-wage work (“worker distress”)
and recent county-level COVID-19 positive
test rates. We find a strong relationship
between low-wage work and COVID-19
positivity, and identify those industries with
the greatest prevalence of low-wage work.
Lastly, we estimate the number of private
sector workers in firms exempted from the
Families First Coronavirus Response Act’s
(FFCRA) paid leave provisions, by industry.
We recommend reporting COVID-19
positivity by industry; improved workplace
health and safety standards mitigating the
spread of COVID-19; and a greater safety net
for low-wage workers unable to access
traditional unemployment benefits, paid sick
or family leave, or health insurance.
1
Direct correspondence to: Edward Orozco Flores, University of California Merced. Email: eflores52@ucmerced.edu
2
Last updated July 12, 2020
KEY FINDINGS
1. Eighteen of California’s fifty-eight counties
had COVID-19 positive test rates above 8%,
as of July 12, 2020.
2
2. Most counties (93%) with high worker
distress were on the state’s COVID-19
watchlist with positivity rates above 8%.
These counties were: Imperial, Stanislaus,
Merced, Tulare, Riverside, San Bernardino,
San Joaquin, Madera, Kings, Fresno, Los
Angeles, Santa Barbara, Yuba and Sutter.
3. Most counties (95%) with low worker
distress were marked by low COVID-19
positivity. Only 2 of 37 counties with low
worker distress had rates above 8%.
4. The relationship between worker distress
and COVID-19 positivity was constant across
rural, suburban, and urban regions.
5. Worker distress was highest in agriculture,
accommodations and food services,
administrative and support and waste
management, transportation and
warehousing, and retail. Additionally, most
workers lack federal emergency paid leave.
Community and
Labor Center
at the University of California Merced
Policy Brief
J u l y 2 0 2 0
2
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Reporting COVID-19 test results by
industry. Understanding industry trends in
COVID-19 transmission will play a critical
role in developing appropriate workplace
health and safety standards.
2. Improved workplace health and safety
standards. While much of the public debate
on COVID-19 safety has centered on the
regulation of large public gatherings, our
analysis suggests a widespread, potent
association between COVID-19 and low-
wage work that affects the broader public
requires meaningful reform.
3. A greater safety net for workers in
essential jobs. Millions of workers lack
access to unemployment benefits, guar-
anteed emergency paid leave, or affordable
health coverage. For essential workers who
do not have the option to telework, a safety
net may enhance policy efforts to reform
workplace health and safety standards.
INTRODUCTION
Four months after the nation’s first COVID-
19 stay-at-home orders, US public officials
continue to debate the most appropriate
way to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. The
efforts have been largely unsuccessful,
however. More than 2.9 million persons
have been infected and 130,000 have died
(Centers for Disease Control 2020). More
than 20.5 million jobs have been lost (Bureau
of Labor Statistics 2020). And the impact has
been unevenly felt. Undocumented
immigrants—with no access to
unemployment benefits—have lost jobs at
3
See Rodriguez (2020), Sturgill (2020) and Solis
(2020).
the highest rates (Flores and Padilla 2020),
while Blacks and Latinos have suffered the
highest infection and death rates across
large swaths of urban, suburban and rural
areas (Oppel et al. 2020).
As public officials and experts have grappled
with closing businesses and regulating public
gatherings, several consistent trends have
suggested patterns in surges unaccounted
for. While the dominant narrative of the
failure to stem COVID-19 has typically
centered on density and gatherings, such a
narrative fails to explain why rates fell for all
groups except for Latinos during the period
of stay-at-home orders, or how COVID-19
transmission in suburban and rural regions
often outstrips those in densely-populated
urban cores (e.g. Oppel et al. 2020).
The recent outbreaks of COVID-19 among
California's farmworkers, in counties such as
Imperial, Oxnard and Hanford, illuminate the
central role of the workplace in COVID-19
transmission.
3
COVID-19 may travel through
tightly congested work environments or
overcrowded housing. In turn, the lack of
options available to low-wage, essential
workers to cope with the pandemic—as
many lack access to unemployment benefits,
emergency paid sick or family leave, or
health insurance—place low-wage workers
and their communities at higher risk of
COVID-19 infection and transmission.
In this brief we examine the relationship
between low-wage work and COVID-19
infection rates. We ask, are counties with
high rates of low-wage worker households
and large households associated with
higher rates of COVID-19? In addition, we
3
also examine the relative risk of COVID-19
transmission among California workplaces.
We ask, in which California industries do
workers have the highest rates of low-wage
workers and large households? Lastly, we
estimate access to FFCRA emergency paid
sick or family leave by industry.
Our findings indicate that low-wage work is
associated with the spread of COVID-19, and
that to mitigate COVID-19 spread it is not
enough to simply regulate business openings
and public gatherings—policymakers must
also innovate health and safety reforms
focused on the workplace and provide a
greater safety net for workers.
DATA AND METHODS
This brief utilizes US Census Bureau
American Community Survey (ACS) Public
Use Microdata Series (PUMS) 2018 data, as
well as Current Population Survey (CPS)-
Annual Social and Economic Supplement
(ASEC) 2018 data. The ACS is drawn from an
annual sample of 3.5 million American
households, and its data represents one
percent of American households, whereas
the CPS-ASEC is a smaller survey drawn from
a sample of 94,000 households.
This brief focuses its analysis on fifty-two of
California’s fifty-eight counties—either on
individual counties or through Census Public
Use Microdata Areas (PUMAs) for small
counties with a population of less than
150,000. (We omitted from the full analysis
the Glenn/Colusa/Tehama/Trinity PUMA
and the Monterey/San Benito PUMA. Glenn,
Colusa and Monterey reported positivity
rates above 8%, but no data was available for
analyzing county-level worker distress.)
We also utilized the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology (2020) Living Wage
Calculator, which provided county-level
estimates for a household “living wage”
income—the household income necessary
Table 1. California counties with high worker distress
County
Average Household Size
Tulare
2.9
Kern
3.0
Imperial
3.0
Kings
3.1
Fresno
2.9
Madera
3.1
Merced
3.2
San Joaquin
3.0
Los Angeles
2.7
San Bernardino
3.1
Santa Barbara
2.8
Riverside
2.9
Stanislaus
2.8
Sutter
2.8
Yuba
2.8
California average
2.7
Source: UC Merced Community and Labor Center analysis of
IPUMS-USA American Community Survey 2018 PUMS data
4
to “avoid consistent and severe housing and
food insecurity” (Nadeau 2018, 2). The
calculator provided estimates for
households with twelve different
combinations of working adults, non-
working adults, and children. We applied the
2019 county-level and household-level
thresholds to every household sampled in
the 2018 ACS, adjusting for inflation.
We defined worker distress through two me-
asures: percent of households living below a
living wage, and average household size.
In 2018, California’s average household size
was 2.7, third-highest in the nation; twenty-
one California counties had higher
household sizes. In addition, 27.4% of
California households reported a household
income that fell below the “living wage”
threshold; thirty counties had higher rates.
We coded counties that surpassed the state
average on both of these measures (low-
wage worker households, and household
size) as being characterized by high worker
distress. These consisted of Tulare, Kern,
Imperial, Kings, Fresno, Madera, Merced,
San Joaquin, Los Angeles, San Bernardino,
Santa Barbara, Riverside, Stanislaus, Sutter
and Yuba (see table 1). Counties that did not
surpass the state average on both measures
were coded as low worker distress.
Lastly, we drew from California Department
of Public Health (2020) data for county-level
positivity rates.
FINDINGS
Four months in to the COVID-19 pandemic,
COVID-19 spread has made deep inroads
into urban, suburban and rural geographies
across California. As of July 12, 2020,
nineteen California Counties were on the
state’s “watchlist” with a testing positivity
rate greater than eight percent. Many are
rural and suburban (see figure 1).
Seven of eight San Joaquin Valley counties—
where the majority of the state’s agricultural
production hails from—are among the
state’s eighteen counties with COVID-19
positivity above eight percent. This includes
Figure 1. California counties with high COVID-19 positivity rates (>8%)
Source: California Department of Public Health, County Data Monitoring, July 12, 2020
5
Stanislaus (17.7%), Merced (16.1%), Tulare
(15.1%), San Joaquin (14.4%), Madera
(13.0%), Kings (11.7%), and Fresno (11.1%).
Los Angeles County (10.4%), the state’s
largest urban area, was also among counties
with a positivity rate above eight percent.
Lastly, Riverside (15.0%) and San Bernardino
(14.5%), large suburban regions outside of
Los Angeles, were also on the list.
Worker Distress and COVID-19 Positivity
Strikingly, fourteen of the fifteen counties
characterized by high worker distress (above
the state average for percent of households
earning less than a living wage, and
households larger than the state average)
had COVID-19 positive testing rates above
eight percent. In contrast, only two of thirty-
seven counties marked by low worker
distress had COVID-19 positivity above eight
percent (see figure 2).
Figure 3 illustrates the relationship between
household size, percent of households
below a living wage, and COVID-19 positivity
greater than eight percent. In this figure,
California is represented by a large black dot
in the middle of the scatterplot, while
worker distress is represented by the upper-
right quadrant. (The right side of the
horizontal axis signifies rates of worker
households living below a living wage that
surpass the state average of 27.4%, and the
vertical axis represents average household
sizes above the state average of 2.74
persons per household).
In the upper-right quadrant of figure 3
(worker distress), large, dark-blue dots
represent counties with COVID-19 positivity
greater than 8%. Only Kern, represented by
a large, light-blue dot, was characterized by
high worker distress without a high positivity
rate.
Figure 2. County-level COVID
-19 positivity by worker distress, California
Source: UC Merced Community and Labor Center analysis of
IPUMS-USA American Community Survey 2018 PUMS data;
California Department of Public Health, County Data Monitoring, July 12, 2020
6
Figure 3. Average household size, by percent of households with 1+ workers and below a living wage, California counties
Source: UC Merced Community and Labor Center analysis of IPUMS-USA American Community Survey 2018 PUMS data
Note: Large dots (any color) = counties above California average in both average household size and worker households below a living wage
Note: Dark blue dots (any size) = counties with COVID-19 positivity rates exceeding the state threshold (>8%)
Note: White dots (any size) = some counties with COVID-19 positivity rates exceeding the state threshold (>8%)
7
Figure 4. California worker distress, by industry
Source: UC Merced Community and Labor Center analysis of IPUMS-USA American Community Survey 2018 PUMS data
8
In contrast, among the thirty-seven counties
with low worker distress (located in the
upper-left, lower-left and lower-right
quadrants), only two were characterized by
high COVID-19 positivity: Marin and Orange
(see figure 3). (These are represented by
small, dark-blue dots). Of these two, Orange
was very close to being defined as high
worker distress and was positioned very
close to the upper-right quadrant (see figure
3).
Worker Distress by Industry
In figure 4, we examine California worker
distress by industry. Our previous measure
of worker distress focused on a county-level
analysis of all households. Here we focus on
a person-level analysis of industries.
We examine industries characterized by A) a
percentage of workers living below a living
wage that surpassed the state average for
workers (23.8%), and B) industries above the
state average for household size among
workers (3.5). These metrics comprise an
individual-level measure of worker distress.
Figure 4 reveals that workers in six groupings
of California industries exhibited worker
distress—higher-than-state-average rates of
low-wage work and higher-than-state-
average household sizes. These six groupings
of industries included: agriculture, forestry,
fishing and hunting; accommodations and
food services; administrative and support
and waste management services;
transportation and warehousing; and retail.
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting
were characterized by the greatest levels of
worker distress. In these industries, almost
half (47.8%) of all workers lived in
households with less than a living wage
income, and the average household size was
4.2 persons per household.
The conditions in agricultural work place it at
high risk for COVID-19 transmission. Stories
of recent outbreaks among pistachio plant
workers in Wasco, meatpacking plant
workers in Hanford, or field workers in
Oxnard and Imperial County reveal the
potent spread of COVID-19 in rural
communities with high proportions of low-
wage workers.
Other industries also suffer from high levels
of worker distress that risk the spread of
COVID-19. These include accommodations
and food services. Almost two in five (37.7%)
workers in these industries earned less than
a living wage, and the average household
size for these workers was 4.0 persons per
household.
In addition, transportation and warehousing
industries also exhibited high levels of
worker distress. More than one in four
workers (28.6%) in these industries lived in a
household with less than a living wage, and
the average household size was 3.7.
The retail trade industry, which includes
essential, grocery retail workers, also
exhibited levels of worker distress that
suggest potent COVID-19 spread. More than
one in four (29.1%) of these workers lived in
a household which had less than a living
wage income, and their average household
size was 3.6 persons per household.
At the same time, several industries were
characterized by low levels of worker
distress. Persons working in utilities had the
lowest rate of living below a living wage
(8.0%), and workers in this industry lived in
households with 3.1 persons, on average.
9
Table 2. Estimates of US private sector workers lacking one or more forms of (FFCRA) emergency
paid leave, by industry
Lack One or More Forms of
Emergency Paid Leave
Industry
Percent
Number
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting
83.1%
2,030,976
Accommodations, and Food Services
85.6%
10,251,938
Administrative and Support and Waste Management
Services
77.7%
4,983,007
Other Services (Except Public Administration)
86.8%
6,912,218
Retail Trade
86.8%
14,882,740
Transportation and Warehousing
81.3%
4,802,695
Construction
77.3%
7,978,845
Arts, Entertainment, Recreation
75.5%
2,529,675
Wholesale Trade
69.7%
2,618,803
Health Care and Social Assistance
94.0%
18,279,067
Manufacturing
72.0%
11,617,732
Real Estate, and Rental and Leasing
84.3%
396,951
Mining and Extraction
76.4%
579,840
Educational Services
70.4%
3,944,799
Management of companies
70.1%
138,654
Finance, Insurance
81.7%
5,994,003
Information and Communications
78.0%
2,156,059
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
78.1%
8,672,834
Utilities
83.9%
990,583
Total
81.8%
109,769,055
Source: UC Merced Community and Labor Center analysis of IPUMS Current Population Survey 2018
Note: Sample restricted to (non-incorporated) self-employed, and wage-earning workers
Note: Industries listed by order of highest rate of workers living in households below a living wage
Lack of Federal Emergency Paid Leave
In this section we estimate the prevalence of
access to federal emergency paid leave
among US private sector workers. Low-wage
workers without access to paid leave are
vulnerable to the transmission of COVID-19;
those earning less than a living wage and
lacking paid leave risk significant housing
and food insecurity by calling in sick to work.
The Families First Coronavirus Response Act
(FFCRA) provides up to eighty hours of fully-
paid, emergency sick and family leave to
employees of private firms with 50 to 499
employees. (Healthcare provider employees
are exempted, while employees who work
for firms with less than fifty persons are
exempted from the family leave provision.)
The bill is set to expire December 31, 2020.
While the FFCRA may provide some safety
net for workers with no other form of paid
sick or family leave, lack of paid leave
exposes low-wage workers—many whom do
not have any form of paid leave and cannot
10
afford to miss a day of work—to risk of
COVID-19 transmission at their workplace
and in the communities they live in.
We draw from CPS-ASEC 2018 data to
estimate the number of private sector
workers in each US industry, in 2017, that
worked for employers that would today be
exempt from the FFCRA: those with less than
50 employees, 500 or more employees, or
who work for a healthcare provider.
Over one hundred million (109.8 million)
American workers in the private sector, or
more than four in five (81.8%), are exempted
from one or more of the FFCRA’s paid leave
provisions (see table 2). Without further
reform expanding paid leave, these figures
suggest that states and localities will need to
play a central role in creating a safety for all
if COVID-19 spread is to be stemmed.
Already, some major California cities have
begun to enact or to further extend existing
paid leave ordinances, mandating eighty
hours of emergency paid leave to employees
of firms with less than fifty workers, or more
than five hundred workers (Reyes and
Zahniser 2020). Such ordinances help to
close the massive loopholes in the FFCRA
that place workers and the broader public at
risk of COVID-19 spread.
Table 2 presents the prevalence of working
for an employer with less than fifty or more
than five hundred employees, by industry
(also see figure 4). This table is sorted by
industry; at top are those industries with the
highest rates of workers living in a household
with below a living wage income.
While workers in healthcare and social
assistance industries do not exhibit levels of
worker distress very different from the state
average, we estimate that most workers in
this industry (94.0%) lack at least one form
of FFCRA paid leave due to the FFCRA’s
exemption for healthcare providers. While
some employers in this industry may provide
some form of paid leave, the healthcare
industry nonetheless has the highest rate of
workers who lack access to federal,
guaranteed emergency paid leave.
Several more industries exhibit high rates of
workers who lack access to paid sick or
family leave, even above the state average of
81.8%. In retail trade, 86.8% of workers—or
14.9 million—work for employers with less
than fifty or more than five hundred
employees, and would not qualify for one or
more of the FFCRA’s paid leave provisions.
Other industries with similarly high rates
include retail trade (such as grocery retail
workers) at 86.8%, other services (which
include personal services, such as
housekeepers or gardeners) also at 86.8%,
and accommodations and food services
(such as hotel or fast food workers) at 85.6%.
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting had
the highest rate of workers who live below a
living wage, and a rate of workers who may
not qualify for federal paid sick or family
leave (83.1%) above the nation’s average.
In April, California Governor Gavin Newsom
issued an order extending eighty hours of
emergency paid sick leave to California food
chain workers (including agricultural,
grocery retail, and food delivery workers)
(Office of the Governor 2020). In addition to
the local ordinances mentioned earlier, this
is an important first step demonstrating how
state or local policy may begin to close gaps
in federal laws and address the racial and
economic disparities that allow COVID-19 to
spread in the workplace and beyond.
11
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we find a striking relationship
between county-level worker distress and
county-level COVID-19 positive test rates
that exceed the state standard (8%). Most
counties (93%) with high worker distress
were on the state’s COVID-19 watchlist with
positivity rates above 8%, while most
counties (95%) with low worker distress
were marked by low COVID-19 positivity.
Only two of thirty-seven counties with low
worker distress had rates above 8%.
We also find a relationship between worker
distress and COVID-19 positivity that
remains consistent across geographies.
While the dominant narrative about COVID-
19 has emphasized urban settings and public
gatherings, our analysis suggests that
COVID-19 spread is associated with rural and
suburban counties (such as Imperial, Tulare,
and Riverside) through worker distress.
Lastly, worker distress was highest in
particular industries. These industries
included: agriculture, accommodations and
food services, administrative and support
and waste management, transportation and
warehousing, and retail. Despite the FFCRA,
in all of these industries (and all other US
industries) most workers still lacked access
to at least one form of federal emergency
paid leave.
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
1. We recommend the reporting of COVID-
19 positivity by industry. Understanding
industry trends in COVID-19 transmission
will play a critical role in developing
appropriate workplace health and safety
standards that mitigate the transmission of
COVID-19.
2. Improved workplace health and safety
standards. While much of the public debate
on COVID-19 safety has centered on the
regulation of large public gatherings, our
analysis suggests a widespread, potent
association between COVID-19 and low-
wage work that places the broader public at
risk and requires meaningful reform at the
workplace.
3. A greater safety net for workers in
essential jobs. Millions of workers lack
access to traditional unemployment
benefits, guaranteed emergency paid leave,
or affordable health coverage. For essential
workers who do not have the option to
telework, a safety net may enhance policy
efforts to reform workplace health and
safety standards.
REFERENCES
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2020. The
Employment Situation. June 2020. News
Release. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
California Department of Public Health.
2020. COVID-19: County Data Monitoring.
Retrieved online on July 12, 2020 at:
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DC
DC/Pages/COVID-
19/COVID19CountyDataTable.aspx
Centers for Disease Control. 2020.
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Cases
in the US. Retrieved on July 12, 2020 at:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-
ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html
Flores, Edward and Ana Padilla. 2020.
Persisting Joblesseness among Non-Citizens
12
during COVID-19. Policy Report. June 2020.
Merced, CA: University of California.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
2020. Living Wage Calculator. Retrieved
online on July 8, 2020 at:
https://livingwage.mit.edu/
Nadeau, Carey Anne. 2018. Living Wage
Calculator. User’s Guide/ Technical Notes:
2018 Update. Cambridge: Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. Retrived online on
March 15, 2020 at:
https://livingwage.mit.edu/resources/Living
-Wage-User-Guide-and-Technical-Notes-
2018.pdf
Office of the Governor. 2020. Governor
Newsom Announces Paid Sick Leave Benefits
for Food Sector Workers Impacted by
COVID-19, Additional Protections for
Consumers. April 16, 2020. Retrieved online
on July 8, 2020 at:
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/04/16/gover
nor-newsom-announces-paid-sick-leave-
benefits-for-food-sector-workers-impacted-
by-covid-19-additional-protections-for-
consumers/
Oppel, Richard, Robert Gebeloff, K.K.
Rebecca Lai, Will Wright and Mitch Smith.
2020. "The Fullest Look Yet at the Racial
Inequality of Coronavirus." New York Times.
July 5, 2020. Retrieved online July 8, 2020 at:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020
/07/05/us/coronavirus-latinos-african-
americans-cdc-data.html
Reyes, Emily Alpert and David Zahniser.
2020. "L.A. expands sick leave amid
coronavirus — but only for employees at big
companies." Los Angeles Times. March 27,
2020. Retrieved online on July 8, 2020 at:
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/
2020-03-27/los-angeles-coronavirus-sick-
leave-companies
Rodriguez, Robert. 2020. Hanford Meat
Processor Has Nearly 200 Workers Infected
with Coronavirus. Fresno Bee. May 13, 2020.
Retrieved online on July 8, 2020 at:
https://www.fresnobee.com/news/busines
s/agriculture/article242714526.html
Solis, Gustavo. 2020. "Imperial County has
Highest Rate of COVID-19 Cases in the State;
it Wants to Reopen Anyway." San Diego
Union-Tribune. June 14, 2020. Retrieved
online on July 8, 2020 at:
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/ne
ws/story/2020-06-14/imperial-county-has-
highest-rate-of-covid-19-cases-in-the-state-
it-wants-to-reopen-anyway
Sturgill, Kristi. 2020. "At Least 176 Test
Positive for Coronavirus at Ventura county
Farmworker Housing Complex." Los Angeles
Times. June 30, 2020. Retrieved online on
July 8, 2020 at:
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/
2020-06-30/at-least-176-positive-
coronavirus-tests-at-ventura-county-
farmworker-housing-complex
13
About UC Merced Community and Labor Center
The UC Merced Community and Labor Center is located at the University of California Merced. It
conducts research and education on issues of community, labor and employment.