Governor Mike Kehoe of Missouri quickly undid a sick leave policy that had been approved by voters and was starting to change workplace expectations throughout the state when he signed House Bill 567. The repeal, which is scheduled to go into effect on August 28, 2025, defeats a ballot initiative that was supported by more than 1.6 million Missourians and was intended to guarantee that employees would receive one hour of paid sick leave for every thirty hours worked.
Supported by business associations and encouraged by the Missouri Chamber of Commerce, the governor presented his choice as a protest against “expensive mandates.” His office explained that the repeal was a part of a larger effort to reduce red tape and protect small business owners. However, it felt more like abandonment than liberation to tens of thousands of workers throughout Missouri, especially those in the retail and service sectors.
Missouri Paid Sick Leave Repeal – Key Information
| Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| Governor | Mike Kehoe |
| Political Affiliation | Republican |
| Legislation Signed | House Bill 567 |
| Date Signed | July 10, 2025 |
| Law Repealed | Paid Sick Leave Law (Proposition A, Nov 2024) |
| Repeal Takes Effect | August 28, 2025 |
| Original Law Effective Date | May 1, 2025 |
| Sick Leave Accrual Rate | 1 hour per 30 hours worked |
| Max Leave for Large Employers | 56 hours (7 days) annually |
| Max Leave for Small Employers | 40 hours (5 days) annually |
Only seventeen weeks after the original law went into effect, Kehoe made his move. Full-time employees who worked 40 hours a week at that time could have accrued about 22 hours of paid sick leave. Even though some people were able to utilize those hours, any unused time is no longer guaranteed after August due to the impending repeal. Although many are currently reviewing internal policies to address the uncertainty, employers are not legally required to honor those remaining hours.
Missouri has joined a small but vocal group of states opposing sick leave guarantees at the state level by rescinding this benefit. Missouri’s repeal is especially sudden in contrast to Nebraska, which changed its law but kept some of the benefit, or Alaska, where a comparable measure is still in place. It shows a dramatic and purposeful change in direction, driven more by political ideology than by empirical data on policy.
There are also some obvious inconsistencies in the repeal. The removal of paid sick leave undermines the very support system that working families depend on, even though Kehoe’s tax package includes exemptions on necessities like diapers and feminine products, demonstrating sensitivity toward family economics. Parents, particularly single mothers juggling hourly shifts with erratic childcare needs, find this paradox to be extremely painful.
The original measure’s creator and policy director for Missouri Jobs With Justice, Richard von Glahn, was unreserved in his remarks. He referred to the repeal as “an absolute betrayal” and emphasized the financial and psychological costs associated with this choice. Now, parents must choose between missing work and running the risk of being evicted or sending a sick child to school.
Taking into account national trends, this repeal feels especially retrograde. Nearly 80% of full-time private sector employees currently receive paid sick leave, according to recent data from the U.S. Labor Department. However, among part-time employees, where the need is frequently greatest, that number falls sharply. The purpose of Missouri law was to close that gap. Now that it’s gone, inequality will probably get worse.
Republican lawmakers quickly adopted the chamber’s claim that the law killed jobs. However, there isn’t much publicly available data to back up the assertion. Studies from states like California and New Jersey, where comparable laws have been in effect for years, actually indicate a slight but quantifiable increase in employee retention and little effect on employment rates.
More than a dispute over labor rights, what transpired in Missouri’s Senate chamber demonstrated the unbridled power of politics. Procedural measures were used to violently end a Democratic filibuster that was intended to maintain debate. The sole Republican to vote against the bill, Senator Lincoln Hough, later referred to the procedure as “a degradation of the institution,” lamenting the exclusion of free speech.
The exercise of legislative power is called into question by the same procedural bulldozing. Despite a significant majority of voters favoring sick leave, the policy was repealed without allowing for post-election public input. It highlights a growing discrepancy between legislative outcomes and electoral mandates, which may have long-term effects on civic engagement.
There is, however, a hint of a counter-movement. This time, von Glahn has proposed a constitutional amendment that, if approved, would restore paid sick leave with more robust legal safeguards. Voters have a clear path to policy permanence because constitutional amendments are much more difficult to repeal than statutory laws. Although the campaign hasn’t started yet, gathering signatures might start before the year is out if the enthusiasm from recent labor rallies holds true.
This is about more than just a labor law; it’s about institutional transparency, public trust, and whether or not the opinions of voters are heard. Despite being legal, the repeal is seen as emotionally deflating. The message was clear to the cashier without union protection, the warehouse picker without benefits, and the part-time caregiver with erratic schedules: their stability, their time, and their health were all optional.
The course of Missouri’s labor policy may be altered by what happens next. The state might be used as an example of democratic resilience if advocates are successful in 2026. Without the safety net they momentarily had, workers throughout Missouri will have to deal with illness until then, and for many, that loss is extremely personal.
Both national labor organizations and neighboring states are now closely monitoring what Missouri’s legislature does or does not do. Politics aside, Missourians’ reaction to the next opportunity to be heard will determine whether this repeal is a short-term diversion or a long-term rollback.
