By the Numbers: AANHPIs and Labor

AAPI Data Guide on Timely Policy Issues

This resource guide is designed to provide key insights and perspectives on the issue of labor in Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander communities. 

This guide is part of a larger collection of issue-based resources that highlight key policy insights, data and survey findings that help inform how our diverse AANHPI communities think about, and are affected by, particular issues.

Please check aapidata.com/resource-guides periodically for new resource guides like this one.

Published: May 26, 2026 Last updated: July 1, 2026

Click below to jump to a specific topic or issue:

Executive Summary

Key Facts You Need to Know: Labor in AANHPI Communities

  1. AANHPI workers are more than 1 million strong in the union movement, but union membership rates vary sharply — NHPI workers (12.5%) are among the most unionized of any racial group nationally, while the proportion of unionized Asian American workers (8.8%) is similar to that of Latino workers.
  2. Filipino and Japanese workers lead Asian American subgroups in union membership (15% and 14%), driven by concentration in public sector and healthcare roles — while Asian Indian workers, heavily concentrated in tech, have the lowest rate of any AANHPI subgroup at just 4%.
  3. Nearly 1 in 4 AANHPI workers are low-wage, but this average conceals dramatic variation: Taiwanese and Asian Indian workers have rates as low as 13–16%, while Marshallese and Other Micronesian workers face rates approaching 50% — a gap of more than 35 percentage points within the same broad community.
  4. Language access is a significant driver of economic vulnerability: LEP AANHPI workers are roughly twice as likely to earn low wages as their English-proficient counterparts, with LEP rates reaching 44% for Asian Americans and 45% for NHPI workers.
  5. AANHPI workers are heavily concentrated in computer, engineering, and science occupations (19% vs. 8% for all U.S. workers) and healthcare (10% vs. 7%), but these averages mask a sharp internal divide — non-citizen Asian Americans are in tech at more than twice the rate of U.S.-born citizens (31% vs. 13%), while NHPI workers’ occupational profile more closely resembles the U.S. average.

Population Data

Demographics

  • There are approximately 25.7 million AANHPI people in the United States, including 24.2 million Asian Americans and 1.6 million Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders. More than 14.9 million — nearly 3 in 5 — are in the labor force.
  • Of those in the labor force, 14.3 million are employed, reflecting an employment rate of 96% — with Asian Americans accounting for the vast majority (13.5 million employed) and NHPI workers representing 780,000.
  • AANHPI men participate in the labor force at a higher rate than women — 74% compared to 64% — a gap of roughly 10 percentage points that holds for both Asian American and NHPI workers.
  • NHPI women have a slightly higher labor force participation rate than Asian American women (65% vs. 63%), while NHPI and Asian American men are nearly on par (72% vs. 74%).

Labor Force Participation and Unemployment

Labor Force Participation Rate by Sex

Labor Force Participation Rate by AANHPI Subgroup

  • Labor force participation rates vary considerably across AANHPI subgroups — from a high of 76% among Nepalese workers to a low of 55% among Japanese workers, a gap of more than 20 percentage points. Fijian (75%), Hmong (75%) and Asian Indian (73%) workers also have notably high participation rates.
  • Japanese workers have the lowest labor force participation rate of any subgroup shown (55%), likely reflecting their older age profile — a higher share of Japanese Americans are at or past retirement age compared to more recently arrived communities.

Unemployment Rate by AANHPI Subgroup

  • While the aggregate unemployment rate for AANHPI communities sits at 4%, this figure obscures significant disparities between specific ethnic subgroups. Uzbek workers experience the highest jobless rate at 18%, with Marshallese (12%) and Afghan (9%) workers also facing levels more than twice the national average. Overall, the unemployment rate for NHPI workers (5.8%) remains markedly higher than that of Asian Americans (4%).
  • In contrast, Japanese (2.7%) and Chamorro (2.4%) workers have the lowest unemployment rates of any subgroup shown, likely reflecting their older, more established workforces and, in the case of Chamorro workers, full U.S. labor market access as American nationals.

Immigration and Work Authorization

U.S. Born and Foreign-Born Share of AANHPI Workers

  • The vast majority of AANHPI labor force participants (75%) were born outside the United States. This proportion exceeds 85% for several newer communities, such as Bhutanese (97%), Nepalese (96%), and Burmese (94%) workers. By comparison, only 43% of the NHPI workforce is foreign-born, as most are U.S.-born.
  • Disparities across subgroups are notable: Japanese (48%) and Hmong (39%) workers exhibit the smallest foreign-born shares among Asian American groups, indicating deeper roots and growing U.S.-born cohorts. Conversely, communities like Asian Indians (85%) and Bangladeshis (89%) possess workforces that are overwhelmingly comprised of immigrants.

Top 10 Nonimmigrant Visa Issuance by Visa Class and Nationality (2024)

  • Indian nationals receive the vast majority of AANHPI nonimmigrant work visas, with 151,000 H-1B issuances in FY2024—a figure that outpaces all other Asian countries combined and represents 76% of the regional total. China follows at a distance with 32,000 H-1Bs, followed by Korea, the Philippines, and Taiwan.
  • Pathways for legal entry differ by nationality: Filipino workers are prominent in H-2A and H-2B categories, making up 92% of temporary agricultural and hospitality visas issued to Asian nationals. Meanwhile, Chinese and Vietnamese nationals, with 83,000 and 68,000 issuances respectively, hold the highest shares of F-1 student visas after India.

Asian-origin workers — led overwhelmingly by India — dominate the H-1B and H-4 visa categories globally. India alone accounts for 69% of all H-1B issuances worldwide, and together with China makes up 84% of the global H-1B total. By contrast, Asian nationals account for less than 1% of H-2A/H-2B seasonal and temporary worker visas, which flow primarily to Mexico and Central America.

Pathways differ sharply by nationality even within Asia. Filipino workers account for 92% of H-2A/H-2B visas issued to Asian nationals. India and China each hold roughly equal shares of F-1 student visas — about 21% of the global total each — reflecting a major student-to-OPT-to-H-1B pipeline for high-skilled AANHPI workers. J-1 exchange and L-1 intracompany visas are more globally distributed, with Asian nationals accounting for just 25% and 51% of worldwide issuances respectively.

Industry/Occupation

 Industry Concentration: Total AANHPI vs. All Workers (U.S.)

  • Compared to the national average, AANHPI labor force participants show a higher concentration in professional, scientific, and management services (17% vs. 12%) and finance (8% vs. 7%), often due to the large numbers of high-skilled immigrants in these fields. Educational and health services remain the primary industry for both AANHPI and general U.S. workforces (26% vs. 25%).
  • In contrast, AANHPI workers show lower representation in agriculture and construction (3% vs. 7%) and public administration (4% vs. 5%) than the total population.

Occupation Concentration: Total AANHPI vs. All Workers (U.S.)

  • AANHPI workers are most heavily concentrated in computer, engineering, and science occupations (19% vs. 8% of all U.S. workers) and healthcare practitioner roles (10% vs. 7%) — reflecting the influence of high-skilled immigration pathways. Management and business occupations are roughly on par with the U.S. average (18% vs. 17%).
  • AANHPI workers are underrepresented in construction (1% vs. 4%), transportation and material moving (5% vs. 8%), and office and administrative support (9% vs. 11%) relative to all U.S. workers.

Occupation Concentration Among Asian American Workers by Sex

  • Asian American men and women are concentrated in very different occupations. Men are most likely to work in computer, engineering, and science roles (27%), while women are more evenly distributed across management and business (19%), service (17%), and healthcare practitioner roles (14%) — the latter at more than double the rate of Asian American men (6%).
  • The gender gap in computer and engineering occupations is the starkest in the chart: Asian American men are more than twice as likely as women to work in these fields (27% vs. 12%), while women are substantially more represented in office and administrative support (11% vs. 6%) and education and community service roles (13% vs. 8%).

Occupation Distribution Among NHPI Workers by Sex

  • Service occupations are the most common for both NHPI men (19%) and women (22%), but the similarities largely end there. NHPI men are heavily represented in transportation and material moving (14%) and construction (8%), while NHPI women are concentrated in office and administrative support (20%) and education and community service roles (13%).
  • NHPI women are more than twice as likely as men to work in healthcare practitioner roles (8% vs. 3%) and office and administrative support (20% vs. 7%), while NHPI men are nearly three times more likely to work in transportation and material moving (14% vs. 5%) — patterns that mirror broader gender occupational segregation in the U.S. workforce.

Occupation by Citizenship Status among Asian American Workers

  • Non-citizen Asian American workers are heavily concentrated in computer, engineering, and science occupations (31%) — nearly two and a half times the rate of U.S.-born citizens (13%) and significantly higher than naturalized citizens (18%), reflecting the dominance of H-1B and other high-skilled visa pathways among recent immigrants.
  • U.S.-born Asian American citizens show a more dispersed occupational profile, with higher relative concentrations in office and administrative support (10% vs. 5% for non-citizens) and education and community service roles (10% vs. 10%) — while naturalized citizens stand out for their elevated share in healthcare practitioner roles (12% vs. 10% for U.S.-born and 6% for non-citizens).

Occupation by Citizenship Status among Asian American Workers

  • Service occupations are the most common for NHPI workers across all citizenship categories, but non-citizens are most concentrated there (24%), and are also heavily represented in production (16%) and transportation and material moving (18%) — a profile more characteristic of lower-wage manual and logistics work than of U.S.-born or naturalized NHPI workers.
  • Naturalized NHPI citizens stand out for their relatively high share in healthcare practitioner roles (9%) compared to both U.S.-born (5%) and non-citizen workers (3%), while U.S.-born NHPI citizens are more likely to work in management and business (15%) and office and administrative support (13%) than their non-citizen counterparts (9% and 9%).

Low-Wage Status

Rate of Low-Wage AANHPI Workers by Subgroup 

  • Nearly 1 in 4 AANHPI are low-wage workers (22.7%) earning less than $17 per hour. NHPI workers face a substantially higher rate (32.9%) of being low-wage workers than Asian Americans workers (22.5%).
  • Low-wage rates vary dramatically across subgroups — from 13% among Taiwanese workers to nearly half of Marshallese (49%) and Other Micronesian workers (50%) — reflecting deep differences in immigration pathway, occupational concentration, and access to federal support.

Rate of Low-Wage AANHPI Workers by LEP

  • LEP workers are far more likely to be low-wage across all groups — Asian American LEP workers (44%) are twice as likely to be low-wage as their English-proficient counterparts (22%), and NHPI LEP workers (45%) face a similarly wide gap compared to English-proficient NHPI workers (32%). Hispanic or Latino LEP workers face the highest rate of any group shown (52%).
  • Yet English proficiency alone does not determine economic outcomes: English-proficient Hispanic or Latino workers still face a high low-wage rate (35%), exceeding that of English-proficient Asian American (22%) and NHPI workers (32%) — illustrating that language access is critical but not the sole driver of pay equity.

Rate of Low-Wage AANHPI Workers by Citizenship Status

  • Non-citizen workers face the highest low-wage rates across all groups — Hispanic or Latino non-citizens are most affected at 47%, followed by NHPI (41%) and Asian American non-citizens (25%). Naturalized citizens consistently have the lowest low-wage rates across all three groups.
  • A notable exception is U.S.-born Asian American workers (27%), who have a higher low-wage rate than their non-citizen counterparts (25%) — suggesting that for some communities, citizenship and generational status alone do not confer economic advantage.

Rate of Low-Wage AANHPI Workers by Citizenship Status and Subgroup

  • The risk of earning low wages is notably influenced by citizenship status, yet the impact varies across subgroups. Among communities with high-skilled immigration trajectories—such as Taiwanese, Asian Indian, and Korean—naturalized citizens see the lowest rates of low pay (11%, 14%, and 18%, respectively). Conversely, for refugee-origin groups like the Bhutanese and Burmese, even naturalized status results in high low-wage rates of 40% and 36%.
  • A particularly significant trend is observed among U.S.-born Tongan and Hmong citizens, whose low-wage rates (53% and 58%) actually surpass those of non-citizens within their respective communities. This highlights that for some AANHPI groups, generational status and citizenship do not inherently mitigate structural economic disadvantages.

Union Membership

Union Membership Population Estimates by Race

Union Membership Rate by Major Racial Group

  • NHPI workers have the highest union membership rate among all groups shown (12.5%), exceeding Black or African American (11.4%) and white workers (10.5%). Asian American workers have among the lowest rates at 8.8% — below Hispanic or Latino workers (8.7%) and just above American Indian/Alaska Native workers (7.5%).
  • Together, Asian American and NHPI workers represent nearly 1.1 million union members nationally.

AANHPI Union Membership Rate by Subgroup

  • Union membership rates vary widely across AANHPI subgroups. Filipino workers have the highest rate among Asian American subgroups (15.4%), followed by Japanese workers (13.8%) — both exceeding the overall NHPI rate (14%). Asian Indian workers have the lowest rate of any group shown, at just 4.2%.

 Union Membership Rate by Sex

  • Among AANHPI workers overall, women have a higher union membership rate (10%) than men (8%) — a pattern driven by Asian American women (10% vs. 8%), who are more likely to work in unionized sectors such as healthcare and education.
  • NHPI workers show the reverse: NHPI men have a higher union rate (15%) than NHPI women (13%), likely reflecting greater concentration in unionized trades and transportation industries.

 Union Membership Rate by Industry

  • Union membership is concentrated in a handful of industries for AANHPI workers. Public administration has the highest rate (35% overall), followed by transportation, warehousing, and utilities (19%) and educational services and healthcare (17%) — sectors where Filipino and NHPI workers are heavily represented.
  • NHPI workers have notably higher union rates than Asian Americans in several industries, particularly public administration (42% vs. 34%), transportation and warehousing (26% vs. 18%), and agriculture and construction (25% vs. 11%), while Asian Americans and NHPI workers are roughly on par in educational services and healthcare (16% each).

Union Membership Rate by Occupation

  • Union membership rates vary sharply by occupation among AANHPI workers. Education, legal, and community services (21%) and construction (27%) have the highest rates, while computer and engineering (4%), management and business (4%), and sales (3%) — occupations where Asian Americans are heavily concentrated — have among the lowest.
  • NHPI workers have higher union rates than Asian Americans in nearly every occupation, most notably in education and community services (34% vs. 20%) and construction (39% vs. 24%), suggesting that NHPI workers’ higher overall union rate reflects both occupational mix and stronger union presence within shared occupations.

Union Membership Rate by Key State

  • Union membership rates among AANHPI workers vary dramatically by state — from a high of 28% in Hawaii to just 4% in Virginia. Hawaii’s rate is more than double that of the next highest state, Alaska (16%), reflecting the state’s strong public sector union presence and large NHPI workforce.

Union Wage Premium

When comparing workers in the same industry and occupation, AANHPI union members earn about 22% more per week than their non-union counterparts — somewhat lower than the 29% premium seen among all U.S. workers. The premium is 20% for Asian Americans and 44% for NHPI, though the NHPI estimate should be interpreted with caution given the relatively small number of NHPI union members in the sample (AAPI Data’s analysis of the 2024-2025 CPS Basic Monthly via IPUMS).

Public Opinion Data

AAPI Views on Job Availability

  • Several key economic and financial issues are high priorities among AAPI adults. About 2 in 10 mention unemployment or jobs, the economy in general, or housing costs. These are all in line with the general population. (January 2026 AAPI Data | AP-NORC poll)
  • Half of AAPI adults expressed a lack of confidence in being able to find another good job if they lost their current one. (May 2025 AAPI Data | AP-NORC poll)
  • 88% of AAPI adults view a college degree as essential or important to improving their future prospects, including the ability to change jobs more easily in the long term (88%) and getting a good job to support a family (88%). (May 2025 AAPI Data | AP-NORC poll)
  • 38% of Asian or Asian American workers say their race is relevant to how they are treated at work, similar to the 41% who cite their age.
  • 38% of NHPI workers say race impacts their treatment at work, on par with 44% who cite age. (2024 Diversity in American Life survey)
  • Support for leadership opportunities remains elusive for Asian workers, with only a quarter (24%) who ‘strongly agree’ that they have support to take on leadership opportunities at work, on par with the previous year (26%), and lower than all other racial groups, including American Indian or Alaskan Natives (44%), Black or African Americans (39%), Hispanics or Latino (39%), NHPI (47%), and white workers (41%). (2024 Diversity in American Life survey)

Views on Policy Solutions

  • Most AAPI adults say jobs/the labor market (79%) are extremely or very important issues to them personally, but only about a quarter approve of Trump’s handling of each. (October 2025 AAPI Data | AP-NORC poll)
  • Most AAPI adults say that, so far in his second term as president, Trump has done more to hurt the cost of health care and living, and job creation. AAPI adults are more likely than the general population to say he has hurt each area asked about. (March 2026 AAPI Data | AP-NORC poll)
  • Donald Trump’s overall job approval within the AAPI population stands at 30%. AAPI Democrats are more likely than AAPI Republicans to say Trump has hurt job creation. (March 2026 AAPI Data | AP-NORC poll)

Policy Background

Immigration and Work Authorization

Three in four AANHPI labor force participants were born outside the United States — the highest foreign-born share of any racial group. Immigration status shapes job access, wages, working conditions, and the ability to report violations across the full AANHPI workforce.

H-1B Program — Specialty Occupation Visas

What it is: The H-1B visa allows U.S. employers to hire foreign workers for specialty occupations — typically requiring at least a bachelor’s degree, in fields like technology, engineering, healthcare, and finance. Capped at 65,000 visas per year (plus 20,000 for advanced U.S. degree holders), with a six-year maximum stay.

Why it matters for AANHPI workers
  • Scale: India and China together account for over 80% of all H-1B visas issued globally in FY2024. This is the primary legal pathway through which high-skilled South and East Asian workers enter the U.S. labor market, and explains why non-citizen Asian American workers are concentrated in computer, engineering, and science occupations at nearly 2.5 times the rate of U.S.-born workers.
  • Employer dependency: Visa status is tied to the sponsoring employer. Workers who want to change jobs face legal hurdles, which can deter reporting of wage violations, discrimination, or unsafe conditions.
  • Green card backlogs: Per-country caps mean Indian H-1B workers may wait decades for permanent residency — creating years of legal limbo for hundreds of thousands of AANHPI households.

Current context: The H-1B program has faced repeated regulatory changes under the current administration, including proposals to tighten specialty occupation definitions and alter lottery selection, creating uncertainty for workers mid-petition.

H-4 Visa — Dependent Spouses

What it is: Issued to spouses and unmarried children under 21 of H-1B visa holders. H-4 holders are not automatically authorized to work. Work authorization (H-4 EAD) requires a separate application and is only available once the primary H-1B holder has an approved I-140 immigrant petition — the first step toward a green card.

Why it matters for AANHPI workers
  • India accounts for 78% of all H-4 visas globally. The overwhelming majority of H-4 holders are Indian women who accompanied their spouses on H-1B visas — a population largely invisible in standard labor force data.
  • Green card backlog trap: Because per-country employment-based green card caps create backlogs stretching decades for Indian workers, many H-4 spouses cannot access work authorization for years — or at all — despite living in the U.S. long-term. Their labor force absence is not captured in participation rate data but represents a significant hidden workforce constraint.
  • Structural dependency: H-4 status is tied entirely to the primary H-1B holder. If that worker loses their job or faces petition delays, the H-4 holder’s work authorization lapses — creating financial pressure to remain in a household even when conditions are unsafe.

Current context: The current administration has revived regulatory scrutiny of the H-4 EAD program. Any rescission would force tens of thousands of AANHPI women out of the workforce and intensify the financial dependency already built into the H-4 structure.

H-2A and H-2B Programs — Temporary Workers

What they are: H-2A covers temporary agricultural workers (no annual cap; ~370,000 certified positions in FY2022). H-2B covers temporary non-agricultural seasonal workers — hospitality, landscaping, seafood processing — capped at 66,000 per year.

AANHPI relevance
  • Filipino workers dominate AANHPI participation in both programs, accounting for 92% of H-2A and H-2B visas issued to Asian nationals in FY2024. These workers are concentrated in hospitality and service industries — sectors where our data shows NHPI and Filipino workers face low-wage rates well above the AANHPI average.
  • In both programs, workers are tied to one employer and cannot easily leave exploitative conditions without losing visa status. Recruitment abuses — including illegal fees charged before workers arrive — are documented.
DACA, TPS, and COFA Workers

DACA: Provides temporary protection from deportation and work authorization to eligible undocumented individuals who arrived as children. Must be renewed every two years; not a path to permanent residency.

TPS: Provides work authorization to nationals of countries facing armed conflict, environmental disasters, or other extraordinary conditions. AANHPI-origin TPS countries include Burma/Myanmar, Nepal, and Mongolia — communities that our data shows have very low nonimmigrant work visa numbers and rely on TPS as their primary legal work authorization pathway.

COFA workers: Citizens of Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau may live and work in the U.S. without a nonimmigrant visa. They are largely invisible in visa data but present in significant numbers in Hawaii and Pacific Coast states — and our data shows Marshallese workers face among the highest unemployment (12%) and low-wage rates (49%) of any AANHPI subgroup. COFA workers are ineligible for Medicaid in most states.

Current context: The current administration has moved to terminate TPS designations for multiple countries and has repeatedly challenged DACA, directly threatening work authorization for AANHPI workers who have built careers around these statuses.

Worker Protections and Enforcement

Federal worker protection laws cover most U.S. workers on paper. In practice, AANHPI workers — particularly the 75% who are foreign-born, the large share with limited English proficiency, and those concentrated in low-wage industries — face structural barriers to accessing these protections.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA, 1938)

What it is: The foundational federal law establishing the minimum wage, overtime pay, and restrictions on child labor. Enforced by DOL’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD), which recovered $259 million in back wages for nearly 177,000 workers in 2025. Protections apply regardless of immigration status.

AANHPI relevance
  • Wage gap: AANHPI women earn approximately 83 cents for every dollar earned by white, non-Hispanic men — but that figure conceals wide subgroup variation. Hmong, Samoan, Burmese, and other Southeast Asian and Pacific Islander women face substantially larger gaps.
  • High-violation industries: AANHPI workers are concentrated in food service, hospitality, nail salons, healthcare, manufacturing, and domestic work — the same sectors where our low-wage data shows the highest rates of earnings below $17/hour. A 2019 AAPI Data survey found 35% of struggling AAPI workers reported at least one form of wage theft.
  • LEP workers most at risk: Asian American LEP workers (44% low-wage rate) are twice as likely to be low-wage as their English-proficient counterparts (22%) — and are least likely to know their rights or file complaints.
  • Agricultural and domestic workers have historically received reduced or no FLSA protections — a legacy of racially exclusionary policy that continues to affect AANHPI farmworkers.

Current context: DOGE-related staffing reductions at DOL’s Wage and Hour Division have reduced the number of investigators available to conduct audits. For workers in industries already underenforced, this directly weakens protections that exist on paper.

Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act, 1970)

What it is: Establishes federal authority to set and enforce workplace safety standards, administered by OSHA within DOL. OSHA employs roughly 1,850 inspectors overseeing 130+ million workers at 8+ million worksites.

Key protections for AANHPI workers
  • Language-appropriate training: OSHA requires safety training in a language workers can understand — directly relevant given the large share of AANHPI workers with limited English proficiency, who our data shows face the highest low-wage rates and are most concentrated in high-hazard industries.
  • Anti-retaliation (Section 11(c)): Workers cannot be fired or disciplined for reporting unsafe conditions. This protection is especially significant for non-citizen workers, who our data shows are most concentrated in manual and logistics occupations with elevated injury risk.
  • Hazard Communication Standard: Requires labels and training for hazardous chemicals — particularly relevant for nail salon workers, who face documented exposure to toxic chemicals and are predominantly immigrant women.

Current context: OSHA staffing and enforcement capacity have been reduced under the current administration. For AANHPI workers in sectors with elevated hazard exposure and limited recourse, reduced inspections translate directly into greater risk.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the EEOC

What it is: Prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The EEOC investigates complaints, mediates disputes, and pursues litigation — securing nearly $700 million for discrimination victims in FY2024.

AANHPI relevance
  • Discrimination based on accent, English proficiency, or English-only policies may violate Title VII — directly relevant given the large LEP share of the AANHPI workforce.
  • COVID-19 drove a significant increase in workplace harassment and discrimination against AANHPI workers. The EEOC responded through community engagement and enforcement actions targeting xenophobia.
  • Religious accommodation protections are particularly relevant for Sikh, Muslim, and other AANHPI workers.

Current context: The January 2025 executive order ending DEI programs has narrowed EEOC enforcement priorities away from systemic discrimination investigations — the type of case most likely to capture industry-wide patterns affecting AANHPI workers — toward individual complaints only.

Federal Workforce Development

AANHPI workers face persistent barriers including limited English proficiency, unrecognized foreign credentials, and exclusion from federal safety net programs. Federal workforce programs are the primary infrastructure through which immigrant AANHPI workers can access training and economic mobility — but our data shows AANHPI workers are underrepresented in these programs relative to their share of the workforce.

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA)

What it is: The primary federal law governing workforce development. WIOA funds adult education, English language instruction, job training, and career counseling for adults, dislocated workers, and youth ages 14–24, delivered through approximately 2,300 American Job Centers nationwide.

Why it matters for AANHPI workers
  • WIOA-funded English language instruction and job training are among the primary pathways for immigrant AANHPI workers to build credentials and move out of low-wage work — directly addressing the LEP wage gap our data shows.
  • Underrepresentation in practice: AANHPI adults have historically made up only 2–3% of WIOA program participants at the national level (Program Years 2019 and 2022), far below their share of the workforce — likely reflecting limited outreach and language access gaps at local service providers.
  • Structural problem: WIOA’s mandatory performance measures emphasize employment and wage outcomes, creating incentives for service providers to prioritize job-ready participants and bypass those with the lowest English proficiency — disproportionately AANHPI.

Current context: DOGE-related staffing cuts at DOL have reduced agency capacity. WIOA reauthorization is currently moving through Congress — an opportunity to strengthen AANHPI-specific outreach requirements and address the performance measure incentives that work against the lowest-English-proficiency participants.

AANAPISI Program

What it is: Federal grants to colleges where at least 10% of undergraduates are AANHPI and at least half receive federal financial aid. Awards up to $350,000/year per institution for five years.

  • The gap: 198 institutions were eligible in 2024; only 54 were actually receiving grants. Roughly one-third of funded grantees are in California — large parts of the country have eligible institutions that go unfunded.

Current context: In September 2025, the Department of Education reprogrammed $350 million in Minority Serving Institution funds, including AANAPISI grants. A 2025 rule also excluded nursing from the “professional degree” definition for the higher $200,000 federal borrowing cap — disproportionately affecting Filipino and other AANHPI graduate nursing students.

Workplace Organizing and Sectoral Power

NHPI workers have the highest union membership rate of any racial group (12.5%), and Filipino workers have the highest rate among Asian American subgroups (15.4%). Yet union membership rates in the tech and management occupations where non-citizen Asian Americans are most concentrated — computer and engineering (4%), management (4%) — are among the lowest of any occupation. Legal exclusions and a contracting enforcement environment define who can actually exercise organizing rights.

National Labor Relations Act (NLRA, 1935)

What it is: The foundational federal law giving most private-sector workers the right to organize, form unions, and bargain collectively. Established the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to oversee union elections and investigate unfair labor practices. Most private-sector workers are covered, including undocumented immigrants, though available remedies may be limited in practice.

Why it matters for AANHPI workers
  • Immigration-specific contract gains: Unions have increasingly negotiated protections directly relevant to immigrant AANHPI members — including language requiring employers to sponsor work visas, reimburse DACA and TPS renewal fees, bar ICE agents from worksites without a valid judicial warrant, and provide severance for workers who lose authorization due to federal policy changes.
  • Where union membership is highest: Our data shows the highest AANHPI union rates in public administration (35%), transportation and warehousing (19%), and healthcare (17%) — sectors where Filipino and NHPI workers are heavily represented. Hawaii’s 28% AANHPI union rate, driven by its large NHPI workforce and strong public sector unions, is more than double that of any other state.
  • Where the gap is largest: Asian American workers in tech and management — the occupations that dominate non-citizen Asian American employment — have union rates of just 4%, leaving them with no collective mechanism to address employer dependency, visa vulnerability, or algorithmic management.

Current context: Union elections overseen by the NLRB fell 30% in 2025 compared to 2024. The current administration has rescinded several Biden-era organizing protections and has challenged the constitutional basis for the NLRB’s independent structure in court.

Who the NLRA Leaves Out
  • Agricultural and domestic workers were excluded from NLRA coverage in 1935. This exclusion continues to affect AANHPI farmworkers — our data shows Southeast Asian farmworker communities among those with the highest low-wage rates and limited access to federal support.
  • Gig workers and independent contractors are classified outside NLRA protection. Over 1 in 10 AANHPI residents in California report gig work; Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders are more than twice as likely to participate in the gig economy compared to AAPI Californians overall.

Public sector workers are governed by state law, not the NLRA. Baseline labor rights for a Filipino nurse at a county hospital or a South Asian transit worker depend almost entirely on the state in which they work.

A Note on the Current Context (2025-2026)

The policy environment for AANHPI workers is changing rapidly across all four areas:

  • DOGE and enforcement capacity: Staffing reductions at DOL, OSHA, EEOC, and the Department of Education have reduced the agencies responsible for enforcing every protection described in this guide.
  • DEI rollback: The January 2025 executive order ending federal DEI programs has narrowed EEOC enforcement priorities and created uncertainty for AANAPISI and other MSI grant programs.
  • NLRB weakening: Union elections fell 30% in 2025. Multiple Biden-era organizing protections have been rescinded.
  • Immigration enforcement escalation: Expanded worksite enforcement and TPS/DACA uncertainty directly affect AANHPI workers’ ability to assert any of the labor rights described in this guide. Our data shows communities most reliant on TPS and humanitarian pathways — Marshallese, Burmese, Nepalese — already face the highest unemployment and low-wage rates of any AANHPI subgroup.

Across all four areas, the same pattern holds: legal protections exist on paper, but the enforcement infrastructure is contracting. The practical availability of rights depends on workers’ ability to organize, access legal assistance, and find advocates — making community organizations, unions, and legal aid providers more important, not less, under current conditions.

Additional References

Other Resources

Community Partners

Below is a list of AANHPI-serving community organizations working on labor, workforce development, and worker rights. This is not an exhaustive list and will be continuously updated.

National

Labor and Workforce

State and Local

California

Georgia

Hawaii

Illinois

New York

Oregon

Virginia

Washington

Asian Counseling and Referral Service (ACRS)

Sources

Suggested citation: Michele Wong, Karthick Ramakrishnan, Smrithi Senthilnathan, Jadyn Miyahira and Inderpal Singh “By the Numbers: AANHPIs and Labor. AAPI Data Guide on Timely Policy Issues.” Berkeley, CA: AAPI Data, 2026.

AAPI Data (2026). AANHPI Labor Data Analysis via AAPI Data’s analysis of the Current Population Survey 2024–2025 via IPUMS CPS. Sarah Flood, Miriam King, Renae Rodgers, Steven Ruggles, J. Robert Warren, Daniel Backman, Annie Chen, Grace Cooper, Stephanie Richards, and Megan Schouweiler. IPUMS CPS: Version 12.0 [dataset]. Minneapolis, MN: IPUMS, 2024. https://doi.org/10.18128/D030.V12.0

AAPI Data (2026). AANHPI Labor Data Analysis via AAPI Data’s analysis of the American Community Survey 2020–2024 Five-Year Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) via IPUMS USA. Steven Ruggles, Sarah Flood, Matthew Sobek, Daniel Backman, Annie Chen, Grace Cooper, Stephanie Richards, Renae Rogers, and Megan Schouweiler. IPUMS USA: Version 15.0 [dataset]. Minneapolis, MN: IPUMS, 2024. https://doi.org/10.18128/D010.V15.0

AAPI Data (2026). AANHPI Labor Data Analysis via AAPI Data’s analysis of the American Community Survey 2024 One-Year Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) via IPUMS USA. Steven Ruggles, Sarah Flood, Matthew Sobek, Daniel Backman, Annie Chen, Grace Cooper, Stephanie Richards, Renae Rogers, and Megan Schouweiler. IPUMS USA: Version 15.0 [dataset]. Minneapolis, MN: IPUMS, 2024. https://doi.org/10.18128/D010.V15.0