The Bureau of Labor Statistics measures which private industry workers can get common benefits, by the size of their workplace. In March 2026, the pre-registered comparison, paid sick leave, was 16 percentage points lower at establishments with fewer than 50 workers than at establishments with 500 or more workers. Descriptively, access was also lower for the three other benefits shown.
Each year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes National Compensation Survey estimates of the share of private industry workers with access to common benefits. The reference period is March. Estimates are by the size of the establishment, meaning the workplace, where they work. BLS defines who is in scope this way: “private industry excludes workers in private households, the self-employed, workers who set their own pay (e.g., proprietors, owners, major stockholders, and partners in unincorporated firms), and family members paid token wages.” So the figures exclude the self-employed and workers who set their own pay, including the listed owner categories.
The four benefits shown were fixed in the study protocol before any figure was computed, and no other benefit was examined. The March 2026 estimates show lower access at establishments with fewer than 50 workers for each of the four.
Share of private industry workers with access, March 2026 (source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Compensation Survey, Employee Benefits flat files, series NBU20700000000000233087 and NBU20700000000000733087 (paid sick leave), NBU21500000000000228178 and NBU21500000000000728178 (medical care), NBU29000000000000228319 and NBU29000000000000728319 (all retirement benefits), NBU20500000000000233030 and NBU20500000000000733030 (paid vacation), downloaded October 3, 2026):
| Benefit | Establishments with fewer than 50 workers (standard error) | Establishments with 500 or more workers (standard error) | Difference, percentage points (approximate 95% interval) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Medical care benefits | 55% (1.4) | 90% (1.1) | 35 lower (31.5 to 38.5) |
| All retirement benefits | 55% (1.2) | 91% (1.2) | 36 lower (32.7 to 39.3) |
| Paid vacation | 71% (1.4) | 91% (1.1) | 20 lower (16.5 to 23.5) |
| Paid sick leave | 75% (1.3) | 91% (1.0) | 16 lower (12.8 to 19.2) |
Standard errors are from the BLS table set “Employee Benefits in the United States, Standard Errors for News Release”, March 2026 (Table 6 for paid leave, Table 1 for retirement, Table 2 for medical care), private industry access columns. Only the paid sick leave interval belongs to the registered comparison. The other three intervals are descriptive.
The pre-registered comparison: paid sick leave
The study set one primary comparison before any figures were computed: paid sick leave. In March 2026, 75% of private industry workers at establishments with fewer than 50 workers had access to paid sick leave, against 91% of private industry workers at establishments with 500 or more workers. The difference is 16 percentage points, with an approximate 95% interval of 12.8 to 19.2 points, so the interval excludes zero.
Medical care and retirement, described
The remaining comparisons are descriptive. Among private industry workers at establishments with fewer than 50 workers, 55% had access to medical care benefits and 55% had access to retirement benefits. Among private industry workers at establishments with 500 or more workers, the figures were 90% and 91%.
These are shares of workers, not shares of employers. Access means the benefit is available to that worker. For paid leave, BLS publishes access only. For medical care and retirement, access is not enrollment. The intervals use the BLS published standard errors for each estimate and assume zero covariance between the two size classes, which BLS does not publish, so they are approximate. The published access rates are rounded to whole percentages, so each difference can be off by up to one point. The standard errors measure sampling error only, not errors from other sources such as nonresponse. No multiplicity adjustment was made.
Size classes differ in industry and occupation mix. Differences by size reflect both. Nothing here isolates an effect of size. Size classes can also differ in other worker characteristics that BLS reports separately, such as full-time or part-time status.
Free 20-Minute Operations Review
Dealing with a specific operational bottleneck? Kamyar Shah works with founders and CEOs to identify the root cause and build a fix.
What the numbers mean for a small employer
This section and everything after it, up to Method, are interpretation and guidance from operating practice. They are not findings of this study.
The gap is widest for retirement and medical care benefits. Among private industry workers at establishments with fewer than 50 workers, 55% had access to medical care benefits and 55% to retirement benefits, against 90% and 91% at establishments with 500 or more. For paid sick leave and paid vacation, the shares among the same private industry workers were 75% and 71%, against 91% for each at establishments with 500 or more workers. At the group level, workers at establishments with 500 or more workers had higher access to each of the four benefits. These separate rates do not show the package any one worker receives, but they describe the market a small employer hires into.
The data cannot say why the gap exists, and it is not a measure of what any one employer should offer. It does show that, benefit by benefit, 90% to 91% of private industry workers at establishments with 500 or more workers had access, measured separately for each of the four. That is a benchmark of worker access, not a count of large workplaces offering each benefit.
How to handle it: close the gap in the order that costs least
The order below is an operating recommendation. This study did not test it, and BLS does not endorse it. Costs, tax treatment, and legal requirements vary by state and by employer, so each step should be checked with a benefits broker, an accountant, or employment counsel before it is adopted.
1. Write down what is already offered. Many small employers provide some time off or flexibility informally, and workers cannot count what they do not know about. A one-page benefits summary, given at hiring and reviewed once a year, costs little and turns informal practice into a stated policy. It also makes the next decisions easier, because the starting point is on paper.
2. Check the sick leave rules that already apply. Several states and cities require employers to provide paid sick leave, often with rules that differ by employer size. Before designing a policy, confirm what is already required where the business operates. For employers already covered by a local rule, a written policy that meets it is a requirement before it is a benefit decision.
3. Look at retirement options available to small employers. Some states run retirement savings programs that employers can join, and plan types such as the SIMPLE IRA are available to eligible employers with 100 or fewer employees. Each option has its own rules on employer contributions and administration. A SIMPLE IRA, for example, requires an employer contribution. Whether a given arrangement counts as retirement access in the BLS survey is a question for BLS definitions, not an assumption, so the goal here is a usable plan for workers rather than a change in a statistic.
4. Treat medical coverage as a budget decision, not a yes or no. Medical care has one of the two widest gaps shown here, and it is the decision with the most options to compare. Options for small employers include group plans and reimbursement arrangements built for employers with fewer than 50 full-time equivalent employees. Which option fits depends on headcount, budget, and state rules, which is exactly why this step belongs with a broker rather than a template.
The principle behind the order is simple. Start with what can be fixed by writing it down, then what the law may already require, then what can be offered at low cost, and leave the most expensive decision for when the cheaper ones are in place.
What this data does not tell you
- It does not show why access is lower at small workplaces, or that offering a benefit improves hiring or retention.
- The figures are shares of workers, not shares of employers, and they cover private industry only.
- Access is not enrollment for medical care and retirement, and access says nothing about the quality or cost of a benefit.
- Establishment size is not firm size. A small workplace can belong to a large company.
In these March 2026 estimates, workers at establishments with fewer than 50 workers had lower access to all four benefits than workers at establishments with 500 or more. As operating guidance rather than a finding: treat benefits as part of the operating system of the business, and close the distance through a sequence of modest, written decisions rather than one large one.
Method
Already published by the agency: BLS publishes these access rates and their standard errors by establishment size in its annual Employee Benefits in the United States release. New here: the four benefits side by side, with the differences and approximate intervals stated.
Source. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Compensation Survey, Employee Benefits flat files, access rates for private industry workers at establishments with less than 50 workers and with 500 workers or more, reference period March 2026, downloaded October 3, 2026. Series were selected by exact title. The retirement series is titled “access to all retirement benefits”.
Check. The flat-file class “less than 50 workers” corresponds to the published table class “1 to 49 workers”. For private industry workers in March 2026, all eight figures match the 2026 Employee Benefits release: paid sick leave and paid vacation in Table 6, retirement in Table 1, and medical care in Table 2.
Protocol. The analysis plan, including paid sick leave as the single primary comparison, was fixed in a dated protocol before any size-class figure was computed. Later amendments are listed in it: https://kamyarshah.com/public-data-protocol/
Limits. For medical care and retirement, access is not enrollment. Access says nothing about the quality or cost of a benefit. Establishments are single workplaces, not companies. A workplace with fewer than 50 workers may be part of a larger firm. A firm has at least as many workers as its largest workplace. That does not put either column into a firm size class, and this article does not call either class small firms. Establishment size is not firm size.
The agencies did not review or endorse this analysis. Kamyar Shah sells fractional COO and CMO services.
Questions about this analysis can be sent through https://kamyarshah.com/contact/.
