
Operator's Daily is where multi-unit restaurant and hourly-workforce operators get smart, fast — practical guides and no-nonsense software comparisons across hiring, onboarding, scheduling, payroll, and compliance.
Data on pay frequency, earned wage access, financial pressure, scheduling, and retention among hourly workers
Payment timing has become a more visible part of the hourly employee experience. Workers may still receive their regular wages weekly, biweekly, or semimonthly, but some employers also offer earned wage access, commonly called EWA, which allows employees to access part of their accrued wages before payday.
The scale of the hourly workforce makes these decisions relevant to restaurant operators. The Bureau of Labor Statistics counted approximately 81.5 million workers paid hourly rates in 2025. That figure covers wage and salary workers paid hourly on their primary job and excludes self-employed and non-hourly workers.
Recent workforce surveys also indicate a demand for more flexible pay arrangements. However, many of the statistics in this article come from surveys commissioned or published by workforce payment and workforce management vendors. Operators should treat them as indicators of employee sentiment rather than universal restaurant-industry benchmarks.
At Operators Daily, we cover payroll, workforce management, and operating practices for businesses managing hourly teams.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics counted 81.548 million workers paid hourly rates in 2025. The estimate covers workers aged 16 and older who received hourly pay on their principal job.
Of the hourly-paid workers counted by the BLS, approximately 61.107 million usually worked at least 35 hours per week.
BLS classified approximately 20.344 million hourly-paid workers as part-time in 2025.
BLS counted approximately 7.317 million workers paid hourly rates in food services and drinking places in 2025. That makes pay-frequency and payroll decisions particularly relevant to restaurant operators.
Branch’s 2025 survey found that 63% of respondents preferred weekly pay or early wage access over relying solely on their regular pay cycle. The report surveyed more than 2,300 hourly workers.
In the same survey, 44% of workers said they had delayed essential bills such as rent, utilities, or medical expenses.
Branch reported that 85% of respondents considered early access to earned wages helpful for managing cash flow. This is a survey response, not evidence that EWA produces the same result for every employee.
In Branch’s survey, 65% of respondents identified compensation or pay as a leading reason for staying with their employer.
The same report found that 62% of respondents identified work-life balance as a reason they stayed. Pay timing should therefore be considered alongside scheduling and workload.
Earned wage access generally allows an employee to obtain some accrued wages before the employer’s scheduled payday. Employer-partnered services are commonly integrated with payroll or timekeeping records, while direct-to-consumer products may estimate earnings from bank-account activity. The distinction can affect fees, repayment methods, and legal treatment. The GAO report explains both models.
The CFPB estimated that more than seven million workers used employer-partnered paycheck-advance products in 2022. The estimate was based on data from eight providers representing slightly less than half of that market.
Those workers accessed approximately $22 billion through employer-partnered providers during 2022. This figure represents advanced volume, not the value of the EWA industry.
The CFPB estimated that employer-partnered transactions grew by more than 90% from 2021 to 2022 among the providers studied.
The average employer-partnered transaction in the CFPB dataset was approximately $106 in 2022.
Across the period studied, workers completed an average of 27 transactions yearly, or slightly more than two per month.
The CFPB reported that more than 90% of users paid at least one fee in 2022 when employers did not cover access costs.
For transactions that incurred a fee, the CFPB calculated an average cost of $3.18 per transaction.
The products reviewed by the CFPB charged expedited-delivery fees ranging from approximately $1 to $5.99. Fee structures can change, so operators should verify current provider terms.
The CFPB reported that most fee revenue in its dataset came from expedited transfers.
In the CFPB provider sample, employer subsidies represented approximately 5% of fee revenue. Employers considering EWA should decide whether employees or the business will bear transaction costs.
The Government Accountability Office found that EWA may help workers meet obligations before payday, but it also identified potential risks involving unclear costs, overdrafts, and regulatory uncertainty.
The following findings come from a 2024 online Harris Poll commissioned by DailyPay. Because DailyPay provides earned wage access services, the results should be described as commissioned survey findings rather than independent proof of EWA effectiveness.
The survey found that 69% of Gen Z hourly workers preferred the option to access pay after each shift instead of waiting for the end of a traditional pay period.
DailyPay reported that 81% of respondents said on-demand pay helped or would help them pay bills on time.
The survey found that 74% of respondents believed on-demand pay would help them avoid payday loans. The result measures opinion, not documented borrowing outcomes.
Another 74% of respondents said on-demand pay would help them avoid late fees.
The Harris Poll found that 73% of Gen Z hourly workers said they liked or loved their current job.
Getting paid was the most frequently selected daily work motivator, cited by 80% of respondents.
The survey reported that 70% of respondents said being paid well motivated them to do a good job.
Among all surveyed hourly employees whose employer offered on-demand pay, 82% called it one of their favorite benefits.
Pay flexibility is only one part of the employee experience. Scheduling workload, staffing levels, predictability, and communication also influence how hourly teams operate.
The following statistics come from Legion Technologies’ 2025 survey of more than 1,200 hourly workers and more than 750 managers. Legion sells workforce-management software, so its findings should be treated as vendor-reported survey results.
Legion reported that 59% of managers spent at least three hours per week on scheduling.
More than 39% of managers said they relied on paper methods or basic software to create schedules.
Legion found that 40% of managers still called or texted workers individually to fill open shifts.
Only 11% of managers reported using AI-enabled scheduling tools. The statistic measures reported adoption within Legion’s sample, not the entire employer market.
More than 84% of managers said they were interested in technology that could calculate hourly employee productivity.
The survey found that 86% of managers were interested in technology that could schedule more productive employees during peak periods.
Legion reported that 61% of workers identified schedule flexibility as their leading need beyond pay.
Among respondents discussing schedule flexibility, 44% said they wanted the freedom to work when they were most productive.
Survey data can help operators identify potential concerns, but it does not prove that a specific payment benefit will improve retention. Operators should compare turnover, attendance, shift-fill rates, employee feedback, and EWA use before and after implementation.
Legion reported that 49% of workers in its sample planned to leave their current jobs within the following year.
Among those planning to quit, 59% expected to leave their current industry rather than take another position in the same field.
Of the respondents planning to leave their industry, 58% cited insufficient pay as the reason.
Legion found that 43% of workers said their employer had done nothing to improve their workplace during the previous year.
Branch reported that 72% of respondents had worked an inadequately staffed shift.
Among Branch respondents who had experienced understaffing, 93% reported increased stress or burnout.
Multi-unit restaurant operators should begin by defining the problem they are trying to solve. Faster access to wages may address employee requests about pay timing, but it does not replace competitive wages, reliable schedules, adequate staffing, or accurate payroll.
Review the following factors before selecting a provider:
Operators should also distinguish employer-integrated EWA from direct-to-consumer advance products. These services may differ in how they determine available earnings, collect repayment, charge fees, and interact with payroll.
Hourly pay and nonexempt status are not synonymous. However, most hourly restaurant employees are covered, nonexempt workers who must receive applicable minimum wage and overtime protections.
Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, covered nonexempt employees generally must receive at least the applicable minimum wage and overtime pay of at least one and one-half times their regular rate for hours exceeding 40 in a workweek. The Department of Labor also requires employers to maintain accurate records of hours and wages. See the overtime guidance and recordkeeping rules.
Federal law does not establish meal or rest-break requirements for adult employees, although many states and localities do. Operators should not describe meal-period rules as universal federal protections.
Before implementing EWA, restaurants should obtain advice specific to the states in which they operate. Legal treatment can depend on program design, employee fees, repayment rights, wage deductions, and whether the service is employer-partnered or direct to consumer.
Preferences vary. In Branch’s 2025 survey, 63% of workers preferred weekly pay or early wage access over relying solely on the standard pay cycle. This was a cross-industry vendor survey, not a restaurant-only national estimate.
Not always. Some programs include a no-cost transfer option, while others charge for expedited delivery or other services. The CFPB found that employer-partnered users who paid a fee spent an average of $3.18 per transaction.
It may influence recruiting or retention, but the original article’s precise reduction percentages were not supported by sufficiently transparent independent evidence. Operators should avoid promising a specific result and should measure outcomes against their own preimplementation data.
No. The method of payment alone does not determine exemption status. Exempt status depends on the applicable legal tests, including duties and, for many exemptions, salary requirements. Review the DOL exemption guide.
Review every employee and employer charge, including expedited-transfer fees, subscriptions, ATM fees, card fees, and optional tips. Confirm whether a practical free-transfer option exists and disclose costs clearly before enrollment.
Join multi-unit operators getting practical guides and no-nonsense software breakdowns across hiring, onboarding, scheduling, payroll, compliance, and what's shifting in the industry.
Free. One email a week. Unsubscribe anytime.


