An alienated worker is someone who isn't able to participate in society except only as a means of production; you won't see him in cinemas, amusement parks, restaurants, sporting events, you get the idea; this usually happens because an alienated worker is underpaid, able to only satisfy his needs but not wants. In Maslow's hierarchy of needs, the alienated worker is at the base of the pyramid (he's simply not dying, but definitely not living).

Is it the state's responsibility to ensure that this doesn't happen to workers? Does the solution - enforced by the state - involve impinging on rights that are critical to a vibrant society and economy? It probably does i.e. the state is faced with a dilemma (damned if you do, damned if you don't). It is then time to put the system that gives rise to this vexing between-Syclla-and-Charybdis scenario under the microscope - it might need to be scrapped/modded in order to escape between the horns of the dilemma.

Marxist alienation is when a person lives contrary to human nature. I think. — Tate

What is "human nature"? Who is the authority on deciding that?

What is "human nature"? Who is the authority on deciding that? — baker

I can't help you with either question. I can just say that there have been those who found the kind of labor exploitation that took place in the 19th and 20th Centuries to put people in situations that were counter to human nature.

Whether that's really what Marx meant by "alienation", I don't know.