Bill Overview
Title: To amend title 49, United States Code, to repeal certain employee protective arrangements, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill repeals requirements that condition certain financial assistance for public transportation upon employee protective arrangements approved by the Department of Labor.
Sponsors: Rep. Perry, Scott [R-PA-10]
Target Audience
Population: Public transportation sector employees
Estimated Size: 500000
- The bill directly impacts employees of public transportation systems as it pertains to employee protective arrangements.
- Public transportation agencies will also be affected as they are recipients of financial assistance conditioned upon these arrangements.
- Commuters and users of public transportation may indirectly be impacted by changes in employee conditions affecting service quality.
- The bill targets a specific sector, hence the global impact is limited to countries with similar financial assistance frameworks for public transportation.
Reasoning
- I considered a range of individuals from different backgrounds, ages, and roles within the public transportation sector to understand the varied impacts of the policy. The policy primarily affects employees in metropolitan areas where public transport is crucial, impacting their job security and satisfaction.
- Not all employees will be equally affected; those in high-demand roles or less secure positions may feel a greater impact.
- The policy indirectly influences commuters by potentially altering the quality and reliability of services due to changes in workforce stability and morale.
- Budget limitations suggest prioritization of large urban areas or agencies undergoing significant expansions or challenges.
Simulated Interviews
Subway Operator (New York City, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The repeal could weaken job protections, which makes me worried about potential layoffs.
- While funding might not immediately decrease, long-term job security is a concern.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Bus Mechanic (Chicago, IL)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I might face more pressure at work due to changing policies, but my role seems secure.
- Worried about the ripple effects on morale and workload if staff protections are rolled back.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Bus Driver (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry that without protections, part-time workers like me might be first to face cuts.
- I'm hopeful that not much will change immediately but concern remains.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Transit Agency Administrator (Houston, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We might have more flexibility with budgets, but need to balance with employee concerns.
- The change could lead to improved efficiencies without stringent conditions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Ticketing Agent (Seattle, WA)
Age: 23 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm new, so I'm not fully aware of what this means for me long-term, but I worry about stability.
- Hoping that positive management changes might occur.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Subway Line Manager (Boston, MA)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy may ease operational hurdles, possibly benefiting project implementations.
- I'm worried about team morale, but see potential for strategic development.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Retired Train Conductor (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 64 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about colleagues still working, but personally, I am unaffected directly.
- Changes might disrupt longstanding agreements and conditions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Bus Scheduler (Miami, FL)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Potentially less administrative red tape, but it's uncertain how it impacts daily operations.
- I hope this doesn't lead to job cuts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 10 |
Train Maintenance Worker (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Uncertain about long-term implications, especially concerning union protections.
- Worried about future job cuts but hopeful management will handle changes well.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Public Transport Advocate (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Concerned that reduced protections could deteriorate service quality.
- Policy may challenge efforts for better worker conditions, but uncertain of immediate commuter impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $45000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $65000000)
Year 3: $40000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $60000000)
Year 5: $35000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $55000000)
Year 10: $30000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $50000000)
Year 100: $20000000 (Low: $0, High: $40000000)
Key Considerations
- Impact on labor negotiations and potential worker unrest.
- Change in service quality if working conditions degrade, affecting ridership.
- Need to track reinvestment of savings to maximize economic benefits.