Bill Overview
Title: Job Protection Act
Description: This bill reduces from 12 months to 90 days the employment period required for employees (including federal employees) to become eligible for family and medical leave. Additionally, the bill makes the family and medical leave requirements applicable to all employers (currently, the requirements apply to employers with 50 or more employees).
Sponsors: Rep. Underwood, Lauren [D-IL-14]
Target Audience
Population: Employees gaining family and medical leave rights under the new bill
Estimated Size: 48000000
- The bill proposes to reduce the eligibility period for family and medical leave from 12 months to 90 days. This change impacts employees who have been employed between 90 days and 12 months who previously were not covered.
- Currently, family and medical leave requirements apply to employers with 50 or more employees. This bill extends these requirements to all employers, regardless of size, increasing coverage to employees of smaller companies.
- The inclusion of federal employees means that federal workers across all parts of the government will also be affected.
- Statistically, it is estimated that about 20% of American workers are employed by small businesses with fewer than 50 employees, who under current law would not have access to the leave unless this bill passes.
- The total workforce in the USA as of 2023 is over 160 million people; thus the global impact includes extending rights to many millions of small business employees and new hires under 90 days.
Reasoning
- The Job Protection Act would primarily impact workers in smaller firms and those who are newly employed (90 days to 12 months). Thus, our interview simulation targets individuals from various backgrounds to assess potential impacts.
- The policy expands access to family and medical leave, which is typically underutilized due to eligibility constraints in smaller companies. This would predominantly affect younger workers or those in transient jobs who often work for such employers.
- The reduced employment period before eligibility is a significant shift. For younger and early-career workers, having access to family and medical leave earlier can increase job satisfaction and retain talent within companies.
- For larger companies, although they already provide these benefits, this policy might have minimal direct impacts. However, those new to federal employment might experience enhanced job security knowing they have access to leave sooner.
- Considering geographical and occupational disparities, we consider a mix of urban, suburban, and rural perspectives in the simulation.
- While the bill has a large budget, extending benefits to half the workforce means it must be efficiently distributed to prevent any financial excess overflowing from projected policy costs.
Simulated Interviews
Software Engineer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've always been worried about what would happen if I needed more time off.
- This policy will make me feel more secure if I decide to have another child.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Bartender (Austin, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Most of us don't stay long, and nobody here had family leave before.
- I'd feel a lot better about staying long-term if I knew I had this kind of support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Human Resources Manager (Chicago, IL)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could make retention easier as we could offer benefits that previously weren't possible.
- Personally, it reduces stress knowing I could take leave without waiting a year.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Construction Worker (Omaha, NE)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Benefits were always out of reach because I switch jobs almost every season.
- At this point in my life, medical leave like this could be a lifeline.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Freelance Graphic Designer (New York, NY)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Always hard to get time off as a freelancer, benefits like this were never considered.
- If I have a long-term contract, knowing I can take leave would ease a lot of anxieties.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Retail Manager (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've been here longer, so I have leave, but it's great for new hires, especially single parents.
- This offers something competitive to new moms who want to return to work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Manufacturing Specialist (Detroit, MI)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- For me personally, it doesn't change much. But, it should assist many coworkers new to the trade.
- It could encourage retention because our young workers often move due to lack of benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Delivery Service Driver (Seattle, WA)
Age: 31 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Many of us drive part-time hoping benefits will eventually extend to us.
- This could motivate me to push for full-time positions now that benefits are accessible early on.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Waitress (Miami, FL)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 18.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having no safety net made shifts feel daunting when personal issues came up.
- A safety net from this act would be incredible because it allows for recovery without immediate financial stress.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Elementary School Teacher (Portland, OR)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's reassuring to know our benefits stand, more changes might bring better conditions for part-time or relief teachers.
- In practice, it doesn't impact my work much, but I support nationwide coverage expansion.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $6000000000 (Low: $4500000000, High: $7500000000)
Year 2: $6200000000 (Low: $4600000000, High: $7800000000)
Year 3: $6400000000 (Low: $4700000000, High: $8000000000)
Year 5: $6800000000 (Low: $5000000000, High: $8500000000)
Year 10: $7500000000 (Low: $5500000000, High: $9500000000)
Year 100: $10000000000 (Low: $8500000000, High: $12000000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill's broader compliance costs could disproportionately affect small businesses, which may not have the resources of larger firms to absorb the costs of extended leave benefits.
- The rapid expansion of family and medical leave eligibility could temporarily disrupt workforce planning and operational continuity in some firms, particularly during the initial adaptation phase.
- Adjustments in hiring practices may occur as businesses attempt to mitigate potential impacts of increased leave usage.