Bill Overview
Title: RAISE Act
Description: This bill declares that neither a labor organization's exclusive representation of employees in a bargaining unit, nor the terms of a collective bargaining contract or agreement entered into after enactment of this bill, shall prohibit an employer from paying an employee higher wages, pay, or other compensation than provided for in the contract or agreement.
Sponsors: Rep. Johnson, Dusty [R-SD-At Large]
Target Audience
Population: Unionized workers
Estimated Size: 14000000
- The RAISE Act affects employees who are part of unions, as it modifies how compensation terms are negotiated within collective bargaining agreements.
- There are approximately 110 million full-time employees in the United States, and around 10% of these are union members, which equates to about 11 million unionized workers who might be directly affected.
- The global workforce affected will primarily be in the United States since it is a U.S. bill. However, the concept could influence international labor or economic policy indirectly if adopted or considered by other countries.
- Globally, the concept of unionized labor and collective bargaining is common across various countries, where union membership can vary significantly.
Reasoning
- The policy impacts only unionized workers, who make up about 10% of the U.S. workforce. Out of approximately 140 million total U.S. workers, roughly 14 million are represented by unions and could be affected.
- The budget limits imply only a fraction of the 14 million unionized workers will be impacted in the initial years. Assuming even distribution and considering the policy cost and implementation, not all unionized workers will receive raises promptly.
- Considering the policy's nature, it's likely to mainly affect those in sectors with significant productivity or profitability where employers are motivated to compensate top performers beyond the collective agreement.
- The policy posits benefits for high-performing employees who might see direct increases in wages. However, there could be potential unrest in union negotiations for others not receiving raises, as wage disparities may increase.
Simulated Interviews
Automotive factory worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I welcome the option to earn more than the contract suggests. It's a good incentive for hard work.
- However, I'm worried about how this might affect union unity and bargaining power.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Public school teacher (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry this could undermine collective agreements made to ensure fair wages for all already struggling workers.
- While individual wage gain is appealing, it could foment discord and undermine long-term solidarity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Construction worker (Dallas, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Being able to earn more is great, but if the employer wants, they can just pick favorites.
- We need better oversight to ensure fairness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Grocery store worker (Seattle, WA)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This seems like it could create unfair workplaces where only some people benefit.
- While extra money is good, it needs to be equitably done, so everyone benefits, not just some get raises.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Railroad engineer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If managed well, rewarding hardworking employees is good.
- But it might make union negotiations less influential, and not everyone will be happy with that.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Nurse (New York, NY)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Opens up opportunities for rewards based on performance, but we must ensure this doesn't divide us.
- Union achievements are significant, and risking them for individual gains needs careful consideration.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Factory line worker (Pittsburgh, PA)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Incentives for individual workers are fine, but this shouldn't be used to weaken our collective agreements.
- I'd prefer guarantees rather than optional bonuses or raises.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Retired firefighter (Boston, MA)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- For future firefighters, the ability to earn more could be beneficial if it positively influences their lives.
- However, the tradition and power of collective bargaining should be preserved.
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 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Hospital administrative worker (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 54 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased pay for some is an ideal many would like to see, but introducing market-based flexibility needs careful oversight so it doesn’t harm overall worker solidarity.
- Potentially a double-edged sword – it can breed competition or collaboration.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Electrician (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Raises for good work sound positive, but it should not be at the cost of the collective bargaining strength.
- We must guard against management using this as a divide-and-conquer strategy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $21000000 (Low: $16000000, High: $31500000)
Year 3: $22050000 (Low: $16800000, High: $33075000)
Year 5: $24360000 (Low: $19440000, High: $36540000)
Year 10: $30000000 (Low: $24000000, High: $45000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $75000000)
Key Considerations
- The real impact will depend heavily on how many employers utilize the flexibility to offer wages above collective bargaining agreements.
- The Act does not mandate wage increases, so actual economic effects may vary widely based on sector and employer capability.
- The administrative burden on employers could require additional payroll configuring, potentially impacting operations.