Bill Overview
Title: Employee Privacy Protection Act
Description: This bill requires the National Labor Relations Board, not earlier than seven days after it makes a final determination of the appropriate bargaining unit in a proposed election for collective bargaining representation, to acquire from the employer a list of all employees eligible to vote in the election, which shall (1) be made available to all parties; and (2) include the employees' names and not more than one additional form of personal contact information (e.g., telephone number, email address, or mailing address) chosen by the employees in writing.
Sponsors: Rep. Wilson, Joe [R-SC-2]
Target Audience
Population: Employees involved in collective bargaining processes
Estimated Size: 19200000
- The legislation pertains specifically to employees who are eligible to vote in a proposed election for collective bargaining representation.
- Employees who are involved in industries where labor unions are prevalent and collective bargaining procedures occur will be most directly impacted.
- The bill mentions a role for the National Labor Relations Board, indicating that it affects employees in the United States where this board operates.
- Under this bill, the privacy of certain personal contact information (one form) is subject to the employee's choice, which may affect perceptions of privacy and consent regarding personal data.
- Employees who are in sectors that do not engage in collective bargaining (e.g., some service industries, managerial positions) would be less likely to be directly affected.
Reasoning
- The policy is mainly relevant to employees involved in sectors with collective bargaining, such as public sector workers and those in industries with high union density like manufacturing.
- Since the policy addresses privacy concerns related to employee contact information, it might also affect perceptions of personal data sensitivity and privacy, potentially impacting wellbeing.
- We must consider varied impacts on different demographic groups, including age, gender, and occupation, as some may perceive the policy more positively or negatively based on their personal views on privacy and union participation.
- The policy has financial constraints which might limit broad implementation or enforcement, suggesting more localized or industry-specific effects in areas with stronger union presence.
Simulated Interviews
Factory Worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate any steps to protect my privacy, especially when it comes to my contact information.
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 |
Teacher (New York, NY)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems to balance transparency with privacy, which is reassuring when participating in union elections.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Software Developer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy doesn't seem to affect me directly since I'm not involved in union activities.
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 |
Nurse (Chicago, IL)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring privacy in union voting is critical, especially in healthcare where sharing personal information is sensitive.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Retired oil industry worker (Houston, TX)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While such policies might help current workers, I'm not convinced they make a big difference overall.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Administrative Assistant (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More privacy could encourage me to participate more actively, knowing my information is safe.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Construction Worker (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this enhances my privacy while keeping benefits intact, I'm all for it.
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 | 7 | 6 |
Retail Manager (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Privacy of my employees is crucial, but this policy doesn't seem directly relevant to our specific setting.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Steelworker (Pittsburgh, PA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is good as it solidifies our rights and privacy when it comes to union voting.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Airline Pilot (Miami, FL)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We need to protect our privacy while ensuring that safety measures and union actions are not compromised.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $13000000)
Year 2: $10200000 (Low: $8200000, High: $13300000)
Year 3: $10400000 (Low: $8400000, High: $13600000)
Year 5: $10800000 (Low: $8700000, High: $14000000)
Year 10: $11900000 (Low: $9600000, High: $15400000)
Year 100: $31500000 (Low: $25500000, High: $40500000)
Key Considerations
- Administrative responsibilities on the NLRB and employers to handle employee lists securely.
- Potential compliance burdens on employers leading to nominal increases in business operation costs.
- Impact on privacy and data protection practices in labor relations.