Bill Overview
Title: Union Auto Workers Job Protection Act
Description: This bill requires that any bid for a contract relating to the assembly of a vehicle include information about each motor vehicle plant where the vehicles are to be assembled, including the mailing address of each motor vehicle plant; the average, minimum, and maximum hourly wage of hourly employees at each plant; the number of temporary nonpermanent employees at each plant; and disclosures of any National Labor Relations Act violations or Occupational Safety and Health Administration violations by such employer at each plant.
Sponsors: Rep. Stevens, Haley M. [D-MI-11]
Target Audience
Population: Unionized auto workers
Estimated Size: 400000
- The bill directly affects automotive plants that participate in bidding for vehicle assembly contracts.
- Automotive plants employ unionized auto workers as well as non-unionized and temporary employees.
- Union auto workers in these plants are the primary focus of the bill as it aims to protect their jobs by ensuring a higher standard of labor rights and safety.
- The disclosure requirements may impact non-unionized employees too, as companies may need to improve working conditions to avoid citing violations.
- Temporary workers could see a reduction in job options if companies choose to employ more permanent workers to meet compliance expectations.
Reasoning
- The policy directly impacts a subset of the auto worker population, namely those in unionized environments and potentially affects non-union temporary workers as companies reevaluate their compliance and labor strategies.
- Given the budget constraints, it is likely that the policy will focus primarily on larger automotive firms with significant unionized workforces that are regularly involved in such bidding processes.
- Workers might experience improved safety and labor rights which can increase their self-reported well-being scores over years, but these impacts could be gradual due to the slow process of labor reforms.
- Temporary workers might not see immediate improvements in well-being since the policy may incentivize firms to reduce temporary contracts to avoid complicating compliance criteria.
- The geographic focus of this policy's impact would primarily be in automotive hubs in the Midwest and parts of the South where unions are traditionally stronger.
Simulated Interviews
Auto Factory Worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful this policy will improve working conditions in our plant.
- It might mean more job security for us if the companies are required to report labor practices.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Temporary Auto Plant Worker (Toledo, OH)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry there might be fewer temporary jobs.
- If companies have to disclose more, they might avoid hiring temps.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 2 |
Auto Plant Supervisor (Louisville, KY)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's crucial for us to align with better labor practices.
- This policy might help reduce safety violations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Line Assembly Worker (Birmingham, AL)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm indifferent about the policy as I don't think it will affect my status.
- As a non-union worker, changes might not directly benefit me.
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 |
Safety Officer (Nashville, TN)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy should help us standardize safety measures.
- Consistent checks might streamline safety processes.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Union Representative (Flint, MI)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm optimistic as this will hold companies accountable.
- It could lead to more rights for our members.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired Auto Worker (Tulsa, OK)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy's disclosures can create transparency.
- Glad to see continued efforts of union protections even after my time.
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 |
Automotive Engineer (Charlotte, NC)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't expect my job to be affected.
- Engineering roles aren't typically influenced by production policies.
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 |
Auto Plant HR Specialist (Kansas City, MO)
Age: 37 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hiring may become more selective with this policy.
- Employee retention could improve if conditions do.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Auto Industry Analyst (Chicago, IL)
Age: 46 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a good move for labor accountability.
- I'll be interested to see its economic impact.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Ensuring compliance and transparency requires additional administrative measures for automotive companies.
- Maintaining labor standards and safety can lead to operational benefits and worker satisfaction.
- Cost implications are significant in the short term but potentially balanced by savings in the long term.