Bill Overview
Title: Good Jobs for Good Airports Act
Description: This bill addresses pay, benefits, and labor standards for certain airport service workers. Airport service workers include security officers, food service workers, cleaning staff, ticketing agents, and retail service workers. Specifically, the bill establishes a minimum wage and benefit standard for such airport service workers at large, medium, and small hub airports. It also prohibits small, medium, and large hub airports from accessing federal funds for airport development projects unless the airports certify that such airport service workers are paid no less than the higher of $15 per hour, the applicable state or local minimum wage and fringe benefits, or the prevailing wage and fringe benefits required under the Service Contract Act as established by the Department of Labor.
Sponsors: Rep. Garcia, Jesus G. "Chuy" [D-IL-4]
Target Audience
Population: airport service workers worldwide
Estimated Size: 1000000
- The bill specifically targets airport service workers across the United States, who include security officers, food service workers, cleaning staff, ticketing agents, and retail service workers.
- The legislation impacts these workers by establishing wage and benefit standards.
- The global nature of air travel suggests that similar labor groups might be present worldwide, though the bill itself affects the U.S.
- There are thousands of airports globally, each employing service workers, making this a significantly large population should similar legislation be mirrored.
Reasoning
- The policy affects airport service workers by improving their wage and benefit standards, potentially increasing their well-being and financial security.
- The geographical spread of affected individuals includes various large, medium, and small airports across the United States, encompassing a diverse labor force in terms of geography, age, and demographics.
- Those not directly working at airports or not in service-related positions at airports will not experience significant direct effects from the policy, although they might observe changes indirectly if airport operations are influenced.
- The policy's budget constraints mean it targets a specific group within the overall airport workforce, focusing on service worker roles that might be lower-paid compared to other airport employees.
- By evaluating current data on airport worker demographics and wages, simulated interviews can project potential changes in self-reported well-being.
Simulated Interviews
Food service worker (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will really help me get some breathing room with my bills.
- It'll be nice to not have to work two jobs just to get by.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Security officer (Denver, CO)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having a guaranteed minimum wage will make planning easier.
- The stability will reduce stress in my household.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Cleaning staff (Seattle, WA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The extra funds would help me take better care of my mom.
- This gives more dignity to our work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Ticketing agent (New York, NY)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy can help me save a bit more for retirement.
- The health benefits aspect is very crucial for me.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retail service worker (Miami, FL)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m excited about the chance to earn a bit more.
- It would definitely help with rent and student loans.
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 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Security officer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With the extra wages, I can spend more time with my kids.
- It’s going to make my life just a bit more comfortable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Food service worker (Dallas, TX)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Higher wages mean I'll be less worried about monthly expenses.
- This policy shows that our work is valued.
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 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Cleaning staff (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Every little bit helps when rent is so high.
- It's a step in the right direction, but more work is needed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Ticketing agent (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A higher wage won’t directly affect me much, but it’s comforting for the long term.
- The policy is good but I wish there were more on pensions.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Retail service worker (Orlando, FL)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've been struggling to manage my student loans on my current salary.
- This policy affords me some much-needed relief.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 2: $270000000 (Low: $220000000, High: $320000000)
Year 3: $290000000 (Low: $240000000, High: $340000000)
Year 5: $320000000 (Low: $270000000, High: $370000000)
Year 10: $370000000 (Low: $320000000, High: $420000000)
Year 100: $700000000 (Low: $600000000, High: $800000000)
Key Considerations
- The impact on small hub airports may vary significantly from larger airports, potentially raising operational costs.
- There could be potential pushback from airports regarding the cost of compliance versus benefits.
- Monitoring and enforcement mechanisms must be robust to ensure compliance with the wage standards.