Bill Overview
Title: Fair Warning Act of 2022
Description: This bill bars an employer from ordering a site closing or mass layoff until 90 calendar days after the employer has served written notice of such an order to (1) each representative of the affected employees as of the time of the notice or each affected employee, (2) the Department of Labor and the governor of the state where the site closing or mass layoff is to occur, and (3) the state or entity designated by the state to carry out rapid response activities.
Sponsors: Rep. Ryan, Tim [D-OH-13]
Target Audience
Population: Employees facing potential mass layoffs or site closures under covered employers globally
Estimated Size: 30000000
- The bill mandates a delay in site closings or mass layoffs, which affects employees facing potential unemployment.
- It impacts employers by imposing a notice period before executing site closures or layoffs.
- State and local governments are impacted as they have to be notified and prepare for economic and social impacts.
- The bill affects the Department of Labor, which oversees compliance and manages related labor statistics.
Reasoning
- The Fair Warning Act of 2022 has a broad impact, though it directly targets employees potentially facing layoffs, employers planning layoffs, and government agencies involved in labor regulation.
- Employees facing potential job loss may experience reduced anxiety and improved planning opportunities, which can affect their overall wellbeing.
- Employers may face operational challenges due to the requirement of advance notice, which could impact their business flexibility and, indirectly, their financial stability.
- Government and state agencies will require resources to manage compliance and assist with reemployment efforts, potentially benefiting from improved planning capabilities.
Simulated Interviews
Automotive Engineer (Detroit, MI)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy gives us more time to prepare for layoff situations. It’s a relief knowing I have 90 days to plan.
- The automotive industry is cyclical, and layoffs are common. This act could help soften the blow.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
Software Developer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel more secure knowing that, if layoffs happen, I’ll have some warning.
- This policy might help me financially plan better, especially as a homeowner.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Factory Worker (Cleveland, OH)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- At my age, job loss is a big deal. This policy can give me time to figure things out if it happens.
- I’m part of a union, and this seems like a decent worker protection measure.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 1 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 1 |
HR Specialist (Boston, MA)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Implementing this policy will add tasks to my plate, but overall it’s beneficial for employee morale.
- I believe it helps create a fairer work environment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
Small Business Owner (Austin, TX)
Age: 37 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could impact my flexibility to manage staffing to align with business highs and lows.
- As a small business owner, it could mean more planning but also more strain.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
State Labor Agency Officer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy requires us to adapt quickly, but it should improve workforce adjustment services.
- I expect more structured responses to layoffs can be implemented.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Corporate Executive (New York, NY)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our operational flexibility could be reduced, making strategic shifts harder at times.
- However, it’s beneficial for stable employee relations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Freelancer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy doesn’t directly affect me as a freelancer, but indirectly, a more stable job market benefits contract opportunities.
- It might mean more predictable contracting opportunities.
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 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Oil and Gas Worker (Houston, TX)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Given our industry’s volatility, this offers a degree of necessary stability.
- It could help me transition if market changes lead to layoffs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 1 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 1 |
Public School Teacher (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is indirectly beneficial if it means fewer families in crisis due to layoffs.
- Stable families typically translate to better student outcomes which is an indirect benefit for teachers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $8000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $10000000)
Year 2: $8000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $10000000)
Year 3: $8000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $10000000)
Year 5: $9000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $11000000)
Year 10: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 100: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)
Key Considerations
- The reliability of compliance by employers: adherence to the 90-day notice requirement will determine the effectiveness of the act.
- Capacity of the Department of Labor and state agencies to manage and respond to additional reporting requirements and related activities.
- Potential administrative and operational adjustments required by companies impacting both direct costs to businesses and the labor market dynamics.