Bill Overview
Title: Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care Solutions Act
Description: This bill excludes the value of employer-funded child or dependent care from being used in calculating an eligible employee's overtime pay rate.
Sponsors: Rep. Stefanik, Elise M. [R-NY-21]
Target Audience
Population: People globally receiving employer-funded child or dependent care benefits
Estimated Size: 10000000
- The bill affects employees who receive employer-funded child or dependent care benefits.
- Employees working overtime and receiving such benefits will be directly impacted due to changes in how their overtime pay is calculated.
- The target population includes parents and individuals responsible for elder care who rely on such employer support.
- The bill targets workplace benefits and their intersection with labor laws, specifically focusing on calculation of wages.
- Globally, workforce participants with familial care responsibilities will be affected, but specific numbers depend on how common such employer support is across different countries.
Reasoning
- The target population includes employees who benefit from employer-funded childcare or eldercare. These benefits are more prevalent in large corporations or progressive companies.
- The policy affects those who work overtime and are also benefiting from employer-funded care solutions, as it changes the calculation for overtime pay rates.
- With the limited budget, not all employees receiving such benefits will be deeply affected, but the policy can nonetheless provide notable impacts for a significant minority of this group.
- Considerations include varying levels of employer benefits across different occupational sectors and geographic regions within the US.
- Not all employees receiving care benefits work overtime, and only those who do will see a direct impact on pay calculations.
- The interviews should reflect variation in demographics, work situations, and perspectives on the necessity and impact of employer care benefits.
Simulated Interviews
software engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate the childcare benefits my company offers, as they make a big financial difference.
- The new policy is concerning as it might reduce my overtime pay.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
project manager (Austin, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The eldercare support offered is invaluable as it helps balance my work and care responsibilities.
- I am unsure how this policy would directly impact my finances, but any reduction in pay isn't ideal.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
nurse (New York, NY)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Childcare benefits are crucial for balancing my demanding schedule.
- I rely on overtime for extra income, so I’m worried about potential pay changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
accountant (Chicago, IL)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The care benefits slightly ease my financial burden.
- This policy doesn’t really affect me as I rarely work overtime.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
junior marketing analyst (Seattle, WA)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The eldercare benefits help, but overtime is where I get most of my needed pay boost.
- If overtime calculations change, I’ll feel the impact, though I'm early in my career.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
teacher (Miami, FL)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having on-site childcare makes my job sustainable as a single working parent.
- I’m wary about potential cuts to my overtime pay, but grateful for the benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
logistics coordinator (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The current benefits are crucial, though I seldom work overtime.
- This policy might not impact me much since my overtime hours are limited.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
construction worker (Denver, CO)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's great that my new job offers care benefits, but I’m mostly concerned about keeping my overtime income stable.
- The policy change could make it tough during peak work times.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
warehouse supervisor (Detroit, MI)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Overtime is a crucial part of my income, and dependent care benefits offer relief, though they’re limited.
- If overtime pay is lessened, it could significantly affect my financial situation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
hospital administrator (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The eldercare assistance allows me to be more focused at work.
- Luckily, I have some control over my schedule, so this policy doesn't directly affect me.
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 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 2: $21000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 3: $22000000 (Low: $16000000, High: $26000000)
Year 5: $25000000 (Low: $18000000, High: $30000000)
Year 10: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $35000000)
Year 100: $40000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $50000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill affects a specific subset of the workforce; thus, the cost impact is comparatively narrow.
- Wage calculation methodologies and their interpretation could vary between employers, affecting uniform compliance.
- The broader implications for labor market dynamics remain limited due to the specificity of affected benefits.