Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/8444

Bill Overview

Title: To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to require paid rest breaks for certain construction employees, and for other purposes.

Description: This bill requires employers to provide construction employees with paid rest breaks and protects employees against related retaliatory actions. Specifically, the bill requires that construction employees receive at least one 15-minute paid rest break for every four hours of work. An employer may not take retaliatory personnel action or otherwise discriminate against a construction employee who (1) requests or takes paid rest breaks, or (2) files a related complaint with the Department of Labor. At the time of hiring an employee, an employer must provide notice of the right to paid rest breaks and protections against related retaliatory actions in the construction employee's primary language. Further, the employer must post this information at construction work sites in both English and Spanish.

Sponsors: Rep. Garcia, Sylvia R. [D-TX-29]

Target Audience

Population: Construction workers

Estimated Size: 7800000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Construction Worker (Texas)

Age: 32 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy is much needed. We work long hours in tough conditions.
  • The paid breaks will let us rest properly, which definitely helps during summer heat.

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 9 5
Year 20 9 5

Construction Supervisor (California)

Age: 45 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This would ensure my team takes necessary breaks, which is hard to insist on during busy periods.
  • I think it will improve site safety and overall morale.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 7 4

Electrician (New York)

Age: 28 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • We already have negotiated breaks, so the impact may not be huge for us.
  • It's a good move for those in smaller firms without union protection.

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 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 6 6

Project Manager (Florida)

Age: 39 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy will standardize rest breaks.
  • Could face challenges in scheduling, especially with tight deadlines.

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 7 5
Year 20 6 5

Construction Company Owner (Illinois)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I worry about the cost implications, but I can see how it might boost productivity.
  • Compliance monitoring will be important.

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 5

Foreman (Ohio)

Age: 27 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Breaks are needed, particularly in extreme weather conditions.
  • This could help reduce the number of accidents on site.

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 9 5
Year 10 9 5
Year 20 8 4

Architect (Washington State)

Age: 34 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Should ensure that worker conditions are better regulated.
  • Alignment with our firm’s values, although we focus more on design.

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

Construction Laborer (New Mexico)

Age: 48 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Finally, a policy that acknowledges our hard work.
  • I’m worried about how strictly this will be enforced though.

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 8 4
Year 10 8 4
Year 20 7 3

Construction Apprentice (Illinois)

Age: 23 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy will definitely help me manage stress better.
  • I'm all for anything that makes the job safer and fairer.

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 5
Year 20 7 5

Retired Construction Worker (Nevada)

Age: 53 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 1/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy is long overdue.
  • Having experienced the hardships firsthand, I believe this will be immensely beneficial.

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

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $5000000000 (Low: $4500000000, High: $5500000000)

Year 2: $5100000000 (Low: $4600000000, High: $5600000000)

Year 3: $5200000000 (Low: $4700000000, High: $5700000000)

Year 5: $5300000000 (Low: $4800000000, High: $5800000000)

Year 10: $5500000000 (Low: $5000000000, High: $6000000000)

Year 100: $8000000000 (Low: $7000000000, High: $9000000000)

Key Considerations