Bill Overview
Title: FABRIC Act
Description: This bill requires garment industry employers to pay at least the hourly minimum wage and prohibits piece rate pay. Garment manufacturers and contractors also must register with the Department of Labor.
Sponsors: Rep. Maloney, Carolyn B. [D-NY-12]
Target Audience
Population: Garment Industry Workers
Estimated Size: 100000
- The garment industry is a major global industry employing millions of workers in manufacturing hubs such as China, Bangladesh, India, and Vietnam.
- There are approximately 40 million garment workers worldwide, many of whom are paid based on piece rate systems that this act seeks to reform.
- The global workforce for the garment industry includes a significant number of individuals in lower-wage economies, where minimum wage laws are not strictly enforced.
Reasoning
- The US garment industry workforce is smaller, around 100,000, compared to a global workforce of 40 million, suggesting targeted impact by this policy.
- Since a substantial portion of the US garment workforce operates under piece rate pay, they are directly affected by the FABRIC Act shifting them to hourly wages.
- The policy budget of $25 million in the first year with $250 million over a decade needs to focus on monitoring and compliance efforts, as well as assisting small businesses in transitioning their pay structures.
- The interviews should include varying demographics affected by the policy, including workers currently under piece rate, their employers, and unaffected industry workers.
Simulated Interviews
Garment Worker (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am relieved by the new policy; piece rate paying often means I can't predict my paycheck.
- Hourly pay will help me provide a steadier life for my child.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Garment Contractor (New York, NY)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I support fair wages, I am worried about the additional administrative burden and costs.
- Transitioning from piece rate to hourly will be challenging for my business.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Fashion Designer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Moving to hourly wages ensures fair treatment of workers and aligns with ethical fashion ideals.
- I hope this policy sets a standard and encourages consumers to value ethical production more.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Garment Worker (Miami, FL)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The switch to hourly pay will help me balance work and school without worrying about daily earnings.
- I think this change is beneficial for part-time workers like me.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Garment Factory Owner (Dallas, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Implementing hourly wages will require us to restructure our operations significantly.
- While supportive of fair pay, I am worried about competitiveness against non-compliant competitors.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Garment Worker (Chicago, IL)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Stopping piece rate pay is a huge win for workers' rights and dignity.
- My community sees this as a positive step toward equity in the workplace.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Garment Factory Workforce Manager (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Transition to hourly pay will require re-training of our workforce management strategies.
- I am hopeful that it will eventually stabilize and bring fairness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
Seamstress (Houston, TX)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hourly pay is less stressful than worrying about inconsistent piece rates.
- It's a positive change for new and younger members in the workforce.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
Textile Supplier (Seattle, WA)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I foresee increased demand for locally sourced materials as manufacturers comply with the act.
- It could be a positive turn for domestic suppliers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Retail Store Owner (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The change in pay structure should lead to better conditions for my suppliers' workers, aligning with my brand's values.
- I believe investing in ethical sourcing will pay off with more conscious consumers.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 3: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 5: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 10: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 100: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Key Considerations
- The shift to hourly pay may require significant short-term adjustments by employers, impacting their operational margins.
- Long-term compliance and regulatory frameworks need to be robust to ensure the effectiveness of minimum wage enforcement.
- Impact assessments should consider unintended consequences such as potential job reductions or automation responses in the garment industry.