Bill Overview
Title: Worker Safety in Climate Disasters Act
Description: This bill provides paid emergency leave time (80 hours for a full-time employee) for an employee who is unable to work (or telework) due to certain climate disasters.
Sponsors: Rep. Bush, Cori [D-MO-1]
Target Audience
Population: Workers unable to work due to climate disasters
Estimated Size: 15000000
- Climate disasters affect people globally, creating a need for policies that protect workers' safety during such events.
- Workers in areas prone to climate disasters such as hurricanes, wildfires, floods, and extreme weather conditions will be directly affected by this legislation.
- Industries highly impacted by climate disasters include agriculture, construction, transportation, and emergency services.
- The global workforce that could benefit from paid leave during climate disasters includes millions of people, especially those in regions frequently affected by such events.
Reasoning
- The US frequently experiences climate disasters affecting millions of workers, especially in vulnerable sectors like agriculture and construction.
- Given the budget constraints, which cover only a portion of potentially affected workers, it is crucial to include a variety of simulated interviews, focusing on occupations and areas most impacted by such disasters.
- We must consider that not all workers impacted by climate disasters are low-income or frontline workers; some may have the ability to work remotely, thereby reducing their impact.
- Exploring diversity in geographical location is essential to capture the varying types of climate events affecting different regions.
- Wellbeing scores may already differ based on existing economic disparities, which is also an essential factor in assessing policy impact.
Simulated Interviews
Construction Worker (Miami, FL)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy would be a relief because hurricanes stop my work for weeks.
- Paid time off during disasters would ease financial stress.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Farmer (California, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy provides no direct relief from droughts impacting harvest.
- Extra time off doesn't solve income loss but helps with planning future crops.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Emergency Medical Technician (Houston, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's good for those who can't work remotely, but I still have to be on-site during disasters.
- Could help my partner who is also in a non-remote job.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Chef (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Income stops during hurricanes, and this policy doesn’t cover business losses.
- Relieves some stress knowing there's financial support, but stability would need more comprehensive aid.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Landscaper (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Extreme heat makes work dangerous and unbearable.
- Policy offers welcome relief but doesn’t address long-term safety issues.
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 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Tech Support (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy doesn’t directly impact me since I work remotely.
- It's good for those who can't work remotely, like my brother in construction.
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 |
Teacher (Baton Rouge, LA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Extra leave helps deal with storm disruptions.
- Policy eases financial worry when school is out, but impacts learning calendar.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Wildfire Fighter (Sacramento, CA)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy is unlikely to apply since my job is focused on disaster response.
- It could benefit my family by providing some financial security.
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 |
Retail Worker (Tampa, FL)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy would ease the financial burden from lost hours.
- Huge relief to have paid leave, but worried about longer-term economic impacts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
Financial Analyst (New York, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy seems focused on those in sectors unable to work remotely, unlike my situation.
- Beneficial for workers unable to work from home during events.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2250000000 (Low: $1500000000, High: $3000000000)
Year 2: $2317500000 (Low: $1545000000, High: $3090000000)
Year 3: $2387025000 (Low: $1591350000, High: $3182700000)
Year 5: $2520215775 (Low: $1680143850, High: $3360287700)
Year 10: $2836432723 (Low: $1890955150, High: $3781910300)
Year 100: $4532152622 (Low: $3021435081, High: $6042870162)
Key Considerations
- The frequency and severity of climate disasters may increase over time, influencing the number of claims on this policy.
- Industries and workers with high exposure to outdoor working conditions will benefit most.
- Administrative costs for implementing and managing this policy at both federal and state levels.