Bill Overview
Title: Justice for Local Communities and Workers Act
Description: This bill expands the notification requirement for plant closures and mass layoffs under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act to include notices to Members of Congress. The bill provides that an employer's notice of a plant closing or mass layoff shall not be considered valid unless the employer, prior to serving such notice, covers the cost of an economic impact study to assess the economic impact of such an order. An employer who is not experiencing economic hardship and who orders a plant closing or mass layoff must make payments to the Impacted Workers Fund, created by this bill, to cover the financial losses of states resulting from such an order.
Sponsors: Rep. DeSaulnier, Mark [D-CA-11]
Target Audience
Population: People employed in industries vulnerable to mass layoffs and plant closures
Estimated Size: 2000000
- The legislation addresses plant closures and mass layoffs, thus it will primarily impact workers employed in industries where these events are likely, such as manufacturing, retail, and possibly tech industries.
- Employers will also be affected as they are required to pay for economic impact studies before mass layoffs or plant closures and contribute to an Impacted Workers Fund if there is no economic hardship.
- Local communities will be impacted by this legislation as the economic impact studies and the fund aim to mitigate the economic consequences of plant closures and layoffs in these areas.
- Executives and management teams at companies facing closures may need to comply with new notification requirements and financial contributions, impacting their operational procedures.
- State economies will be influenced as they may receive financial support from the Impacted Workers Fund to counterbalance financial losses from closures.
Reasoning
- The policy is likely to affect workers in manufacturing, retail, and tech industries, given their susceptibility to significant layoffs and plant closures.
- Employers in these industries will bear the cost of economic impact studies and make payments to the fund unless they are experiencing hardship, which could affect corporate budgeting and decision-making.
- Communities with high employment in vulnerable sectors might face less severe economic disruptions due to financial support from the Impacted Workers Fund.
- State economies might stabilize post-closure as the fund helps smooth over cascading financial impacts, thus strengthening local job markets in the long run.
Simulated Interviews
Automotive Assembler (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy gives us a bit of a security net. But during a closure, uncertainty still looms until support kicks in.
- The obligation for employers to study economic impact is good but might delay the inevitable sometimes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retail Store Manager (Orlando, Florida)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about closures, but this policy helps ease those fears a little.
- It's good that companies need to be upfront about impacts, might lead to more thoughtful decisions.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Software Engineer (San Jose, California)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It might create more stability in tech where layoffs can be random.
- Paying for economic impact studies might slow down business efficiency.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Steel Plant Worker (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could be a lifeline if things close. The idea of a cushion is encouraging.
- Worried about how quickly funds can be accessed in crises.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Warehouse Worker (Dallas, Texas)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy adds a layer of protection that we didn't have before.
- It might not completely stop layoffs but helps with the transition.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Barista (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Big plant closures get more attention than small businesses like coffee shops.
- Maybe communities will face lesser impacts of big layoffs, but unclear how small employers are affected.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Union Representative (Buffalo, New York)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill can protect our members better by holding companies accountable.
- We've fought for such support, but it must be well-implemented to work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Electronics Manufacturing Supervisor (Indianapolis, Indiana)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will make us plan better for any shifts.
- Costs for studies and fund might restrict operational budgets.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
IT Support Specialist (Raleigh, North Carolina)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Recently jobless friends back home need this kind of policy to cushion the blow.
- Seeing how plant closures left areas stranded, the fund’s critical for recovery.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Factory Owner (Cleveland, Ohio)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy intentions are good but financially burdensome for small factories like ours.
- Having to pay for impact evaluations adds pressure to already tight budgets.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $600000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $800000000)
Year 2: $550000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $750000000)
Year 3: $550000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $750000000)
Year 5: $550000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $750000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The burden of economic impact studies and contributions to the Impacted Workers Fund on businesses may lead some businesses to reconsider decisions regarding plant closures and layoffs.
- The overall effectiveness depends on the enforcement of compliance and the administration of the Impacted Workers Fund.
- Economic impact studies may empower local authorities and communities to better plan for economic changes or disruptions.