Bill Overview
Title: Part-Time Worker Bill of Rights Act
Description: This bill modifies various employment, leave, and pension rules with respect to part-time workers. Specifically, the bill removes the requirement that employees work a minimum number of hours during the preceding 12-month period before becoming eligible for family and medical leave. The bill also sets the maximum length of service on which employers may condition the eligibility of part-time employees for a qualified pension plan (e.g., 401(k) retirement plan). Except as required by an applicable collective bargaining agreement, such service requirement may be no longer than two consecutive 12-month periods of at least 500 hours of service for part-time employees who have reached the age of 21 by the end of such period. The bill further prohibits employers of more than 15 employees from setting disparate terms of employment or working conditions for part-time employees, including with respect to compensation, notice of work hours, and promotion opportunities. Additionally, the bill requires such employers to offer available, qualified part-time employees additional work hours before hiring new employees for such hours. Among other enforcement methods, employers must maintain three years of records for offers of additional hours and employee responses to such offers. The bill also provides a private right of action for employees to enforce the nondiscrimination requirements of this bill.
Sponsors: Sen. Warren, Elizabeth [D-MA]
Target Audience
Population: Part-time workers globally
Estimated Size: 26500000
- The bill specifically modifies rules affecting part-time workers, so they are the primary target population.
- The modifications to employment, leave, and pension rules will apply to all part-time workers who fit the criteria of the bill.
- The bill applies to employers of more than 15 employees, so part-time workers at these organizations will be impacted.
- Worldwide, part-time work is a common employment type, therefore the global target population includes part-time workers from multiple countries.
- The bill's provisions, such as family and medical leave and pension eligibility, address common concerns of part-time workers, indicating that the overall population that could benefit or be affected is significant.
Reasoning
- The target population for this policy are part-time workers who are employed at organizations with more than 15 employees. This comprises a significant portion of the part-time workforce in the U.S.
- The budget is limited, so it's essential to understand the range of impacts, from none to high, to optimize allocation of resources.
- While the policy aims to benefit part-time workers, not every part-time worker will be impacted equally due to differences in their current employment conditions.
- The bill addresses some key issues faced by part-time workers, including leave, pension eligibility, and nondiscriminatory terms of employment. Those experiencing these issues may see a positive impact if the policy is implemented.
- Certain demographic details, such as age and whether a part-time worker has been consistently with an employer for over a year, might influence their eligibility and the extent of the policy's impact.
- Considering a long-term horizon of up to 20 years allows us to evaluate not just immediate benefits, but also lasting changes in wellbeing among part-time workers.
Simulated Interviews
Retail associate (Denver, CO)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate having more protection and potentially better access to hours and benefits.
- It sounds like I could be eligible for family leave, which would help if I start a family.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Graphic designer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see this impacting me much as a freelancer, but it's great for part-time workers committed to one employer.
- It might make full-time jobs more favorable for companies compared to gig work though.
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 |
Fast food worker (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 18 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Currently, my hours are just to cover some personal expenses.
- Extra hours would be useful during summer breaks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Administrative assistant (Chicago, IL)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Access to additional work hours might not fit my current lifestyle needs.
- However, being eligible for leave without job loss is crucial for family emergencies.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Warehouse worker (Houston, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've wanted more hours, and seniority should mean something.
- This policy might improve my stability at work.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Bookstore clerk (New York, NY)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not seeking changes to hours or benefits, but it's nice to see support for those who need it.
- My main concern is if increased benefits raise costs unnecessarily.
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 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Theme park attendant (Orlando, FL)
Age: 23 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's good that I'll be considered for more hours rather than hiring new people immediately.
- The leave benefits are less relevant to me right now.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Custodial worker (Seattle, WA)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Equal terms as full-time staff excite me, and I want to stay at my workplace for a long time.
- It seems like a step towards feeling more secure at work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
School bus driver (Dallas, TX)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I opted for part-time for a balance between work and leisure, major changes could disrupt that.
- Happy for those who need more hours or protection.
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 |
Barista (Portland, OR)
Age: 31 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'd welcome more consistent hours but worry employers might react by reducing overall hours offered.
- Fairness in opportunities compared to full-time staff is crucial.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1500000000 (Low: $1200000000, High: $1800000000)
Year 2: $1550000000 (Low: $1250000000, High: $1850000000)
Year 3: $1600000000 (Low: $1300000000, High: $1900000000)
Year 5: $1700000000 (Low: $1400000000, High: $2000000000)
Year 10: $2000000000 (Low: $1700000000, High: $2300000000)
Year 100: $5000000000 (Low: $4500000000, High: $5500000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill affects approximately 26.5 million part-time workers in the U.S., potentially increasing their benefits and employment rights.
- Employers might face increased operational and compliance costs due to record-keeping and enforcement provisions.
- Potential productivity gains due to improved worker satisfaction and retention could offset some costs over time.
- The provisions could lead to increased litigation and legal challenges, influencing the cost-effectiveness of the bill.
- Economic impacts could vary depending on businesses adapting to new hiring and scheduling practices.