Bill Overview
Title: Schedules That Work Act
Description: This bill provides employees with the right to request changes to their work schedules related to the number of hours they are required to work or be on call, the location of the work, the amount of notification about work schedule assignments, and fluctuations in work hours. Employers must negotiate in good faith with employees who make such requests and comply with certain work schedule notice and split shift pay requirements for retail, food service, cleaning, hospitality, or warehouse employees.
Sponsors: Sen. Warren, Elizabeth [D-MA]
Target Audience
Population: Employees in retail, food service, cleaning, hospitality, or warehouse industries
Estimated Size: 50000000
- The bill directly targets employees who wish to request changes to their work schedules.
- It specifically affects workers in sectors such as retail, food service, cleaning, hospitality, and warehouse industries.
- The bill aims to provide more stability and predictability in work schedules for these employees.
- Globally, millions of people work in the targeted industries, which are often characterized by variable schedules.
Reasoning
- The Schedules That Work Act primarily targets employees in industries with prevalent variable schedules like retail, food service, and hospitality.
- Considering cost and budget, the implementation can reach a substantial part of the 50 million estimated target U.S. workers in these industries.
- Including a mix of people with different levels of impact ensures we cover various potential outcomes on wellbeing.
Simulated Interviews
Retail Associate (New York, NY)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I often don't know my work schedule until a few days before, it makes planning anything else in my life almost impossible.
- If I could have more stable hours, I could finally enroll in evening classes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Food Service Worker (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Currently, split shifts are very common, making it hard to balance work with family time.
- The policy might make my job more predictable, letting me plan my day better.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Warehouse Worker (Chicago, IL)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I like my job, but unexpected overtime can be a big issue.
- The policy might help in getting more notice for schedule changes.
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 |
Level Cleaning Staff (Houston, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My schedule changes frequently and it’s hard to manage social life.
- More consistent scheduling could improve my wellbeing significantly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Hotel Receptionist (Orlando, FL)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Swing shifts make it difficult to manage home duties and rest.
- Anticipate better alignment of my personal and work life with the new policy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cafe Barista (Dallas, TX)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Already have some flexibility and don’t see much change personally.
- Good for others, but I might not feel much of a difference.
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 |
Retail Cashier (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My weekend schedule is tough on my studies, any improvement would help.
- I hope it reduces last-minute changes that affect my exam prep.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Restaurant Manager (Miami, FL)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy may make scheduling staff harder and less flexible for restaurant needs.
- Concerned it could affect team efficiency but hopeful for fairer work hours.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Janitorial Staff (Seattle, WA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having some notice about schedule changes would greatly help my family life.
- Hope to see a positive change if the policy goes through.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Warehouse Loader (Denver, CO)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 9.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill might give me more time for hobbies if schedules are less unpredictable.
- Looking forward to having more control over my work hours.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1250000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $1500000000)
Year 2: $1275000000 (Low: $1020000000, High: $1530000000)
Year 3: $1300000000 (Low: $1040000000, High: $1560000000)
Year 5: $1337500000 (Low: $1070000000, High: $1605000000)
Year 10: $1400000000 (Low: $1120000000, High: $1680000000)
Year 100: $1750000000 (Low: $1400000000, High: $2100000000)
Key Considerations
- Compliance monitoring is critical to ensure the law is followed, which may involve significant administrative oversight costs.
- The balance between increased worker satisfaction and business operational flexibility is crucial for the act's success.
- The long-term effects on economic growth may outweigh initial implementation costs.