Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/3748

Bill Overview

Title: Job Protection Act

Description: This bill reduces from 12 months to 90 days the employment period required for employees (including federal employees) to become eligible for family and medical leave. Additionally, the bill makes the family and medical leave requirements applicable to all employers (currently, the requirements apply to employers with 50 or more employees).

Sponsors: Sen. Smith, Tina [D-MN]

Target Audience

Population: employees globally who will have improved access to family and medical leave

Estimated Size: 160000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Software Developer (Austin, TX)

Age: 28 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy is something I absolutely support. With a newborn, the flexibility to take leave sooner rather than later is invaluable.
  • Being in a smaller company, I never had these benefits before, and knowing I can now is a huge relief.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 9 6
Year 20 7 5

Retail Manager (Columbus, OH)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 7.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This could be great for smaller businesses and the people working in them.
  • Leaves under this policy would allow more flexibility to rearrange staffing without losing skilled workers.

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 7 5
Year 20 6 4

Graphic Designer (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 34 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Since I'm a freelancer, this doesn't impact me directly.
  • However, it seems like a very positive change for people who are trying to balance early stages of employment with personal responsibilities.

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

Automotive Engineer (Detroit, MI)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Our company already provides robust leave policies, so I don't foresee any change for us.
  • This bill might be beneficial for others, but not much would change for me.

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

Chef (New York, NY)

Age: 38 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It's good to have this benefit kick in much sooner, especially in industries with high turnover.
  • This might make smaller restaurants more appealing to workers.

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 7 6
Year 20 6 5

Customer Service Representative (Miami, FL)

Age: 27 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 8.0 years

Commonness: 11/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This is really beneficial for someone like me who just started a new job.
  • The ability to have leave quickly in case of an emergency is reassuring.

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 7 4

Business Owner (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 62 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 4.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This does put some additional management on me, but it also helps ensure employee well-being.
  • Potentially increases loyalty, as long as we plan well for coverage when someone's out.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 6 7
Year 3 6 7
Year 5 6 7
Year 10 6 7
Year 20 5 6

Barista (Seattle, WA)

Age: 22 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 6.0 years

Commonness: 13/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I feel this policy would benefit both part-time and full-time workers like myself by ensuring we can handle unexpected family issues without job loss.
  • It could make people less stressed about maintaining attendance.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 6 5

Nurse (Chicago, IL)

Age: 31 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 17/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm a unionized employee, so my benefits are already well-established.
  • Might help new hires who haven't hit a year yet, but not personally impactful.

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 7 7

Teacher (Phoenix, AZ)

Age: 55 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Critical in ensuring we feel valued as private school staff, where benefits can vary greatly.
  • Creates less worry about job stability during personal emergencies.

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 9 7
Year 20 8 6

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1500000000)

Year 2: $1020000000 (Low: $820000000, High: $1530000000)

Year 3: $1040400000 (Low: $840400000, High: $1560600000)

Year 5: $1082432000 (Low: $873945600, High: $1623648000)

Year 10: $1186699264 (Low: $949359411, High: $1780048896)

Year 100: $3172169098 (Low: $2537735278, High: $4758253646)

Key Considerations