Bill Overview
Title: A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to exempt certain employees engaged in outdoor recreational outfitting or guiding services from maximum hours requirements.
Description: This bill expands the exemption of certain seasonal employees from the federal maximum hour requirements to include employees of outdoor recreational outfitting or guiding services.
Sponsors: Sen. Daines, Steve [R-MT]
Target Audience
Population: Employees engaged in outdoor recreational outfitting or guiding services
Estimated Size: 100000
- The bill is specifically targeting employees who are engaged in outdoor recreational outfitting or guiding services.
- Previously, seasonal employees in certain industries may have had exemptions from maximum hours requirements, this bill expands those exemptions.
- Outdoor recreation is a significant industry with many people working in guiding and outfitting services all over the world.
- Employees in this line of work may experience seasonal fluctuations, aligning with tourist seasons and suitable weather conditions for outdoor activities.
Reasoning
- The simulations include a mix of people directly impacted by the policy, such as seasonal workers in the guiding and outfitting industry, and those who are not directly affected to provide a balanced view.
- The budget limitation of $0 suggests that the policy is more regulatory in nature, affecting work conditions and hours rather than providing financial aid.
- Since outdoor recreation is a large industry in many states, the policy will likely impact many workers, but the extent of the impact on individual wellbeing may vary based on personal circumstances.
- We have also considered workers from different locations varying from high-demand tourist areas to less frequented regions, as the impact of such a policy might differ based on local demand for outdoor activities.
Simulated Interviews
Outdoor Tour Guide (Colorado)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Happy with the policy as it allows more flexibility in choosing work hours during the season.
- Worried about potential burnout from longer workdays.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Fishing Guide (Alaska)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will have no significant impact as I work voluntarily fewer hours.
- Glad the legal framework is adapting to our industry.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Whitewater Rafting Guide (Montana)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Excited about the ability to work more hours when the work is available.
- Concerned about not having enforced downtime.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Surf Instructor (California)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Not directly impacted as I am self-employed and manage my own hours.
- Recognize benefit for friends and colleagues who are employed by larger companies.
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 |
Mountain Bike Guide (Vermont)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Feels the policy allows more flexibility during high demand months.
- Wary of potential increased pressure from employers to work more.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Office Worker (New York)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy has no impact on my life or work.
- Glad to see regulatory updates for varying job sectors.
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 |
Ski Instructor (Wyoming)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy provides great opportunity for extended hours during prime seasons.
- Worries about work-life balance and family time.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Forest Tour Guide (Oregon)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Sees potential for more earnings but lacks employer-provided benefits regardless.
- More hours could compromise side jobs.
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 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Snorkeling Guide (Hawaii)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Looking forward to flexibility if hours increase.
- Concerned about how this might change my enjoyment of the job.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Kayak Tour Operator (Florida)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Believes his business might benefit from allowing employees to work longer hours.
- No personal change expected as self-employed flexibility isn’t mean-changed.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $0 (Low: $-500000, High: $500000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $-500000, High: $500000)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $-500000, High: $500000)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $-500000, High: $500000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $-500000, High: $500000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $-500000, High: $500000)
Key Considerations
- The primary impact is not a direct financial cost to the government but a regulatory change affecting private sector labor costs and potentially flexibility.
- Cost savings for business owners through reduced overtime obligations could promote hiring within the industry.
- Indirect impacts include potential shifts in economic activity in regions heavily reliant on outdoor recreation.