Bill Overview
Title: FABRIC Act
Description: This bill requires garment industry employers to pay at least the hourly minimum wage and prohibits piece rate pay. Garment manufacturers and contractors also must register with the Department of Labor.
Sponsors: Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]
Target Audience
Population: Garment industry workers globally
Estimated Size: 89000
- The global garment manufacturing workforce is in the tens of millions, impacting a large number of workers worldwide.
- Most garment production is concentrated in countries like China, India, Vietnam, Bangladesh, and other Asian nations which employ millions of garment workers.
- The prohibition of piece rate pay and the requirement for registration would primarily affect garment workers and employers.
- This legislation could have indirect effects on consumers, through potential changes in pricing due to increased labor costs.
Reasoning
- The policy's direct impact is primarily on garment workers who are currently on piece rate pay, upgrading them to a minimum hourly wage. This will generally improve their income stability and potentially their overall wellbeing.
- Employers in the garment industry might face increased labor costs and administrative requirements, potentially leading to adjustments in their operations, such as price changes for consumers or changes to workforce size.
- Consumers might witness slight price increases in apparel due to higher production costs, although this would likely be minimal compared to the impact on workers.
- Some individuals in the garment industry may not be directly impacted, particularly those already earning an hourly wage at or above the minimum.
- The policy budget suggests a significant enforcement mechanism, impacting a large number of businesses and potentially ensuring compliance and protective measures for workers.
Simulated Interviews
Sewing machine operator (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful about the change. Getting a stable hourly wage means I can better plan my finances.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
Factory owner (New York, NY)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This will increase my costs, but fair wages are important. We'll need to adjust our pricing.
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 | 5 |
Quality control specialist (Dallas, TX)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad our production partners are held to better standards. It aligns with our brand values.
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 |
Garment factory manager (Chicago, IL)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a challenging transition, but a necessary one. Compliance is key for our business.
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 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Student / Part-time garment worker (Miami, FL)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad for a guaranteed wage. It gives me more security while I focus on my studies.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Consumer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If it means products cost slightly more, it's a small price for ensuring fair wages.
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 |
Independent fashion designer (Houston, TX)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This may tighten the margins on my business, but I support fair practices.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Retired (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this is a positive change. Workers' rights should be prioritized.
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 |
Tech worker (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As someone who believes in sustainable practices, I'm in favor. It may influence my purchasing decisions.
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 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Garment Industry Analyst (Denver, CO)
Age: 47 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a landmark shift and could propagate increased standards globally.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $45000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $46000000 (Low: $31000000, High: $62000000)
Year 3: $47000000 (Low: $32000000, High: $64000000)
Year 5: $49000000 (Low: $34000000, High: $66000000)
Year 10: $52000000 (Low: $37000000, High: $70000000)
Year 100: $70000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $90000000)
Key Considerations
- The act could prompt businesses to shift operations abroad, reducing potential compliance burdens but impacting U.S. employment.
- Changes in cost structures might affect apparel prices, impacting consumers.
- Efficiency improvements could emerge over time as industries adapt to the new regulations.