Bill Overview
Title: Good Jobs for Good Airports Act
Description: This bill addresses pay, benefits, and labor standards for certain airport service workers. Airport service workers include security officers, food service workers, cleaning staff, ticketing agents, and retail service workers. Specifically, the bill establishes a minimum wage and benefit standard for such airport service workers at large, medium, and small hub airports. It also prohibits small, medium, and large hub airports from accessing federal funds for airport development projects unless the airports certify that such airport service workers are paid no less than the higher of $15 per hour, the applicable state or local minimum wage and fringe benefits, or the prevailing wage and fringe benefits required under the Service Contract Act as established by the Department of Labor.
Sponsors: Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA]
Target Audience
Population: Airport service workers
Estimated Size: 150000
- The bill impacts airport service workers across large, medium, and small hub airports.
- The bill affects pay and benefits, which are key aspects of these workers' employment.
- Airports that are small, medium, and large hubs will be required to follow these standards to access federal funds, impacting all such workers employed at these airports.
- Global aviation employment statistics can help in estimating affected workers, considering the number of publicly accessible airports forecasted to be over tens of thousands worldwide.
Reasoning
- The impact of the policy is expected to vary greatly across the target population, as some service workers are currently earning less than $15/hour with minimal benefits, while others might already meet or exceed the proposed standards.
- Workers at large hub airports might already benefit from competitive wage and benefit packages, whereas those at smaller hubs might see more significant improvements.
- Considering budget constraints, the policy might need to focus on regulating wages without drastically increasing worker numbers, which maintains cost-effectiveness.
- Currently, there might be indirect impacts on non-airport workers, such as local vendors benefiting from increased consumer spending as service workers gain higher disposable incomes.
Simulated Interviews
Airport Security Officer (Dallas, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I welcome the increase in pay; it's been long overdue for us.
- Union negotiations have often stalled at a few bucks increase, so this policy helps enforce fairer standards.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Food Service Worker (Omaha, NE)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This change gives me a bit more breathing room as a single parent.
- It's great to know that we won't be paid the absolute minimum anymore.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Cleaning Staff (Buffalo, NY)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Higher wages mean a lot to us working nights; it's physically demanding work.
- I hope this includes us since we're technically contracted workers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Retail Service Worker (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- At my age, it doesn't change much for me, but my younger colleagues will benefit.
- I'm glad to see future generations getting better benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Ticketing Agent (Newark, NJ)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This will help us get a head start on our future, maybe even save up for a house.
- Management seems a bit worried about potential cuts, though.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Security Officer (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Essentially, it's decent to see our pay standardizing, but doesn't quite address the need for reduction in overwork.
- Hope the policy awakens more discussions on labor standards for all of us.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Baggage Handler (Miami, FL)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This raise is going straight into my college fund.
- I'm all for this change, anything that means more cash flow is great.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Airport Cleaning Staff (Denver, CO)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Earning a bit more now will be a life-line, especially with the health issues in the family.
- Hopefully, this doesn't lead to job cuts as rumored.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Ticketing Agent (Chicago, IL)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a small victory that adds to my retirement comfort.
- It's good to end my career on a positive note in terms of worker rights.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Airport Security Officer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It shapes a better financial environment for my family.
- Would like to see more professional development opportunities now that pay is addressed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $3000000000 (Low: $2000000000, High: $4000000000)
Year 2: $3100000000 (Low: $2100000000, High: $4100000000)
Year 3: $3200000000 (Low: $2200000000, High: $4200000000)
Year 5: $3500000000 (Low: $2500000000, High: $4500000000)
Year 10: $4000000000 (Low: $3000000000, High: $5000000000)
Year 100: $100000000000 (Low: $80000000000, High: $120000000000)
Key Considerations
- Ensuring compliance with wage and benefit provisions will require additional administrative oversight and coordination between federal and airport authorities.
- Potential for increased operational costs for airports, which may be passed on to airlines and passengers.
- The political feasibility of standardizing wages in a fragmented sector with different regional policies.
- The competitive impact on non-hub airports not subject to the same federal funding conditions.