Bill Overview
Title: Fair Warning Act of 2022
Description: This bill bars an employer from ordering a site closing or mass layoff until 90 calendar days after the employer has served written notice of such an order to (1) each representative of the affected employees as of the time of the notice or each affected employee, (2) the Department of Labor and the governor of the state where the site closing or mass layoff is to occur, and (3) the state or entity designated by the state to carry out rapid response activities.
Sponsors: Sen. Brown, Sherrod [D-OH]
Target Audience
Population: People employed in industries prone to sudden site closures or mass layoffs
Estimated Size: 25000000
- The bill directly impacts employees who might be affected by site closings or mass layoffs.
- The bill targets employers who are planning site closings or mass layoffs.
- Employees who receive timely warning about job loss can better prepare for future employment or secure financial stability.
- Governments and labor organizations are indirectly involved due to notification requirements which improve oversight and response coordination.
Reasoning
- The policy will mainly affect workers who are at risk of losing their jobs due to site closures or mass layoffs, allowing them time to plan and prepare.
- Given the budget constraints, it is likely that the implementation would focus on industries with the highest risk of sudden closures, such as manufacturing and retail.
- The policy will also indirectly affect state governments and labor organizations by requiring formal notification and coordination for rapid response, potentially shifting administrative burdens.
- The population potentially impacted is large, but the nature of the impact will vary depending on individual circumstances such as employment sector, skill level, and geographic location.
- Therefore, a range of interviews includes people from high-risk industries, as well as individuals less directly impacted to gauge potential peripheral effects.
Simulated Interviews
Assembly Line Worker (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about potential layoffs as they have happened before without much notice.
- Having more time to prepare financially and seek new opportunities would be a huge relief.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Oil Field Worker (Houston, Texas)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There's always tension about job stability.
- Having advanced notice could help me plan better for retirement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Software Engineer (San Francisco, California)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- In tech, things can change rapidly, but we're usually given notice.
- This policy seems more crucial for people in less stable jobs.
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 |
Retail Manager (Miami, Florida)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It would be nice to have more time to prepare if something like this happens again.
- My current employer is large but not very communicative about these things.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Financial Analyst (New York, New York)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I can't imagine this affecting me personally right now, but it's good for those who might be vulnerable.
- Policies like these are vital for workforce stability.
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 |
Steel Worker (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I have lived through a few plant closures, and they’re never announced with enough time.
- Knowing 90 days in advance would be a better situation for everyone involved.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Factory Supervisor (Des Moines, Iowa)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Sometimes factories face abrupt shutdowns or relocations for efficiency.
- It’s good to have policies mandating notice periods.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Part-Time Retail Worker (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 26 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am used to uncertainty in my work life.
- If a part-time gig closes, I wouldn’t expect any notice, but knowing would help find a new job sooner.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Manufacturing Engineer (Charlotte, North Carolina)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've been through sudden layoffs before, they aren't easy.
- Pre-warning sounds ideal but not sure companies will comply easily.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Hospitality Worker (New Orleans, Louisiana)
Age: 32 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Not sure how this would play out for a seasonal place like ours.
- I think it’s beneficial when the business is slow, and layoffs might happen.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $31000000, High: $73000000)
Year 3: $54080000 (Low: $32000000, High: $76000000)
Year 5: $58262400 (Low: $34000000, High: $83000000)
Year 10: $68118208 (Low: $38000000, High: $97000000)
Year 100: $188742946 (Low: $106000000, High: $269000000)
Key Considerations
- Large upfront costs for employers to create structures for timely notification and compliance.
- Potential benefit of improved labor market efficiency and reduced shocks to local economies.
- Requirement of additional state and federal administrative support to manage compliance tracking.