Overview

Title

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for the preemption of certain State overtime laws for agricultural employees.

ELI5 AI

The Protect Local Farms Act is a rule that says workers on farms can work up to 60 hours every week, and no states are allowed to make their own rules to give these workers fewer hours to work in a week.

Summary AI

The bill H. R. 240, known as the "Protect Local Farms Act," seeks to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. It aims to override, or preempt, state laws that limit the workweek to less than 60 hours for agricultural employees. This means that no state law could impose a limit on the number of weekly working hours for agricultural workers below 60 hours, thus potentially lengthening their workweek.

Published

2025-01-07
Congress: 119
Session: 1
Chamber: HOUSE
Status: Introduced in House
Date: 2025-01-07
Package ID: BILLS-119hr240ih

Keywords AI

fair labor standards act preemption state overtime laws agricultural employees 60-hour workweek state autonomy labor standards federal overreach protect local farms act exploitative labor practices

Sources

Bill Statistics

Size

Sections:
2
Words:
276
Pages:
2
Sentences:
8

Language

Nouns: 87
Verbs: 18
Adjectives: 10
Adverbs: 0
Numbers: 13
Entities: 31

Complexity

Average Token Length:
3.96
Average Sentence Length:
34.50
Token Entropy:
4.50
Readability (ARI):
17.80

AnalysisAI

General Summary of the Bill

The proposed legislation, titled "Protect Local Farms Act," seeks to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Its primary focus is to establish a federal standard for the workweek of agricultural employees, preempting state laws that set a maximum workweek of less than 60 hours. Introduced by Ms. Tenney and others, the bill aims to create consistency in labor regulations affecting agricultural workers across different states by preventing states from enacting more restrictive overtime laws within this industry.

Summary of Significant Issues

One of the most significant aspects of the bill is its preemption of state-level legislation. By establishing a federal maximum workweek of 60 hours for agricultural workers, the bill overrides any existing state laws that mandate a shorter workweek. This raises concerns about the potential erosion of state autonomy, as states traditionally hold the right to implement labor standards that reflect local needs and values. Furthermore, the bill may be viewed as an overreach of federal power, interfering with states' discretion to protect workers through stricter labor laws.

Additionally, the bill raises concerns about the well-being and rights of agricultural employees. By allowing a maximum workweek of up to 60 hours, there is a risk that workers might be subject to longer hours without adequate compensation or protection. Such potential for extended work hours could lead to exploitative conditions and negative health outcomes, which supporters of stricter state laws seek to prevent.

The language within the bill also lacks clarity, particularly regarding the rationale for selecting the 60-hour threshold. Without a well-defined justification, this arbitrary figure may weaken the bill's foundation and invite opposition.

Potential Public Impact

Broadly, the bill's impact on the public could lead to more uniform labor standards within the agricultural sector. By adopting a nationwide regulation, the law could simplify compliance for agricultural businesses operating across multiple states. However, it may also limit the ability of states to enforce labor standards designed to protect workers' health and ensure fair wages.

For agricultural workers, the bill might result in an increase in mandatory working hours, which could have both economic and social consequences. On one hand, longer hours might lead to higher income; on the other hand, it could increase stress and reduce the quality of life, particularly for those who rely on shorter workweeks to balance personal and professional responsibilities.

Impact on Stakeholders

The bill could have diverse impacts on various stakeholders:

  • Agricultural Businesses: These entities may benefit from reduced regulatory complexity and potentially lower labor costs. A standardized 60-hour workweek could increase productivity and operational efficiency for many farms and agribusinesses.

  • Employees in Agriculture: While some workers might welcome the opportunity for more hours and increased earnings, others could face longer working times without proportionate compensation, leading to burnout and health issues. This disparity highlights the need for additional safeguards to protect the rights and well-being of employees.

  • State Governments: State authorities could view the bill as an infringement upon their rights to tailor labor standards to their specific economic and social contexts. The reduction in state autonomy could spur resistance from states that prioritize worker protection and welfare.

Overall, while striving for uniformity in labor regulations, the bill must carefully balance federal interests with the rights and needs of local governments and workers. It is crucial that further consultations and discussions address these concerns to ensure that the proposed changes lead to fair and equitable outcomes for all parties involved.

Issues

  • The amendment in Section 2 preempts any state law regarding maximum workweek for agricultural employees that sets a limit of less than 60 hours. This could be contentious as it undermines state autonomy and might be perceived as federal overreach, affecting states' rights to determine labor standards independently.

  • The language in Section 2 may raise labor concerns since it permits agricultural employees to work up to 60 hours a week without ensuring sufficient protection or compensation, potentially leading to exploitative labor practices.

  • The phrase 'maximum workweek for employees employed in agriculture of less than 60 hours' in Section 2 lacks clarity and could lead to varied interpretations, requiring further explanation to ensure consistent implementation across states.

  • The decision to set a 60-hour threshold for the maximum workweek in Section 2 appears arbitrary and lacks justification or supporting rationale, potentially weakening the bill's legislative motivation and public acceptance.

  • There may be unintended consequences or conflicts with existing state labor protections resulting from the amendment in Section 2, which are not adequately addressed within the bill, potentially creating legal and practical challenges.

Sections

Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.

1. Short title Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

This section gives the official name of the act, which is the “Protect Local Farms Act”.

2. Preemption of certain state overtime laws for agricultural employees Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 specifies that federal law will override any state law that sets a maximum workweek of less than 60 hours for agricultural workers.