Fair Workweek laws linked to steadier schedules, study finds
A Science Advances study found scheduling laws improved notice and rest between shifts without reducing pay or benefits for covered service workers.
By Tom Brennan · Health & Medicine Correspondent
3 min read
Fair Workweek laws have made schedules more predictable for hourly service workers in several U.S. cities and in Oregon, according to research published in Science Advances. The study matters because it found those gains did not come with wage cuts, benefit losses or clear shifts in who employers hired.
The paper, “Fair Workweek Laws in the U.S.: An Appraisal of Intended and Unintended Consequences,” examined rules adopted in Seattle, Oregon, New York City, Philadelphia and Chicago. Harvard University said the study is the broadest assessment to date of these scheduling laws.
Fair Workweek policies generally apply to large retail and food-service employers. According to the study, they require employers to give workers at least two weeks’ notice of schedules, pay workers for certain late changes and prohibit back-to-back closing and opening shifts, often called “clopening” shifts.
The rules target a common problem for hourly workers such as cashiers, cooks and retail employees: schedules that can change with little warning. The study notes that earlier research has associated unstable schedules with harm to workers’ health, home life and finances.
Researchers used original survey data from more than 87,000 hourly workers collected over seven years. They found that the laws raised the share of workers who received at least two weeks’ notice by 13 percentage points, which the study described as about a 29% improvement from the starting level.
The study also found an 8-percentage-point drop in exposure to closing and opening shifts on consecutive workdays, or about a 19% decline. Last-minute changes to shift timing fell by 6 percentage points, according to the researchers.
The paper reported no evidence that employers covered by the laws offset compliance costs by reducing compensation. Workers did not lose sick leave, health insurance, dental coverage or paid vacation, and health insurance coverage increased modestly, according to the study.
Researchers also said they found no evidence that employers changed the composition of their workforces in ways that would undercut the policy’s effect. That finding addresses a central concern raised when labor standards are adopted: that employers may respond by shifting costs back onto workers.
The size of the gains varied by location. New York City posted the strongest results, including a 25-percentage-point increase in workers receiving advance schedule notice, compared with a 5-point increase in Philadelphia, according to the study.
The authors linked that difference to enforcement. Harvard University said New York City has brought the most visible enforcement actions and secured the largest financial settlements over Fair Workweek violations, and the paper points to the city’s Department of Consumer and Worker Protection as an example of strong administrative commitment.
Daniel Schneider, the Malcolm Wiener Professor of Social Policy at Harvard Kennedy School and co-director of the Shift Project, said the findings show the laws are delivering more predictable schedules and more rest between shifts without reducing pay or benefits. He said stronger local enforcement can make the policies a model for improving job quality and financial stability for service-sector workers.
The study was published in Science Advances with the DOI 10.1126/sciadv.aea8632.
This story draws on original reporting from Phys.org.