HB 1627 creates a new part of chapter 448, Florida Statutes, called the “Warehouse Worker Protection Act,” aimed at large warehouse distribution centers and other covered logistics employers. The bill defines covered employers broadly and regulates the use of productivity quotas and work-speed monitoring. It requires employers to give employees written notice of any quotas, explain possible discipline tied to those quotas, disclose bonus or incentive programs, and update employees promptly when quotas change. It also limits the kinds of quotas that can be enforced, including quotas that interfere with meal, rest, or bathroom breaks, and requires that quota time calculations include rest time, travel time to breaks and restrooms, and time needed to access safety equipment or otherwise exercise workplace safety rights.
The bill also imposes recordkeeping and disclosure obligations. Employers must maintain records of each employee’s personal work-speed data, aggregated work-speed data for similar employees, and quota descriptions, and must provide those records to current or former employees or their representatives within specified deadlines at no cost. It prohibits retaliation or other adverse personnel action against employees who request information or file complaints, and it creates a rebuttable presumption of retaliation if discipline occurs within 90 days of protected activity. Enforcement authority is given to the Department of Commerce, the Attorney General, district attorneys, city attorneys, and employees themselves, with remedies including damages, attorney fees, injunctive relief, restitution, penalties for nondisclosure, and required workplace notices. The bill also requires safety committees at covered worksites, authorizes citations for noncompliance, and directs the department to report to the Legislature on complaints, injury rates, investigations, and enforcement actions.
The bill’s impact on state law would be significant for warehouse and logistics employers, especially those with 100 or more employees at a single site or 500 or more statewide across covered facilities. It would add new employee rights, new employer compliance duties, and a new enforcement framework within chapter 448. It would also expand state oversight of workplace injury patterns and quota practices, while creating potential civil liability and administrative penalties for employers that fail to disclose quotas or work-speed data or that retaliate against employees. The act is set to take effect July 1, 2025.
Overall, the bill appears to have been framed as a worker-safety and transparency measure, with its structure suggesting concern about injury rates, excessive productivity demands, and retaliation in warehouse settings. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no recorded debate in the supplied materials. The bill ultimately died in the Industries & Professional Activities Subcommittee, which indicates it did not advance despite being introduced as a workplace protection measure.
The main points of contention likely center on the bill’s broad regulation of employer quota systems, the extensive disclosure of personal work-speed data, and the strong enforcement and damages provisions. Employers in warehousing, e-commerce fulfillment, courier, and wholesale distribution sectors would likely view the recordkeeping, notice, and meeting requirements as burdensome, while worker advocates would likely support the protections against unsafe quotas and retaliation. The rebuttable presumption of retaliation, mandatory monthly safety meetings after an investigation, and minimum penalty structure are especially notable because they increase employer exposure and state intervention.
HB 1627 would create a new statutory framework in chapter 448 regulating warehouse distribution centers and certain large logistics employers. It would impose mandatory quota disclosures, recordkeeping, employee access rights, anti-retaliation protections, safety committee requirements, and enforcement authority for the Department of Commerce and private/public plaintiffs. Covered employers would face new compliance duties, potential citations, civil damages, injunctive relief, and penalties for failing to disclose quota or work-speed information.
Based on the bill text, the measure is strongly pro-worker and focused on safety, transparency, and anti-retaliation protections in warehouse settings. No committee discussion or vote record is included, so there is no direct evidence of debate in the provided materials. The bill’s final status—dying in the Industries & Professional Activities Subcommittee—suggests it did not gain enough support to advance.
The likely areas of contention are the bill’s broad definition of covered employers, the limits it places on productivity quotas, and the requirement to disclose personal work-speed data and aggregated performance data. Employers may object to the administrative burden, privacy concerns, and exposure to penalties and litigation, while supporters would emphasize injury prevention, break protections, and transparency. The rebuttable presumption of retaliation, mandatory safety committees, and strong damages provisions are also likely to be disputed because they increase enforcement risk for employers.