The Schedules That Work Act would create federal workplace scheduling rights for employees, focused on giving workers more control over when, where, and how they work. It would let employees request changes to their schedules without retaliation and require employers to engage in a good-faith interactive process. For certain requests tied to serious health conditions, caregiving, career-related education or training, or a second job, employers would generally have to grant the request unless they can show a bona fide business reason for denial.
The bill also imposes scheduling rules on covered sector employees in hospitality, warehouse, retail sales, food service, and cleaning occupations, with authority for the Secretary of Labor to add other occupations by regulation. Covered employers would have to provide schedules at least 14 days in advance, give written notice of minimum expected hours, post schedules, pay predictability pay for late changes or cancellations, and pay an extra hour for split shifts. Employees would also have a right to decline certain last-minute or insufficient-rest shifts, and the bill creates anti-retaliation protections, recordkeeping duties, notice-posting requirements, and enforcement through the Department of Labor and private lawsuits.
The bill would add a new federal labor standard governing work scheduling, layered on top of the Fair Labor Standards Act framework and related employment laws. It would apply to employers with 15 or more employees in commerce, with special provisions for federal, congressional, Library of Congress, and GAO employees through separate enforcement channels. It would also authorize the Department of Labor to issue regulations, conduct research and technical assistance, and collect survey data on schedule instability. The bill expressly preserves stronger state, local, and collective-bargaining protections, so it would set a floor rather than displace more protective laws.
The bill’s findings and structure reflect a strongly pro-worker policy approach, emphasizing the harms of unpredictable schedules and the benefits of stable scheduling for families, health, and productivity. The bill is framed as a response to evidence from municipalities and Oregon that fair-scheduling laws can improve worker well-being and business outcomes. No committee transcript or vote history is provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate or roll-call sentiment in the supplied materials. Based on the text alone, the bill appears designed to appeal to labor advocates, caregiving and family-policy supporters, and workers in low-wage industries.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s mandates on employer flexibility and the scope of its coverage. Employers may object to the 14-day advance notice requirement, predictability pay, split-shift pay, and the requirement to grant certain schedule-change requests absent a bona fide business reason, arguing these rules could increase labor costs and reduce operational flexibility. Another likely issue is the bill’s broad coverage of retail, food service, hospitality, cleaning, and warehouse jobs, plus the Secretary’s authority to designate additional occupations. Supporters, by contrast, are likely to emphasize worker stability, caregiving needs, and protection against retaliation for requesting schedule changes.