The bill
Modern Worker Empowerment Act
HR. 1319, 119th Congress — read as touching Labor Unions.
Sponsored by
Rep. Kiley, Kevin [R-CA-3]
ID: K000401
Follow the money
The bill
HR. 1319, 119th Congress — read as touching Labor Unions.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
24 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 624-626 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 431.
February 19, 2026
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, brought to you by the esteemed members of Congress. The "Modern Worker Empowerment Act" - because nothing says empowerment like a 30-page bill written in legalese that only serves to further confuse the already Byzantine world of labor laws.
Let's get down to business and dissect this monstrosity. The bill claims to "clarify" the standard for determining whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor. Ah, yes, because the current system was just too darn complicated for poor corporations to navigate. I mean, who needs clear definitions when you can have ambiguous language that benefits only one party?
The new regulations being created or modified are a joke. The bill essentially codifies the "ABC test" - a lovely little acronym that stands for "A) Absence of control, B) Business acumen, and C) Contractual agreements." Sounds simple enough, right? Wrong. This test is designed to make it easier for companies to classify workers as independent contractors, thereby avoiding those pesky labor laws and regulations.
Affected industries and sectors? Oh, just the usual suspects: gig economy giants like Uber and Lyft, staffing agencies, and any other company that wants to exploit workers without providing benefits or job security. Compliance requirements and timelines? Ha! The bill gives companies a nice, long leash to adjust to these "new" regulations. Enforcement mechanisms and penalties? Don't make me laugh. This bill is designed to create loopholes, not close them.
The economic and operational impacts of this bill will be devastating for workers. By making it easier for companies to classify workers as independent contractors, the bill effectively strips away protections like minimum wage, overtime pay, and collective bargaining rights. But hey, who needs those things when you can have the "freedom" to work 80 hours a week without benefits?
In conclusion, this bill is a masterclass in legislative doublespeak. It's a Trojan horse for corporate interests, disguised as a benevolent attempt to "empower" workers. Don't be fooled - this bill is a disease, and its symptoms are exploitation, inequality, and the further erosion of worker rights.
Diagnosis: Terminal stupidity, with a side of corruption and greed.
Treatment: A healthy dose of skepticism, followed by a strong prescription of critical thinking and a commitment to actual worker empowerment. But let's be real - this bill will pass, and workers will suffer. After all, as the great philosopher once said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Rep. Kiley, Kevin [R-CA-3]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: R000609
Top Contributors
10
ID: M001194
Top Contributors
10
ID: M001233
Top Contributors
10
ID: O000175
Top Contributors
10
ID: K000398
Top Contributors
10
ID: G000576
Top Contributors
10
ID: S001196
Top Contributors
10
ID: B001316
Top Contributors
10
ID: A000372
Top Contributors
10
ID: O000086
Top Contributors
10
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 49 nodes and 39 connections (42 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $164,590
Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped, 2 harmed.
Section 2 amends FLSA to narrow employee definition, making it harder for workers to be classified as employees, thus weakening union organizing and collective bargaining rights under NLRA as incorporated in Section 3.
Same as labor_unions; teachers unions are public-sector unions that rely on employee status for collective bargaining; the bill's stricter independent contractor test reduces eligibility for union representation.
For-profit colleges often rely on adjunct faculty and gig workers classified as independent contractors; the bill's clarification making it easier to classify workers as independent contractors reduces labor costs and regulatory burden.
Private equity firms often invest in business models reliant on contingent labor (e.g., staffing, platform companies); the bill's employee classification standards favor independent contractor status, lowering labor costs and increasing profitability.
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Kiley, Kevin [R-CA-3])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.
— 591 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies qualify as an independent contractor or employee under the FLSA and NLRA. The Biden Administration is replacing those rules with vague and expansive definitions that would add uncertainty, increase costs, and reduce options for Americans who want to work independently. l NLRB and DOL should return to their 2019 and 2021 independent contractor rules that provided much-needed clarity for workers and employers. l Congress should establish a bright-line test—based on the level of control an individual exercises over his or her work—to determine whether a payee is an employee or an independent contractor, across all relevant laws. This would prevent continued uncertainty as well as provide continuity across federal laws. l Congress should provide a safe harbor from employer-employee status for companies that offer independent workers access to earned benefits. Doing so would increase access among independent contractors to traditional pooled workplace benefits such as health care and retirement savings accounts. Protect Small Businesses and Entrepreneurship (Joint Employer). Millions of busi- nesses across America engage in mutually beneficial affiliation arrangements with other businesses. These arrangements include janitorial services, staffing firms, construction contractors and subcontractors, technology support services, and many other vendor and contracting services. They also include the nearly 775,000 independently owned franchise businesses, which employ 8.2 million workers across the United States. The franchise structure offers a proven business model for individuals who want to own and operate their own small business. An Obama-era regulation changed the definition of a joint employer to make corporate franchi- sors jointly liable for employees of individual franchisee owners, even without the franchisor exercising any direct control over those employees. The Biden Admin- istration is advancing an even more expansive definition of a joint employer that would upend the franchise business model, taking away ownership and income opportunities from small-business entrepreneurs, costing jobs, and raising prices. l DOL and NLRB should return to the long-standing approach to defining joint employers based on direct and immediate control. l Congress should enact the Save Local Business Act, which would codify the long-standing definition that has existed outside the Obama-era and Biden-proposed rules. — 592 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Overtime Pay Threshold. Overtime pay is one of the most challenging aspects of the Fair Labor Standards Act rules. “Nonexempt workers” (e.g., workers whose job duties fall within the law’s power or whose total pay is low enough) must be paid overtime (150 percent of the “regular rate”) for every hour over 40 in a work- week. Overtime requirements may discourage employers from offering certain fringe benefits such as reimbursement for education, childcare, or even free meals because the benefits’ value may be included in the “regular rate” that must be paid at 150 percent for all overtime hours. And because some of these fringe ben- efits may be more valuable (and often come with tax preferences that benefit the worker), the goal should be to set a threshold to ensure lower-income workers have the protections of overtime pay without discouraging employers from offering these benefits. l DOL should maintain an overtime threshold that does not punish businesses in lower-cost regions (e.g., the southeast United States). The Trump-era threshold is high enough to capture most line workers in lower-cost regions. One possibility to consider (likely requiring congressional action) would be to automatically update the thresholds every five years using the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) as an inflation adjustment. This could reduce the likelihood of a future Administration attempting to make significant changes but would also impose more adjustments on businesses as those automatic increases take hold. l Congress should clarify that the “regular rate” for overtime pay is based on the salary paid rather than all benefits provided. This would enable employers to offer additional benefits to employees without fear that those benefits would dramatically increase overtime pay. l Congress should provide flexibility to employers and employees to calculate the overtime period over a longer number of weeks. Specifically, employers and employees should be able to set a two- or four- week period over which to calculate overtime. This would give workers greater flexibility to work more hours in one week and fewer hours in the next and would not require the employer to pay them more for that same total number of hours of work during the entire period. Compliance-Assistance Programming. Labor agencies are often tempted to encourage “over compliance” by companies subject to regulation by pursuing “regulation through enforcement” strategies. Rather than giving regulated enti- ties clear boundaries for what they can and cannot do under the law, the agencies
— 591 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies qualify as an independent contractor or employee under the FLSA and NLRA. The Biden Administration is replacing those rules with vague and expansive definitions that would add uncertainty, increase costs, and reduce options for Americans who want to work independently. l NLRB and DOL should return to their 2019 and 2021 independent contractor rules that provided much-needed clarity for workers and employers. l Congress should establish a bright-line test—based on the level of control an individual exercises over his or her work—to determine whether a payee is an employee or an independent contractor, across all relevant laws. This would prevent continued uncertainty as well as provide continuity across federal laws. l Congress should provide a safe harbor from employer-employee status for companies that offer independent workers access to earned benefits. Doing so would increase access among independent contractors to traditional pooled workplace benefits such as health care and retirement savings accounts. Protect Small Businesses and Entrepreneurship (Joint Employer). Millions of busi- nesses across America engage in mutually beneficial affiliation arrangements with other businesses. These arrangements include janitorial services, staffing firms, construction contractors and subcontractors, technology support services, and many other vendor and contracting services. They also include the nearly 775,000 independently owned franchise businesses, which employ 8.2 million workers across the United States. The franchise structure offers a proven business model for individuals who want to own and operate their own small business. An Obama-era regulation changed the definition of a joint employer to make corporate franchi- sors jointly liable for employees of individual franchisee owners, even without the franchisor exercising any direct control over those employees. The Biden Admin- istration is advancing an even more expansive definition of a joint employer that would upend the franchise business model, taking away ownership and income opportunities from small-business entrepreneurs, costing jobs, and raising prices. l DOL and NLRB should return to the long-standing approach to defining joint employers based on direct and immediate control. l Congress should enact the Save Local Business Act, which would codify the long-standing definition that has existed outside the Obama-era and Biden-proposed rules.
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.