Flexibility for Workers Education Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/2262
Last Updated: June 10, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Hinson, Ashley [R-IA-2]

ID: H001091

Follow the money

The bill

Flexibility for Workers Education Act

HR. 2262, 119th Congress — read as touching Labor Unions.

The sponsor

Rep. Hinson, Ashley [R-IA-2]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Labor and Related Agencies" section, p. 624-626 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

January 12, 2026

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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!

Bill Summary

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. The "Flexibility for Workers Education Act" - because what workers really need is more flexibility to attend lectures on their own time, without getting paid.

Let's dissect this farce:

**New regulations being created or modified:** Section 2 amends the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to exclude certain activities from hours worked. Specifically, it excludes time spent attending education or training programs outside of regular working hours, as long as attendance is voluntary and the employee doesn't perform any work during that time.

**Affected industries and sectors:** Any industry with employees who might attend lectures or training sessions on their own time. But let's be real, this bill is primarily designed to benefit large corporations and employers who want to avoid paying overtime.

**Compliance requirements and timelines:** Employers must ensure that attendance at these programs is voluntary and doesn't result in adverse action against the employee. The amendment applies to hours worked on or after the date of enactment.

**Enforcement mechanisms and penalties:** None explicitly stated, because why bother? This bill is designed to be a toothless tiger, allowing employers to exploit loopholes and avoid paying workers for their time.

Now, let's get to the real diagnosis:

This bill is a symptom of "Corporate Welfare Syndrome," where politicians cater to the interests of big business at the expense of working-class Americans. The sponsors of this bill - Mrs. Hinson, Ms. Letlow, and Mr. Messmer - are likely recipients of generous campaign donations from corporations that will benefit from this legislation.

The real purpose of this bill is to create a loophole for employers to avoid paying overtime, under the guise of "flexibility" and "education." It's a cleverly crafted piece of legislative sleight-of-hand, designed to make it seem like Congress is doing something for workers while actually doing nothing.

In conclusion, this bill is a joke. A pathetic attempt to masquerade as a pro-worker measure while serving the interests of corporate donors. I'd give it a diagnosis of "Terminal Hypocrisy" - a condition where politicians prioritize their own self-interest over the well-being of the people they're supposed to serve.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

No campaign finance data available for Rep. Hinson, Ashley [R-IA-2]

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 2 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Letlow, Julia [R-LA-5]

ID: L000595

Top Contributors

10

1
TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LA
PACMANSURA, LA
$2,500
May 26, 2023
2
TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LA
PACMANSURA, LA
$2,500
Jul 7, 2024
3
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationCATOOSA, OK
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
4
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC
$3,300
Dec 26, 2024
5
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Nov 9, 2023
6
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$3,300
Mar 29, 2023
7
UNITED STATES MARSHAL SERVICE
OrganizationNEW YORK, NY
$2,900
Mar 17, 2023
8
CHRIS STANT, LLC
OrganizationMANDEVILLE, LA
$2,800
Jan 28, 2023
9
FORTE AND TABLADA
OrganizationBATON ROUGE, LA
$2,500
Oct 2, 2024
10
ALISON BEEBE SADLER DANOS QSST TRUST
OrganizationRIDGELAND, MS
$2,500
Sep 6, 2024

Rep. Messmer, Mark [R-IN-8]

ID: M001233

Top Contributors

10

1
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Apr 11, 2024
2
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Apr 11, 2024
3
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Apr 11, 2024
4
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Apr 11, 2024
5
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Apr 11, 2024
6
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Apr 11, 2024
7
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Apr 11, 2024
8
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Apr 11, 2024
9
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Apr 11, 2024
10
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$3,000
Apr 11, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Hinson, Ashley [R-IA-2]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 6 nodes and 6 connections

Total contributions: $18,200

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped, 2 harmed.

  • −Labor Unionsconfidence 0.90

    Section 2(a) amends FLSA to exclude certain education/training activities from hours worked, reducing employer overtime liability and weakening union bargaining power over work time.

  • −Teachers Unionsconfidence 0.85

    Same provision affects public-sector employees, including teachers, by allowing districts to exclude voluntary training from compensable hours, undermining union-negotiated work rules.

  • By exempting voluntary education/training from hours worked, the bill encourages employer-sponsored or third-party education programs, benefiting for-profit education providers that supply such training.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Strong
Vector: 63%
Pages: 624-626AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 2262 aligns with Project 2025's goal of providing flexibility in overtime calculations and reducing employer disincentives to offer benefits like education reimbursement by excluding voluntary training from hours worked, thus preventing such benefits from inflating the 'regular rate' for overtime pay."

Key themes:overtime pay flexibilityeducation and training benefitsregular rate calculationemployer flexibilityvoluntary employee participation

— 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 — 593 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies rely on the vagueness of the law to bring enforcement activity against businesses that fail to meet an inspector or agency head’s personal standard. This is not fair to regulated parties and results in disfavored companies bearing the brunt of the agencies’ enforcement efforts even though their behavior may be within the main- stream of employer behavior. l Labor agencies should provide compliance assistance to help businesses and workers better understand the agencies’ position on their own rules and should do so in a way that makes it easier to follow those rules. This frees people to focus on their work rather than slogging through an ever-growing body of laws, rules, and guidance documents generated by the agencies. Clear and Restrictive Rules on Guidance Documents. Federal agencies not only issue regulations to fill in gaps left by legislation, but also supplement those reg- ulations with “guidance” documents that occupy a unique and often confusing area between law and “helpful advice.” Unfortunately, wielded by overzealous enforcement agents, such guidance, some of it even hidden from public view, morphs into binding law used against unsuspecting employers. Guidance can be a tricky thing and can be used for good or bad. It should be used to make compli- cated regulations easier to understand, so that businesses can do their actual jobs and focus on providing jobs to American workers and value to consumers (really, compliance assistance). But guidance is often used to create new rules overnight without following legal requirements—like giving the public an opportunity to provide valuable input. This wrongful use of guidance hurts workers and those who employ them. In October 2019, President Trump signed an executive order ending this abusive practice and created a new, fairer system for American busi- nesses and their employees. In response, DOL published its PRO Good Guidance rule,10 which expressly limits its use of guidance in enforcement actions and gives the public the opportunity to submit comments to influence the department’s deci- sions on creating, revising, and even rescinding guidance. Under this rule, agencies cannot treat guidance as legally binding and must make all guidance documents readily accessible on their searchable online databases. This rule was immediately rescinded by the Biden Administration. l DOL should reinstitute the PRO Good Guidance rule via notice and comment. l Congress should amend the Administrative Procedure Act11 to explicitly limit the use of guidance documents.

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Strong
Vector: 61%
Pages: 627-629AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 2262 aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on expanding workforce training and education opportunities by allowing employees to pursue voluntary education and training outside work hours without it counting as compensable time, supporting skill development and flexibility akin to the proposed employer grant program and apprenticeship expansion goals."

Key themes:workforce trainingemployee educationvocational developmentflexible learning opportunitiesemployer-supported upskilling

— 594 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Exemptions from Regulations for Small Business. Burdensome regulations have anti-competitive effects. In general, larger, higher-margin businesses are better able to absorb the costs of regulatory compliance than are small businesses, and under the Biden Administration, big-business lobbies have affirmatively embraced certain regulations (such as the COVID vaccine mandate for private employers) to reduce competition from smaller businesses. Research suggests that labor regula- tions may pose the highest aggregate regulatory cost for small businesses. l The labor agencies should exercise their available discretion and duties under the Regulatory Flexibility Act12 to exempt small entities from regulations where possible. l Congress should enact legislation increasing the revenue thresholds at which the National Labor Relations Board asserts jurisdiction over employers to match changes in inflation that have occurred since 1935 and better reflect the definition of “small business” used by the federal government. l Congress (and DOL, in its enforcement discretion) should exempt small business, first-time, non-willful violators from fines issued by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration. EDUCATION AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING Apprenticeships. The next Administration should return to prior policy and implement an industry-recognized apprenticeship program separate from the Registered Apprenticeship Program (RAP) and explore how best to modernize, streamline, and eliminate duplication in the RAP. For roughly 80 years, the RAP— which requires conforming to government standards and includes federal funding, tax credits, and other federal resources—has dominated apprenticeship programs in the U.S. Organizations across the political spectrum have noted that the overly burdensome requirements of RAPs have contributed to limiting them to legacy trades, failing to meet growing industry demands such as in health care and tech- nology. A 2017 study estimated that the number of occupations commonly filled through apprenticeships could nearly triple (from 27 to 74), that the number of job openings filled through apprenticeships could expand eightfold (to 3.2 million), and that the occupations ripe for apprenticeship expansion could offer 20 percent higher wages than traditional apprenticeship occupations. The Trump Administration expanded apprenticeship options through the cre- ation of the Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Program (IRAP), and more than 130 IRAPs were created. The Biden Administration rescinded the IRAP regulations. — 595 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies l Congress should expand apprenticeship programs outside of the RAP model, re-creating the IRAP system by statute and allowing approved entities such as trade associations and educational institutions to recognize and oversee apprenticeship programs. In addition, religious organizations should be encouraged to participate in apprenticeship programs. America has a long history of religious organizations working to advance the dignity of workers and provide them with greater opportunity, from the many prominent Christian and Jewish voices in the early labor movement to the “labor priests” who would appear on picket lines to support their flocks. Today, the role of religion in helping workers has diminished, but a country committed to strengthening civil society must ask more from religious organizations and make sure that their important role is not impeded by regulatory roadblocks or the bureaucratic status quo. l Encourage and enable religious organizations to participate in apprenticeship programs, etc. Both DOL and NLRB should facilitate religious organizations helping to strengthen working families via apprenticeship programs, worker organizations, vocational training, benefits networks, etc. Hazard-Order Regulations. Some young adults show an interest in inherently dangerous jobs. Current rules forbid many young people, even if their family is running the business, from working in such jobs. This results in worker shortages in dangerous fields and often discourages otherwise interested young workers from trying the more dangerous job. With parental consent and proper training, certain young adults should be allowed to learn and work in more dangerous occupations. This would give a green light to training programs and build skills in teenagers who may want to work in these fields. l DOL should amend its hazard-order regulations to permit teenage workers access to work in regulated jobs with proper training and parental consent. Workforce Training Grant Program. The federal government spends more than $100 billion per year subsidizing higher education but close to zero supporting people on non-college pathways. l Congress should create an employer grant worth up to $10,000 per year or pro-rated portion thereof for each worker engaged in

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Moderate
Vector: 63%
Pages: 624-626AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 2262 aligns with Project 2025's goal of increasing flexibility in labor regulations by allowing voluntary education/training outside work hours without counting as compensable time, supporting employer flexibility and worker upskilling—both themes present in the DOL section. However, it does not address independent contractor classification, joint employer rules, or overtime thresholds, which are central to the Project 2025 policy."

Key themes:workplace flexibilityemployee education and trainingemployer compliance burden reductionvoluntary worker upskilling

— 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

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills