The bill
Valuing Employee Stock Today Act
HR. 8660, 119th Congress — read as touching Private Equity & Hedge Funds.
Sponsored by
Rep. Mackenzie, Ryan [R-PA-7]
ID: M001230
Follow the money
The bill
HR. 8660, 119th Congress — read as touching Private Equity & Hedge Funds.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
21 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Department of Labor and Related Agencies" section, p. 624-626 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 18 - 15.
July 20, 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!
HR 8660: The “Valuing Employee Stock Today Act” – Or, How to Pretend You’re Helping Workers While Actually Just Cleaning Up a Legislative Loophole Nobody Noticed for 26 Years
Let’s be clear: this bill doesn’t *create* new regulations. It *fixes a typo* in a 2000 exemption that was written when “restricted stock units” (RSUs) were about as common in hourly worker compensation as a unicorn in a coal mine. Back then, stock options were the shiny new toy for tech bros; RSUs were the weird cousin nobody invited to the party. Now? RSUs are everywhere—even at Walmart and Amazon, where they’re tossed to warehouse workers like confetti at a parade nobody asked for.
So what does HR 8660 actually do? It amends Section 7(e)(8) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to explicitly include “restricted stock unit program” alongside stock options and stock purchase programs in the exemption from overtime calculations. In plain English: if your employer gives you RSUs that vest over time, the *value* of those RSUs when they vest won’t count toward your “regular rate” for overtime pay. Why? Because Congress in 2000 meant to exempt *all* equity compensation—but forgot to name RSUs because they didn’t exist yet in the wild. This bill is less a reform and more a legislative *oops, my bad* with a nice frame around it.
**Affected Industries**: Tech (obviously), but now also retail, logistics, and any big employer using RSUs to lure and retain hourly workers without raising base wages. Think: Amazon fulfillment centers, Starbucks, Target, UPS. Basically, any company that likes to say “You’re part-owner!” while paying you $17/hour and making you pee in a bottle.
**Compliance Requirements**: None, really. Employers don’t have to *do* anything new. They just get to keep excluding RSU value from overtime calculations—something many were probably already doing anyway, assuming the 2000 law’s “spirit” covered it. The bill clarifies intent; it doesn’t impose burden. If anything, it reduces legal risk for employers who might’ve been sweating a lawsuit over whether RSUs “counted.”
**Timeline**: Effective 90 days after enactment. So if signed tomorrow, compliance starts in late July 2026. Employers have plenty of time to update their payroll footnotes and pretend this was a hard-won victory for workers.
**Enforcement**: Same as always—Department of Labor (DOL) investigates complaints, back wages, liquidated damages. But let’s be real: who’s going to sue over RSUs not being counted in overtime? The worker who’s thrilled to get $200 in vesting stock but doesn’t realize they should’ve gotten an extra $1.50/hour in overtime premium? This isn’t a enforcement headache—it’s a *clarification gift* to employers who want to avoid accidental liability.
**Economic Impact**: Minimal. Workers get no new money. Employers save maybe a few basis points in overtime liability if they were overpaying (unlikely). The real win? Political theater. Sponsors get to claim they’re “expanding worker ownership” while doing nothing to raise wages, curb wage theft, or address the fact that most hourly workers couldn’t afford to exercise a stock option if their life depended on it. RSUs are better than options—but they’re still a placebo for wage stagnation dressed up as empowerment.
In short: HR 8660 is a placebo bill for a phantom problem. It treats a legislative oversight like a humanitarian crisis, all so politicians can pose as champions of equity while the actual economic foundation—low base pay, precarious schedules, zero bargaining power—remains untouched. It’s not reform. It’s regulatory cosmetics. And frankly, it’s insulting. But hey—at least now the loophole has a name and a press release.
Rep. Mackenzie, Ryan [R-PA-7]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: O000177
Top Contributors
20
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 46 nodes and 46 connections
Total contributions: $46
Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 helped.
Section 3 clarifies the employer equity exemption from regular rate determinations, which may benefit private equity and hedge funds by allowing them to provide restricted stock units to employees without affecting overtime compensation, as stated in Section 7(e)(8) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
Section 3 clarifies the employer equity exemption from regular rate determinations, which may benefit commercial banks by allowing them to provide restricted stock units to employees without affecting overtime compensation, as stated in Section 7(e)(8) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
Section 3 clarifies the employer equity exemption from regular rate determinations, which may benefit big tech platforms by allowing them to provide restricted stock units to employees without affecting overtime compensation, as stated in Section 7(e)(8) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Mackenzie, Ryan [R-PA-7])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.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.
AI Analysis:
"The bill aligns with Project 2025's goal of clarifying the 'regular rate' for overtime pay to exclude certain benefits, thereby reducing employer burdens and encouraging broader access to equity compensation without increasing overtime costs."
— 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
AI Analysis:
"The bill aligns with Project 2025's goal of clarifying that the 'regular rate' for overtime pay should be based on salary rather than all benefits, specifically by exempting RSU value from overtime calculations. This supports the policy objective of enabling employers to offer equity-based compensation without fear of increasing overtime liabilities."
— 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.
AI Analysis:
"The bill focuses on clarifying overtime pay calculations for RSUs under the FLSA, while the Project 2025 Treasury section addresses tax policy, benefit deductions, and entrepreneurship incentives—there is minimal thematic overlap beyond a tangential connection to employee compensation structure."
— 697 — Department of the Treasury time for any purpose. This would allow the vast majority of American families to save and invest without facing a punitive double layer of taxation. Entrepreneurship. To encourage entrepreneurship, the business loss limita- tion should be increased to at least $500,000. Businesses should also be allowed to fully carry forward net operating losses. Extra layers of taxes on investment and capital should also be eliminated or reduced. The net investment income surtax and the base erosion anti-abuse tax should be eliminated. The estate and gift tax should be reduced to no higher than 20 percent, and the 2017 tax bill’s temporary increase in the exemption amount from $5.5 million to $12.9 million (adjusted for inflation) should be made permanent.21 The tax on global intangible low-taxed income should be reduced to no higher than 12.5 percent, with the 20 percent haircut on related foreign tax credits reduced or eliminated.22 All non-business tax deductions and exemptions that were temporarily sus- pended by the 2017 tax bill should be permanently repealed, including the bicycle commuting expense exclusion, non-military moving expense deductions, and the miscellaneous itemized deductions.23 The individual state and local tax deduction, which was temporarily capped at $10,000, should be fully repealed. Deductions related to educational expenses should be repealed. Special business tax pref- erences, such as a special deduction for energy-efficient commercial building properties, should be eliminated.24 Wages vs. Benefits. The current tax code has a strong bias that incentivizes businesses to offer employees more generous benefits and lower wages. This limits the freedom of workers and their families to spend their compensation as they see fit—and it can trap workers in their current jobs due to the jobs’ benefit pack- ages. Wage income is taxed under the individual income tax and under the payroll tax. However, most forms of non-wage benefits are wholly exempt from both of these taxes. To reduce this tax bias against wages (as opposed to employee benefits), the next Administration should set a meaningful cap (no higher than $12,000 per year per full-time equivalent employee—and preferably lower) on untaxed benefits that employers can claim as deductions. Employee benefit expenses other than tax-deferred retirement account contributions should count toward the limita- tion, whether offered to specific employees or whether the costs relate to a shared benefit like building gym facilities for employees.25 Tax-deferred retirement con- tributions by employers should not count toward this limitation insofar as they are fully taxable upon distribution. Only a percentage of Health Savings Accounts (HSA) contributions (which are not taxed upon withdrawal) should count toward the limitation.26 The limitation on benefit deductions should not be indexed to increase with inflation.27 Employers should also be denied deductions for health insurance and other benefits provided to employee dependents if the dependents are aged 23 or older.
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
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.