A Democratic bill with 3 Democratic cosponsors · See all 4 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Agricultural Worker Justice Act of 2026 aims to protect agricultural and meatpacking workers. It prevents the USDA from purchasing food produced by workers paid less than the local prevailing rate and bans stock buybacks for agricultural issuers receiving USDA funds. The bill establishes stricter safety standards for meat and poultry processing plants, including limits on line speeds and better access to bathrooms. It also regulates "no fault" attendance policies to protect legally protected leave. Additionally, it enhances OSHA's inspection powers and creates a private right of action for aggrieved workers. Finally, it mandates a GAO report on racial and ethnic disparities within the meat and poultry sector.
Yes· 3 of 21
- Scored +8
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Directly benefits low-wage agricultural and meatpacking workers through higher wages and safety standards.
- Scored +7
Would immigrants be better off under this?
Protects noncitizen workers from retaliation and prohibits reporting immigration status as a tool of intimidation.
- Scored +7
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
Requires public reporting of all USDA funding recipients and pandemic-related infection data.
The opposite· 3 of 6
- Scored -6
Would business owners be better off under this?
Increases compliance costs, restricts stock buybacks, and introduces potential criminal penalties and lawsuits.
- Scored -4
Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this?
Bans stock buybacks and dividends for agricultural issuers receiving USDA funds.
- Scored -4
Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this?
Bans stock buybacks and dividends for agricultural issuers receiving USDA funds.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Increased Wages: The USDA cannot purchase meat, poultry, or processed food from workers paid less than the local prevailing rate for wages and fringe benefits (Section 102).
- Workplace Accountability: Entities contracting with the USDA must disclose labor law violations, and those with serious or repeated violations can be barred from receiving contracts (Section 104).
- Improved Worker Safety: The bill restricts the USDA from increasing line speeds at meat and poultry plants unless a certification is made that it will not adversely impact worker safety (Section 211).
- Protection of Leave: Employers using "no fault" attendance policies must explicitly state that employees will not be disciplined for using legally protected leave (Section 222).
- Health and Dignity: The bill requires employers at covered establishments to provide prompt, unpaid, and unpunished access to toilet facilities (Section 232).
- Medical Protections: New standards will require the immediate referral of injured employees to a medical professional of the employee's choice (Section 233).
- Legal Recourse: Individuals can now file lawsuits in federal court for failures to comply with the Occupational Safety and Health Act, allowing for the recovery of compensatory and punitive damages (Section 240).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Criminal Penalties for Businesses: Entities that knowingly fail to disclose required labor law violations can face criminal penalties (Section 104(f)).
- Burdens on School Food Authorities: School food authorities must now request waivers to purchase foreign commodities and are required to notify parents via email when such waivers are used (Section 105).
- Increased Employer Compliance Costs: Meat and poultry employers must implement ergonomic program management and medical management standards, which may require new training and equipment (Section 233).
- Business Ineligibility: Companies placed on the "List of Ineligible Entities" due to labor violations are barred from USDA contracts and inspections for up to five years (Section 104(d)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Directly benefits low-wage agricultural and meatpacking workers through higher wages and safety standards. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Protects noncitizen workers from retaliation and prohibits reporting immigration status as a tool of intimidation. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Targets protections for a sector with high racial disparities and mandates GAO reporting on these gaps. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Protects agricultural and meatpacking workers, groups with high Hispanic representation, through wages and safety. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Mandates ergonomic standards for musculoskeletal disorders and protects ADA-related leave. Would union members be better off under this? — Strengthens wage floors via prevailing rates and improves workplace safety standards. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Benefits rural agricultural workers and supports local food systems. Would women be better off under this? — Explicitly addresses sexual harassment and abusive language toward women in the meatpacking sector. Would farmers be better off under this? — Increases funding for local food purchase assistance programs. Would business owners be better off under this? — Increases compliance costs, restricts stock buybacks, and introduces potential criminal penalties and lawsuits. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Bans stock buybacks and dividends for agricultural issuers receiving USDA funds. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Bans stock buybacks and dividends for agricultural issuers receiving USDA funds. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Bans stock buybacks and dividends for agricultural issuers receiving USDA funds.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Mandates a GAO report on racial and ethnic disparities in the meat and poultry processing sector. Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities? — Protects legally protected leave under the ADA and improves ergonomic standards for musculoskeletal disorders. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Aims to increase wages for low-income agricultural and meatpacking workers. Does this narrow the gap between how men and women are treated? — Addresses sexual harassment and abusive language targeting women workers in findings.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires public reporting of all USDA funding recipients and pandemic-related infection data. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Creates a private right of action for OSHA violations and detailed administrative appeal processes. Does this give the federal government more power? — Expands USDA procurement restrictions and OSHA inspection and enforcement powers.
- Healthcare
- Does this make the country readier for the next outbreak? — Establishes standardized weekly reporting of infections and deaths at covered establishments during pandemics. Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Requires immediate referral of injured employees to a medical professional of their choice.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this raise the lowest wage an employer may pay? — Mandates that USDA cannot purchase food from workers paid less than the local prevailing rate. Does this strengthen the rights of workers to organise? — Acknowledges collective bargaining agreements in prevailing rate determinations and allows non-employee representatives during inspections. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — Appropriates funds for local food purchase assistance and additional OSHA inspectors.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — Authorizes $400 million for local food purchase assistance cooperative agreement programs.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this make trade with other countries easier? — Imposes stricter waiver requirements and parental notification for purchasing foreign commodities for school lunches.
- 7/15/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
- 4 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
2 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Cory BookerDemocrat · New Jersey
John FettermanDemocrat · Pennsylvania
Bernie SandersIndependent · Vermont
Ron WydenDemocrat · Oregon