Good Jobs for Good Airports Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. García, Jesús G. "Chuy" [D-IL-4]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 14, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to standardize and elevate wage and benefit floors for a wide range of airport service workers by linking them to federal prevailing wage standards and existing state/local laws.
What it actually does
This bill, the "Good Jobs for Good Airports Act," mandates that employers of airport service workers at small, medium, and large hub airports pay their employees the prevailing wage and provide fringe benefits. It broadly defines "covered service workers" to include various roles from ground handling and security to concessions and hotel services on airport property. The bill establishes enforcement mechanisms through the Secretaries of Labor and Transportation and allows for private civil actions.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that ensuring prevailing wages and adequate benefits for airport service workers is crucial for public safety, security, and health by reducing workforce turnover, improving training, and increasing motivation. They contend that stable, well-compensated workforces are essential for effective airport operations and reflect the national interest in aviation infrastructure.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that mandating prevailing wages and benefits could significantly increase operational costs for airlines, contractors, and concessionaires, potentially leading to higher travel costs for consumers or reduced services. They may also raise concerns about federal overreach into local labor markets and the potential for job losses if employers seek to offset increased labor costs.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for a reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2(a)
Congressional Findings and Purposes
This section outlines Congress's rationale for the bill, stating that safe airport operations require a stable, well-trained workforce capable of earning a living wage and securing health benefits. It asserts that current conditions lead to high turnover, which compromises security and efficiency, and that the bill aims to stabilize workplace conditions for airport labor.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue these findings accurately reflect the critical role of airport service workers and the need for federal intervention to ensure stable, high-quality service, especially given federal investments in aviation infrastructure.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that while the goals are laudable, the findings overstate the direct link between current wage levels and safety/security risks, suggesting that market forces or local regulations are sufficient.
Tradeoffs
Balances the perceived need for federal intervention in labor standards against potential arguments for local control or market-driven solutions.
Section 2(b)(1) amending 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)
Broad Definition of Covered Service Worker
This provision comprehensively defines "covered service worker" to include individuals performing various functions at small, medium, or large hub airports. This includes roles related to air transportation (e.g., loading, passenger assistance, security, ground-handling, cleaning, ramp agents), concessions (e.g., food, retail, cleaning, security for concessions/lounges), airline catering, and hotel services on airport property. It explicitly includes individuals regardless of contractual relationships and excludes certain managerial/professional employees and government/TSA employees.
Section 2(b)(2)(A) adding 49 U.S.C. 40133(a)
Mandated Prevailing Wage and Fringe Benefits
This core provision requires covered employers at small, medium, or large hub airports to pay covered service workers a wage and fringe benefits that are not less than the higher of either the prevailing wage/benefits determined by the Secretary of Labor under the Service Contract Act (SCA) for the appropriate locality and classification, or any applicable State or local minimum wage/benefit law or policy. This ensures a floor based on established federal or local standards.
Section 2(b)(2)(A) adding 49 U.S.C. 40133(b) and (e)
Employer Certification and Dual Enforcement Authority
Covered employers must certify monthly, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Transportation that they comply with the wage and benefit requirements. Failure to certify or submitting a false certification constitutes a violation. The Secretary of Labor is granted authority to enforce wage and benefit requirements (similar to FLSA enforcement), while the Secretary of Transportation enforces the certification requirement, considering Labor's findings.
Section 2(b)(3) and (4)
Enhanced Penalties and Private Enforcement
This section amends existing law to establish significant penalties for violations. The maximum civil penalty for violating the new labor standards is set at three times the standard civil penalty. Additionally, it creates a new private right of action, allowing "interested persons" to bring civil actions in federal district court against violators to enforce the labor standards.
Section 2(b)(2)(A) adding 49 U.S.C. 40133(f)
Preservation of Higher State and Local Standards
This provision explicitly states that nothing in the Act shall preempt any State or local law or policy that requires a higher minimum wage or otherwise provides greater benefits or protections for covered service workers than the federal requirements established by this bill.
The definition of "covered service worker" extends beyond traditional airport roles (e.g., baggage, security) to include concession services (food, retail, cleaning, security for concessions/lounges), airline catering, and even hotel services at hotels located on airport property.
Section 2(b)(1) amending 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(48)
Why it matters:This broad scope is likely intentional to ensure comprehensive coverage, reflecting the bill's purpose to stabilize the entire airport labor pool.
Case for: Proponents argue that all these roles are integral to the overall airport experience and operations, and their workers deserve the same protections to ensure a stable and high-quality workforce across the board.
Case against: Critics might argue that including roles like hotel staff or certain concession workers, whose primary functions are not directly related to air travel safety or security, represents an overreach of federal labor standards into areas traditionally governed by local market conditions.
Estimated impact: Significantly expands the number and types of workers and employers subject to the new wage and benefit mandates beyond what a narrow interpretation of "airport service" might suggest.
For administration and enforcement purposes, the fair market value of any unpaid fringe benefits required under the Act shall be "deemed unpaid minimum wages" under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Section 2(c)(2) amending Section 6 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to leverage existing enforcement mechanisms and legal frameworks (like FLSA) for new mandates, providing a clear legal path for recovery of unpaid benefits.
Case for: Proponents argue that this provision provides a clear and robust enforcement mechanism for fringe benefits, ensuring that workers can recover the full value of their compensation through established FLSA remedies.
Case against: Opponents might argue that equating unpaid fringe benefits with unpaid minimum wages could lead to complex valuation issues and potentially higher penalties than intended for benefit-related non-compliance.
Estimated impact: Streamlines and strengthens the legal recourse for workers to recover unpaid fringe benefits, potentially increasing the financial liability for non-compliant employers.