Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42341107›Full record

ArticleScience advances2026

Fair Workweek laws in the US: An appraisal of intended and unintended consequences.

Daniel Schneider, Kristen Harknett, David Arbelaez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science advances, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Daniel SchneiderHarvard Kennedy School, Cambridge, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6786-0302
Kristen HarknettUniversity of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8379-8393
David ArbelaezHarvard Kennedy School, Cambridge, MA, USA.ORCID 0009-0005-8942-6204

Funding

NIOSH CDC HHS U19 OH012293
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fair Workweek laws, implemented in several large cities and one state, represent a new wave of innovation in a century of contestation and legislation around work time. Where previous legislation sought to regulate overwork, these laws aim to regulate work schedule instability and insufficiency of work hours, but evidence on their effects is incomplete. Using stacked difference-in-differences models and original survey data, we find robust evidence that Fair Workweek regulations led to increases in advance notice of schedules and time to rest between shifts and reductions in last-minute schedule changes. We find no evidence of compensatory retrenchment in other aspects of job quality. These average effects disguise substantial heterogeneity across jurisdictions, pointing to the importance of local enforcement in realizing policy goals. Fair Workweek legislation has realized some intended effects on work schedules without unintended consequences, but the potential for more widespread, effective enforcement has not been fully realized.

Indexed as

Work Schedule ToleranceHumansUnited StatesWorking Conditions

Identifiers

PMID42341107
PMCPMC13292935

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.