A father of three works at a pizzeria where his schedule resembles a roller coaster: 40 hours one week, 48 hours the next, then plummeting to just eight hours before rising to 24.
Under new work requirements being considered by the U.S. Senate and recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, a slow month with this erratic scheduling could strip him and his family of vital food assistance, despite averaging 32 hours worked per week—well above the proposed 80-hour monthly minimum.
The sweeping legislation would not only intensify work requirements for basic needs programs, but it would also expand them to new groups, including parents with school-aged children like the pizzeria worker. These groups would now have to document 80 hours worked per month or lose access to benefits provided by the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps). The bill would put millions of Americans at risk of losing some of their food assistance.
Our research using national data shows that many low-income service workers are already working more than 80 hours per month on average across the year. One in three such workers, however, would nonetheless fall below an 80-hour-per-month threshold at least once in a year because of this type of inconsistency, which is overwhelmingly driven by employers.
These expanded work requirements will not save money or increase work in the long run. What they will do is punish workers such as the dad working at the pizzeria for reasons beyond their control. Instead of cutting programs that families need to survive, policymakers should focus on creating the kinds of jobs and wages that allow working people to support their families without fear that changes to their schedule or to SNAP will leave them hungry.
Read the full article on The Regulatory Review
June 9, 2025