What This Bill Does
This bill would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 so that certain employees who provide outdoor recreational outfitting or guiding services would no longer be covered by federal minimum wage and maximum hours requirements. In practical terms, it targets workers such as hunting, fishing, rafting, hiking, or similar guides whose jobs are often seasonal, remote, and tied to tourism. The main policy change is an exemption from federal wage-and-hour rules for a defined class of outdoor recreation workers, which would give employers more flexibility in pay and scheduling.
- Amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
- Creates an exemption for certain outdoor recreational outfitting or guiding employees
- Removes federal minimum wage coverage for the covered workers
- Removes federal maximum-hours coverage for the covered workers
- Applies to a narrow outdoor recreation workforce
Who This Bill Affects
If you work for, own, or rely on an outdoor outfitting or guiding business, this bill could directly change how pay and schedules are set under federal law. Employers in the covered category would have more room to pay below federal minimum wage and to exceed normal federal hour limits without triggering those specific FLSA rules, while affected workers could lose guaranteed wage-and-hour protections. For everyone else, the bill has little direct effect unless you are employed in or purchase services from that narrow industry.
See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysisWho Supports & Opposes This
- Outdoor guide and outfitting business owners They would argue that seasonal, weather-dependent work is difficult to manage under standard wage-and-hour rules. An exemption gives them flexibility to staff trips and manage payroll during short peak seasons without treating every day like a traditional 9-to-5 job.
- Seasonal recreation employers in rural areas They would say many operations depend on small crews, irregular demand, and long travel days in remote locations. Federal wage rules can raise costs enough to make trips less affordable or limit services in places where the industry supports local economies.
- Some workers who prefer commission-, tip-, or trip-based pay Certain guides may prefer compensation that tracks the number and type of outings rather than hourly pay. They may see the exemption as allowing higher earnings during busy periods if customers are plentiful and business is strong.
- Outdoor recreation employees They would worry about losing guaranteed pay floors and overtime-style hour protections in a job that can already be physically demanding and uncertain. Without those protections, workers may have less leverage to challenge low pay or excessive schedules.
- Labor advocates They would argue the bill creates a carve-out in a core worker-protection law and could encourage similar exemptions in other industries. Their concern is that businesses may reclassify roles or stretch the definition of guiding work to avoid wage obligations.
- Worker safety and employment-rights advocates They may caution that long shifts in remote settings already pose fatigue and safety risks. Removing federal wage-and-hour standards could increase pressure to work longer hours with fewer built-in protections.
Key Implications
-
““exempt certain employees engaged in outdoor recreational outfitting or guiding services””
This language limits the bill to a specific slice of the recreation economy. It would not change wage law for most workers, but it could materially affect compensation rules for guides and outfitters.
-
““from minimum wage and maximum hours requirements””
The affected employees would lose two central federal labor protections: the wage floor and the usual federal limits tied to hours worked. In practice, that can lower labor costs for employers and increase income uncertainty for workers.
-
““amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938””
Because the bill amends a foundational labor law, it changes how federal wage rules apply in this one industry rather than creating a separate program. That means its effects would be embedded in long-standing employment law.
Latest Status
June 18, 2026
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Related Bills
Take Action
Get more from BillBoard
Free tools to understand, respond to, and track this bill.
Ask AI about this billData sourced from api.congress.gov.