Bill Overview
Title: Return to Work Act
Description: This bill requires the head of each executive agency to reinstate the telework policies in use by that agency on December 31, 2019.
Sponsors: Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5]
Target Audience
Population: Federal government employees in the United States
Estimated Size: 2100000
- The U.S. federal government employs approximately 2.1 million civilian workers.
- Many federal employees were teleworking due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
- As of December 31, 2019, a smaller proportion of federal employees were teleworking compared to post-pandemic levels.
- Reinstating pre-pandemic telework policies will likely reduce the number of employees who can telework.
Reasoning
- The target population is 2.1 million federal government employees who are directly affected by changes in telework policies.
- The policy's budget is limited, so only a portion of the extensive federal workforce can be directly assisted or affected by supporting resources.
- The policy might mostly impact those federal workers who benefitted from flexible telework arrangements post-pandemic.
- Diverse perspectives must be included to understand different occupational settings within federal employment such as administrative roles, managerial positions, technical and field workers.
- Budget constraints mean that benefits like ergonomic home-office equipment, improved telework infrastructure, or mental health support can be offered only to a limited part of the population.
Simulated Interviews
Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciated the increased flexibility and better work-life balance telework provided during the pandemic.
- Returning to a less flexible telework policy might increase daily stress from commuting and balancing personal commitments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
IT Specialist (Denver, CO)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Teleworking allows me to work efficiently and save time and money on commuting.
- The roll-back of telework policy will likely decrease my productivity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Administrative Assistant (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I personally struggle with remote work, I see the value it offers others in balancing family and professional life.
- I prefer returning to office-centric policies, as I perform better under those conditions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Senior Project Manager (Chicago, IL)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The blend of office and remote work proved effective during challenging times.
- If managed well, partly renewing telework flexibility could benefit team productivity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Human Resources Specialist (Houston, TX)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Employee satisfaction increased with more telework options.
- Rolling back flexibility could impact morale and increase turnover.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 9 |
Environmental Engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- When not in the field, telework is more efficient and less distracting.
- Reducing telework may push more non-essential office presence, impacting efficiency.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
IT Support Relations (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Flexible hours aided in handling personal commitments without affecting job performance.
- Reinstatement of pre-pandemic policy may restrict work-life harmony achieved.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Compliance Officer (Miami, FL)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Remote work greatly enhanced my productivity and job satisfaction.
- Returning to mandatory office presence could lower these.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Legal Advisor (Boston, MA)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Remote work options allowed for broader participation without geographical constraints.
- Limiting remote work may reduce such diverse inclusion.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Research Scientist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Remote capability for non-lab work enhanced my research potential immensely.
- Restricting telework could unfavorably slow down analysis work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $51000000 (Low: $41000000, High: $61000000)
Year 3: $52020000 (Low: $42020000, High: $62020000)
Year 5: $53160600 (Low: $43160600, High: $63160600)
Year 10: $58000000 (Low: $48000000, High: $68000000)
Year 100: $80000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $90000000)
Key Considerations
- The impact on employee productivity whether positive or negative, may vary across different agencies and job types.
- Potential logistical challenges in transitioning back to in-office work environments are likely to arise, affecting operational efficiency during the transition phase.
- The morale and job satisfaction among workers could experience shifts, potentially impacting retention and recruitment.