Bill Overview
Title: Accountable Feds Act
Description: This bill establishes and modifies requirements relating to the administration of the federal workforce, including (1) creating a new Schedule F in the excepted service for certain positions that are not normally subject to change as a result of a presidential transition; (2) specifying certain standards and principles relating to removals, grievance procedures, and adverse personnel actions; (3) placing certain restrictions on the use of union time; and (4) creating a workgroup to manage the efficiency of labor-management relations.
Sponsors: Rep. Hice, Jody B. [R-GA-10]
Target Audience
Population: Federal Employees in the USA
Estimated Size: 3600000
- The bill specifically addresses the federal workforce, indicating that all federal employees and positions are potentially impacted.
- The introduction of Schedule F and the provisions for grievance procedures indicates a focus on employment classifications and how removals are managed, impacting job security and employment conditions.
- Changes in the use of union time and labor-management relations directly affect federal employees who are part of unions and the management overseeing those labor relations.
Reasoning
- The federal workforce comprises a large and diverse population working across various agencies. Simulating individuals who are likely to be impacted includes a mix of different roles, from management to entry-level employees, as the policy alters job classifications, union-related procedures, and managerial efficiency processes.
- We consider a balanced sample, including both unionized and non-unionized federal employees and those in roles that might be reclassified under the new Schedule F.
- The budget constraints suggest that while the policy intends broad impacts, the immediate effects may be more pronounced in areas related to managerial and classification changes, particularly affecting employees interacting with these systems regularly.
- Wellbeing scores generally might not substantially alter for individuals distant from policy influence but vary significantly for those within its core focus due to changes in job security and working conditions.
Simulated Interviews
Federal Procurement Manager (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about the clarity of what Schedule F means for my job and my team's security.
- Reducing union time might streamline processes, but it could also limit support for workers.
- Ultimately, the focus on efficiency can be good, but execution details matter.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Federal IT Support Specialist (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any restrictions on union time could make it harder to advocate effectively for my colleagues.
- Schedule F, while non-standard, might benefit certain project-based roles.
- Efficiency workgroups could help us streamline IT needs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
National Park Service Ranger (Denver, CO)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These changes seem more relevant for office-based roles, so I don't expect much immediate impact on field operations.
- Maintaining job independence is crucial, and I'm watching how classifications might affect autonomy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Department of Defense Analyst (Arlington, VA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm somewhat anxious about potential reclassification affecting job security, given my decades of service.
- Union time reduction without compromise on worker rights needs careful balance.
- Workgroups for labor relations could be beneficial but need real action not just discussions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Retired Federal Employee (Chicago, IL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm grateful to be retired, as changes like these add uncertainty during one's career.
- For current employees, similar adjustments in the past were often challenging during implementation phases.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Federal Environmental Scientist (Austin, TX)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The idea of reclassification could affect project continuity, but it may also offer fresh opportunities.
- Union-related aspects aren't directly applicable, but internal dynamics might shift.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Federal Customs Agent (Miami, FL)
Age: 45 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Professional classifications need to reflect unique fieldwork demands, which aren't always suited for standardization like Schedule F.
- Efficiency in processes is acceptable, yet safety and security dynamics cannot be compromised.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Federal Grant Administrator (New York, NY)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Union roles are crucial for mediation; reducing restrictions might impact fairness in administrative routines.
- Classifications like Schedule F might bring more criteria-driven employment standards.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Federal Housing Inspector (Seattle, WA)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a newcomer, I'm worried about what these changes mean for starting a stable career in federal services.
- Union support provides a base; restrictions could deter engagements. Positive efficiency changes are welcome though.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Veterans Affairs Counselor (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We rely heavily on structured processes; uniformity within Schedule F needs coherent adaptation to our role.
- Union time allocations are vital to protect rights, especially in demanding sectors like ours.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $40000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $60000000)
Year 3: $40000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $60000000)
Year 5: $35000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $50000000)
Year 10: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $40000000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Key Considerations
- Ensuring compliance with the new Schedule F regulations may require changes to administrative systems across federal agencies.
- The impact on union negotiations and relations could affect morale and productivity among the federal workforce.
- Budgetary considerations for increased administrative oversight and possible legal challenges related to changes in grievance and removal procedures.