Bill Overview
Title: To direct the Secretary of the Interior to reinstate pre-pandemic in-office work policies at the Department of the Interior in order to receive certain supplemental emergency relief funds, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill bars the use of any of the unobligated COVID-19 relief funds made available to the Department of the Interior until Interior reinstates the telework policies, practices, and levels of telework as in effect at Interior on December 31, 2019. No later than 30 days after the enactment of this bill, Interior shall submit to Congress a plan for opening the offices of Interior for in-office work in a manner consistent with the policies, practices, and levels of telework as in effect on December 31, 2019.
Sponsors: Rep. Burgess, Michael C. [R-TX-26]
Target Audience
Population: Department of the Interior employees
Estimated Size: 70000
- The bill applies to employees of the Department of the Interior who would be required to return to pre-pandemic levels of in-office work, potentially affecting their work-life balance and commuting needs.
- The bill is likely aimed at enhancing accountability and productivity by ensuring more in-person work but could also reduce the flexibility that employees gained during the pandemic.
- The bill affects how the Department of the Interior can use COVID-19 relief funds, specifically barring their use until pre-pandemic work levels are reinstated, but does not directly involve those outside the department.
- Approximately 70,000 employees worked for the Department of the Interior according to pre-pandemic staffing levels.
Reasoning
- The policy solely impacts employees of the Department of the Interior who were teleworking more frequently during the pandemic era than before. The focus on reinstating pre-pandemic telework levels influences only a specific federal workforce segment, not the broader U.S. population.
- Budget considerations indicate limited funds for enforcing the policy across the department. Nonetheless, as a federal initiative with a focus on internal policies, the financial implications likely concern administrative changes rather than direct benefits to the public.
- Work-life balance and productivity changes can both enhance or diminish employee satisfaction and well-being depending on individual circumstances, such as commuting burden and personal preference for remote work flexibility.
Simulated Interviews
Environmental Scientist (Washington D.C.)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate the flexibility telework provides, and having to commute again full-time would be challenging.
- Balancing family responsibilities with a long commute was tough before. The pandemic telework setup worked better for me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Park Ranger (Denver, CO)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- In-person coordination is significant for my role, but teleworking saved me commuting time.
- I see both pros and cons; it depends highly on how reinstating the old policies affects our team dynamism.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Administrative Assistant (Anchorage, AK)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Telework due to health considerations provided me comfort and reduced exposure to harsh weather.
- Going back to the office full-time would likely make my job harder on me physically.
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 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 9 |
IT Specialist (Salt Lake City, UT)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Returning to the office would disrupt the productivity and concentration I achieve remotely.
- The home setup is optimized for work, especially with sensitive IT equipment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Wildlife Biologist (Chicago, IL)
Age: 31 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy doesn't drastically affect my work mode, as fieldwork is my main focus.
- Telework only complemented field data analyses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Policy Analyst (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Moving operations to office spaces might constrain the appeal of my current job.
- I've developed a work-life pattern that heavily relies on telecommuting.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
HR Manager (New York, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Although telework offered safety during the pandemic, my role is benefited by office coordination.
- I'm concerned about potential loss of telework flexibility.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Program Manager (Boston, MA)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Collaboration has seen improvement with remote tools. Enforced in-office could stall initiatives.
- Staff morale and time management are crucially balanced right now.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Geographer (Austin, TX)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Office return would reduce the flexibility that allows for participation in important out-of-office activities.
- Personal productivity is strongly tied to the flexibility remote has offered.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 10 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 10 |
Project Coordinator (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy shouldn't change much for me; I can adapt between systems.
- The relief funds first aided the transition; I now operate efficiently from home.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Key Considerations
- Potential impact on employee morale and productivity due to the shift back to pre-pandemic work conditions.
- Possible challenges in readjusting office spaces to a higher in-office capacity within a short timeframe.
- Operational costs could increase as a result of more employees working from designated office locations.
- Potential legal or administrative challenges related to enforcing this policy within federal workforce regulations.