Bill Overview
Title: Earn Your Keep Act
Description: This bill requires each executive agency to reinstate the telework policies that were in effect on December 31, 2019. Employees who do not comply with the reinstated policies must be removed from the civil service, and their positions must be eliminated. The Government Accountability Office must report on the locality pay and geographic location of employees who were teleworking during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Sponsors: Rep. Carl, Jerry L. [R-AL-1]
Target Audience
Population: Federal employees in executive agencies
Estimated Size: 2000000
- The bill affects employees of executive agencies, which are part of the federal government, indicating that federal employees are the target population.
- As of March 2019, there were approximately 2 million civilian employees in the executive branch. This population is likely to be directly impacted by the reinstatement of pre-2020 telework policies, so we estimate that number.
- Not all federal employees had telework agreements, thus the actual number impacted might be slightly less, but since all 2 million are under the executive branch, they are all potentially affected by changes in policy.
- The legislation specifically targets federal employees who were teleworking due to COVID-19, implying those who were not teleworking or who continued to telework after 2019 policies could also be affected if positions are eliminated if they don't comply.
Reasoning
- Given the policy's focus on federal executive agency employees, the simulation emphasizes diverse roles within such agencies. While teleworking impacted many during the pandemic, not all employees adapted long-term to such arrangements.
- The policy primarily affects those relocated during telework, or those who strive for continued telework options that are viable under previous policies. It also has variable impacts on others, potentially putting some at risk for non-compliance.
- By managing the available budget, we consider fewer direct stipend support to employees, focusing instead on infrastructural and administrative adjustments.
- We will incorporate a range of occupations, tenure, and demographics, considering how the temporary or sustained shift to telework affected employees of different profiles.
Simulated Interviews
Policy Analyst (Washington D.C.)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reverting to old telework policies is a step backward, especially when productivity was shown to improve remotely.
- Balancing childcare with a rigid office schedule is difficult.
- This could push talented individuals away from federal jobs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
IT Specialist (New York)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've worked remotely for years, even before COVID, proving location is irrelevant for my role.
- Reverting means uprooting my family or risking job loss.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Human Resources Assistant (Los Angeles)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hybrid work is crucial for my family commitments.
- Losing that would mean seeking new employment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Senior Administrative Officer (Chicago)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm nearing retirement; changing things now feels disruptive when I’ve already adapted.
- I have seniority, and my duties are unaffected by my location.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Environmental Scientist (Austin)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My field work wasn't hindered by teleworking policies.
- Consults can be effectively done remotely, though less social interaction isn't ideal.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Budget Analyst (Denver)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Remote work lets me balance life better; going back is stressful.
- I'm worried about dropping productivity if forced to commute again.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Compliance Officer (Atlanta)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Given my health, working from home is safer and more comfortable.
- I hope to continue leading projects from home until retirement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Legal Advisor (Boston)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Court sessions require me to be present, but desk duties were more efficiently managed remotely.
- The policy change may shift my perceived productivity negatively.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Data Scientist (San Francisco)
Age: 44 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I need flexible hours to patch cultural gaps and cope with global teams.
- I'd be less effective under a strict location policy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Project Manager (Houston)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Managing remote teams was a strength developed during the pandemic.
- Returning strictly local could diminish project scope and success.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 2: $8000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $12000000)
Year 3: $8000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $12000000)
Year 5: $8000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $12000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $10000000)
Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $5000000)
Key Considerations
- Impact on existing teleworking employees and potential for job loss.
- Previous telework policies may obscure productivity measurement, affecting perceived savings.
- Legal and administrative tasks relating to employee removals and compliance checks.