Bill Overview
Title: Public Service Reform Act
Description: This bill establishes all employees of the executive branch as at-will employees who may be subject to any adverse personnel action with or without cause and without the right to appeal such actions. The bill also establishes specialized removal procedures for career employees (i.e., nonpolitical employees), abolishes the Merit Systems Protection Board, and provides certain allowances for whistleblowers and appeals to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Sponsors: Rep. Roy, Chip [R-TX-21]
Target Audience
Population: Executive Branch Employees of the United States
Estimated Size: 2100000
- The bill affects employees of the executive branch, meaning those working in various federal agencies.
- This includes both career (non-political) and political appointees.
- Federal civilian employment in the U.S. is approximately 2.1 million people.
- The Merit Systems Protection Board previously offered a process for challenging adverse personnel actions for these employees.
- With the abolishment of the Merit Systems Protection Board, all federal executive branch employees will potentially face changes in job security and grievance processes.
- Global numbers of government workers in similar systems might not be directly affected unless their country adopts similar legislation.
Reasoning
- With approximately 2.1 million federal executive branch employees impacted, we must prioritize interviews from diverse backgrounds such as age, gender, occupation, and geographical location.
- The policy's $150 million budget for the first year implies coverage limitations, likely providing services or adjustments for only a subset during initial implementation.
- The interviews should reflect varying levels of impact, including those unaffected directly due to roles, regions, or positions outside immediate at-risk categories.
- Major factors influencing wellbeing changes include job security perception, whistleblowing protections, and the abolishment of appeal processes for adverse actions.
- Some employees may benefit from increased managerial discretion if aligned with innovation goals, while others may fear repercussions without appeal rights.
Simulated Interviews
Department of Transportation Analyst (Washington D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about my job security with the policy allowing dismissals without cause.
- Despite the whistleblower protections, the lack of appeal options is concerning.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
IRS Auditor (Atlanta, Georgia)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy somewhat motivates me to prove my worth since performance is prioritized.
- However, I fear the lack of appeals process might lead to arbitrary decisions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
EPA Scientist (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is disheartening as it introduces instability close to my retirement.
- I'm relieved my role's impact might be minimal due to niche expertise.
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 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
HUD Policy Specialist (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This gives management flexibility, potentially driving innovations, but feels risky with my long-term job aspirations.
- The absence of appeals could jeopardize fair treatment in workplaces.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
NASA Engineer (Houston, Texas)
Age: 48 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our work relies heavily on stability and protected intellectual rights; this policy might jeopardize our focus.
- Despite the whistleblower allowances, confidence in job protection is undermined.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 9 |
HR Manager at USDA (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy increases responsibilities without adequate system supports for appeals.
- There's a pressure to align closely with upper management directives now.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 6 |
FTC Investigator (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The lack of grievance procedures can be concerning for fair workplace practices.
- In my role, investigative integrity relies on procedural fairness, which could be compromised.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Social Security Administration Processor (Boston, Massachusetts)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased uncertainty about job security under this new policy affects my career planning.
- I do appreciate the chance to be more dynamic, but it's outweighed by heightened instability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Veterans Health Administration Nurse (Kansas City, Missouri)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Patient care might suffer if healthcare staff feel insecure in their jobs.
- The removal of the Merit Systems Protection Board strips a safety net for us. It's troubling.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Customs and Border Protection Officer (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- At my career stage, I'm observing but I believe younger colleagues could feel anxious.
- The policy might incite nervousness without tangible benefits to performance.
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 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 2: $125000000 (Low: $85000000, High: $170000000)
Year 3: $100000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $140000000)
Year 5: $75000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $95000000)
Year 10: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $70000000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Key Considerations
- The costs and savings depend significantly on the transition management and the effectiveness of new processes.
- There is a potential for increased litigation due to perceived unfair dismissals or other adverse actions.
- The alignment with EEOC for appeals means added focus and potentially better processing of discrimination-related appeals.
- Potential impact on employee morale and retention needs monitoring.