Bill Overview
Title: RETURN Act
Description: This bill prohibits Internal Revenue Service (IRS) employees from teleworking during the period beginning five business days after the enactment of this bill and ending on the date on which the IRS certifies that the processing backlog for 2020 income tax returns has been eliminated. The Department of the Treasury may not obligate additional funds for the IRS until the date on which the IRS certifies the backlog has been eliminated.
Sponsors: Rep. Meuser, Daniel [R-PA-9]
Target Audience
Population: IRS employees
Estimated Size: 80000
- The bill affects IRS employees, specifically those who are currently teleworking.
- Telework is a common arrangement for many federal employees, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic increased remote work.
- The IRS has approximately 80,000 employees, not all of whom may be teleworking, but a significant portion may be.
- This can impact these employees personally through changes in work-life balance, commuting stress, and increased COVID-19 exposure.
- The families of these employees may also be indirectly affected by changes in their work schedules and locations.
- IRS operations might become more efficient, theoretically benefiting all U.S. taxpayers if the backlog is resolved more quickly.
Reasoning
- The policy directly impacts IRS employees who are currently teleworking. This group includes a significant number of employees due to the shift towards remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic.
- The mandatory return to office could affect employees' work-life balance, commuting times, and exposure to health risks such as COVID-19.
- The cost and budget for the implementation of this policy mainly involve its impact on IRS operations without direct financial incentives to employees, meaning the policy's primary expense is likely administrative and operational.
- While the policy is targeted towards approximately 80,000 IRS employees, not all may be teleworking, and thus the effect will vary. The policy may have broader implications, affecting families of IRS employees and potentially improving IRS efficiency, benefiting taxpayers.
- The current budget suggests significant constraints, allowing for an impact but within limits that prevent any major restructuring or significant direct financial implications for IRS employees.
Simulated Interviews
IRS Employee (Washington D.C.)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’ve really enjoyed working from home as it allows me to manage my kids' schedules better.
- Returning to the office will increase my childcare costs and commute time.
- I understand the need to clear backlogs but wish there was a hybrid option.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
IRS Employee (Austin, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’ve adapted well to working from home, allowing me to assist my elderly parents.
- The stress of commuting and fear of COVID-19 exposure will increase significantly.
- This mandate seems excessive when hybrid models could suffice.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 9 |
IRS Employee (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.5 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I love the flexibility of remote work. Moving to the office increases living expenses and stress.
- I am worried about the cost of daily commuting in an expensive city like San Francisco.
- The effect of an office mandate seems counterproductive to maintaining employee morale.
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 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
IRS Employee (Chicago, IL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.5 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I was looking forward to retiring soon, and teleworking is more comfortable for me.
- This change feels unnecessary and increases my desire to retire early.
- I understand the backlog issue but feel a phased return is better.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 9 |
IRS Employee (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a new father, teleworking helps me spend more time with my family.
- Returning to the office means more stress and less time at home.
- This feels like an avoidable disruption with alternatives like hybrid work.
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 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
IRS Employee (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.5 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’d rather work remotely, but an office return doesn’t disrupt my personal life significantly.
- I’m concerned about potential health risks and more routine disruptions.
- Over time, it might be tolerable, but it seems unnecessary given our tech capabilities.
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 | 9 |
IRS Employee (Salt Lake City, UT)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The return mandate complicates my childcare arrangements.
- Financially, it pinches hard with added commute and daycare fees.
- I'm not opposed to office work, but prefer flexible arrangements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
IRS Employee (Detroit, MI)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The office return exposes me to more health risks, which is concerning due to my asthma.
- Relocation costs now add burden since I was living rurally due to telework.
- Hoping the IRS finds ways to mitigate these impact areas.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
IRS Employee (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.5 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've been more productive teleworking, and I don't see any issues continuing this.
- An office return disrupts the efficient routines I've established.
- It seems like a step backwards against modern workplace trends.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
IRS Employee (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Telework has helped me balance my job with community service activities.
- Returning to the office feels unnecessary, just reducing available free time.
- We need these services at IRS but not at the cost of employee wellbeing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- A significant portion of IRS employees may be forced to commute, increasing operational costs temporarily.
- The prohibition of obligating additional funds until the backlog is cleared could extend and complicate fiscal planning for the IRS.
- The shift from telework may strain existing infrastructure, increasing operational costs or necessitating further spending on facilities.