Bill Overview
Title: Congress Leads by Example Act of 2022
Description: This bill authorizes the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (OCWR) to investigate alleged violations of occupational safety and health protections in legislative branch entities. The bill also provides certain employment-related protections to employees of such entities. The OCWR shall have subpoena authority to inspect and investigate occupational safety and health complaints in congressional offices and committees, the Congressional Budget Office, the Capitol Police, and other specified entities. The bill also imposes record-keeping requirements on such entities with respect to the enforcement of occupational safety and health protections. Additionally, these entities may not (1) retaliate against an employee for requesting OCWR action or for participating in an OCWR investigation, (2) fire an employee because the employee's wages have been garnished due to a debt, (3) retaliate against an employee for whistleblowing activities, (4) discriminate against an employee for being a debtor or bankrupt, or (5) retaliate against an employee for attending jury service. Other matters addressed in the bill include: authorizing the OCWR to seek, in appropriate cases when an unfair labor practice complaint is filed, court-ordered temporary relief from the practice, such as a temporary restraining order; excluding additional types of proceedings (e.g., proceedings involving discrimination claims) from confidentiality provisions that currently apply; and requiring employing offices in the legislative branch to enter mediation if requested by a claimant (currently, both parties must agree to enter mediation).
Sponsors: Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large]
Target Audience
Population: Employees of legislative branch entities in the United States
Estimated Size: 14000
- The bill directly relates to legislative branch entities in the United States.
- The primary individuals impacted are employees working within these entities, including congressional offices and committees, as well as other specified bodies like the Congressional Budget Office and the Capitol Police.
- The bill affects anyone covered under the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights jurisdiction.
- It ensures workplace safety, anti-retaliation, and anti-discrimination protections are enforced in these settings.
- Given the bill's scope exclusively within the U.S. legislative framework, potential global impact is negligible.
Reasoning
- The policy targets employees of the U.S. legislative branches, which is a very specific group and not a broad population.
- The budget constraints require a focus on areas with the highest impact and common issues within the legislative workforce.
- Given the bill's scope, focus should be on occupational safety, anti-retaliation, and discrimination within the legislative environment.
- The population size is relatively small (around 14,000 employees) so individual wellbeing can be more effectively monitored and managed than in larger populations.
- The diversity of roles within the legislative branch means different experiences and impacts based on job responsibilities and exposure to workplace issues.
Simulated Interviews
Capitol Police Officer (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I welcome the additional oversight on workplace safety, but I'm concerned about delays in enforcement.
- Protection against retaliation is crucial for officers like me who have been vocal about workplace issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Congressional Aide (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy gives me reassurance that I have a place to report misconduct and be taken seriously.
- Whistleblower protections are definitely a step forward, although I wish there was more focus on mental health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Field Representative for a Congressman (Boston, MA)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see how it affects me much, as most of my work is remote and away from legislative offices.
- Happy to see protections against wage garnishment-related terminations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Budget Analyst at Congressional Budget Office (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate the effort to ensure safety and fairness in our workplace.
- As a long-time federal employee, I've seen many rules come and go. Consistency in enforcement is key.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Chief of Staff for a Senator (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could improve retention by reducing employee burnout from unaddressed safety concerns.
- I'm skeptical about how quickly we'll see changes or improvements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
Legislative Assistant (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring harassment can be reported without fear is a necessary and welcome change.
- I hope this leads to more transparent processes when dealing with complaints.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Archivist at National Archives working for Congress (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe in maintaining a strong regulatory presence but have not personally seen many issues in safety.
- Hope this means better resource allocation for health and safety checks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Junior Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m relieved that retaliation protections are in place, which gives me more confidence in speaking up.
- I’m optimistic but want to see how effective this is in practice.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Capitol Hill Maintenance Worker (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 46 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Glad to see safety being addressed by policy changes, as physical work environments need constant oversight.
- Worried about whether the policy's implementation is thorough enough to really make a change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
Office Manager for State Representative Office (New York, NY)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These changes do not seem very relevant to my daily operations, but I value their intent.
- Wider application of such protections might be beneficial across all state offices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $5100000 (Low: $3100000, High: $7200000)
Year 3: $5202000 (Low: $3200000, High: $7408000)
Year 5: $5410080 (Low: $3413120, High: $7714320)
Year 10: $6005376 (Low: $3801024, High: $8398579)
Year 100: $107303066 (Low: $67882522, High: $150091747)
Key Considerations
- The expansion of OCWR's authority will enhance oversight and enforcement of workplace protections in the legislative branch.
- Ensuring non-retaliation provisions are enforced may require the establishment of clear guidelines and education for both employers and employees.
- Given the scope is restricted to legislative branch employees, the economic impact remains limited to this relatively small sector.
- There will be recurring costs associated with maintaining infrastructure and continuously educating OCWR staff and legislative employees.