Bill Overview
Title: MERIT Act of 2022
Description: 2022 This bill revises provisions related to federal employment, including the furlough and removal of federal employees, the calculation of federal employee retirement benefits, and the length of the probationary employment period. Specifically, the bill repeals the process for taking action against a federal employee for unacceptable performance, accelerates the process for removal or suspension based on performance or actions, and prohibits grievances based on adverse personnel actions and reductions in force. The bill also authorizes an agency to remove a senior executive from the civil service for performance-related reasons, and it revises provisions covering performance- or conduct-related actions against senior executives. The bill authorizes agencies to furlough employees for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service, and it prohibits appeals to the Merit Systems Protection Board based on short-term furloughs or furloughs due to a lapse in appropriations (i.e., government shutdown). Additionally, the bill limits the retirement benefits of a federal employee who is removed due to a felony conviction related to their official duties by prohibiting felonious service from being taken into account when calculating the employee's annuity. The bill also authorizes an agency to order the repayment of a bonus or award when performance or conduct issues are discovered and such bonus or award would not have been paid had such issues been known when they were made. Lastly, the bill extends from one year to two years the probationary period for competitive service appointments and members of the Senior Executive Service.
Sponsors: Rep. Loudermilk, Barry [R-GA-11]
Target Audience
Population: Federal employees
Estimated Size: 2100000
- The bill affects federal employees by changing how performance issues are handled.
- It extends the probationary period for new federal employees.
- The bill alters the process for removing or suspending federal employees.
- Federal retirees are affected by changes in how retirement benefits are calculated.
- The bill affects those employees who receive bonuses and awards, as it authorizes repayment in certain conditions.
- The changes cover both general federal employees and senior executives.
- As of 2021, there are over 2.1 million federal employees.
Reasoning
- The MERIT Act of 2022 is designed to affect federal employees, especially by altering performance-related actions and employment status procedures. The impact varies by role and situation.
- Federal employees are a significant segment due to their numbers, economic influence, and the scale of changes imposed by the MERIT Act.
- The wellbeing impact stems from job security, career progression concerns, and financial implications (such as retirement benefits and bonuses).
- Probationary period extensions and changes in furlough procedures will create uncertainty in career stability, potentially affecting wellbeing.
- Our simulation includes individuals who will see varying impacts: some severe due to job loss or probationary extensions, others minimal because of unaffected roles or unaffected performance.
- A range of both junior and senior roles are simulated, as well as differing opinions and wellbeing states to reflect a realistic distribution of impact.
- We consider factors such as age, location, role, and personal opinions to evaluate the diverse perception and acceptance of these changes.
- Given the large federal landscape, the policy's direct impact might not be extreme for most, but the perception and stress related to potential changes could lower wellbeing initially.
Simulated Interviews
Administrative Assistant (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The changes could potentially make my job more insecure, which worries me.
- I worry about being furloughed without much recourse to appeal.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Senior Civil Engineer (New York, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The retirement benefit revisions are concerning for someone at my stage.
- I plan to retire soon, and unexpected changes can disrupt my plans significantly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 9 |
IT Specialist (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 19/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Extending the probationary period makes me nervous about my long-term prospects.
- More oversight on performance just after joining is stressful.
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 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
Policy Analyst (Austin, TX)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Efforts to increase efficiency are generally good, but the lack of appeal could be problematic.
- I don't feel the policy impacts me directly, but my colleagues are anxious.
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 | 8 |
HR Manager (Chicago, IL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It places more pressure on HR operations, changing how we handle performances and grievances.
- Near-retirement employees will scrutinize these changes especially closely.
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 | 9 |
Junior Research Scientist (Federal Employee location)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Performance accountability is important, but I want a fair process.
- Initial fear is present, but I believe it will stabilize.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
IT Manager (Boston, MA)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The removal process seems ruthless and could demoralize teams.
- Federal employment offered stability, which feels threatened now.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Branch Director (Seattle, WA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Responsibility added for evaluating bonus repayments is challenging.
- The broader implication of accountability is necessary but carelessly handled.
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 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Junior Attorney (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support accountability in federal roles, but it has to protect rights regardless of efficiency aims.
- It might inadvertently suppress risks and bold advocacy.
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 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 10 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 10 |
Senior Executive Officer (Houston, TX)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 10
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am in support of measures that improve service efficiency.
- The performance-based removal process is necessary if handled justly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 10 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 10 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 10 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 10 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 10 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $20000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $30000000)
Year 3: $15000000 (Low: $7500000, High: $25000000)
Year 5: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $2500000, High: $10000000)
Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy could lead to increased removals of federal employees during the probationary period, affecting workforce stability.
- Recalcitrant employees or those underperforming might be more swiftly dealt with, potentially improving public sector efficiency.
- Employee morale could be negatively affected by increased job insecurity.