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.
Sponsors: Sen. Kennedy, John [R-LA]
Target Audience
Population: Internal Revenue Service employees
Estimated Size: 74000
- The bill directly affects IRS employees since it changes the conditions of their work environment by requiring them to stop teleworking.
- The Internal Revenue Service, as of recent records, employs approximately 75,000 people, who would all be initially affected by this bill.
- The broader impact may extend indirectly to millions of U.S. citizens who are awaiting their 2020 tax returns to be processed, as the intention of the bill is to expedite the elimination of the processing backlog.
- Since the IRS services are primarily targeted towards U.S. taxpayers, the indirect effects of the bill would primarily be within the United States.
Reasoning
- The RETURN Act directly impacts the working conditions of IRS employees by mandating a return to on-site work after a period of telework. These employees number around 75,000, based on current data.
- Given the budget constraints, the policy aims to improve IRS operations by reducing the tax return backlog, which indirectly benefits millions waiting for returns, but must do so without exceeding the $100 million budget per annum over a decade.
- The policy is not expected to have uniform outcomes for all IRS employees due to varied personal circumstances, commuting challenges, and differing roles within the IRS.
- While some employees might appreciate the return to office for collaborative benefits, others might find the transition difficult, affecting their well-being scores differently over time.
- Indirectly, U.S. citizens waiting for tax returns could see changes in their well-being as they receive their returns faster, but this effect is muted in immediate terms.
Simulated Interviews
IRS Tax Examiner (Washington D.C.)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.5 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is understandable given the backlog, but it will be a challenge to balance work and family with increased commute time.
- Losing telework flexibility will increase stress levels, especially during tax season.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
IRS Customer Service Representative (Salt Lake City, UT)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about having to arrange long-term care for my parent due to lost telework flexibility.
- The return to the office might improve some work efficiencies but it doesn't come without personal trade-offs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
IRS Manager (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having the team back in the office will help us tackle projects more efficiently and with better cohesion.
- I do worry about some team members who enjoyed and thrived in the telework environment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
IRS Compliance Officer (New York, NY)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Telework allowed me more time for personal development projects, returning to the office cuts into that.
- Commuting in NYC is time-consuming and can be stressful. I'm not looking forward to that again.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
IRS IT Specialist (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Returning to the office will disrupt the balance I've found working from a quiet home environment.
- On the other hand, connecting face-to-face with colleagues on IT projects could increase morale.
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 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 10 |
IRS Senior Analyst (Chicago, IL)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A return to the office might help in training and mentoring young analysts directly.
- I fear the loss of personal time for commuting might reduce job satisfaction slightly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
IRS Data Entry Clerk (Austin, TX)
Age: 24 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Seeing colleagues will help ease my transition into this new job but the commute will cut into my leisure time.
- Teleworking allowed me to balance personal commitments more easily.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
IRS Field Agent (Miami, FL)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I prefer being in the field rather than seated behind a screen all day, so this policy aligns well with what I'm used to.
- It's easier to solve problems in person than through a chat window.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
IRS Financial Auditor (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 44 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy won't change much about my routine since I am often required on-site to handle audits.
- The more pressing concern is managing time between work, teaching, and family.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
IRS Legal Counsel (Denver, CO)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Returning to the office might allow more dynamic interaction with the team, but coordinating childcare will be a challenge.
- It's a blessing and a curse, better focus on work but harder at home. The dual demands are stressful.
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 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $100000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $150000000)
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
- The policy is temporary and dependent on the IRS certifying the backlog's elimination, meaning costs and savings are not fixed and could vary based on progress.
- Reversing telework may impact employee satisfaction and productivity, potentially offsetting anticipated savings or efficiency gains.
- The policy could serve as a precursor to longer-term evaluations of telework efficacy and its impacts on government efficiency.