Two new bills introduced in the Senate threaten to reverse progress toward creating a more flexible, efficient, and satisfied federal workforce.
of Federal Employee Reinstatement Act and Federal Employees Retirement Community Accountability ActBills introduced by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana) would drastically cut pay and retirement benefits for federal employees who work remotely. These proposals threaten to make the federal government less efficient and ultimately cost taxpayers more.
The Return to Work Act aims to exclude federal employees who telework even one day a week from receiving pay increases and location benefits, a change that would particularly affect employees whose offices are located in areas with a high cost of living, depriving them of compensation that would help cover the cost of living in those areas.
“Locality allowances make up a significant portion of federal employee pay and provide an important buffer against regional cost-of-living disparities. By denying these allowances to remote workers, this bill creates an unfair divide between office-based and telecommuters, even though both contribute equally to the federal government's mission.”
The idea that remote workers are ineligible for location benefits is based on the false assumption that being physically in the office is synonymous with productivity — a mindset that is increasingly outdated. Recent Reports A White House Office of Personnel Management survey highlighted the significant benefits of remote work, revealing that 68% of frequent telecommuters expressed a strong intention to continue working, compared to only 53% of non-telecommuters. Additionally, engagement levels are significantly higher among remote workers, with 77% reporting strong engagement compared to 59% of office-based employees.
These findings underscore that remote work is not just a convenience, but essential to maintaining a motivated and committed federal workforce.
Supporters of the Cassidy Bill often cite underutilization of federal buildings as a reason to cut local salaries and retirement benefits. Government Accountability Office Report It revealed that some federal agencies are only using a fraction of their office space, with vacancy rates exceeding 90 percent in some cases.
But the focus on empty offices is misleading. It's a real estate issue, not an employee compensation issue, because it confuses building occupancy with employee productivity. Maybe government agencies should rent out their empty offices, and Congress should sell them, but that doesn't mean there aren't enough jobs.
In fact, remote work often leads to improved quality of work and customer satisfaction. According to an Office of Personnel Management survey, more than 84% of federal employees and managers report that telework has improved these areas. The federal government already has strong mechanisms in place to ensure accountability and performance regardless of where employees work. Because these proposals focus on the physical occupancy of office buildings rather than employees' actual accomplishments, they unfairly target remote workers who are successfully performing their duties from home.
Cassidy's other bill, the Local Accountability in Federal Retirement Act, seeks to remove local allowances from the calculation of retirement benefits under the Federal Employees Retirement System. Currently, local allowances can make up to 30 percent of an employee's salary and are included in the calculation of retirement benefits. This provision ensures that federal employees are fairly compensated upon retirement, reflecting the true nature of their years of service.
Excluding area allowances from retirement benefit calculations would have a serious impact on the economic security of federal employees, especially those who have spent their careers in high-cost areas. This measure is not only unfair, it is shortsighted. It could discourage talented professionals from joining or remaining in the federal workforce, especially in occupations based in expensive areas. Over time, this could lead to a brain drain, making it increasingly difficult for the federal government to attract and retain the skilled workers it needs to function effectively.
Beyond the direct harm these bills would cause to federal employees, they would have broader effects on government efficiency and taxpayer costs. While supporters of the bills argue that the cost savings will benefit taxpayers, the long-term impact could be much greater. Low competitiveness This could result in an inability to attract top talent, lower quality public services and ultimately lead to inefficiencies that cost taxpayers money.
In contrast to these regressive proposals, Telework Reform Act Offering a more balanced, forward-thinking approach, this bipartisan bill, introduced by Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (Independent-Arizona), seeks to modernize federal labor practices and enshrine flexible work agreements into law.
The Telework Reform Act preserves existing flexible work arrangements and requires agencies and employees to renew their telework agreements annually to ensure that these arrangements continue to meet the evolving needs of both agencies and employees. In addition, the Act mandates semi-annual surveys to assess the prevalence and impact of telework, and an annual review by the Office of Management and Budget. These measures help ensure that telework policies remain consistent with the efficiency and effectiveness goals of Federal operations.
The Telework Reform Act also supports military and law enforcement families by allowing federal agencies to hire military spouses for remote work positions outside of a competitive hiring process. This provision not only recognizes the unique challenges these families face, but also leverages a highly skilled and adaptable workforce and increases the diversity and talent of the federal workforce.
As these bills move through the legislative process, lawmakers must consider their broader impact: Federal employees are essential to our government, and they deserve to be fairly compensated for their work, regardless of where they work.
“Efforts to punish remote workers through cuts to pay and retirement benefits are not only unjust, but counterproductive. If enacted, these measures would undermine the federal government's ability to effectively serve the American people and potentially increase the burden on taxpayers in the long term.”
Dr Gleb Tsypursky is CEO of a hybrid work consultancy. Disaster Prevention Experts bestseller”Returning to the office and promoting hybrid and remote team“
