Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
The bill defines “covered employees” as many federal workers who telework at least one day a week (or 20% under alternative schedules), with specified exemptions. It bars covered employees from receiving locality-based annual pay adjustments under 5 U.S.C. §5303.
Progressives emphasize equity and worker pay impacts
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill defines a focused substantive change to federal pay law—prohibiting certain teleworking employees from receiving annual pay adjustments and assigning them to a fixed 'Rest of U.S.' locality pay—providing basic definitional and statutory hooks but limited implementation, fiscal, and accountability detail.
The bill defines “covered employees” as many federal workers who telework at least one day a week (or 20% under alternative schedules), with specified exemptions.
It bars covered employees from receiving locality-based annual pay adjustments under 5 U.S.C. §5303.
It requires covered employees to be paid at the Rest of U.S. locality rate in effect when they become covered and prevents subsequent locality adjustments under 5 U.S.C. §5304.
Politically charged, likely to mobilize federal employee and agency resistance; simple text helps but narrow partisan appeal limits prospects.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill defines a focused substantive change to federal pay law—prohibiting certain teleworking employees from receiving annual pay adjustments and assigning them to a fixed 'Rest of U.S.' locality pay—providing basic definitional and statutory hooks but limited implementation, fiscal, and accountability detail.
Progressives emphasize equity and worker pay impacts
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize equity and worker pay impacts
Likely to oppose the bill as written.
It would be seen as penalizing employees who telework and reducing pay for workers in higher-cost localities, potentially worsening equity, recruitment, and retention.
Concerns about disparate impacts on caregivers, women, and diversity in hiring would be emphasized.
Mixed reaction: recognizes potential taxpayer savings and a policy signal favoring in-person work, but worries about workforce impacts and legal or administrative complications.
Would seek more data on savings, geographic effects, and transition details before firm support.
Prefers targeted compromises like phase-ins or limited exemptions.
Generally supportive.
Views the bill as a reasonable taxpayer-protection measure that discourages remote-work premiums and encourages in-person accountability.
Sees standardizing teleworker pay at Rest of U.S. as fairer to on-site employees and fiscally responsible.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Politically charged, likely to mobilize federal employee and agency resistance; simple text helps but narrow partisan appeal limits prospects.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize equity and worker pay impacts
Politically charged, likely to mobilize federal employee and agency resistance; simple text helps but narrow partisan appeal limits prospec…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill defines a focused substantive change to federal pay law—prohibiting certain teleworking employees from receiving annual pay adjustments and assigning them to a fixed…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.