The debate around the value of flexible work for government workers has intensified, not only at the federal level but also in state government, with certain legislators adamant about mandating a return to traditional office settings.
In Wisconsin, this has come to a head, with Governor Tony Evers (D) threatening to veto any state budget that contains return-to-office mandates for state employees.
Using Wisconsin as a lens, it is evident that pushing government employees back into the office en masse is not only counterproductive but also short-sighted, ignoring the realities of modern work dynamics and evidence supporting flexible arrangements.
Wisconsin’s experience demonstrates that remote work enhances both productivity and equity.
Evers has highlighted how telework policies have allowed state agencies to attract a geographically diverse workforce, no longer tethered to Madison or Milwaukee. This approach addresses longstanding complaints about geographic inequality in state employment opportunities, enabling qualified individuals from rural areas, especially parents, to contribute to the state government without uprooting their lives.
Forcing these employees back to centralized offices would risk losing this progress, limiting the talent pool and marginalizing those who cannot easily relocate or commute.
Contrary to the claims of skeptics like Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R), who argues that remote work leads to diminished productivity, substantial evidence suggests otherwise.
A report by the White House Office of Personnel Management found that 72 percent of federal supervisors believe telework has maintained or even improved worker productivity. We can assume that federal and state government employees aren’t different in this regard.
Similarly, a Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey revealed that 84 percent of federal employees with telework opportunities reported greater job satisfaction due to improved work-life balance.
These findings align with observations from Wisconsin, where state employees have demonstrated effective performance despite working remotely. The perception that remote employees are “not doing it very well” lacks empirical backing and appears more rooted in outdated biases than in actual performance data.
Moreover, maintaining remote work options offers financial advantages that are hard to ignore. The General Services Administration has estimated that optimizing office space to accommodate telework could save the federal government over $1 billion annually in rent and maintenance costs.
In Wisconsin, similar savings are possible through reduced reliance on physical office spaces. A 2023 audit by the Legislative Audit Bureau found that the average utilization of state office workstations ranged from 0 to 34.5 percent, highlighting the inefficiency of maintaining large, underused facilities. Consolidating office space and allowing more employees to work from home would not only cut costs but also open opportunities to repurpose or sell unneeded properties, potentially generating additional revenue.
The benefits of telework extend beyond economics and productivity. It is a critical tool for workforce retention and recruitment, especially in an era when flexibility is a top priority for employees. A report from the Government Accountability Office found that agencies offering robust telework policies attracted more applicants and experienced fewer retention issues. Conversely, agencies with restrictive telework policies, such as the Farm Service Agency, reported significant recruitment and retention challenges.
In Wisconsin, the flexibility provided by telework has allowed agencies to compete for top talent statewide, a crucial advantage given the competitive labor market. Mandating a return to office work would undermine this progress, making state jobs less appealing to prospective employees.
Proponents of return-to-office mandates argue that in-person work fosters collaboration and a sense of community. But these concerns can be addressed without dismantling successful telework arrangements. Hybrid models, which balance remote and in-office work, have proven effective in many organizations, maintaining collaboration while preserving flexibility.
Wisconsin’s current approach, which allows employees to work from home part-time or full-time based on their roles and performance, exemplifies this balance. Mandating arbitrary office attendance, as in Vos’s proposal for three to four days a week, disregards the nuances of different jobs and undermines the trust between employers and employees.
The insistence on forcing employees back to the office also ignores broader societal shifts.
Remote work has become a norm in many industries — especially in the private sector — reshaping expectations about work-life integration. Employees value the time and money saved by not commuting and the ability to better balance personal and professional responsibilities.
In Wisconsin, where some employees live hours away from state office buildings, remote work is not merely a convenience but a necessity. Requiring these employees to commute regularly would increase turnover and disrupt the lives of dedicated public servants.
Wisconsin’s telework policies are working. They have improved equity, productivity and cost savings. The state’s government can continue to thrive by embracing modern work practices, or else revert to rigid, ineffective policies. Evers’s commitment to preserving remote work opportunities is not just a stand for practicality that saves taxpayers money — it is a stand for progress, equity, and the future of work.
Gleb Tsipursky, Ph.D., serves as the CEO of the hybrid work consultancy Disaster Avoidance Experts and authored the best-seller “Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams.”
