Sen. Joni Ernst’s (R-Iowa) recent claims that only 6% of federal employees work in person full-time, while nearly one-third work remotely on a full-time basis, have reignited debates about telework in the federal government. Her report, critical of remote work, aligns with the agenda of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), spearheaded by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. Yet data from the Office of Management and Budget, Government Accountability Office, Office of Personnel Management and other credible sources tell a different story, underscoring the numerous benefits of telework for productivity, cost savings, retention and operational efficiency. Given these are neutral, nonpartisan government sources, compared to Ernst who has long expressed a strong bias against telework, we need to discount her perspective and trust high-quality data.

OMB’s August 2024 report directly challenges Ernst’s assertions by providing a detailed breakdown of telework eligibility and participation. Approximately 50% of federal employees are ineligible for telework due to job duties requiring in-person attendance, such as managing public lands, conducting inspections or delivering healthcare services. Among those eligible, about 61% of work hours are conducted on-site, with many employees participating in hybrid work arrangements. This data contradicts Ernst’s narrative, which largely overlooks the prevalence and efficiency of hybrid work models.

How does this break down for individual agencies? A November 2024 GAO report evaluated the Farm Service Agency (FSA), IRS, Citizenship and Immigration Services, and Veterans Benefits Administration. Telework ranged from minimal at the FSA, at 11% of total hours worked, while at VBA telework stood at 66% percent.

Agency representatives shared with the GAO that shifts in telework policies have influenced recruitment, hiring and retention in diverse ways. The IRS noted that telework broadened their talent pool, enabling the agency to attract customer service representatives from regions far beyond their physical office locations. USCIS reported that their hiring data revealed a significant boost in applicant interest for roles where telework was an option. Conversely, FSA officials observed that restricted telework availability likely played a role in recruitment and retention difficulties, though they emphasized that compensation and workload pressures were more critical factors in these challenges.

The OPM’s report further highlights the positive impact of telework. The report notes that 72% of federal supervisors believe telework either maintained or improved productivity. Of federal employees with telework opportunities, 84% reported increased job satisfaction, attributing this to improved work-life balance. A Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey from OPM revealed that 78% of respondents agreed telework contributed positively to their work-life integration, making it easier for agencies to retain top talent. These findings align with private sector trends, where telework has been shown to reduce turnover and increase employee engagement.

Ernst’s claims about government inefficiency due to telework also fail to account for the strategic management of underutilized office space. While her report criticizes vacant federal buildings, the issue stems from outdated real estate practices rather than telework itself. The General Services Administration estimates that optimizing office space to accommodate telework could save over $1 billion annually in rent and maintenance costs. These savings illustrate telework’s potential to reduce government expenditures without compromising service quality.

Ernst and DOGE have argued that telework diminishes accountability, yet evidence contradicts this. The OPM report highlights that performance metrics and management systems ensure accountability in telework environments. Regular check-ins, collaborative technologies and clear goal setting allow supervisors to monitor productivity effectively. In fact, the flexibility of telework allows many employees to exceed traditional productivity benchmarks, debunking the myth that remote work fosters laziness or disengagement.

The alignment between Ernst’s telework criticisms and DOGE’s objectives raises questions about her motivations. DOGE leaders Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy have openly advocated for return-to-office (RTO) mandates as a means of reducing the federal workforce. Musk, a vocal opponent of remote work in the private sector, has characterized telework as incompatible with “hardcore” work. RTO mandates are viewed by DOGE as a tool to force resignations and downsize government operations. This approach appears more ideological than evidence-based, aiming to curtail government size rather than enhance its efficiency.

The proposal by Ramaswamy and DOGE to reduce telework and compel employees back to the office is remarkably short-sighted. Federal employee payroll, accounting for 2.2 million workers, represents just 1.8% of the government’s $6.1 trillion annual budget. While the plan assumes that mass resignations from such a policy would yield cost savings, the reality is far more complex. Critical agencies like the Department of Homeland Security require specialized expertise, and the loss of skilled personnel would result in significant operational gaps. Replacing these employees would involve lengthy recruitment and training periods, during which agency functionality would be impaired. Moreover, the cost of onboarding new staff would likely offset any payroll savings, leaving taxpayers no better off financially.

The disruption caused by mass resignations would also have profound implications for the quality and efficiency of government services. Federal employees are not merely desk-bound bureaucrats. They execute policies passed by Congress, oversee disaster response, administer Social Security, and ensure regulatory compliance in critical industries. An exodus of experienced staff would jeopardize these essential functions, introducing inefficiencies and delays that would ripple across the economy and society.

The human and economic costs of this policy would extend far beyond the federal workforce. For employees who remain, morale would likely plummet as workloads increase and institutional knowledge is lost. This would create a self-reinforcing cycle of inefficiency, as reduced capacity drives further attrition. Industries reliant on federal oversight, such as pharmaceuticals, defense contracting and infrastructure, would also face disruptions. Delays in approvals, audits and compliance checks would result in financial losses for businesses and state governments, compounding the economic damage.

The broader societal and economic impacts of dismantling telework would be severe. Industries dependent on federal oversight would face cascading disruptions, from delayed infrastructure projects to interrupted regulatory approvals. The resulting inefficiencies would increase the overall cost of federal spending, exacerbating waste rather than curbing it. Meanwhile, taxpayers would bear the financial and functional burdens of rebuilding government capacity lost to mass resignations.

In reality, telework offers a model for modernizing the federal workforce in ways that enhance efficiency, save money and improve employee satisfaction. The alignment between Ernst’s criticisms and DOGE’s agenda appears less about improving government and more about pushing ideological goals to downsize federal operations and roll back regulations, regardless of the broader consequences.

Telework has proven to be a valuable asset for the federal government, driving productivity, reducing costs, improving retention, and contributing to sustainability goals. While Ernst’s report aligns with DOGE’s agenda to promote RTO policies and downsize the government, it neglects the overwhelming evidence supporting telework’s benefits. Data from the OMB, OPM, and GSA provide a compelling case for preserving and optimizing telework as a strategic tool for modernizing federal operations. Rather than eliminating telework, policymakers should focus on leveraging its advantages while addressing any challenges through targeted management strategies.

Gleb Tsipursky, PhD, 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.

Copyright © 2024 Federal News Network. All rights reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.