Red states reject data, force office mandates on government workers

Recent months have seen several Republican-led states and Republican legislators embrace a controversial push to mandate in‐office work for government employees. The evidence suggests that this move prioritizes partisan political agendas over evidence-based decisionmaking, especially given its alignment with the Trump administration’s federal in-office mandate.

Rather than rely on hard data that shows remote work can be as effective as or even more effective than traditional office arrangements, leaders in Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma and Wisconsin are issuing or promoting return-to-office orders that many argue are little more than political theater.

In Nebraska, where nearly 2,250 state employees in the largest agencies already work remotely or on a hybrid basis, Gov. Jim Pillen (R) has issued a full-time return-to-office order. Pillen’s move, which remains mired in a years-long legal dispute over labor contracts, has stirred a political firestorm.

“Who cares where our IT application developers are working — as long as their assignments are done on time.” said Justin Hubly, executive director of the Nebraska Association of Public Employees, which represents over 8,000 workers. Hubly argues that many state jobs could be performed remotely and laments how the issue has been needlessly politicized. His frustration echoes a broader national debate where every aspect of government work has become a partisan flashpoint.

Ohio’s Gov. Mike DeWine (R) has also ordered state employees to return to their offices. In Oklahoma, GOP Gov. Kevin Stitt signed an executive order mandating full-time office attendance.

And in Wisconsin, Republican lawmakers and House Speaker Robin Vos have introduced proposals to force pre-pandemic office attendance levels — even as Democratic Gov. Tony Evers threatens to veto any such requirement.

Even states that once championed remote work are rethinking their approach. In Utah, former Lt. Gov. Spencer Cox, who in 2019 famously called himself a “televangelist for telework,” is now reevaluating his state’s remote work framework. Whereas Cox once credited remote work with saving taxpayers millions and improving air quality, his recent comments underscore that remote work, though beneficial, requires proper oversight and support — a nuance that many red state mandates fail to acknowledge.

By prioritizing partisan posturing over data-driven decisionmaking, these leaders are sidelining compelling evidence that remote work saves money, reduces overhead and enhances employee retention. The political narrative has shifted remote work into a culture war issue rather than a strategic efficiency tool — one that could jeopardize the federal and state workforces in the long run.

Studies and surveys consistently demonstrate that remote work yields substantial benefits. According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, telework has saved agencies millions in operating costs while maintaining or even boosting productivity levels.

Yet although these findings point to a more efficient, agile workforce, several red state governors are clinging to outdated ideas. Executive orders mandating full-time office attendance seem less rooted in genuine concerns about public service performance and more in a desire to symbolically “return to normal” and trim government headcount — a political ploy reminiscent of earlier conservative attempts to weaken public-sector unions.

The damage from forcing employees back into the office is not just theoretical. Just two years ago, former President Biden’s more moderate in-office work mandate — which required federal employees to return to their offices at least 60 percent of the time — triggered a substantial increase in turnover among senior and highly skilled employees.

A groundbreaking study by Mark Ma and his colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh, using data from Revelio Labs, provided clear evidence of the losses incurred by this policy. In March 2022, the hybrid return-to-office directive caused turnover rates among senior employees (directors, supervisors or higher) to spike by 26 percent, as leaders with decades of institutional knowledge left for the private sector. Highly skilled employees experienced an even sharper 32 percent increase in turnover, leaving many departments struggling to maintain efficiency and continuity.

The current return-to-office policies being pushed in red states are even more stringent than Biden’s. They risk replicating or even outpacing the disruption caused by previous mandates without delivering any clear productivity benefit.

A recent study by Alessandra Fenizia of George Washington University and Tom Kirchmaier of the London School of Economics reveals significant productivity gains associated with work-from-home arrangements in the public sector. Their research analyzed detailed administrative data on employees alternating between home and office work. The findings showed that employees working remotely achieved a 12 percent increase in productivity compared to their in-office performance. This boost is attributed primarily to there being fewer distractions at home — fewer interruptions, less informal chatter and reduced office-based inefficiencies.

Critically, the study debunks the myth that remote workers are less accountable or diligent. Data showed no decline in the quality of work completed at home. In fact, remote employees handled more cases per day without any measurable increase in errors. The research also suggests that hybrid work models — where employees alternate between home and office — offer the best of both worlds. Workers enjoy the productivity boost of remote work while still reaping the benefits of periodic in-office interactions that foster team cohesion and collaboration.

Decisions affecting public sector work models should be driven by evidence, not ideology. Data from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, and independent studies all indicate that remote work, when implemented thoughtfully, enhances productivity, reduces costs and improves employee retention.

The painful lessons from Biden’s hybrid mandate demonstrate that even moderate in-office requirements can have disruptive consequences. In contrast, flexible, hybrid work models have proven successful across numerous sectors and geographies; they allow governments to leverage the best of both worlds without sacrificing efficiency.

Additional international examples support this approach. While some U.S. states are scrambling to force government workers back into crowded offices, the European Central Bank recently extended its remote work policy for another two years for its public servants, citing improved work-life balance and sustained productivity levels.

In an era when data-driven decision making is more critical than ever, red states’ insistence on a full return to the office seems to be driven more by political theater than by solid evidence. The experiences of the federal workforce — marked by significant turnover among senior and skilled employees under Biden’s moderate mandate — and the robust productivity gains documented in recent public sector studies suggest that flexible work models improve efficiency, thus saving taxpayers money.

For the sake of government performance and the well-being of millions of workers, public policy should prioritize evidence over dogma and adopt work models that truly enhance public service.

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.“