British government workers revolt against return-to-office mandates

In the ever-evolving world of work, the recent stir among British government workers over office-return mandates shines a glaring spotlight on the pressing need for flexibility and understanding in workplace policies for U.S. federal workers.

The pushback from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) staff, with a resounding 73 percent voting to strike, is a stark indicator of the broader sentiment brewing among government professionals everywhere. They stand united in their plea for autonomy, advocating for the right to choose where they deliver their best work.

This wave of discontent is not confined to the UK. The U.S. is witnessing a similar tussle within its federal workforce. At the heart of the matter is telework and the delicate balance of work-life integration it offers.

Amid intense pressure from Congressional Republicans and the Democratic mayor of Washington, the Biden administration is pushing federal agencies to have their employees return to office settings. Yet federal worker unions stand in the way, protecting the rights of their members to flexibility.

For instance, the union for 42,000 Social Security Administration workers expressed opposition to the pressure put on employees at headquarters to return to the office. Rich Couture, council 215 president of the American Federation of Government Employees, strongly advocated for the continuation of telework, especially for field staff, as headquarters employees are recalled.

“Our members are anxious regarding the future of telework,” said Couture. “Many employees fear that agency executives and managers will make cuts to employee telework out of spite for their own telework having been reduced. AFGE will not tolerate any such actions.”

At the center of this storm is the Federal Service Impasses Panel, an independent entity tasked with resolving deadlocks in collective bargaining. The crux of recent disputes lies in the delicate dance between the desire for remote work among federal employees and the pressure applied from the administration for on-site presence. This conflict, as panel Chairman Martin Malin demonstrates, is among the most complex to navigate, revealing a stark divide in workplace preferences and organizational objectives.

The unfolding situation in the UK serves as a cautionary tale for policymakers and leaders in the U.S. The backlash there, along with Malin’s words, offers a clear signal that heavy-handed back-to-the-office policies can erode trust and goodwill in one’s organization. It is a call to action for workplace leaders to engage in meaningful dialogue with their teams, to understand their needs and concerns, and to craft policies that reflect a genuine partnership between employer and employee.

Federal workers in the U.S. cannot legally go on strike, unlike in the UK, over rigid return-to-office mandates or anything else. But the example of the UK, combined with the pushback by America’s federal unions on return-to-office mandates, highlights the dangers of top-down approaches in the U.S. federal government.

The recent White House Office of Personnel Management’s annual report offers compelling evidence that telework is far from a mere convenience. In truth, it is a linchpin in the machinery of government efficiency and employee satisfaction.

In the quest for top-tier talent, flexibility emerges not just as a perk but as a cornerstone of appeal. A staggering 62 percent of federal managers recognize telework as crucial to attracting adept professionals.

The message is clear: The allure of telework transcends mere convenience, embodying a value proposition that resonates deeply with the aspirations of the modern workforce. Any policy decision to ignore this trend could significantly hamper the government’s ability to onboard the innovators and problem-solvers of tomorrow.

Retention metrics further underscore the indispensable role of telework. Employees who telework with regularity boast a robust intention to remain in their roles, with a notable 68 percent expressing a steadfast commitment to their positions. This figure starkly contrasts with the dwindling retention intentions of those less engaged in telework, and it plummets for those entirely office-bound.

The implications are clear: Telework is not merely an optional benefit but a crucial strategy for nurturing a dedicated government workforce.

Engagement levels among frequent teleworkers stand at an impressive 77 percent, dwarfing the engagement rates of those tethered to traditional office settings. This discrepancy isn’t just numerical — it represents a palpable difference in how connected and invested employees feel towards their work.

Moreover, an overwhelming consensus among employees and managers alike (84 percent) points to telework as a catalyst for enhanced work quality and customer satisfaction. The inference is undeniable. Telework, when applied judiciously, can elevate government operations to new heights of efficiency and effectiveness.

So although the U.S. doesn’t need to worry about federal workers strikes, it does need to worry about labor disputes and harm to retention, recruitment, motivation, engagement, and productivity from harsh return-to-office mandates. The ongoing disputes over telework in the federal sector highlight the urgent need for policies that have buy-in from workers, rather than arbitrary dictates setting a minimum number of days in the office.

Dr. Gleb Tsipursky serves as the CEO of the hybrid work consultancy Disaster Avoidance Experts. He is the author of Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams.