In the wake of shifting workplace dynamics during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, federal employees find themselves at the center of a debate about telework. The U.S. Department of Labor is among the agencies navigating this terrain, with policies that increasingly pull workers back to the office. Aliyah Levin, president of AFGE Local 2391, which represents over 1,000 Department of Labor field bargaining unit employees in the western United States, provided a frontline perspective on this critical issue in her interview with me.
For many federal employees, telework emerged as a lifeline during the pandemic. Beyond safeguarding public health, it revealed unexpected benefits: increased productivity, reduced costs and greater work-life balance/employee satisfaction. The union embraced these advantages, negotiating a two-day-a-pay-period in-office memorandum of understanding that aligned employees’ preferences with demonstrated operational effectiveness.
However, the department’s push to mandate an increased return to the office threatens this balance. As Levin succinctly puts it, “Why go backwards?” Telework has proven its value, yet the proposed shift raises questions about resource allocation, workplace logistics and employee well-being.
Skeptics of telework often question whether remote arrangements maintain productivity, particularly in government roles where public trust is paramount. Levin counters with evidence. Metrics tied to investigations, audits and community engagement demonstrate that federal employees have met or exceeded performance goals, regardless of sitting in an office.
According to data from the White House Office of Personnel Management, employees who work remotely frequently report higher engagement levels — 77 percent versus 59 percent among primarily in-office workers. Moreover, 68 percent of frequent teleworkers say they plan to stay in their roles, compared to only 53 percent of their office-bound counterparts. These statistics highlight the critical role that flexibility plays in retaining talent and fostering long-term employee satisfaction.
Beyond retention and engagement, the benefits of telework extend to performance. More than 84 percent of federal employees and managers surveyed said telecommuting has improved both the quality of work and customer satisfaction. Given this data, the Department of Labor’s rigid return-to-the-office mandate seems both shortsighted and misaligned with evidence-based management practices.
“The numbers speak for themselves,” Levin says, pointing to the department’s success in fulfilling its mission remotely. She highlights the cost savings associated with telework, from reduced office space to minimized commuting expenses, emphasizing the broader financial implications for taxpayers. “If the work gets done, why pay for office space?” Levin asks, underlining a critical disconnect between telework’s proven outcomes and the insistence on physical presence.
In Los Angeles, the department, working with the union, took proactive steps to adapt office spaces to a hybrid work model. In her local office, just four cubicles accommodate 12 to 14 employees under a rotating schedule, with a shared conference room available for collaborative needs. This setup reflects the belief that office visits should be purposeful rather than obligatory.
Reversing this arrangement poses logistical headaches. “We thought telework was the future,” Levin explains, noting the impracticality of cramming employees into spaces designed for a hybrid workforce. The shift not only disrupts routines but also risks fostering dissatisfaction among employees who have built their lives around telework.
The impact of a full-time return to the office is deeply personal. For some, it’s a manageable adjustment; for others, it’s catastrophic. Employees with caregiving responsibilities, health concerns or long commutes face significant hardships. Moreover, many workers hired during the pandemic have never experienced a traditional office setup, making the transition even more daunting.
Levin warns of potential retention issues, particularly among employees for whom telework was a key draw. “A third or more of our workforce only knows remote work,” she says. Losing these employees could create gaps in institutional knowledge and workforce capacity, especially in agencies like the Department of Labor that rely on specialized expertise.
While Levin stops short of predicting specific outcomes, she raises a critical question: What happens to public services if employees leave or morale diminishes? Agencies like OSHA, a Department of Labor branch responsible for workplace safety, could see slower response times to complaints or fewer compliance audits. Over time, these gaps could have tangible consequences for American workers.
Yet Levin emphasizes that federal employees are dedicated public servants who take pride in their work. “They’ll get the job done,” she asserts, even under less-than-ideal circumstances. But sustaining this commitment requires policies that respect employees’ needs and the proven efficiencies of telework.
The debate over telework is far from settled, but Levin hopes for a resolution that balances operational needs with employee well-being. As she and her union colleagues continue to advocate for flexible policies, they serve as a reminder that workplace decisions have far-reaching implications—not just for employees, but for the public they serve.
For federal workers and their unions, telework represents more than a convenience; it’s a modern approach to achieving government objectives efficiently and equitably. Reverting to pre-pandemic norms risks undermining these gains and alienating a workforce that has shown it can adapt and thrive. The challenge now is for leadership to listen, evaluate the data, and chart a path forward that builds on the lessons of the past three years.
Gleb Tsipursky, PhD, serves as the CEO of the hybrid work consultancy Disaster Avoidance Experts and wrote the best-seller “Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams.”