Efforts to end remote work in both public and private sectors are increasingly being framed as necessary for efficiency and cost savings. However, the real motivation may have less to do with productivity and more to do with control. For many workers, especially those in the tech industry and federal positions, remote work has proven to be just as effective—if not more so—as working in an office. The push to bring workers back often disregards the benefits of telecommuting and instead focuses on forcing compliance and reinforcing traditional power structures.
Remote work became mainstream during the COVID-19 pandemic, as businesses and government agencies had no choice but to adapt. What many companies discovered was that employees, equipped with a computer and an internet connection, could perform their jobs effectively from home. Workers saved time and energy by avoiding long commutes and found greater satisfaction working in home offices instead of cramped cubicles. Telecommuting improved work-life balance and, in many cases, increased productivity.
Remote work also offers significant cost savings for employees. By working from home, workers can reduce or eliminate transportation costs, including fuel, parking fees, and vehicle maintenance. For parents, remote work can cut down on child care expenses, as they are able to provide oversight during the day while maintaining their professional responsibilities. Additionally, the stress of office politics and long commutes often leads to increased health care expenditures for employees, as stress-related issues like anxiety, hypertension, and fatigue become more prevalent when working in traditional office settings.
Yet some leaders continue to push a return to office work under the guise of restoring efficiency. For example, President-elect Donald Trump recently announced plans to dismiss federal employees who opt to work remotely, calling telework arrangements a “gift to unions.” Trump’s incoming Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, claims the goal is to eliminate government waste and prompt federal workers to quit voluntarily. The assumption is that requiring a five-day office schedule will push many to resign.
These efforts rely on the idea that remote work is inherently unproductive. However, this narrative ignores evidence showing that workers often perform better without the distractions of an office. Studies have consistently demonstrated that telecommuters are just as efficient, if not more so, than their in-office counterparts. Furthermore, eliminating remote options could harm morale and retention. Forcing employees to spend hours commuting and money on transportation can lead to burnout, dissatisfaction, and resignations—which, ironically, could hurt overall productivity and increase hiring costs.
In the federal government, union contracts provide protections for hybrid and remote work arrangements. These agreements are legally binding, and overturning them could spark legal battles. Union leaders have pushed back against claims that telework is widespread or excessive, pointing out that most federal employees are not eligible to work remotely at all. Among those who do have remote options, hybrid schedules remain the norm, with workers splitting their time between home and the office.
For many workers, remote work is not a privilege but a practical solution to modern demands. Telecommuting reduces stress, improves job satisfaction, and eliminates unnecessary expenses. Employees can focus more on their work and less on the logistical challenges of office life. By forcing workers back into offices, leaders may not be addressing inefficiencies but instead asserting control, even at the expense of productivity and employee well-being.
In industries like tech, where work is almost entirely digital, the insistence on returning to the office seems especially misplaced. Employees with the tools to succeed at home—a reliable computer and internet connection—are often capable of achieving more than they could after hours spent commuting. Forcing them back into office buildings wastes time, energy, and resources while prioritizing management’s desire for oversight over actual outcomes.
Ultimately, the push against remote work reflects a struggle over power, not performance. Leaders framing their efforts as a return to efficiency are overlooking the evidence: When employees have the flexibility to work where they are most comfortable and productive, everyone benefits.
