Telework Jabberwocky

For the first time on a significant basis, the COVID-19 crisis introduced many Americans to telework.  It was not a new concept.  But it had an expanded application when the nation was attempting to take measures to abate the spread of the virus. Part of that was to use technology to isolate workers from others, both at work and enroute to and from the jobsite.  In hindsight, we now know that all of that was a questionable protocol.  Simple precautions such as those used in a flu outbreak would have been effective.  There is much to criticize about the response and the so-called medical advice we were given.

That said, however, it became the official practice of the Federal Government to greatly expand telework.  Telework among both federal workers and the vast number of federal contractors have been in effect.  Well-established protocols on telework include telecommunications and collaborative work products on-line, including the logging of work hours.  

A report to Congress in May 2024 showed that there are a total of 2,277,000 employees across Cabinet departments and other independent agencies.  Of those, 1,220,000 are required to work onsite full-time. About half, 1,057,000, are eligible to work offsite, yet only 228,000 take advantage of that opportunity.  That is quite small. Indeed, 54 percent of federal employees work onsite full-time. Only 10 percent work remotely with no expectation of regularly reporting onsite.  However, telework is now out of vogue, suggesting that employees are lounging around at home and not working at full capacity.  

Many were ordered back to the office last week.  Federal workers were offered early retirement packages if they elect to resign from their jobs.  Underlying all of this is the suspicion that those who telework are lazy and unproductive.  That is absolutely false. Most are simply taking advantage of the opportunity to avoid D.C. traffic by working from home.  I would.  Most would.  And like most of you, I would actually work, not hang out in my pajamas playing solitaire on my computer.  

The debate is underway with government reformers declaring telework as a huge problem while federal employee unions are taking the opposite side of that proposition.  But those who want to end telework should consider how doing so will actually harm efforts to reduce unnecessary federal spending and the burden that places on taxpayers.  

The Mayor of Washington DC, Muriel Bowser, major commercial real-estate interests, and local retail restaurants and businesses have lobbied diligently to end telework. Their complaints are not that federal workers are freeloaders.  But rather that businesses have suffered with a decline in foot traffic during COVID while government commercial properties are underused or empty of federal employees.  Those are justified concerns.  However, in considering the efficacy of telework, the debate has taken a decidedly anti-federal worker tone.  That is unfortunate, particularly if people are genuinely concerned about reeling in spending on a large workforce.

As anyone who works in business knows, the two areas that cost the most are personnel and the structures that house them.  So, it is logical to focus on how both can be more efficient.  What we do know is telework reduces the need for expansive real-estate acquisition in the Metropolitan areas.  There is scant evidence—beyond accusations by those who seek to make an issue of telework—that Federal employees who work from home are freeloaders.  That presumption is unsubstantiated by data, the occasional anecdote of irresponsible workers notwithstanding.

In truth, if America wants to rein in government spending on a large workforce, the first step is to eliminate unnecessary agencies.  Second, serious thought should be given to moving certain agencies of government to other locations in the US where their presence would be rational.  Why not move the energy department to Houston, Texas and the Department of Labor to Detroit, Michigan?  Might the Department of Interior be best served in the Midwest where there are a plethora of national parks and other public treasures?  That alone would encourage a reduction of the work force by those not wanting to relocate along with the hiring of new local government employees who would not have to jam roads on the Washington Metropolitan highways leading to massive federal buildings in the nation’s capital.  

If there were anything that could have an immediate effect on reducing costs, it would be reducing the number of government buildings.  Rational, responsible, and accountable telework policy revisions would do just that.  And it is frankly amazing that cost-cutters cannot see that as the first priority to reducing Federal spending.

Jobs like contracting, accounting, auditing, personnel, and help desks are ideal for telework.  Why would we want to house them needlessly inside the beltway?  The answer is we don’t need to at all.  Let’s have a rational discussion on telework, not jabberwocky.