Dr. Gleb Tsipursky – The Office Whisperer
Nirit Cohen – WorkFutures
Angela Howard – Culture Expert
Drew Jones – Design & Innovation
Jonathan Price – CRE & Flex Expert
- Large unions are pushing back and raising the alarm about the government’s return-to-office mandate and its implications for the future of work in Canada.
- The Canadian government appears to have made little effort to train its managers on the skills needed to adapt to the evolving workplace landscape.
- For taxpayers, the union’s lawsuit represents more than a labor dispute; it’s a stand against wasteful and poorly conceived policies that fail to consider the broader implications.
In a pivotal moment for Canada’s public workforce, large unions are pushing back and raising the alarm about the government’s return-to-office (RTO) mandate and its implications for the future of work in Canada.
Sharon DeSousa, President of the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), told me in an interview about spearheading a fight against the Canadian federal government’s mandate requiring public sector employees to return to the office three days a week.
As the representative of over 245,000 federal public sector workers and others across diverse industries, DeSousa is challenging the rationale, sustainability, and consequences of this decision.
The mandate is not just a workplace issue — it’s a taxpayer issue with wide-ranging implications for productivity, the environment, and the future of work.
The incoming Trump administration is already making it abundantly clear that the goal of a federal worker RTO involves primarily getting workers to quit. Canada taking this RTO step will not only hurt retention and recruitment, in part by design, but also engagement and morale.
DeSousa emphasizes that this fight is about more than the federal public sector — it’s about the evolving nature of work and the need for policies that reflect post-pandemic realities.
The Inefficiency of the RTO Mandate
The pandemic forced governments and organizations worldwide to embrace remote work, proving it to be a viable and often superior model.
PSAC’s members adapted seamlessly, DeSousa reports, maintaining productivity while benefiting from reduced commutes, improved work-life balance, and a more accessible work environment.
DeSousa points to compelling evidence from a Statistics Canada study spanning 2019 to 2023 that demonstrates higher productivity levels among remote workers.
In fact, the study showed productivity grew by 4.5% between 2019 and 2023 in the federal public service, growing quicker than the private sector, all while federal employees worked remotely.
Yet, the government’s RTO directive seems to disregard these findings.
DeSousa argues that the mandate is arbitrary, ignoring years of data supporting the efficiency of remote work and the broader advantages it provides.
It also exacerbates issues like traffic congestion and environmental degradation, creating unnecessary burdens for workers and taxpayers alike.
A Costly Burden for Taxpayers
Forcing public employees back to underprepared offices — often plagued by structural problems such as vermin infestations — highlights inefficiencies in the government’s approach.
Many government buildings are ill-equipped to accommodate the mandated numbers, leading to overcrowded and unsanitary conditions.
Meanwhile, the associated commuting surge has worsened traffic congestion, increased emissions, and strained urban infrastructure.
The costs of maintaining and retrofitting these buildings add another layer of taxpayer burden.
DeSousa suggests a more forward-thinking solution: repurposing underused office spaces into sustainable housing, which would provide long-term benefits to urban centers and generate steady revenue.
Instead, the government’s insistence on RTO prioritizes short-term political gains over the long-term well-being of workers, taxpayers, and cities.
Collaboration Myths and Managerial Challenges
One of the government’s main justifications for RTO is the perceived need for in-office collaboration.
However, research and practical examples debunk the notion that physical presence inherently improves teamwork.
DeSousa notes that many workers in office environments continue to collaborate through digital platforms like Microsoft Teams, even when sitting a few feet apart.
The real issue, she argues, is a lack of training for managers on how to facilitate effective remote and hybrid work collaboration.
International studies, such as a recent one from the U.K. focusing on public sector productivity increasing by 12% when working remotely, underscore the potential for remote work to enhance performance when managed correctly.
The Canadian government, however, appears to have made little effort to train its managers on the skills needed to adapt to the evolving workplace landscape.
A Fight for Accountability
The government’s lack of consultation with unions further complicates the matter.
DeSousa describes the decision as top-down, with no input from workers or their representatives, despite its profound impact on thousands of lives.
PSAC has responded with a multi-pronged strategy, launching a campaign to raise awareness and filing a lawsuit to challenge the mandate’s legality.
The lawsuit seeks to hold the government accountable for its arbitrary decision-making and lack of transparency.
A judge’s decision to allow the case to proceed signals a significant step forward, as the Canadian government has rarely faced such challenges on workplace policies.
For taxpayers, this case represents more than a labor dispute; it’s a stand against wasteful and poorly conceived policies that fail to consider the broader implications.
The Broader Impact on Taxpayers and Society
The consequences of the RTO mandate extend far beyond the immediate frustrations of workers.
Increased traffic congestion and pollution contribute to environmental and public health issues, creating hidden costs for future generations.
Meanwhile, the loss of work-life balance and flexibility undermines mental health — a growing concern in an era already fraught with stress and burnout.
Moreover, the mandate contradicts Canada’s broader environmental and economic goals.
As the country seeks to reduce emissions and adapt to a rapidly changing labor market, clinging to outdated workplace models hinders progress.
By embracing flexible work arrangements, the federal government could set a precedent for other employers, promoting innovation, sustainability, and equity across the workforce.
A Call to Action
Taxpayers, workers, and communities all have a stake in this debate. The decision to mandate RTO without evidence or consultation risks not only immediate disruptions but also long-term setbacks for Canada’s workforce and economy.
The Trudeau government must recognize that modernizing work arrangements is not a concession — it’s an investment in productivity, environmental sustainability, and public trust. For taxpayers, the question isn’t just whether RTO is necessary; it’s whether they can afford the costs of ignoring better alternatives.
