Dr. Gleb Tsipursky – The Office Whisperer
Nirit Cohen – WorkFutures
Angela Howard – Culture Expert
Drew Jones – Design & Innovation
Jonathan Price – CRE & Flex Expert
- Republican-led states are rolling back flexible work policies for government employees, despite evidence showing remote and hybrid work boost efficiency and reduce costs.
- Governors in states like Nebraska and Ohio are enforcing full-time office mandates, with critics arguing these moves prioritize politics over performance.
- Research shows remote workers are more productive, yet red-state leaders continue to ignore evidence in favor of rigid office policies.
In a sweeping return-to-office (RTO) push, Republican-led states are rolling back flexible work policies for government employees, ignoring mounting evidence that remote and hybrid work models enhance efficiency and cut costs.
Governors in Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin are issuing strict office mandates, aligning with the Trump-era federal RTO push — moves critics argue are more about political posturing than sound management.
Nebraska’s Gov. Jim Pillen, for example, has mandated full-time in-office work, affecting nearly 2,250 state employees who had been working remotely or hybrid. The order has ignited a legal standoff over labor contracts, sparking backlash from state workers.
“Who cares where our IT developers are sitting, as long as the work gets done?” asks Justin Hubly, executive director of the Nebraska Association of Public Employees, which represents over 8,000 workers.
His frustration highlights a broader, increasingly partisan debate over work location — one that has turned remote work into an ideological battleground rather than a productivity decision.
Ohio’s Gov. Mike DeWine has implemented similar measures, while Oklahoma’s Gov. Kevin Stitt signed an executive order demanding full-time office attendance.
In Wisconsin, Republican lawmakers, led by Speaker Robin Vos, have proposed reinstating pre-pandemic office levels, despite Democratic Gov. Tony Evers pledging to veto any such mandate.
Even Utah — once a trailblazer in remote work — has reversed course. Gov. Spencer Cox, who in 2019 dubbed himself a “televangelist for telework,” is rethinking the state’s flexible work policies.
Though he once praised telework for saving taxpayer dollars and improving air quality, his recent comments suggest a shift in priorities, signaling that remote work, while valuable, requires careful management — a nuance that blunt-force RTO mandates fail to acknowledge.
Politics Over Performance
By prioritizing ideological purity over pragmatic governance, red state leaders are sidelining substantial evidence that remote work reduces expenses, improves employee retention, and enhances productivity.
Instead of treating flexible work as a tool for efficiency, they’ve cast it as a front in the culture wars — risking long-term damage to government workforces.
Research overwhelmingly supports the benefits of remote work.
More stories for you
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) found that federal agencies saved millions in operational costs while maintaining or improving productivity with telework. Yet, despite these findings, several Republican governors are clinging to an outdated notion of workplace effectiveness, using executive orders to enforce full-time office attendance.
Their goal appears less about optimizing performance and more about reviving a nostalgic vision of the workplace — one that aligns with broader conservative efforts to shrink government and weaken public-sector unions.
History suggests that rigid RTO mandates come with real costs. Even President Biden’s relatively moderate 2022 hybrid return-to-office policy — requiring federal employees to be in-office at least 60% of the time — triggered a spike in workforce attrition.
A study led by Mark Ma at the University of Pittsburgh, using data from Revelio Labs, found that the policy led to a 26% increase in turnover among senior government employees and a 32% jump among highly skilled staff — a brain drain that disrupted key agencies.
Red-state RTO mandates are even stricter than Biden’s, raising the risk of replicating — and amplifying — this instability.
The Productivity Myth
Contrary to claims that remote employees are less efficient, a growing body of research demonstrates the opposite.
A recent study by Alessandra Fenizia (George Washington University) and Tom Kirchmaier (London School of Economics) found that public-sector employees working remotely were 12% more productive than their in-office counterparts.
Their research, based on extensive administrative data, attributed these gains to fewer distractions, reduced workplace interruptions, and greater focus.
The study also dispelled fears that remote employees lack accountability. Not only did they complete more tasks per day, but the quality of their work remained unchanged — debunking the notion that in-person oversight is necessary for effective performance.
Moreover, hybrid models — where employees split time between home and office — proved especially effective, balancing individual productivity with periodic in-person collaboration.
Evidence-Based Policy or Political Theater?
Decisions about government work models should be guided by data, not ideology. The federal government’s experience with hybrid work mandates showed that even moderate office requirements can trigger damaging turnover.
Meanwhile, international examples — such as the European Central Bank’s decision to extend its remote work policy for two more years — demonstrate that flexible models can sustain productivity while improving work-life balance.
Yet, in red states, the push for rigid office mandates appears driven by politics rather than performance. By dismissing the overwhelming evidence supporting remote and hybrid work, these leaders risk compromising government effectiveness in pursuit of a symbolic return to pre-pandemic norms.
Instead of using work location as a political cudgel, policymakers should adopt strategies that reflect modern workforce realities — prioritizing efficiency, cost savings, and employee retention over nostalgia-driven mandates.
