The editorial did not provide any evidence or arguments regarding how public transparency is affected by where federal employees work. The argument that in-person work is critical to government efficiency is contradicted by evidence cited in the editorial regarding increases to worker productivity during the height of the coronavirus pandemic, when most Americans were working from home. And though it is critical that we find productive uses for vacant commercial real estate, including that rented by the government, it’s not clear why responsibility for this should fall primarily on federal workers.
Government workers account for less than one-third of workers in D.C., according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Moreover, remote work allows the federal government to reduce its commercial real estate footprint, saving taxpayers money, and opens up federal employment to folks who otherwise would not be able to afford to live in the D.C. area on a government salary.
Although there is a real debate to be had about the role of remote work in our economy and its impact on our business districts, ensuring that the vibes of downtown D.C. meet the standards of The Post’s Editorial Board is not a responsibility that should fall on the backs of federal workers.
Lincoln Davidson, Arlington
The April 19 editorial “Bring them back to the office” stressed that the Biden administration should start requiring greater numbers of federal employees to work in the office instead of at home in the post-pandemic era “for the sake of the city” and the local economy.
Though the vitalities of D.C., the commercial real estate market and local businesses are important, the editorial’s rationale for determining the balance between at-home and in-office work for federal employees was misplaced.
Agency decisions on the work locations of employees must be based first and foremost on ensuring that the government is prepared to tackle the nation’s biggest challenges and provide top-notch service to the public.
Our government, therefore, must build a system that prioritizes performance and customer service ahead of all other considerations, and that puts federal agencies in a position to compete for and retain top talent. Rushing headlong to bring people back to the office and unnecessarily eliminate flexibilities could backfire, resulting in a loss of valued employees and even greater reliance on more expensive contractors who are not bound by in-person workplace rules.
Though some agencies experienced a decline in service and efficiency during the pandemic, a sizable portion of our nation’s civil servants successfully provided vital services and economic assistance to the public and the business community while working remotely or on hybrid schedules. The government should learn from and build on these experiences, making use of flexibility when it serves the best interests of the government, employees and the nation.
The writer is founding president and chief executive of the Partnership for Public Service.
I was frustrated by the editorial supporting a reduction in telework and remote work for federal employees.
In my time as a federal employee, I’ve endured repeated shutdowns, furloughs, attacks on my agency and anxiety in my employment due to machinations outside my control. After my wife and I lived in D.C. for nearly 10 years, we were unable to buy a home when our first child was born and had to move to Maryland for a simple townhouse. City leadership has failed for more than a decade to resolve the housing challenges, forcing these choices upon us. Now, on days when I go into the office, I have to leave home by 6:45 a.m. so I can leave work in time to pick up my daughter from preschool. Every day that I don’t have to go into the office is a day that I work better — a day I don’t have to be stressed about missed time with my family or about making the commute work.
The audacity that federal workers should shoulder the burden of supporting downtown businesses as another unpaid public service is remarkable. Federal workers aren’t the majority of workers in D.C. Yet the editorial didn’t demand that private-sector office workers return.
Instead of demanding that federal workers sacrifice time and energy to boost downtown, the city should make fixes so we want to be there.
The April 16 Metro section had an ironic convergence.
The front page of the section included an article about the efforts of D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) and others to entice or force teleworkers to return to on-site work to rescue downtown D.C. from its economic doldrums. Quite likely a majority of those workers, and the ones most resistant to on-site work, are those with long commutes.
An article on Page 2, “What to know about upcoming Metro fare and service changes,” discussed Metro fare increases. The article made it clear that the greatest increases will fall on those with long commutes, in some cases reaching the maximum $6. Many of those with long commutes have to park at Metro stations, and thus are hit with an additional charge.
So, D.C. wants to entice commuters back downtown, but Metro is significantly increasing the costs for those very same commuters. Do you think it might have helped if the two entities had tried to work out a solution that benefited both?
Roger Burkhart, Gaithersburg
Regarding the April 18 Metro article “OMB tells agencies to cut back on telework”:
The unprecedented increase in so-called telework (working from home) in most federal agencies has resulted in a corresponding decrease in the level of public service provided by those agencies.
To cite just one egregious example, the Social Security Administration, which was the No. 1-rated federal agency for customer service in surveys of both applicants and beneficiaries, is now among the most despised agencies of the federal government because its customer service is so poor. Why has there been so deep a decline in the public’s perception of the SSA’s service? The answer is simple: the agency’s overly generous policies on working from home.
If it is indeed true that “almost half of [its] field office employees are continuing to work from home,” even as the agency falls further and further behind in the processing of its disability claims, and even as the complaints about the inability to talk with a live employee to resolve document issues continue to mount, then the Office of Management and Budget should not be giving suggestions to agencies regarding flexibility of policies about telework; it should instead be mandating changes in those policies.
Regardless of the “alarm” expressed by the federal unions, the time for returning to the office is clearly here. The days of telework should come to a screeching halt, at least until the customer service level of all impacted federal agencies has risen to an acceptable level.
