Government regulation of telework could become so restrictive that it becomes impractical or unattractive for employees and employers. By imposing stringent requirements, the government might effectively phase out remote work, pushing government employees back to traditional office settings.
A recent article on varying work-from-home (WFH) standards within the state government of Massachusetts piqued my interest, although not because of the article’s main theme. Usually, the debate is between WFH and getting government workers to return to the office in greater numbers.
I rarely see detailed telework policies like those in Massachusetts. This made me wonder how government employers might regulate WFH and what impact that could have on the push to limit remote work and government jobs overall.
Recent Examples
The differing standards of WFH across departments in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are not surprising given the size of the government, which has over 45,000 employees. The Governor’s Office and the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s Office generally do not allow telework, the former because of the fast-paced nature of the work and the latter because of many public-facing divisions. On the other hand, the Attorney General and Treasurer’s Office offer staff up to three teleworking days a week.
In the State of Idaho, after a legislative bill limiting WFH to 15% of employees stalled, the Division of Human Resources implemented a policy limiting WFH to 20% of daily scheduled employees. Complaints from constituents prompted the bill and the policy.
The greatest complaint was that the public had a hard time getting someone to take their calls at state agencies, and when they did, calls suffered due to background noise and technology issues like poor internet connectivity. The policy explicitly states that telecommuting is not an employee right, and remote work and telework “can be terminated at any time without notice.”
Regulation Features
So what kinds of provisions do Massachusetts (MA) and Idaho (ID) stipulate for employees to WFH?
Put It in Writing
In MA, executive agency staff must agree to numerous provisions in writing, which is much more formal than simply getting your supervisor to approve WFH. The provisions include being available by phone and email, complying with all security and confidentiality directives, and not performing caregiving activities while working from home. There is no reimbursement for home operating, maintenance, and incidental costs due to WFH, and no employer liability for home property damage.
Videoconferencing Behaviors
In addition, several MA agencies have their own rules. The MA Executive Office of Health and Human Services lists 15 behaviors teleworkers must follow during virtual meetings. These include common sense tips like not playing video games, shopping online, and chewing gum loudly while on a Teams or Zoom call.
No Overtime Pay and Home Office Inspection
The teleworkers in the Treasurer’s Office are ineligible for overtime or other compensatory time while working from home. And in one of the most interesting provisions, Treasurer’s Office staff who WFH are subject to inspections of their home workspaces. The right to make an on-site inspection “at a mutually agreed upon time” is a new feature to regulate WFH but is understandable if the employees are handling sensitive tax information.
Minimum Attendance Per Day
Idaho’s provisions to regulate WFH are less numerous but are more top down than in MA, and they cover all state executive agencies for consistency. The major one is the daily limitation on out of the office employees of only 20%, meaning at least 8 out of every 10 state employees must report to the office regularly every day of the week.
While this figure excludes field staff and there are exceptions for rural residents, this is quite high, especially when national occupancy rates on Fridays, the lowest occupied day of the week, average only slightly above 30%, or just 3 out of every 10 workers. The highest occupied day of the week averages about 60%, which is still materially below the 80% ID wants to achieve.
Extra Approval Layers and Training
ID’s provisions require employees to get approval from both their supervisor and agency to work from home, adding an extra approval step compared to the usual supervisor-only requirement. Additionally, employees must complete formal telecommuting training before starting WFH, a requirement rarely mentioned in other WFH discussions.
Implications
What does tighter WFH regulation mean for government workers? There are three main implications:
Bureaucratic Occupancy Tracking
With the addition of written agreements, multiple approval levels, and mandatory training comes the need to track and compile all the administrative steps associated with WFH. This will likely require a new occupancy tracking function, possibly in HR and within each department.
This could be beneficial if it also manages daily office attendance and the use of shared office spaces. However, it could become an unresponsive internal bureaucratic measure if not properly resourced.
Road to Excess
As more requirements are added to WFH, it raises the question of how far it will go. Tools like camera monitoring and keylogging software in the private sector might also appear in the public sector. While unions might limit extreme productivity monitoring, the administrative steps in MA and ID suggest a trend. Only the most dedicated might comply, while others may opt out.
Possible Turnover in Government Ranks
The increasing requirements for WFH may prompt government workers to change jobs. However, it's more likely they will move to other departments or divisions within the government that have less restrictive policies, rather than leaving the public sector entirely.
ID hasn't seen a significant spike in turnover yet, although 20% of exit interviews at one agency did mention telework as a factor. Additionally, as previously noted, the private sector often imposes even stricter WFH restrictions.
Final Thoughts
Increasing regulations around remote work indicate a shift in the overall work environment. While WFH is likely to remain, there seems to be decreasing autonomy for individual workers, even in the public sector.
One of the main benefits of remote work is the increased sense of freedom—freedom from commuting, office distractions, and constant supervision. While government employees can still enjoy WFH, they now face more obstacles to do so. Some may find these additional steps overwhelming and choose to return to the office full-time. Perhaps that’s the intention.
While the growth of formal rules and regulations is common as employee benefits mature, there may be a concerning side to this trend. Once these rules are established, it’s not difficult to modify administrative mandates and oversight. A new governor or county executive could potentially make the regulations overly burdensome. To paraphrase a well-known quote, "the power to regulate is the power to destroy."
In the end, the future of remote work in the public sector will depend on finding a balance between accountability and flexibility. If managed thoughtfully, regulations can evolve to support both organizational needs and the autonomy that employees value.
