The federal government’s recent decision to mandate public servants to return to in-office work for a minimum of four days a week has been framed largely as an issue of “collaboration,” “workplace culture” and “organizational cohesion.” But return-to-office (RTO) mandates are not merely a management preference. They constitute a significant labour policy intervention with implications for productivity, workforce costs, climate outcomes and the public service’s long-term capacity.
As such, they warrant a clear, publicly articulated evidence-based rationale. To date, that justification remains woefully lacking.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal public service underwent the most rapid operational transformation in its history. Core functions continued, services (new and old) were delivered and policy development advanced under almost exclusively remote-work conditions. Importantly, there is no credible evidence of a systemic productivity collapse during this period.
Available data from Statistics Canada suggests that performance remained broadly stable, with some indicators even showing gains. The federal government’s own Working Group on Public Service Productivity has emphasized persistent challenges in measurement but, importantly, did not identify remote work as a causal driver of diminished outcomes.
What remote work did expose were structural inefficiencies that predated the pandemic: paper-based approvals, meetings requiring physical presence without clear operational value, and workflows designed around proximity rather than outputs and clear deliverables. In many cases, remote work accelerated long-delayed modernization efforts.
Reverting to earlier models without a clear rationale risks reintroducing inefficiencies that remote operations helped to expose and correct.
Environmental impacts
The environmental implications of RTO mandates are also worth considering. Remote work is strongly correlated with reduced commutes and, therefore, lower transportation emissions. Statistics Canada estimates that widespread telework could reduce annual greenhouse-gas emissions by approximately 9.5 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, representing a per-worker reduction of roughly 32 to 59 per cent depending on distance and travel mode.
These findings are corroborated by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. At a time when governments are encouraging emissions reductions and sustainable mobility, policies that increase daily commuting without demonstrating necessity sit uneasily alongside broader climate commitments.
The public service’s RTO policy needs to balance employees’ needs, too
What return-to-office mandates mean for women in the workforce
Prepare to give workers more say in back-to-office plans: survey
From a labour economics perspective, the private costs imposed on workers are substantial. Commuting entails direct expenses — transit passes, parking, fuel, vehicle maintenance and professional attire — as well as significant time costs. A one- to three-hour daily commute amounts to approximately 250 to 750 hours per year, equivalent to six to 18 additional full-time work weeks spent in transit rather than on productive work or personal activity.
For the average federal employee, these costs translate into a meaningful reduction in effective compensation. Depending on commuting mode, mandatory in-office attendance can consume, by my calculations, an estimated three to four per cent of gross salary at the low end, and seven to 11 per cent at the high end. Measured against net income, the burden is greater still, representing closer to 10 to 15 per cent of take-home pay. Absent offsetting wage adjustments, RTO mandates function as a de facto pay reduction imposed through policy rather than collective bargaining.
Hybrid work arrangements are dominant
Labour market conditions further complicate the case for rigid in-office requirements. Across professional sectors, flexible work arrangements have become a baseline expectation rather than a discretionary benefit. Recent surveys of job postings indicate that hybrid roles now dominate, while fully in-office positions are increasingly avoided by jobseekers. The federal public service competes directly with private-sector employers for skilled labour in this environment.
This competition matters because public-sector compensation generally trails private-sector equivalents, particularly in specialized and technical roles. Over the past several years, telework and hybrid arrangements have served as non-financial incentives, supporting recruitment and retention without additional fiscal cost. Constraining these arrangements risks narrowing the talent pool and accelerating attrition, especially among early- and mid-career professionals.
Remote work has also helped address a longstanding structural issue: geographic concentration of employees. Federal employment has historically been centralized in the National Capital Region, limiting participation from Canadians elsewhere in the country and narrowing the range of perspectives informing national policy. Hybrid and remote work arrangements expanded access and representation. Re-centralizing the workforce risks reversing these gains at a moment when regional inclusion and institutional legitimacy are under heightened scrutiny.
Some proponents of RTO mandates argue that downtown economic vitality depends on the physical presence of public servants. These concerns are understandable, but they reflect a broader economic transition rather than a failure of workforce policy. Telework does not eliminate spending; it redistributes it across communities. Supporting adaptation through urban planning, economic diversification and targeted transition measures is a more coherent policy response than compelling workers to subsidize a specific commercial area.
Evidence-based argument required
Taken together, these considerations point to a central question that remains insufficiently addressed: What specific problem are return-to-office mandates intended to solve? There is limited evidence that they improve productivity, collaboration or service delivery in roles that can be performed remotely.
What is clear are the costs — to workers, to environmental objectives and to the public service’s long-term capacity.
Evidence-based decision-making is a foundational principle of effective public administration. It should apply not only to the policies governments design for the public but also to the internal workforce policies that shape institutional performance. If return-to-office mandates are to be sustained as a long-term strategy, they require a clearer articulation of objectives, trade-offs and expected outcomes than has so far been presented.
Put simply, if there is a compelling evidence-based argument behind RTO mandates, we have yet to hear it.
