Return-to-office mandate will hurt taxpayers. Here’s why

Sharon DeSousa, President of the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), is leading a fight against the Canadian government’s mandate requiring federal employees to return to the office three days a week.

 

Representing more than 245,000 workers, DeSousa in her interview with me critiques this decision as arbitrary, short-sighted and ultimately damaging to productivity, taxpayers and the environment.

 

It also mirrors troubling policies from our neighbour down south, where the Trump administration is using federal employee return-to-office mandates to prompt resignations, threatening employee morale, engagement, recruitment and retention.

 

Remote work proved its effectiveness during the pandemic. Canada’s public sector employees adapted seamlessly, maintaining and even improving productivity while enjoying reduced commutes and better work-life balance.

A Statistics Canada study from 2019 to 2023 showed a 4.5 per cent increase in productivity among remote federal workers, outperforming gains in the private sector. Yet, despite these findings, the government’s return-to-office mandate disregards the evidence.

 

This policy imposes unnecessary burdens, including increased commuting, environmental degradation and urban congestion, all of which come at a high cost to taxpayers.

 

The physical condition of many government office buildings further complicates the issue. Numerous facilities are plagued by overcrowding, structural problems and even vermin infestations, rendering them unsuitable for the mandated influx of workers.

 

Addressing these deficiencies would require significant taxpayer investment, while the surge in commuting worsens traffic congestion, emissions and infrastructure strain. DeSousa suggests a more innovative approach: converting underused office spaces into sustainable housing.

 

This would address housing shortages, reduce maintenance costs and generate long-term revenue. However, the government has prioritized forcing workers back into inadequate offices over exploring creative, forward-thinking alternatives.

 

One justification offered for the return-to-office mandate is the belief that in-person collaboration enhances teamwork. However, this claim lacks evidence. Many office workers still rely on digital tools like Microsoft Teams for collaboration, even when working in the same physical space.

 

Research from the U.K. shows that remote work increases productivity in the public sector by 12 per cent when managed effectively. The real barrier to collaboration lies in a lack of managerial training from the Canadian federal government to adapt to the evolving demands of remote and hybrid work environments, representing a significant missed opportunity to modernize workplace practices.

 

The decision-making process behind the return-to-office mandate has also been deeply flawed. DeSousa describes the policy as a unilateral, top-down decision made without consulting unions or employees. PSAC has responded by launching a public awareness campaign and filing a lawsuit to challenge the mandate’s legality.

This legal action seeks to hold the government accountable for what DeSousa calls arbitrary and poorly justified policymaking. A judge’s decision to allow the case to proceed marks a significant step forward, as the federal government has rarely faced such scrutiny over its workplace policies.

 

For taxpayers, this lawsuit represents more than a labour dispute — it challenges wasteful policies that fail to consider their broader social and economic implications.

 

The consequences of the mandate extend far beyond the immediate frustrations of workers. Increased commuting leads to more traffic, emissions, and environmental harm, while reduced work-life balance contributes to stress and burnout.

 

These hidden costs undermine both public health and productivity, creating long-term challenges for Canada’s economy. Moreover, the mandate conflicts with Canada’s stated goals of reducing emissions and embracing innovation in a rapidly evolving labour market. By clinging to outdated models, the government is stifling progress and missing an opportunity to lead by example in adopting flexible, sustainable work arrangements.

 

DeSousa argues this battle is not just about federal workers but about how Canada approaches the future of work. Taxpayers, workers and communities all have a stake in this issue. The government’s insistence on a return-to-office policy, despite the lack of supporting evidence, risks significant disruptions to Canada’s workforce and economy.

 

The Trudeau government must recognize that modernizing workplace policies is not a concession but an investment in productivity, sustainability and public trust.

 

For taxpayers, the key question is not whether a return-to-office mandate is necessary but whether Canada can afford to ignore better, data-driven alternatives.

 

 

 

 

This article was first reported by The Star