President-elect Donald Trump’s recent warning to federal employees to return to office work is encountering challenges due to union contracts and existing telework agreements. It’s a move that could spur legal disputes over the 2.3 million federal workforce.
“They’re going to be dismissed,” Trump stated about federal workers who resist the return to physical workplaces. He criticized a “terrible” and “ridiculous” agreement between the Social Security Administration and its union, which allows telework until 2029.
Enforcing such policies may be a tall order. Roughly 56% of federal employees are protected by collective bargaining agreements, and a record 10% of federal jobs are now fully remote. The General Services Administration has already started to decrease office space to save money, adding complications to the immediate return-to-office requirements.
A key part of Trump’s workforce strategy is to reinstate the controversial “Schedule F” executive order, previously revoked by President Biden. This order could remove employment protections from policy-related federal jobs, making it easier for political appointees to fire employees. This could impact thousands of career civil servants across various agencies.
The proposed Department of Government Efficiency, headed by business leaders Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, is tasked with the job of restructuring federal agencies and cutting spending. Ramaswamy suggests these changes could be enacted through executive action without congressional approval, referring to recent Supreme Court precedent. This commission aims to significantly reduce federal contracting and relocate agencies to encourage voluntary employee departures.
Leading congress members have shown support for Trump’s plans to downsize the workforce. Rep. James Comer (R-KY), likely to remain as House Oversight Committee chair, has expressed willingness to help codify executive actions aimed at reducing the federal workforce. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who is expected to head the Senate Homeland Security Committee, plans to work with Trump and his allies on initiatives to downsize the government. Other Republican lawmakers, including Rep. Mike Bost (R-IL) and Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS), have advocated for simplifying the process of firing VA employees, possibly setting a precedent for broader civil service reforms.
The American Federation of Government Employees, the largest federal workers’ union, strongly argues that “Telework and remote work have helped increase productivity and efficiency, maintain continuity of operations, and aid with recruitment and retention,” opposing Trump’s standpoint.
As of May 2022, current federal workforce data revealed that around 54% of federal employees held positions not eligible for telework, with 10% in fully remote roles. The remaining 36% have various hybrid work models, marking a significant shift from operations before the pandemic.
Legal experts point out that any broad return-to-office mandate must consider existing collective bargaining agreements and accommodate workers with approved disability accommodations under Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has traditionally recognized telework as a potential reasonable accommodation for disabilities, adding another layer of complexity to sweeping policy changes.
The American Federation of Government Employees advocates for a hybrid approach to work arrangements, cautioning that strict in-office requirements could ignite a wave of voluntary resignations. Research suggests that long commutes, less work-life flexibility, and high childcare costs could influence federal workers’ decisions to stay in their jobs. Industry analysts predict that return-to-office mandates could affect over one million American workers across various sectors.
Democratic governors and attorney generals are preparing legal challenges against potential changes to the federal workforce. State leaders like California Governor Gavin Newsom and Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison are collaborating with legal groups such as Democracy Forward to contest potential executive actions affecting federal workers. These endeavors are part of a wider strategy to counter federal policy changes using state-level authority.