Ottawa remote work
Striking PSAC workers picket in front of the Treasury Board office in Ottawa, April 27,2023. The strike was over pay as well as remote work rules.
Read: 3 min

On Monday, civil servants in Ottawa will be thrust into a new world — or old world, depending on your perspective. Employees will be required to go into the office at least three days a week, a modest increase from an earlier two-day office policy.

If you were to judge by the response of their union and the workers protesting this week, you would think these employees are facing a great injustice. The Public Service Alliance of Canada has launched a policy grievance, two labour board challenges and an application for judicial review. The union is also encouraging individuals to file their own grievances. 

We hope these measures are not successful. 

Ottawa’s in-office requirement strikes a reasonable compromise in a situation where compelling arguments can be made for and against remote work. In this context, it is the union’s response that seems out of touch.

Arguably the most significant advantage of remote work is less time lost to soul-sucking commutes, freeing employees up for more productive and pleasurable tasks. 

A 2023 global study by the US National Bureau of Economic Research found remote workers saved just over an hour a day from not having to commute. They spent 40 per cent of this “saved time” on work, 34 per cent on leisure and 11 per cent on caregiving.   

These findings point to another key advantage of remote work: more flexibility for workers who shoulder caretaking tasks. 

This flexibility can be particularly important for women, who often provide more child and elder care. In the long run, it could boost women’s labour force participation. A 2024 Federal Reserve study showed prime-age women are less likely to leave the labour force when remote work is an option. 

More flexible work arrangements could also increase the workforce participation of individuals with disabilities, for whom commuting may be a burden.

But the drawbacks are also clear. 

Studies have found in-person meetings are important for fostering collaboration, creativity and culture, a 2023 Stanford University study says. They also help young workers develop the professional skills and networks that are critical to success. 

Where the jury is still out is on the question of productivity. Some post-pandemic studies have suggested employees who work from home are more productive; others suggest the opposite. Ultimately, it may be impossible to draw any broad conclusions, with much depending on the industry and firm.

The point of canvassing these well-trodden points is to illustrate the extent to which there are compelling arguments on both sides. This in turn makes a strong case for an employer to come down somewhere in the middle. 

Which is precisely what Ottawa has done. 

It has not ordered employees to come back to the office 100 per cent of the time. It has mandated 60 per cent (and may well have said 50-50 if a work week could be evenly divided). 

This Solomonian solution is reasonable precisely because it is a compromise. And it makes the union’s full-throated resistance seem especially unreasonable in response.  

The union says it is not against some employees returning to the office. Rather, it says it opposes the blanket, “one-size-fits-none” nature of the government’s directive. It is calling for collective agreements to require employees’ circumstances to be assessed case-by-case. 

If you are an employer of 10 individuals, this might be reasonable. If you employ more than 350,000 workers, as Ottawa does, it is not. It makes far more sense to impose a blanket policy and to allow individuals to be assessed (and granted exemptions) where good reasons exist.

Finally, it is worth noting this fight occurs against a backdrop.

The civil service’s size has exploded during the Trudeau years, from 257,000 workers in 2015 to 367,000 workers today. At the same time, polls indicate high levels of dissatisfaction with the services Ottawa provides. Interestingly, survey respondents report significantly higher levels of dissatisfaction with federal services than those provided by provincial or local governments.

Neither the government nor union have been making the case that their preferred telework arrangements will help them better serve Canadians.

When taxpayers are paying for all this work, some sensitivity to how remote work affects service levels would be nice to see. But then, one gets the impression that the public’s interests are not the animating consideration in this fight.