What the British get right, and we don’t, about remote work

As the debate over remote work intensifies in the United States, recent developments in the United Kingdom offer a compelling contrast.

U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his government have taken a forward-looking stance on flexible work arrangements, rejecting the outdated “culture of presenteeism” that prioritizes physical presence in the office over productivity. This approach offers valuable lessons for U.S. government leaders, who are currently grappling with the future of remote work for federal employees and how best to structure post-pandemic work environments.

In the U.K., Starmer’s government has been vocal about the benefits of flexible work, with No. 10 recently condemning the “culture of presenteeism” as harmful to productivity. A spokesperson for Starmer emphasized that simply being in the office does not equate to working effectively. Instead, the focus should be on outcomes and productivity, regardless of where employees are physically located. The Labour government plans to formalize this approach in its upcoming workers’ rights policy, which will underscore the importance of home-working and encourage employers to balance flexibility with productivity.

This stance contrasts sharply with the situation in the U.S., where some lawmakers are pushing for a return to traditional, office-based work. This movement is exemplified by the Back to Work Act of 2024, a bipartisan bill spearheaded by Senators Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).

The legislation seeks to limit telework for federal employees to no more than 40 percent of their workdays per pay period, effectively compelling federal employees to return to the office. The bill’s proponents argue that this move is necessary to address concerns about productivity, the underutilization of federal office buildings, and the economic impact on local businesses that rely on office worker traffic.

However, the Back to Work Act embodies the same outdated mindset that Prime Minister Starmer’s government is actively working to dismantle. By imposing rigid limits on telework, this legislation fails to recognize the significant benefits that remote work has brought to the federal workforce.

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s annual report highlights these advantages, noting that 68 percent of frequent remote federal workers expressed a strong intention to stay in their roles, compared to just 53 percent of their office-bound counterparts. Engagement levels are also notably higher among remote workers, with 77 percent reporting strong engagement versus 59 percent among those who do not telework. These findings emphasize that remote work is not just a temporary solution but a powerful tool for boosting employee retention, engagement and overall productivity.

Moreover, the Office of Personnel Management report found that more than 84 percent of federal employees and managers acknowledged improvements in work quality and customer satisfaction due to remote work. These statistics clearly indicate that the effectiveness of the federal workforce does not hinge on physical office attendance.

Even so, the Back to Work Act focuses on forcing employees back into the office rather than on how best to maintain or even improve productivity. This approach overlooks that many roles within the federal government have been performed more effectively outside of the traditional office environment, where employees often face fewer distractions and can achieve a better work-life balance.

The Back to Work Act is not the only legislative effort aimed at rolling back telework. The Federal Employee Return to Work Act, sponsored by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), seeks to deny raises and locality pay to federal employees who work remotely. This additional compensation is crucial for those living in high-cost areas, as it helps offset the expenses of residing in such regions. By targeting remote workers, this bill essentially penalizes employees who choose flexibility, ignoring the demonstrated benefits of telework.

Cassidy also sponsored the Federal Employee Locality Accountability in Retirement Act, which aims to exclude locality pay from retirement benefit calculations for federal employees who telework. This would mean that workers who spent years earning locality pay to offset the high cost of living in certain areas would see their retirement benefits reduced simply because they worked from home during part of their careers.

Critics argue that such measures not only punish remote workers but also risk creating a talent drain, making it harder for the federal government to attract and retain skilled employees.

In stark contrast to the U.S. approach, the British government is focusing on what the office is truly for. Starmer’s government recognizes that not all roles require constant physical presence in the office. Instead, it is promoting a more nuanced perspective that allows employers to tailor work arrangements to the specific needs of different jobs and workers.

This flexibility is designed to enhance productivity, support worker well-being, and prevent the burnout that often accompanies rigid, office-bound work schedules. The U.K. government is also exploring a “right to switch off” policy, which would protect employees from being contacted outside of their contracted hours, acknowledging the dangers of overwork in a hyper-connected world and promoting a healthier work-life balance.

The Back to Work Act, along with the Federal Employee Return to Work Act and the Federal Employee Locality Accountability in Retirement Act, risks fostering an environment where employees are overworked, stressed, and less productive. By clinging to an outdated model of mandatory office attendance, U.S. leaders are ignoring the evidence that flexible work arrangements can lead to higher job satisfaction and better outcomes for both employees and the government as a whole.

Instead of doubling down on forcing employees back into the office, U.S. policymakers should be asking what the office is truly for in today’s work environment. The focus should shift from where employees are working to how well they are performing their duties. The pandemic has shown that remote work can be highly effective, and reverting to rigid, office-based work requirements risks stifling innovation and reducing overall efficiency within the federal government.

Ultimately, the U.S. government should take inspiration from the U.K.’s playbook and embrace flexible work arrangements that prioritize productivity, creativity and employee well-being. By moving away from a culture of presenteeism and focusing on the true purpose of the office, U.S. leaders can ensure that the federal workforce remains dynamic, resilient, and well-prepared to meet the challenges of the future. The sooner U.S. leaders acknowledge this, the better equipped the federal government will be to serve the American people effectively in the years to come.

Gleb Tsipursky, Ph.D., serves as the CEO of the hybrid work consultancy Disaster Avoidance Experts and authored the best-seller “Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams.“