Rep. Comer Reintroduces Bill to End Pandemic-Era Remote Work for Federal Employees

[Social Media]

 

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) has reintroduced a bill aimed at rolling back pandemic-era remote work policies for federal employees. The proposal, known as the SHOW UP Act, seeks to require federal workers to return to in-person office settings and reinstate stricter telework guidelines from 2019.

 

“The pandemic is long over, and it’s past time for the federal workforce to show up to the office to better fulfill agencies’ missions and serve the American people,” Comer stated in his announcement of the bill. As chair of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, Comer has been vocal in his criticism of the Biden administration’s approach to telework, accusing it of hindering government efficiency and performance.

 

Originally introduced nearly two years ago, the SHOW UP Act successfully passed in the House but failed to gain Senate approval. Comer’s renewed push comes amid broader discussions about the future of work within the federal government and rising tensions over potential policy changes under the next administration.

 

The proposed legislation would require federal agencies to reduce telework policies to pre-pandemic levels within 30 days. Additionally, agencies would need to provide Congress with retrospective studies within six months to evaluate the impact of hybrid work models on their operations. Comer’s insistence on these measures reflects growing skepticism among some lawmakers about the long-term viability of widespread remote work in federal agencies.

 

Meanwhile, the Biden administration has taken steps to secure hybrid work protections for federal employees. These efforts, which extend telework accommodations through 2029 for many roles, particularly in agencies like the Social Security Administration, aim to provide stability for employees who have adjusted to the flexibility of remote work. The administration has emphasized maintaining current telework levels, framing the policy as a pragmatic adaptation to modern workforce needs.

 

However, federal workers are bracing for potential disruptions tied to former President Donald Trump’s expected return to the White House. If Trump reassumes office, policy shifts could significantly impact federal employment practices. Notably, tech entrepreneurs Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, who have been tapped to lead Trump’s proposed “Department of Government Efficiency,” have outlined plans for extensive federal workforce layoffs.

 

As debates over remote work and government efficiency intensify, the fate of the SHOW UP Act remains uncertain. Should it gain traction, it could signal a dramatic shift in federal workplace norms, forcing thousands of employees to return to traditional office environments. For now, federal workers and agencies are navigating a rapidly evolving landscape with potentially far-reaching implications for their daily operations and long-term futures.

 

Based on a report by The Hill 2024-01-18

 

 

[stevenl]

Is remote wirk inefficient?

Are there enough working places?

I foresee major practical obstacles.

[Yagoda]

You have a job, you work where your employer tells you or you get a new job.

[Emdog]

If the work can be done from home at the same level as at an office, it makes sense to allow to do the work at home.

Working from home is one means to fight climate change: no energy spent in commuting, no resources needed to build new highways, light rails, autos, buses, motorcycles, bikes even footpaths.... along with all the vast amount of energy saved from no commuting. No loss of land for parking lots, highways, rail ways, etc.

The major downsides are to restaurants that depend on the lunch time crowd and maybe some negative unforeseen psychological impact due to lack of face to face interaction

[CallumWK]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

Is remote wirk inefficient?

 

Plenty of researches available that prove remote work is 10 - 20% less productive.

Only anti Trumpers will deny everything the Republicans introduce

[stevenl]

12 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

 

Plenty of researches available that prove remote work is 10 - 20% less productive.

Only anti Trumpers will deny everything the Republicans introduce

A very recent article here.

https://www.newsweek.com/remote-work-boosting-productivity-hindering-efficiency-2015980

 

From the article.

"While evidence suggests it has generally resulted in higher productivity ...."

So no, your productivity argument seems incorrect, as is your anti trump reasoning. There are drawbacks, but looks like you're on the wrong track.

 

 

[CallumWK]

12 minutes ago, stevenl said:

A very recent article here.

https://www.newsweek.com/remote-work-boosting-productivity-hindering-efficiency-2015980

 

From the article.

"While evidence suggests it has generally resulted in higher productivity ...."

So no, your productivity argument seems incorrect, as is your anti trump reasoning. There are drawbacks, but looks like you're on the wrong track.

 

 

 

Maybe stop the selective reading to prevent making an invalid point.

 

From your own link.

 

While evidence suggests it has generally resulted in higher productivity, some studies indicate that working from home can have a negative impact on one's motivation and creativity.

 

And

 

Dr. Benjamin B. Dunford: Remote Working Heightens Risk of Miscommunication

These issues often lead to unresolved conflicts and misaligned expectations, hindering the team's ability to engage in healthy, productive discussions and effectively navigate disagreements.

[stevenl]

12 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

 

Maybe stop the selective reading to prevent making an invalid point.

 

From your own link.

 

While evidence suggests it has generally resulted in higher productivity, some studies indicate that working from home can have a negative impact on one's motivation and creativity.

 

And

 

Dr. Benjamin B. Dunford: Remote Working Heightens Risk of Miscommunication

These issues often lead to unresolved conflicts and misaligned expectations, hindering the team's ability to engage in healthy, productive discussions and effectively navigate disagreements.

As i said, your productivity remark seems not correct.

"There are drawbacks, but looks like you're on the wrong track.".

[CallumWK]

5 minutes ago, stevenl said:

As i said, your productivity remark seems not correct.

"There are drawbacks, but looks like you're on the wrong track.".

 

Weak very weak, or should I say woke?

[rudi49jr]

Not all employees are the same. Some thrive in an office work environment, with lots of contact with their co-workers, and others thrive working from home. And some enjoy working at the office half the time, and working from home the other half.
I myself have been working mostly from home for almost five years now, and it suits me much (much!) better than having to work at the office every day. I don’t have to commute 1,5 hours a day, which I have always found to be wasted time. That’s 10% of the time you’re awake every day right out the window.
I can also concentrate on my work much better, because there are way less distractions: no people walking around the whole time, no people talking around me the whole time. So I get a lot more done in less time.

And I really enjoy the freedom that I have very much. I can go for a walk when I want to, get some groceries, ride my bike, sit outside and enjoy the sunshine for an hour or so. If that means having to work an hour (or two) extra at night or in the weekend, I’m more than happy to do that.

That’s what I think it’s all about: what makes you happy. And happy people are usually more productive. Here’s a very interesting article:

 

https://stackoverflow.blog/2023/11/27/are-remote-workers-more-productive-that-s-the-wrong-question/

[candide]

The typical "solution in search of a problem" GOP B.S. for the MAGA gullible. 🤣

 

There is a lower share of teleworkers in the federal administration than in the private sector. As in the private sector, it's concentrated in computer and mathematical professions. Good luck to the federal administration if these employees, whose skills are highly demanded on the job market, quit for another job.

 

Quotes from the CBO report.

In 2022, CBO estimates, 22 percent of federal employees usually teleworked, as did 25 percent of their private-sector counterparts.

The ability to telework is highly dependent on occupation. In 2022, federal employees were more likely than workers in the private sector to serve in occupations in which telework was common. In the computer and mathematical occupations, which employed a larger portion of federal workers than private-sector workers in 2022, for example, teleworking was most common. The rates of telework for people in those occupations differed by sector, though—37 percent for federal workers, compared with 56 percent for their private-sector counterparts in 2022. One reason for the much higher telework rate for private-sector workers might be that federal workers are more likely to be required to go to the office to access sensitive data.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60235#_idTextAnchor044

 

[Iron Tongue]

5 hours ago, stevenl said:

Is remote wirk inefficient?

Are there enough working places?

I foresee major practical obstacles.

Of course remote work for entire departments isn't efficient.

As for "enough working places" the Federal Govt has hundreds of office buildings throughout the US, where the largest group of employees are the maintenance & cleaning staff. 

...and just announced today, Federal workers are demanding 32-hour work weeks while keeping their full salaries and benefits.

The US can likely save billions++ by firing these "empty seats" and selling off the excess real estate.

[rudi49jr]

32 minutes ago, Iron Tongue said:

Of course remote work for entire departments isn't efficient.

Why wouldn’t it be efficient?

[dinsdale]

The "pandemic" ended a long time ago. I can't believe this is a thing. Just another reason why the Democrats are finished in their current form. As for @candide your anti-MAGA rhetoric is so boring and predictable. Trump is just about to be the 74^th President of The United States. Like it or not this is the reality. Things in the US and globally are about to change. IMHO it can't be worse than the last four years. 

[dinsdale]

35 minutes ago, rudi49jr said:

Why wouldn’t it be efficient?

How efficient are empty office buildings?

[topt]

1 hour ago, Iron Tongue said:

..and just announced today, Federal workers are demanding 32-hour work weeks while keeping their full salaries and benefits.

Sounds like they picked that up from the UK public service workers.....

They were after a 4 day week on the same hours and pay.........

https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/pcs-demands-shorter-work-week-for-civil-servants

 

Amazingly temporarily slapped down

https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/starmer-no-fourday-week-for-civil-servants

[bkk6060]

I would think any of us older folks would support back to work. These remote workers seem to be weak babies, pampered do nothings. They think they deserve staying home.  

[johnnybangkok]

The type of job is all important in this debate.

 

When Covid hit, I like many business owners was forced into embracing WFH and on the whole it did very little harm, however my business requires a lot of telephone work and client meetings which were easily done through video conferencing. The new norm of video conferencing was wholeheartedly embraced by the larger business community and continues to this day. Once covid was over, I adopted a hybrid solution of 3 days in the office and 2 days WFH but I always felt (probably from my own personal preferences) that working in a big, bustling office surrounded by your peers was always a better solution so I quickly reduced this to 4 days in the office and 1 day at home. I consulted all my staff about this new change and the vast amjority were behind it, understanding the benefit of instant feedback from co-workers and the collaboration you can only get in face-to-face situations. I still have 2 staff who completely WFH (they have small children so it benefits them greatly) and on the whole they perform exactly the same as they would do in the office so I am still open to the idea IF the person has previously proved themselves. I'm not so keen on newbies doing this though.

 

I am fortunate that the type of work we do allows such flexibilty but I also think there is a lot of merit in people all working together in the same environment. As I said, it's all about the job and how effectively it can be performed at home so this one-size fits all approach isn't the way to go in my opinion. 

 

 

 

[candide]

24 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

The "pandemic" ended a long time ago. I can't believe this is a thing. Just another reason why the Democrats are finished in their current form. As for @candide your anti-MAGA rhetoric is so boring and predictable. Trump is just about to be the 74^th President of The United States. Like it or not this is the reality. Things in the US and globally are about to change. IMHO it can't be worse than the last four years. 

No rhetoric, unlike your current factless post. Just undisputed facts. 

 

Fact 1: there isn't anything abnormal with teleworking in the federal administration as its share is not higher than in the private sector. If it weren't efficient, the private sector wouldn't use it.  As to "the pandemic ended", it also did not stop the private sector to go on massively using telework, in particular for white collars.

Fact 2:  it is concentrated in the computing and mathematical functions , which employ a larger portion of federal workers than private-sector workers.  Telework is quite adapted to this kind of jobs that don't require contacts with the public. For people who spend their workday in front of a computer screen, it absolutely doesn't matter whether they are at home or in their office. Moreover, it allows to reduce office space expenses.

 

[rudi49jr]

2 hours ago, bkk6060 said:

I would think any of us older folks would support back to work. These remote workers seem to be weak babies, pampered do nothings. They think they deserve staying home.  

Jeez, no prejudice there, right? Why would you be a weak baby and pampered do nothing if you prefer working from home? Like I explained in my earlier post, it saves me a 1,5 hours commute every day, I can concentrate much better and get more done in less time, I have more freedom and working from home makes me a lot happier than working in an office.

By the way, I’m 66. So I would fall the in the category of what you call ‘us older folk’. All I can say is: speak for yourself.

[dinsdale]

3 hours ago, candide said:

it allows to reduce office space expenses

This is spin for leaving offices spaces empty which are being paid for by the tax payer empty. 

[candide]

21 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

This is spin for leaving offices spaces empty which are being paid for by the tax payer empty. 

More unsubstantiated assertion.

 

How do you know that all federal offices are owned by the Federal administration, or that unused federal properties cannot be rented to other organisations?

 

Why don't you come up with some facts to back up your claims, for a change?

[TedG]

I’ve been managing a remort work force since March 2020.   Over time people are leaning how to become slacker.  

[dinsdale]

8 minutes ago, candide said:

More unsubstantiated assertion.

 

How do you know that all federal offices are owned by the Federal administration, or that unused federal properties cannot be rented to other organisations?

Just more of your sad nonsense support for one of the worst presidencies in US history. How much is leased? How much is left empty at the tax payers expense? Show some figures. Support what your saying. 

[EVENKEEL]

Crazy how we've become too lazy even to make it to work. 

[candide]

27 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Just more of your sad nonsense support for one of the worst presidencies in US history. How much is leased? How much is left empty at the tax payers expense? Show some figures. Support what your saying. 

Talking about nonsense! 

 

I wrote that it "allows" to reduce office space expenses. I did  not make any claim on how much would be spared. At worse, it would at least reduce costs such as heating, electricity, cleaning, etc..

 

You, one the other hand made the precise claim that this spared space would just be left empty, for which you did not provide any evidence.

 

Anyway, that's not the main point. The main point is that teleworking has been maintained in the profit-oriented private sector at even a higher rate than in the federal administration, in particular in computing-related functions. There is nothing abusive or inefficient for the public sector to use this mode of organisation.

[JonnyF]

Good.

 

Get back to work you state funded grifters.

[candide]

50 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Just more of your sad nonsense support for one of the worst presidencies in US history. How much is leased? How much is left empty at the tax payers expense? Show some figures. Support what your saying. 

Reply 2. I asked Copilot.

Here's the reply:

Yes, the U.S. federal administration does generate revenue by renting out office space in its properties to other organizations[43dcd9a7-70db-4a1f-b0ae-981daa162054](https://www.gsa.gov/policy-regulations/policy/real-property-policy-division-overview/federal-meeting-facilities?citationMarker=43dcd9a7-70db-4a1f-b0ae-981daa162054 "1"). The General Services Administration (GSA) manages federal real estate and often leases out unused or underutilized office space to other federal agencies, private businesses, and non-profit organizations[43dcd9a7-70db-4a1f-b0ae-981daa162054](https://www.gsa.gov/policy-regulations/policy/real-property-policy-division-overview/federal-meeting-facilities?citationMarker=43dcd9a7-70db-4a1f-b0ae-981daa162054 "1")[43dcd9a7-70db-4a1f-b0ae-981daa162054](https://transportation.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=408027&citationMarker=43dcd9a7-70db-4a1f-b0ae-981daa162054 "2"). This helps optimize the use of federal properties and can generate significant rental income.

Would you like to know more about how the GSA manages these properties or any specific details about the rental process?

 

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on federal telework does mention that agencies have been able to optimize the use of their real estate portfolios by reducing the need for physical office space[](https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-106316 "1").

[dinsdale]

11 minutes ago, candide said:

Talking about nonsense! 

 

I wrote that it "allows" to reduce office space expenses. I did  not make any claim on how much would be spared. At worse, it would at least reduce costs such as heating, electricity, cleaning, etc..

 

You, one the other hand made the precise claim that this spared space would just be left empty, for which you did not provide any evidence.

 

Anyway, that's not the main point. The main point is that teleworking has been maintained in the profit-oriented private sector at even a higher rate than in the federal administration, in particular in computing-related functions. There is nothing abusive or inefficient for the public sector to use this mode of organisation.

Yep. Democrats are great and Trump is the Devil. The majority of Americans think they are better off now than four years ago etc., etc., etc. Fact is Trump is about to be the President of the United States of America AGAIN. This is a fact. How you handle this is up to you. So far you have shown yourself along with all the other progressive left supporters on here to be a very poor loser. Get over it and lets see how things go. Grown ups know how to move on. 

 

[stevenl]

10 hours ago, CallumWK said:

 

Weak very weak, or should I say woke?

You claim it's inefficient without any proof or source. I show you a link saying it's not inefficient but there are other negatives. You then claim I'm reading selectively and am giving woke answers.

 

Since I'm the one who is claiming without proof and not reading answers, woke apparently is a compliment in your eyes. I agree with that, thanks.