In the heated arena of election-year politics, the issue of federal employees working remotely has become an unexpected battleground.

Recent accusations by House Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) against the Biden administration highlight a growing trend of politicization of workplace policies. This not only diverts attention from factual decision-making but also risks undermining productivity, engagement, morale, retention, and recruitment within the federal workforce.

In his interview with the Daily Mail , Comer accused the Biden administration of allowing telework for federal employees to secure their votes, saying that "Biden's main objective with the federal workforce, in my opinion, is to keep them happy at all costs so they'll go vote for him." While Comer asserts that he is not inherently against remote work, he demands data to justify it. He believes that, in the absence of such data, the administration's motives must be politically driven rather than based on what is best for the workforce and taxpayers.

The broader implications of these accusations are troubling. Decisions about telework should be grounded in empirical evidence and aligned with the goals of enhancing productivity, improving employee engagement, and maintaining morale. When such decisions are politicized, the focus shifts from what is best for the workforce (and the taxpayer) to what benefits someone's political agenda.

Comer’s claim that we lack data on remote work is simply untrue. The White House Office of Personnel Management’s annual report, for example, revealed a significant advantage to telework in terms of employee retention and engagement.

Fully 68 percent of frequent remote federal workers expressed intentions to remain........

© The Hill