by Dave Soulia, for FYIVT.com
Vermont’s decision to end telework for roughly 100 employees in its Economic Services Division (ESD) has reignited a broader national debate over remote work in government—and the lack of systems to measure whether it’s working.
The change, implemented in November 2024, affected a small segment of the state’s workforce but has drawn outsized attention. Union officials and ESD staff have criticized the move as punitive and demoralizing, while state leadership argues the shift was necessary to improve service delivery and ensure accountability.
For Vermont taxpayers, the controversy exposes a larger question: how can government agencies verify that public employees working remotely are delivering measurable value?
A Local Decision with Wider Implications
The policy change applied to about 100 ESD employees, leaving roughly 130 staff in other divisions still eligible for some remote work flexibility.
Steve Howard, executive director of the Vermont State Employees’ Association (VSEA), warned that mandating in-office work could trigger a talent drain. “This is going to drive people who were dependent on that hybrid schedule to look for other opportunities that offer hybrid work,” Howard told WCAX.
But agency leaders said the return-to-office requirement came after concerns about application processing delays and client service issues. They argued that in-person work would provide greater visibility and improve collaboration for a division responsible for administering critical public benefits.
So far, no data has been released comparing ESD’s performance during its telework period to current in-office operations.
Across the U.S., Accountability Remains an Issue
Vermont isn’t alone in facing scrutiny over public-sector remote work. In multiple states, audits and investigations have uncovered time theft and oversight failures:
- California paid one employee $114,000 in salary over nearly two years of unreported absences while teleworking.
- Washington State auditors found a health district employee billing 869 hours—nearly $79,000—while secretly working a second full-time job.
- Wisconsin agencies self-reported “expanded reach” under remote work in a 2023 report, but those findings relied on agency feedback rather than independent audits.
Nationwide, there remains no independently verified audit showing productivity gains from state government telework programs.
What Could States Do Differently?
Rather than framing remote work oversight as punitive, experts suggest governments could create clear, measurable systems that ensure accountability without eroding morale. Among the strategies:
Define role-specific performance metrics
- Track tasks like benefits processed, cases resolved, or client calls answered per employee.
- Compare pre-, during-, and post-telework periods for objective data on output.
Use secure activity monitoring tools
- Time-tracking software or keystroke-independent monitoring can log active work hours while respecting employee privacy.
Conduct client service satisfaction surveys
- Assess whether service delays or improvements correlate with telework periods.
Regular, randomized quality audits
- Supervisors or third-party auditors could review a sample of work completed remotely for accuracy and timeliness.
Independent third-party performance reviews
- Audits conducted outside the agency help eliminate self-reporting bias.
These approaches would allow state agencies to base telework decisions on data rather than assumptions—and potentially avoid the cycle of acrimony between staff, unions, and management.
The Missing Metrics in Vermont
Vermont’s ESD staff, in a rebuttal letter to the House Human Services Committee, described the return-to-office mandate as part of a “culture of blame and fear” permeating the agency. They argued that telework had no adverse impact on performance and claimed the shift was more about control than service improvement.
Yet the letter offered no specific productivity data to back up those claims—nor has agency leadership provided public metrics showing that in-office work improved outcomes. This lack of quantifiable information leaves both sides entrenched and taxpayers guessing.
Without hard numbers, the debate over public-sector telework risks remaining ideological instead of evidence-based.
The Bottom Line
Vermont’s decision impacted a relatively small segment of its workforce, but it highlights a national issue: state governments have yet to build reliable systems to measure remote work effectiveness.
For taxpayers, the question isn’t whether employees prefer telework, but whether it delivers equal—or better—service at equal or lower cost. Until governments establish clear metrics and audit processes, the controversy over remote work will continue to overshadow practical solutions.