‘Back to the office’ is an immediate reality for millions of American federal workers.
President Trump’s plan to end remote work for federal employees was put into action last week when two million federal workers received an email asking them to return to the office or reply to the email with the single word “resign.”
Those who opted to resign would receive pay for eight months, until September 2025, according to Politico and various news outlets.
As one would imagine, Trump’s move to immediately return federal workers to the office has been met with steep criticism and open recalcitrance.
There are several ways this can play out legally.
The first possibility is that many Americans will support Trump’s plan to shrink the federal government and in turn, at least theoretically, save taxpayer money.
If Americans support the move, labour unions will lose leverage to block Trump’s plan.
An analogy can be drawn from the recent LCBO strike in Ontario where the worker strike (for higher wages and better job security) did not receive strong public support. The strike dragged on.
Without public pressure to end a labour dispute, Trump will have a clearer path to make sweeping changes. Time will tell.
In line with this, I suspect there will be some employees who were looking to leave the federal government anyway and will resign with the hopes of being paid out for the full eight months. Big employers always have some employees who can be enticed by a buyout option such as this one and Trump will have some quick victories with some employees snagging the offer.
Another path is that the majority of workers will openly resist this move and will not simply resign and instead will coordinate legal challenges en masse. This will wreak havoc on the workplace as workers launch grievances, make complaints to HR and use social media to fight back. There could be considerable disorder.
RECOMMENDED VIDEO
For those who choose to mount a resistance, there are several legal arguments to make.
First, for employees who need to work from home due to medical issues or childcare responsibilities, they could consider filing claims of discrimination and human rights challenges. The government would likely have real liability in cases like these, unless they make quick exceptions for those who need to work from home based on protected human rights grounds.
For example, if a person needs to work remotely because of a physical impairment, the government could be breaching human rights laws by demanding that person to commute to the office.
Secondly, unions will argue Trump’s order breaches employee contracts as well as negotiated collective agreements. Many federal workers have had work-from-home status for nearly five years since the beginning of the COVID pandemic. I can only assume that unions will launch grievances claiming the right to work from home has been negotiated with the government or, at the very least, condoned for five years.
Trump will need to quickly decide if he will befriend powerful labour unions in America or turn his back on them.
RECOMMENDED VIDEO
While a lot of different outcomes are possible, a few things are clear to me.
Public sentiment will play a big role on this issue. Trump is betting the public is on his side. If they are, then a lot of federal workers will lose their jobs – and soon.
The second sure thing? We are in for a year full of litigation and grievances.
Federal workers are organizing to launch a massive resistance to this return-to-work plan. They will empower their unions and, where possible, hire lawyers to file discrimination and bad faith claims. They will also seek public support via social media to push back on this plan.
Buckle up – the return-to-work rollercoaster is about to begin.
Have a workplace problem? Maybe I can help. Email me at [email protected] and your question may be featured in a future column.
The content of this article is general information only and is not legal advice.