In a move that could dramatically alter Wisconsin’s work culture, Republican legislators have proposed a bill that would require state employees to return to physical offices, curbing the flexibility that many workers gained during and after the pandemic.
The University of Wisconsin supports remote work as a privilege based on job performance and whether an employee’s duties can be performed effectively and securely off campus, UW Assistant Director of Media Relations Greg Bump wrote in an email to The Badger Herald.
“UW is driven by the responsibility to be good stewards of taxpayer resources, as well as being an employer of choice in Wisconsin,” Bump wrote in the statement.
Republican lawmakers have expressed concerns that remote work policies hinder oversight and accountability, according to a Feb. 11 statement. Returning to in-person work isn’t a partisan issue, Sen. Cory Tomczyk, R-Mosinee, said in the statement.
This bill reflects a wider trend among employers nationwide seeking to pull workers back to the office to boost productivity, a trend that Jirs Meuris, an assistant professor in the UW Department of Management and Human Resources, said is not backed by strong evidence.
“There’s actually an argument for more productivity with remote work because of flexibility and the elimination of commuting time,” Meuris said. “There’s really not good evidence that remote work reduces productivity, and bringing people back in doesn’t automatically make organizations more productive.”
The bill’s implications could extend to UW, where many faculty and staff currently enjoy remote or hybrid work arrangements, according to Meuris.
While it’s not entirely clear how the bill would apply to university employees, Meuris said he believes a tightening of remote work policies could cause some workers to leave.
“If people were hired with the understanding that there would be flexibility, and that’s taken away, they might start looking for opportunities elsewhere,” Meuris said. “It’s almost like an indirect layoff.”
Meuris said Madison is often ranked among the best places for remote work and warned that the bill’s consequences could reach beyond state agencies, potentially affecting the University of Wisconsin System, the local economy and the broader character of the city.
Distinguished teaching faculty in the UW Information School, Dorothea Salo, said that remote work has become critical to modern research practices, especially in collaborative, data-driven academic environments.
“So much of our research collaboration already happens across geographic boundaries,” Salo said. “It’s not about whether someone is remote; it’s about whether good processes for managing data are in place.”
During the pandemic, UW researchers adapted quickly, conducting focus groups via Zoom without compromising participant confidentiality, Salo said.
The move to limit remote work is unlikely to meaningfully change scholarly communication, which is now deeply rooted in digital platforms, Salo said.
“It amounts to the pointless practice of deciding which physical space people are going to download library materials from,” Salo said.
Beyond UW, the proposed return-to-office mandate could affect Madison’s economy in complex ways. Madison’s reputation as a remote-work haven has helped attract and retain talent, especially younger workers and families seeking better work-life balance, according to Meuris.
Meuris said that a forced shift back to offices could damage that reputation.
“If people want remote work and they can’t find it here anymore, they’ll leave,” Meuris said. “You’ll see less remote work and more commuting, which changes the whole dynamic of the city.”
Still, not all consequences of the proposed bill are negative, according to Associate Professor of Operations and Information Management at UW Xiaoyang Long. An influx of office workers could benefit businesses like restaurants and cafes that rely on daytime traffic, Long said in an email statement to the Badger Herald.
“This will actually be good for businesses near offices,” Long said in the statement.
But, requiring all employees to be in-person could create operational inefficiencies, Long said. Employees would spend more time commuting — time when they would otherwise be available for collaboration — and might experience more disruptions due to childcare or other personal obligations.
“This may result in more inflexible schedules and delays in knowledge sharing,” Long said in the statement.
One of the key questions underlying the debate is how to measure employee productivity fairly in different work environments, according to Long. Metrics such as ticket resolution speed and the successful implementation of initiatives are good indicators of performance, whether for remote or in-person work.
While there are challenges to remote work, like reduced informal interactions and potential cohesion issues, hybrid models offer solutions, according to Meuris.
“It’s less about whether remote work is inherently good or bad, and more about how you implement it thoughtfully,” Meuris said.
Whether the bill passes or not, it’s clear that the conversation around remote work, how we measure productivity, maintain collaboration and design work environments, is far from over, Meuris said.
