In a recent opinion piece published in the esteemed Quebec newspaper Le Devoir, columnist Jean-François Lisée has launched a sharp critique against the growing trend of forcing employees back into physical offices, labeling it an "absurd war against telework." The article, which has sparked considerable discussion within Quebec and beyond, questions the motivations behind these mandates and examines the evidence surrounding remote work's impact on productivity and employee well-being.
The Federal Mandate and its Suspect Origins
Lisée begins by dissecting the federal government's decision to require its employees to be in the office four days a week by summer, with potential sanctions for non-compliance. He draws a parallel with Amazon's similar demands, sarcastically noting that these giants are setting the "gold standard" for human relations. However, Lisée suggests a more cynical motive: that these mandates are less about management and more about engineering mass resignations without the cost of severance packages.
"These diktats are so contrary to common sense that one suspects a scam," Lisée writes, implying that the government, like Amazon, might be using these policies to shed staff indirectly. He argues that after telework served as an economic lifeline during the pandemic, it is now facing a difficult period, seemingly driven by forces that prioritize traditional office structures over evolving work models.
The Hybrid Model: A Sensible Compromise
In contrast to the rigid mandates, Lisée points to the pragmatic approach adopted by financially savvy organizations such as major banks and the Mouvement Desjardins. These institutions have embraced a hybrid model, typically requiring two to three days in the office per week. Lisée asserts that this approach effectively balances team cohesion and the onboarding of new staff without the authoritarianism he perceives in the push for full office returns.
He emphasizes that going beyond this balanced hybrid model for white-collar workers appears to be more about bureaucratic authoritarianism than sound management. The core of his argument rests on the lack of conclusive evidence that a full return to the office is beneficial.
Examining the Productivity Puzzle
Lisée delves into the murky waters of telework productivity, citing a comprehensive review conducted by the Quebec government's Treasury Board, with assistance from the research group Cirano. The findings are far from one-sided. Of the six studies examined, three indicated positive effects, with productivity gains ranging from 8% to 13%. Conversely, three studies reported negative impacts, with productivity losses between 4% and 19%.
Interestingly, employees themselves overwhelmingly report higher productivity when working remotely. Among managers, a significant majority (58%) see no change in productivity, 27% report positive changes, and only a small percentage (9%) observe a decline. Lisée concludes that, based on this data, the overall balance of evidence leans towards a potential productivity gain with telework.
The Ottawa Paradox: Mandates Without Data
A particularly perplexing aspect highlighted by Lisée is Ottawa's decision to enforce its return-to-office policy before the results of a working group established in November 2024 to measure productivity are even available. This suggests a disconnect between policy-making and evidence-based decision-making.
"Rest assured, managers are not going in blind," Lisée states, before delivering a scathing indictment of their priorities. He argues that the decisions are not driven by the needs of the public or even the broader economy, but rather by the specific needs of businesses and property owners.
The Economic Pressures Driving the Narrative
Lisée connects the dots between the decline in downtown office occupancy and the financial strain on businesses and municipalities. He notes that telework has reduced foot traffic in city centers, leading to a doubling of office tower vacancy rates. Allied Properties, a major Canadian real estate giant with significant holdings in Montreal, has seen its value plummet by 20% in recent months.
Downtown Ottawa merchants have actively lobbied the federal government to compel public servants back to their desks. The ripple effects are undeniable: reduced revenue for cities, decreased ridership on public transit, and consequently, increased financial demands on municipal governments. This economic pressure, Lisée contends, is a primary driver behind the anti-telework sentiment.
Prioritizing Quality of Life and Work
The central question Lisée poses is: on what basis should telework policies be modulated? His answer is clear: the primary variable should be the quality of the work itself. However, he argues that if additional factors are to be considered, the quality of life of the employee should be at the forefront.
The evidence is overwhelming, he asserts, that employees prefer telework because it saves them time and reduces stress. He cites Statistics Canada data indicating that up to 40% of time saved through telework is reallocated to parental and family responsibilities. By eliminating commutes and reducing the time spent on personal care and preparation for work, employees can dedicate more time to their children, household chores, and even gain an extra twenty minutes of sleep.
Ultimately, Lisée's piece in Le Devoir serves as a powerful reminder that public policy should adapt to the needs of life and the economy, not the other way around. The "absurd war on telework" appears to be a misstep, potentially driven by economic anxieties rather than a genuine assessment of what constitutes the best approach for productivity, employee well-being, and the evolving nature of work in Quebec and Canada.