Trump's "Return to Office" Order: The Opposite of DOGE?

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed last November ("The DOGE Plan to Reform Government"), Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy asserted that "[r]equiring federal employees to come to the office five days a week would result in a wave of voluntary terminations that we welcome: If federal employees don't want to show up, American taxpayers shouldn't pay them for the Covid-era privilege of staying home."

With Donald Trump's inauguration as president, that recommendation from Musk's and Ramaswamy's "DOGE" project --- a powerless advisory mill disguised as a "Department" of Government Efficiency --- actually got accepted. In a day-one executive order, Trump directed department and agency heads to "take all necessary steps to terminate remote work arrangements and require employees to return to work in-person at their respective duty stations on a full-time basis."

So, how "efficient" is that idea, really?

I'm a fan of terminating government employment, whether through resignations or firings. So long as those employees aren't replaced, it's a win for America. Not on "efficiency" grounds, though. I don't want the government doing what it does more "efficiently," I just want it doing less of what it does.

I'm also a fan of remote work in the private sector. If the work actually gets done, it saves employers money, saves employees time, and saves everyone unnecessary inconvenience.

In the government sector, well, see above --- I prefer government employment inconvenient, unpleasant, and expensive so that fewer people are willing to accept it.

But from a "government efficiency" standpoint, the "return to office" mandate is a disaster in conception and will likely prove a disaster in execution. Let us count the ways.

First of all, "efficient" employees are highly motivated to get the job done rather than mess around. The kind of person who will take on an unnecessary commute just to sit all day in an uncomfortable office is probably only motivated to collect a paycheck. In other words, the most "efficient" employees will be the ones most likely to self-terminate and return to the productive sector. I like that outcome, but "government efficiency" fans shouldn't.

Secondly, to the extent the departing "efficient" employees get replaced, they'll be replaced by the same kind of inefficient holders down of chairs who remain, lowering overall "efficiency" even more.

Thirdly, consider the costs to the taxpayer. Every government employee who works from home means less money spent on electricity, building maintenance, security screening at office building entrances, etc. Every government employee who comes to the office means more money spent on all those things. Not very "efficient."

Finally, consider the inconvenience to everyone, government employee or not. Traffic in Washington, DC and surrounding areas has been the subject of constant complaint for as long as I can remember. It's about to get much worse. A whole bunch of cars that came off the beltway and sat in the driveway starting in 2020 are about to start moving around again, gumming up the works and slowing everyone down.

Overall, none of that sounds very "efficient" to me.