Vox Pop - Work from home is good for rural areas
Vox Pop
In December, Republican Assembly Leader Robin Vos stated that he planned to have return to office requirements for all state employees included in the 2025 state budget. Recently, President Trump signed an executive order requiring federal employees to return to offices as well. It seems that in the media, return to office vs working from home is a Republican vs Democrat issue.
I think it is important to reflect, though, on the potential cost of return to office policies for rural communities. Rural communities have struggled for the last 50 years to retain a workforce - industries have left, trying to find larger concentrations of workers and residents have left, looking for jobs in urban and suburban areas. Rural communities across the state have had declining populations for years. A stable workforce is critical to a vibrant community.
In recent years, especially with the challenges brought on by covid and the expansion of rural broadband, workers have shown that they can be effective and productive without being in a physical office every day. This can be a huge benefit to rural communities as they try to entice people to remain in or return to the community. It provides additional job opportunities for a variety of skill sets, educational background, and work experience. It allows for people to enjoy the advantages of living in small communities while still finding gainful employment that fits their skills.
Governor Evers has come out against the State proposal to require return to office, stating recently “We went out of our way … during the pandemic and postpandemic, to hire people in Rhinelander and all sorts of different places in the state because we knew they can work from home or work from an office that’s remote from Madison.' Regardless of whether you agree with Governor Evers in general, he seems spot on with this focus on hiring across all communities. Rural communities, and politicians representing them, have often stated that 'Madison' does not understand them if we want better representation, one of the easiest ways to get this is by allowing rural residents to be included as part of the workforce. If we require all of our state employees to be in office every day, it is only natural that most of the workers will live in Madison and Milwaukee.
I am a personal example of this - I have lived in Medford for 10 years, moving here for a management position with a local company. That company closed in 2024 - as I had established my family and a home, I was hoping to stay in the area. During my job search, looking for positions that matched my skills and interests, I mainly got job offers in Milwaukee area and LaCrosse. In similar circumstances, about 15 of my co-workers, Medford residents at the time, left to other more urban areas in search of jobs, taking their tax dollars, spending at local businesses, and participation in the community with them. I was lucky and able to find a position as an engineer with the State of Wisconsin that had a hybrid schedule allowing me to split time between a home office and Eau Claire. A daily 2.5 hour commute is not reasonable and so a 'return to office' policy would likely mean moving to Eau Claire.
Ultimately, the concern around ensuring accountable and effective state workers is legitimate. But many jobs and many workers can be accountable to their roles and responsibilities while working from a home office. Clarifying and upholding expectations on a job specific basis, including how many hours are needed at an office, is very different than an arbitrary 'return to office' policy that harms rural areas and continues to encourage people to move towards population centers. Work from home and hybrid scheduling provides an opportunity for workers who want to live in smaller communities to be able to while still accessing diverse jobs opportunities. 'Return to Office' sounds nice as a political sound bite, but this policy reinforces the stereotype that rural areas are not places of opportunity.
— Ben Koch, Medford