"I believe Dan Jones' Dec. 26 commentary regarding state employee remote work conflates physical presence with emotional presence. I strongly disagree with the idea that commitment to public service is rooted in shared place or shared fate. Equating remote work with diminished dedication is a false equivalence. Remote work has no bearing on whether someone is a committed public servant."
"Service is an attitude, not a location. Anyone who has worked in a service profession understands this. Remote workers have had the privilege of working with people across the country and around the world in nonprofit settings, serving communities they would never meet and whose "shared fate" they did not personally inhabit. Their level of care and dedication was no less real or effective because of distance."
"The suggestion that returning to the office is merely a matter of "discomfort" is dismissive and disrespectful. Yes, this is a work-life balance issue. Someone needing to work remotely in order to be present when their children get home from school is no different from someone leaving early or declining overtime because their child has a game that night. Both are choices that require coworkers to adjust. Neither reflects a lack of dedication to publi"
Physical presence does not equal emotional presence or commitment to public service. Commitment to serving the public is an attitude and a set of actions rather than a location. Remote workers can effectively serve communities, including those they never meet, with genuine care and dedication unaffected by distance. Lack of a permanent, standardized remote-work policy prompted departure after a decade of state service. Many remote employees routinely exceed expectations while some onsite employees lack awareness of broader impacts. Framing return-to-office as mere discomfort dismisses legitimate work-life balance needs and does not indicate lesser dedication.
Read at VTDigger
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]