Vermont's Return-to-Office Blunder Costs Millions

The state's unilateral push to force employees back to the office has backfired, leading to legal defeats and potential taxpayer liabilities.

Apr. 15, 2026 at 5:19am

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A photorealistic studio still life featuring a collection of premium office supplies and equipment arranged elegantly on a clean, monochromatic background, conveying a sense of tension and uncertainty around the financial implications of Vermont's failed return-to-office policy.A minimalist still life captures the tension and uncertainty surrounding Vermont's failed return-to-office mandate, which has left taxpayers facing potential liabilities.Columbus Today

Vermont's attempt to force state employees back to the office through a unilateral order has resulted in a legal defeat, with the state labor relations board ruling the administration unlawfully imposed the hybrid work standard without bargaining in good faith with the union. The move has now put the state at risk of having to unwind the policy, restore previous remote work arrangements, and potentially reimburse employees for costs associated with the return to the office. Additionally, the state has signed leases for additional office space to support the mandate, creating further financial obligations that may not be necessary.

Why it matters

This case highlights the risks of governments making sweeping workplace policy changes without properly considering legal obligations, employee needs, and fiscal responsibility. By ignoring established telework policies and bargaining processes, Vermont has created a situation where taxpayers may end up footing the bill for the administration's missteps.

The details

Vermont's return-to-office order affected roughly 3,000 state employees, many of whom had arranged their lives around remote or hybrid work that the state had allowed for years. The administration's own data showed that about 3,100 telework agreements were already approved, with 44% of employees teleworking and an average remote schedule of 28 hours per week. Rather than bargaining with the union over how to refine telework, the state chose a unilateral order that treated a long-settled arrangement as a management decision. This led to a legal challenge, with the labor board ruling the state had acted unlawfully. The state may now have to unwind the policy, restore previous arrangements, and reimburse employees for costs like commuting and childcare.

  • In 2023, the state's human resources leadership described the existing telework policy as effective since 2012.
  • The current VSEA contracts remain in force through June 30, 2026.
  • On April 1, 2026, the Vermont Labor Relations Board ruled that the administration unlawfully imposed the hybrid work standard without bargaining in good faith with the union.
  • In November 2025, the state signed leases for an additional 22,000 square feet of office space, costing about $430,000 in the first year and roughly $2.3 million over five years.

The players

Phil Scott

The governor of Vermont who issued the return-to-office order.

Vermont State Employees Association (VSEA)

The union representing state employees that challenged the administration's unilateral return-to-office policy.

Vermont Labor Relations Board

The state labor relations board that ruled the administration had unlawfully imposed the hybrid work standard without bargaining in good faith with the union.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Even Scott himself acknowledged the danger, saying taxpayers could be on the hook for commuting, child care, and other costs associated with returning to the office.”

— Phil Scott, Governor of Vermont

What’s next

The state may have to unwind the return-to-office policy, restore previous remote work arrangements, and reimburse employees for costs associated with the unlawful mandate.

The takeaway

This case highlights the importance of governments bargaining with unions, measuring the impact of policy changes, and solving problems before creating unnecessary financial liabilities for taxpayers. Vermont's missteps serve as a cautionary tale about the risks of making sweeping workplace policy changes without proper consideration of legal obligations, employee needs, and fiscal responsibility.