Polls Show: Despite Union Pushback, Majority of Vermonters Back State Workers' Office Return

The UNH poll reveals a different perspective from the general public. Just over half of Vermont residents—51%—support requiring state employees to work in-person at least three days per week.

When Governor Phil Scott announced in September that Vermont state employees would need to return to the office at least three days per week starting December 1st, the response revealed a striking disconnect—not between workers and management, but between state employees and the Vermont public they serve.

The Vermont State Employees’ Association (VSEA) has branded the policy a “return-to-commute“ mandate and released internal survey data claiming that 86% of state workers report being less productive in the office. Meanwhile, a University of New Hampshire poll found that 51% of Vermont residents support Scott’s decision, with only 35% opposing it. Among Republicans, support reaches 80%, and even among Independents, 63% back the policy.

The contrast highlights a fundamental tension: Vermont’s state workforce overwhelmingly prefers remote flexibility, but a majority of Vermonters—particularly those outside the Democratic base—want their public employees back in state offices.

The Union’s “Return-to-Commute” Messaging

The VSEA has consistently framed the mandate not as a return to office work, but as a “return-to-commute“—a term that did not appear in public discourse before this controversy. The framing is deliberate, emphasizing the burden of commuting rather than the nature of the work itself.

According to the union’s internal survey data:

• 86% of respondents report being less productive in the office

• 90% report they collaborate effectively remotely

• 83% say their performance improves with flexible work

• The union argues the policy disproportionately affects women and minority workers, citing that 42% of women identified hybrid schedules as a reason for staying in state employment, compared to only 27% of men

The union has also raised concerns about “added lease costs” as the state seeks commercial space to accommodate returning workers, questioning whether the mandate truly serves as “good stewardship of tax dollars,” as Governor Scott claimed.

What Vermonters Think

The UNH poll reveals a different perspective from the general public. Just over half of Vermont residents—51%—support requiring state employees to work in-person at least three days per week. The breakdown by party affiliation is particularly revealing:

• Republicans: 80% support the mandate

• Independents: 63% support the mandate

• Democrats: 52% oppose the mandate

• Overall opposition: 35% (20% strongly oppose, 15% somewhat oppose)

• Neutral: 13%

These numbers suggest that while state employees may prefer remote work, the majority of Vermonters—who fund state government through their taxes—believe public employees should maintain a regular physical presence in state offices.

The Space Crisis That Wasn’t Supposed to Happen

The December 1st implementation has now been delayed for some Agency of Human Services (AHS) employees due to what Secretary Jenney Samuelson described as “insufficient office space“ in Waterbury. An internal evaluation identified a gap of 254 desks at the Department of Health’s Waterbury office.

The shortage appears connected to the state’s January 2024 decision to sell the Zampieri State Office Building in Burlington and relocate the Department of Health to the Waterbury complex. At the time, AHS Secretary Samuelson stated this consolidation would improve collaboration through “operating under the same roof.”

What makes the current space shortage particularly puzzling is what legislators observed just six months ago. In May 2025, members of the House Corrections & Institutions Committee visited the Waterbury complex and described it as “substantially underutilized,” with one member noting “1 empty desk after another.”

The apparent contradiction—a building described as substantially underutilized in May that has insufficient space in November—reflects the difference between daily occupancy under remote work policies and total desk capacity needed when employees return simultaneously. The legislators saw empty desks because workers were remote; the current shortage emerges because the building may not have enough desks for all assigned employees to be present on the same days.

The Protest That Proved the Point

On October 23rd, state employees staged an “In-Office Day of Action“ at the Waterbury complex. Rather than a traditional protest, employees came to work in-person en masse to demonstrate that the facility lacked capacity for the mandate.

Less than two weeks later, on October 30th, Secretary Samuelson’s email confirmed what the employees had demonstrated: there was indeed a “seat gap” of 254 desks. The state is now seeking to lease additional commercial office space in Waterbury, though an AHS spokesperson “did not respond to a question about where the state intends to lease new office space” and said “it was unclear how many employees will not meet the in-person requirements.”

The Fiscal Question

Governor Scott justified the mandate partly on fiscal grounds, stating Vermonters “want and need us to be good stewards of their tax dollars” and that the policy would “make use of existing, underutilized state office spaces.”

The union has questioned this rationale, arguing that the mandate will force the state to incur new lease costs for commercial space—spending money rather than saving it. The state’s admission that it is “seeking to lease additional space” appears to confirm this concern.

The fiscal impact remains unclear. While the state would be filling space it already owns and maintains in Waterbury, it may simultaneously be adding new lease obligations for overflow capacity. Whether this represents good stewardship or poor planning depends partly on costs that have not been publicly disclosed.

The Missing Data Debate

Governor Scott’s video message to employees emphasized that “this move is more about connection, collaboration and visibility” and that “I know we do our best work when we’re together.” Administration Secretary Sarah Clark’s memos referenced the “extra spark as we re-engage” and the ability to “read the room.”

Critics note these rationales are based on conviction rather than data. The state has not released productivity metrics comparing remote and in-office work performance.

Interestingly, the state’s own 2025 Employee Engagement Survey found that the highest-scoring category was “Alignment” at 93.0%—employees understanding how their job connects to the organization’s mission. The lowest-scoring categories were “Growth” (60.8%) and “Communication” (65.2%)—whether employees feel their voices and ideas are valued.

The Downtown Business Factor

While not officially cited as a rationale, the mandate’s potential economic impact on downtown Montpelier has been widely discussed. Remote work has hurt downtown businesses, particularly restaurants. As one report noted, “Many are teetering on the edge, especially lunch establishments.”

Montpelier business owners have welcomed the return-to-office policy. Cindra Conison stated, “I was excited when I heard of it... It would mean more foot traffic.” Another assessment noted that “Montpelier is not doing well... hit hard... by the loss of foot traffic from state workers for the past five years.”

This creates an unusual dynamic: a workforce policy that may function partly as economic development for struggling downtown areas, with state employees serving as a source of customer traffic for private businesses.

What the Research Shows

National data on remote work effectiveness is mixed and context-dependent. The Owl Labs State of Hybrid Work 2025 report found that 69% of managers believe hybrid work makes their team more productive. However, outcomes vary significantly by job type, organizational culture, and implementation.

For Vermont specifically, the question isn’t just about productivity—it’s about what the public expects from government employees and how the state balances worker preferences with taxpayer concerns about utilization of public facilities.

For now, Vermont faces a situation where its state workforce and the public they serve hold markedly different views on how government work should be conducted. The space shortage has bought time for both sides, but it hasn’t resolved the fundamental question: In 2025, what does public service require—physical presence, effective outcomes, or both?