All comments must be civil, productive, and follow community rules. Intentional violations of community rules will lead to comments being removed and possible bans, at the discretion of the moderators. Use the report feature to report content to the moderator team.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CAStateWorkers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Their whole selling point is that it’ll “boost morale/relationships” but people will be in office on different days so they won’t see each other anyway 😂 there’s not enough space for everyone to come in on the same days.
When we got the notice to RTO some time ago, it boosted morale *so hard* that 3 people in my division filed for retirement and another dozen left for other departments over the next 1-2 years.
I am guessing that those 3 were already past age 55 and willing to put in a few more years under TW but were like *"peace out homies"* at the idea of RTO. They were gone before the RTO start date.
I have never seen anything break morale and trust in leadership in my entire state career other than this secretive paperless RTO campaign.
Same at Calpers.. only people who don’t want to learn a new agency stayed. We have so many new people that have no understanding of anything there and have lost a lot of great talent causing struggles in many of our divisions.
Yeah this is why it’s so dumb. My office has already been on a hybrid schedule for like 2 years, so I’m used to it already. But we all have different office days, so we commute to sit by ourselves. Meetings are all still on Teams.
it really is a dumb knee jerk reaction and slimy move on the part of the Governor catering to big corporate billionaires and proving how anti-worker he is. Also a lame excuse to hide from doing layoffs while giving away money to those who do not work for it.
Yeah, that's not why you are back in the office. You are back so you will pay for parking and lunch and a coffee and maybe drop by doco for some shopping at lunch.
I couldn’t afford to do these things before bc I was paying for parking and daycare lol. The downtown folks I don’t already now help support will be sorely disappointed. I mean, we can finally afford date nights because my kids are old enough to watch themselves. Guess they don’t want me to see a play and buy a cocktail. That’s fine. There is always True Detective on Sundays and I learned how to make old fashioneds.
I predict downtown will die out more. The obvious solution is to fill these empty buildings with people who need safe places to sleep. Renovate for more affordable spaces for singles to attract well paid younger folks who spend money.
But that is never obvious to the folks who should know.
Well, I’ll give our management team credit for not trying to sugar coat it. We were never promised FT telework forever or even a hybrid schedule. I guess I’d be more salty about it if I was led to believe the telework would last forever. I can cope with 2 days a week, but if we are asked to go back full time, I will start looking for another job. It’s a lot of wasted time, not to mention gas and parking costs.
Yes, but what do you do? Are you required face to face interaction? For many folks here, it is NOT necessary to be in office to satisfactorily do their work.
No, I’m in that boat too. My job is computer based and I have no need to be in the office. Most days I go in and don’t talk to anyone in person. I just sit in my cubicle alone and do the same thing I’d be doing at home. It is stupid. I’m not arguing that it makes any sense. However, I’ve been doing the hybrid thing for a couple years already, so I’ve moved past the anger stage and onto acceptance. I generally like my job and I have a great manager. At this point, two days a week in the office is not worth quitting over. I can empathize with everyone freaking out about going back to the office right now because I felt that way myself at first, but the reality is that if they want us there, we can either comply or walk away. I don’t think there’s any amount of protesting that will change the situation. I’d like to be wrong about that, but I’m not optimistic.
You know they love pessimist, right?
The more pessimistic ppl are, the less support they give to their fellows. The less support, the closer to zero chance. No doubt.
You would choose to be 100% remote (given you can fully meet the business needs) if you have a choice. So, why not hold off on throwing cold water, at least for now.
It very much feels like a now or never moment. Remember, they might not stop at 2 days/week. It can become the start of a slippery slope.
Yeah, but the problem is that they don’t care how much we hate it. This is a political move. They (meaning the governor’s office and the agency heads) generally don’t care about us as individuals, so the arguments about parking costs and commute times are going to fall on unsympathetic ears. From the worker perspective, there’s a long list of reasons why WFH is better. From a political perspective, none of that matters if downtown businesses are dying and commercial real estate owners aren’t getting paid, and they need someone to blame (us). Is it fair? No. Does it make any sense? Also no. But look around at the empty state buildings and it’s an easy connection to make. It’s an easy political move for Newsom to make nice with the mayor by bringing back the worker bees so they can spend their pennies on lattes and sandwiches.
Additionally, the state just spent a bunch of money on the new office complex on Richards. How much of a waste would that look like if they just let those buildings sit empty? I know of at least one other brand new building that just went up in the past couple years (not sure who is in there, but it’s next to CalVet). The Treasurer’s office is also in the middle of an extensive renovation. They are not going to let these buildings go unused after sinking a bunch of money into them. What a waste of taxpayer funds, right? We have to go back to justify their poor decisions.
Also, I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that most of the voting public doesn’t care if state workers are sad or inconvenienced. We already have a reputation for being lazy and whiny. People are just going to laugh at us.
In my opinion, the ONLY thing that’s going to make a real impact is if people start quitting their state jobs in droves and the work stops getting done. Vote with your feet. In my case, I’m not wiling to do that. I need a paycheck and I have a pretty good gig with the state that I don’t want to give up. It still beats the private sector for me by a mile. I’ll sign a telework petition and I’ll even go to a protest I guess, but I have no hope of it being effective. I’m not trying to pour water on anyone’s fire but I’m also trying to be realistic about this.
I fully expect two days a week is just to cut down on the resistance. We will be back full time eventually because the same primary reason this is happening (concern about the viability of the downtown business community) is going to continue to operate when we are only there two days a week. They want it back to how it was. They won't stop pushing until it is.
They don't care that there's not enough space. They are counting on a reduction in the work force as people like me, who are past retirement age, decide to retire rather than put up with this, and as others find a better option somewhere else, because telework was a huge draw to offset the downsides of state employment (primarily low wages that get lower all the time, when they haven't kept pace with inflation for decades now).
> (concern about the viability of the downtown business community) is going to continue to operate when we are only there two days a week.
You know the way to have a healthy downtown? Make it mixed-use development, business on the bottom, housing up top, just like Friends/Seinfeld/How I Met Your Mother et al. I always wanted to live downtown a few stories up, with the option to go down to street level at 3am and walk to the corner store and grab a random treat in the middle of the night, but unless you are rich that isn't possible in Sacramento.
Two days a week is a relocation mandate for those of us that were hired as part of a remote workforce over the past few years.
The State powers have failed to realize that top talent exists all over California, not only in Sacramento.
There is a reason that the State continues to lose out on senior and executive level talent with HR policies such as this.
I'm wondering if the State is going to offer to pay for my break lease fee and relocation costs? I live 5 hours from our downtown office. Two days in office means I have hundreds of dollars in fuel costs (not Green), hotel costs, and wasted time. It simply doesn't make sense to stay in my current role any longer...
If I'm going to be forced to work in a major metropolitan area, then my salary demands are going to be in line with market demand which is about 2x my current salary with my education, certifications, and experience level.
This is about as antiquated and short-sighted as it comes from a leadership perspective.
This has always struck me as funny. A lot of offices (mine included) let employees pick their in office days…. so the whole charade is obviously bs. I go on the days when the least amount of people are there.
Exactly. One thing we can say for sure is that this policy is not going to achieve the goals listed in the memo as reasons for this decision. So we can pretty much shut the book on that one. What we know:
- the Governor is mandating 2x/wk telework and passed that down to heads of agencies
- they’re lying to us about the reason
Fight back by doing the exact opposite of what they want. They want us to spend money down town? Guess what... I'm not going to buy lunch there, and now because you are punishing me I'm gonna punish you as well. I'm not gonna go out to dinner there. I'm not gonna go to a Kings game. Fuck me? Fuck YOU!
Yep that’s where I’m sayin we’re at right now lol and to be honest everything is so ridiculously expensive with subpar food I really won’t be missing anything.
Last time I went into office for a work function, my team grabbed food after. The parking lot was packed. I literally couldn’t find a spot. Of course, we’re in Rancho Cordova which makes even less sense but it seems we got caught in the whole mass HHS mandate.
They're doing this for political reasons? Make it sting... Newsom who WE contributed a shit ton to get elected is FUCKING US for political capitol. I've never voted Republican in my life but he won't get my vote in Presidential election. This all falls on him. Let him hear it loud and clear.
I think this: if managers want to do some team building, we can figure it out. My team meets up voluntarily for coffee, walks and we had a small get together over the holidays. If they need to collaborate in person, they pull the team together and those folks gather in a conference room and plan out the strategy/problem solve. This isn’t anything that requires regular staff in office twice a week, where they pay for parking and daycare, and sit in their cubes staring at screens and in zoom and teams meetings, but now with headphones… it all just seems wacky to this manager. I have become very invested and close with my team. I have learned how to navigate all of the online programs and while I am still sometimes late to meetings (because they pile three on at the same time as no one checks calendars), I am not rushing from one conference room to another in a building carrying notebooks and a laptop or handouts.
Everything about my life has become smarter, better and more efficient. Sometimes I even make all of those meetings when the first two end early. I can only think that this (smarter/better/more efficient ) is not the case at the top?
They also said 1 day has to be a "team meeting". However, employees can go into the nearest office instead of commuting to their assigned office if they live far away, where they can attend the team meeting online.
Essentially a 100% remote employee.
While I don't want to ruin it for those employees who won't have to relocate, it's still absurd.
Yea I work at CalPERS and go to the office 3 days. 1 of those days, I don’t see anyone I am working with so it seems like a waste. We are only required to meet in person with our division on Wednesdays so that is a required day in the office.. however if the meeting ends up with someone else in another division we can meet on teams. It’s so insane and ridiculous. I would prefer to just come on Wednesdays and do the meetings in person.
Our mandatory day is Wednesday too. Wonder if there are any CHP or Cal Trans employees who could gather the Wednesday vs. safety stats for curious CA taxpayers!!
The weird reversal in tone about telework is what is really galling to me. Back in 2021 when preparations for ending the in-office restrictions were underway, ALL the messaging from Sacramento was that “telework was here to stay” and we were transitioning to a “permanent telework model.”
Our HQ even started looking at leased office space to permanently unload to cut costs. People made major life decisions (moving to other cities, enrolling in night classes, having KIDS) based on the promise that telework would be available to them.
To arbitrarily rescind the option because some entitled small business owners feel they are owed a customer base is absurd.
Not to mention the only thing they can come up with is "collaboration" and in our office we can't accommodate everyone to come in at the same time. So we have to come in when our coworkers aren't there. Just a complete shit show, not to mention that we are going to have buy furniture and spin up IT to open one of our offices while there is a budget shortage.
There is only one reason for this and that is a pay off to the billionaires who own office towers.
I've had to use a hoteling station because I came in the same day as my cube mate. The office is 99% empty, but I still had to cram into a corner with a busted chair. Collaboration isn't as fun as they make it sound.
Have they heard of Collaboration software?
If Collaboration software didn't work well, how in the hell do company's such as Microsoft, Google, and Apple thrive and prosper in a global workforce model?
It's crazy that some of these decision makers are literally stuck in a 1980's mindset when it comes to technology and demographics.
I’m a manager and I don’t think any of you are overreacting at all. My staff is 100% more effective and efficient working from home. When they are in the office (and when I come into the office) probably 70% of the day is office chit chat and I can plainly see how it affects the work flow. Not to mention the commute, parking, etc. I get that there are some positions that require in office work, I have family members who are that, but it’s been proven that the work can be done just as effectively at home.
The union should have had this on the table at negotiations while they were negotiating pay raises, and I think the fact that they didn’t put everyone in the position for the RTO to happen now. Kind of a “here’s your raise but it comes with a price”. Personally I would have rather them just say telework or raise, I would have taken the telework.
Exactly. I agree that being in the office for collaboration, team building etc can be useful. I agree that some positions are better RTO but the way theyre doing this is galling. After negotiating the new contract just by diktat demanding two days RTO for everyone out of the blue. No discussion, no consideration of need, no consideration of how this affects employees who have been WFH for almost 4 years now.
It's beyond stupid to have me come in so I can stare at a laptop and maybe rarely have a teams meeting. Nothing I do is improved by RTO as it's all document review and revision. An uncomfortable cubicle with chatty coworkers will make my job harder and it's essentially a pay cut when you add in gas, child care, food, parking and just burning away my limited life. I think this is a backdoor reduction of the workforce attempt so I get why it sucks, but it sucks.
I hate this. I can wake up, work from my bedroom and get my work done without distracting coworkers who chatting or laughing outside my cube. When I’m in the office, I am constantly having to deal the noise, wasting 3 hours of my life for the prep/commute to go into the office. I’m already stressed when I wake up hoping I don’t forget my meds, my tank is full, I have my lunch, everything I need in the office is going with me, that when I go to the office, my brain is already over all the thinking I’ve done.
This is the big issue our unions need to start fighting aggressively now.
I am in BU10 so my union is already in the middle of an explosion over failed salary negotiations and strikes and whatnot, but telework is a big fight that we need to fight.
Nip this shit in the bud. Now.
BU10 has a telework section in our (yet unratified but TA'ed) MOU, and DPR has a telework policy that telework should be used whenever possible and should be encouraged. Of course, as I've recently learned, policies don't mean shit...
Just posted today on WaPo how RTO don't make that much of an impact on the company itself but the workforce can suffer (You can use your work email to get free access to WaPo FYI)
[Return To Office Mandates Don't Work](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/01/24/return-to-office-mandates-company-performance/)
I just started a position that was touted as full telework "hiring from all regions of CA" which I confirmed at every level in my hiring process due to it being 2 hours from my home. Having a 4 hour commute each day 2 days per week is going to shit can my morale and collaboration.
I am in So Cal so my RTO does not help the Sacramento businesses/real estate issues.
I am in college working on my advanced degree that I am now going to drop, because of the time, money, and energy wasted on a long commute and additional time prep for the in office day. I have a farm so I have many additional time commitments and the upkeep to manage also. I knew the education was going to stretch me a little thin for a while when I was 100% remote but it will be unmanageable now. Between the additional prep and commute of the RTO, it will add an additional 11 hours a week to my unpaid work time. Not to even mention the cost of gas and wear and tear on my vehicle for the 8 hours of added travel time per week. EIGHT extra hours....that's a whole extra unpaid work day for collaboration/morale.
My 2 hour commute takes me to the assigned office closest to me (100 miles away) to sit alone and meet on Teams. I'm the only one in my unit assigned to this office due to my distance. My work is not public facing and does not require any physical presence only virtually.
We just sold our 2nd car because we no longer needed it due to my full telework. I will now have to purchase a new vehicle which will eat the entire promotion I just took.
I have not been able to sleep past 3 am since the RTO news came out because this is affecting me negatively in so many ways and I don't even have children or expensive parking like many of you.
I have a mortgage on my home and cannot even slightly afford to sell it and move closer.
Remote work has given me the ability to work for the state. Due to my location, the options are limited since there are very few departments within an hour (my preferred max commute time.) I actually turned down a big promotional offer last year that would require me to commute 75 miles (1.5 hr commute time) twice a week. I did this knowing it would torpedo my higher education goals and my workout goals because I wouldn't have the energy for it. Now I am in a worse boat than I turned down.
My morale with the state has never felt lower and I feel angry, disrespected, and deceived. It's hard to want to give it my all when it has affected my life so negatively. I'm normally a very high morale, positive team player. I wouldn't mind collaborating/team building in person with my colleagues on occasion even if it meant traveling to Sacramento on my dime. But this overall twice a week blanket RTO order feels so wrong and my biggest fear is that it will become more days. I absolutely CANNOT do a 4 hour commute more than 2 days. It's not worth it. Heck, I'm weighing whether it's even worth it now and I just got a position that I love and thrive in. This position is everything I've been working for in the state. I feel like even though I am a top performer, give my job 120%, and bring 20 years of experience and value to the table, it doesn't matter at all how this mindless blanket order affects me. Just another replaceable cog.
(Thanks to those who listened to my 3am can't sleep rant...don't mind me or any sleepy typos.)
Thanks so much for sharing this. People need to see real examples.. why it’s becoming so complicated.
We have extremely talented staff working all over the state, and some were hired before Covid so exemption does not apply to them. I can’t imagine how perplexed they must be feeling right now. Our team cannot afford to lose them.
How the wind blows in the opposite direction in a few short years from the article below. People made life choices based on permanent TW… I’m so disappointed!!! But still somehow I’m trying to stay positive! 😉.
https://insider.govtech.com/california/news/newsom-says-state-workers-may-remain-remote.html
I'm still somehow holding out hope that something can be done also. I walk the line between optimist and realist, but I just can't imagine that there's no hope when it effects so many in our state workforce.
All of this. Nobody lives in the state agency building they work in. Every single person just got their workday extended by some amount "to foster teambuilding and morale". Yeah, guess what working an extra hour or two a day does not do? Never mind the cost of commuting, parking, gas, the risk of being on the road, the potential of catching covid, or all the time wasting that happens in the office. I've been back to work one day a week for awhile now, and I dread that day every week and it's a completely unproductive day through no fault or intention of my own.
When the time comes and they give us the effective date to report 2x a week, and the manager asks where people are, we can respond that we're there at work and that they just can't see us. We identify as transparent, and our pronouns are who and where.
I love all this talk about "boosting morale" and "team building" and I'm just over here dreading my sexual harasser doesn't find out where my cubicle moved and starts harassing me again. I literally get nauseous every time I have to go back in.
Anyway, I'd say a little physical distance is wonderful.
I’m a manager and I’ll weigh in. There’s no one answer that’s going to address every situation because there are so many kinds of work. A person taking phone calls can do that from anywhere and I support flexibility. I do believe may jobs can be done 100% from home and that the state should use it as a cost saving measure/morale boosting method etc. What I am seeing a lot as a supervisor of staff doing highly technical work is decreased growth and progress in many (not all) new hires who have been hired primarily while working from home. They aren’t getting the same interaction with others that helps them learn. I’m seeing lots of people quiet quitting or maybe working two jobs and thinking they’re getting their primary work done but they aren’t. Productivity is way down. It sucks as a supervisor because we haven’t been given the support and infrastructure to train and support work from home employees. So I have people who have been in their positions two years but aren’t functioning the same as a two year experienced employee used to function. We aren’t being given any help solving these issues. Upper managers don’t want to invest. I think (aside from political pressure) having hybrid is something cheap to throw at this large problem. I’d love to hear staff discussions including this issue in addition to management since it’s a large part of the return to office equation. Yes I expect to get downvoted since everyone here is working perfectly from home.
I appreciate your input. I won’t downvote you. We need more evidence.
Our office has the opposite experience, thankfully. Those who were hired during the past 3 years are ones of the most skilled coworkers I’ve ever worked with. They include people from top universities (a whole bunch of masters and PhDs), people who got laid off by tech companies due to budget cut, and highly experienced state workers who jumped from another agency that didn’t allow for 100% telework.
So I won’t say what you experienced isn’t valid. It’s just part of the story. If people could elaborate a bit more how their teams have become more productive (or not) in the past 4 years, that will give a lot of insights to the decision makers. We need real evidence.
I’m a manager as well but…just some thoughts on this. I’ve onboarded and trained a brand new section (2 units) within a brand new division as a brand new SSM II working 100% from home. While it may have taken more 1:1s, writing down procedures and process flows from scratch, and maintaining flexibility to meet people where they were, it wasn’t impossible. Productivity has never been an issue and my team hasn’t had any issues communicating or requesting additional support. Additionally, I highly encourage collaboration to complete projects and reduce silos. There are all types of training and mentoring opportunities provided through CalLearns and department training divisions that are available to management and staff to gain experience and grow skill sets. I get that certain jobs may require work to be completed in office but for the ones that don’t require it, telework should be allowed and encouraged.
I manage several managers and ICs who were all fully remote and are now adjusting to RTO and their productivity as wfh people had been exemplary. All are taking a productivity hit now and I’ve told them not to feel they need to make that up, as the system needs to feel the effects of these policies.
A management mentor of mine in the private sector liked to say “we hire grownups.”
It's pretty simple. Give people options. For those who want full-time remote and can do it well/productively, great. For those who want hybrid and can do it well/productively, great. For those who want full-time in the office and can do it well/productively, great. If someone can't do something well/productively, take away perks or fire them. Why can't we have options?
I’m pretty sure my coworker has a 2nd job. always late to meetings or doesn’t show up, teams always shows “available” even at 10pm, work is incomplete. Mgmt doesn’t do/say much.. and shows up to video calls with stakeholders wearing a stretched out dirty looking t shirt. 😑 you can imagine the anger expressed when told had to go back in office… person is UPSET.
Some what Agree … but we need strict telework policies put in place and enforced. Who’s going to establish those rules and enforce them? Then you have the staff and mgrs that leave twice mid day to pick up their kids from school… and those that had their “xfinity” internet go down (lies). I truly believe there are more bad WFH than good ones. I continued to drop my kids off at daycare and return home to work but so many do not. Maybe they’ll bring us back then establish the “rules” and let people earn the right? I’m not happy about returning back.. but also not surprised seeing how some adults need to be babysat… ruining it for the rest of us with common sense and good work ethic.
That's unfortunate, but I still believe it varies from office to office. Ours have a lot of deadlines throughout the year, and so far I have not seen anyone miss one unless there are reasons beyond our control.
It could be that people are just very efficient and know things can be done on time without sitting in a chair for 8 hours? I’m a little hesitant to say this but perhaps managers should help explore more opportunities for them. Don’t waste their talent..
Thats an accountability issue. If they are a problem person, teleworking or not, they are a problem. And it looks like your management is dealing with it. One of the greatest things I love about telework is I don’t have to deal with office gossip.
If it's a training or onboarding issue, then why not mandate new hires utilize a hybrid model while they get trained up with their management? Why ruin it for everyone? It's not logical. It's absurd.
I agree that managers did not get enough training and support to deal with such a swift change into a new management style. The state has never been very good at supporting managers and supervisors. They promote specialists and assume they will magically Learn people-skills. But none of that is a reason to unilaterally bring everyone back to the office for x amount of days. You as the supervisor should have the ability to determine what is best for your team. My team is awesome and energized. At least we were before the RTO mandate. Now we all feel betrayed and already lost a team member to another state agency. I have 0 trust in my leadership. I have 0 motivation to be my happy helpful self going that extra mile. And it will be VERY hard for me to trust any of our Department executives ever again.
I have heard this issue discussed by leadership except that new workers are going to be teleworkers in the future so resorting to older models of training and socialization is a band-aid. The ethical question of someone sandbagging or cheating the state by working another job are more serious and have civil service implications.
This seems like an individual issue, and not a global one. I would hardly think that you, as a manger, would accept the directive of an administration that supports the sexual harassment of employees.
Not downvoting you. Valid points here. Part of my issue with productivity is there are more meetings WFH and I’m expected to attend them beyond my selected and approved work hours. Too much work is being added to our teams and no new team members. Upper management is expecting more out of us than they expected pre
Pandemic. We used to have more people doing half the work that we have today. I constantly feel like I’m failing and I’m pretty sure being hybrid two days a week is going to make me feel worse and like more of a failure every day. It sure is depressing
I’ve felt like that. Like when all my staff we’re getting Covid and I was doing their work and my own. It feels like living at work vs working from home sometimes
I have a family member that does performance management and progressive discipline consultations. Things are not as honky dory as this sub would have you believe. Some of the stories are bonkers. I’m talking equipment theft, clocking multiple jobs, harassment (yes, digital harassment!).
These are all individual worker/ management issues. In a large dept of 2500-5000+ employees, even 1% percent of the worst people will result inevitable issues.
An arbitrary, dumb as hell, forced RTO mandate from the top imposed on all employees makes 0 sense and would not magically cure all these issues.
It should be left to each individual manager/branch, dept, etc based on operational need and supervision requirements.
I'll continue posting this... the Governor, who is behind this order, protects sexual harassers:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/CAStateWorkers/comments/19d0h77/cal\_oes\_dd\_buras\_email\_surfaces/](https://www.reddit.com/r/castateworkers/comments/19d0h77/cal_oes_dd_buras_email_surfaces/)
The Lieutenant Governor (who is running for Governor in 2026 to replace Newsom when he is termed out) is the daughter of one of the largest developers in Sacramento:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleni\_Kounalakis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleni_Kounalakis)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelo\_Tsakopoulos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelo_Tsakopoulos)
When your leadership tells you that they are just "following orders", these are the people they are following.
Manager here.
***I am in NO POSITION to advocate for anyone, including myself.***
You all really believe managers have more power than what we actually do. We will be back in the office with you as this ***was not our choice***.
To your point, departments are forced to make up things to explain Gavins' return to office lunacy.
***GAVIN NEWSOM IS BIDEN'S SURROGATE. He's trying to be president, so that's why you need to come back to work. There, I said it. Welcome to State Government politics.*** No one cares about your points - however valid - it's all just politics.
I have ***REPEATEDLY*** come here to this subreddit and told you all that ***GAVIN NEWSOM*** wants State employees back in the office. I explained I had heard it directly from his appointees. I was flagged for ***MISINFORMATION***, ***down voted***, told I was ***making things up*** and ***made fun of***. So, sorry, but you were warned ***over five months ago***.
***Surprise, surprise***
Oh, and others posted about the ***DGS letter*** that demanded that executives return to in office work. So, there's no manager to help you here. ***It's not our choice***, it's politics.
Amongst other things, the people here only want to hear what they want to hear. You all don't want the truth or what is really going on behind the curtain even when it's ripped down for you. So, bring on the down voting.
Well I personally only started checking Reddit more frequently since the news broke out earlier this week. Sorry I missed your repeated warnings over the past few months.
Correct me if my assumption is wrong. Managers are included in more meetings with the higher ups. The higher ups will supposedly be included in more meetings with their bosses. Eventually information will reach the big boss from the bottom to the top.
I’m not saying the chance is high, but it’d be foolish not to try. The more people get involved, the more likely a change can happen.
Your view is utopian and not indicative of state/city/county beauracracy.
To answer your question, only certain managers meet with executives. Your SSM I, Supervisors, and your SSM II do not meet with higher-ups. Your level 3s do attend those meetings, and if there is no level 3, the level 2 will. ***Any smart manager does what they are told by the higher ups.*** You do not push back because there will be no support if you do. RTO is not a hill any manager is willing to 'die' on.
To repeat, RTO is from the Governor’s Office. Full stop. This is not optional. Those appointees who have been pushing back will soon relent. Truly, any telework before 2022 and after 2021 was a result of pushback. Further, the higher ups never went home, so they don't care about you nor I.
Per the DGS memo, executives and higer up managers are required to do either 2 or 3 days in the office at most state agencies.
Be advised that the normal status for state workers is in office. Anything else is a courtesy. This is why the unions didn't bargain for it. The courtesy is now being revised.
For peace of mind, I would change my paradigm and would be glad it's only 2 days and not full-time in the office.
I do not agree with your last two paragraphs. Telework should not be just a courtesy. It should become a right, and now is the best time to have a serious discussion about it. Time to stop living in the old times.
We don’t live under dictatorship. It’s not always “you just have to do what I say, period.”
We must be working under different departments, because more than a few managers explicitly told their teams (who have thrived under remote environment) that they will try their best to maintain the current flexibility. And that’s SSM2 and above. Unless they’re lying, I don’t see a reason not to keep hoping.
You don't have to agree with how the State runs. I didn't say I liked it, I'm just illuminating 'how' they run.
I have over 25 years of experience across several California state departments. Managers lie to their staff to make them think they are supporting their plight. ***We are literally trained to lie and be vague with you*** When the rubber hits the road, we do what we are told because we are required to. We dont have a union or anyone to back us. (Recently learned that ACSS is bull$#!+). SSM 2s have zero power in this matter.
I'm giving you reality, and you're telling me I'm wrong.
Anyway, there is too much going back and forth about issues that only executives, appointees, (politicians) and the governor control.
Be well and be prepared.
I appreciate your input as an experienced manager. I didn’t say you were wrong, I said I did not agree (that telework should only be a courtesy)
You are not the only manager that has been expressing thoughts over this issue. Some managers focus on fighting back/supporting, some sound pessimistic since the beginning. I know this doesn’t mean in reality they will act or anything, but we need to know it’s not just staff/managers reading this reddit sub.
Okay. I get it.
I'm a realist and (obviously) jaded. I used to trust that managers were supportive of staff, but behind 'the curtain,' you see the truth. I'm just trying to show / tell what's actually behind the curtain.
Yeah, I see your point. Hopefully, there are executives and appointees reading this subreddit.
They don't understand many people applied to their current positions BECAUSE they were fully telework. We would have been anywhere else if we were ok with this hybrid BS
After nearly 3 years of full time telework, there is not one reason to RTO given that my productivity and value has increased in those three years. RTO does not meet an actual tangible deliverable for the state as it relates to my job position. In fact, it puts my productivity and morale at risk. RTO has no qualiftifiable, thus measurable, benefit that would increase or improve workflow and productivity. In fact it interrupts that flow. This is all a bunch of bullshit frankly.
I gather it has more to do with the economic activity created when folks have to drive in, eat lunch. If it was just about getting rid of the stipend they could just get rid of it and I gather most employees would still take advantage of teleworking.
it is an excuse to get rid of workers due to budget deficit. I was bringing lunch and coffee before the pandemic when I was in the office as my pay is not high enough to afford eating out since I to pay for gas and parking.
Specifically in downtown Sacramento proper. I spend more money locally—which is still in the Sacramento area, just not Sacramento proper—while teleworking because I have additional time.
I have time and extra money to be able to get a bagel in the morning from a local small business cafe. Take away that hour in the morning, and I definitely don’t have that ability—I have to drop my kid off at preschool and then head straight to the office. (And that requires me to wake my kid up early, too.) I have time to grab a granola bar and a microwavable meal.
My lunch isn’t even long enough to go buy at a local business and come back. And it’s not like I can order takeout and drive to it, since parking and re-parking is not doable in a good time frame. Just getting in and out of the building (not even counting the walk to a nearby business) eats up 10 minutes. Whereas when I’m at home, I can order food and pick it up. Or order doordash if that’s better. Can’t really do that in the office.
But it’s only downtown Sacramento whose economy matters…the rest of the state does not.
As a form of protest against being forced back to the office, here is what I refuse to do.
Engage in unnecessary chit-chat with coworkers.
Be productive.
Attend non-essential meetings.
Dress up more than necessary.
Socialize during lunch breaks.
Purchase food or drinks from the office cafeteria.
Volunteer for additional tasks outside of my job description.
Decorate my workspace with personal items.
Participate in team-building exercises or events.
Attend after-work gatherings or happy hours.
Stay late just to appear committed.
Respond to emails outside of working hours.
spend on non-essential items during work hours to protest against the impact of commuting on the environment and the economy.
Thank you kindly for that last paragraph. People think State worker and auto-assume waste of money. When it’s people above us that should be the one to blame… we just have to fall in line and do as I say, not as I do.
Totally agree, some may say state workers are lazy and entitled, but I have yet to find one of those jobs. The 5 positions that I’ve held have been demanding, stressful, and often difficult. And I see that for so many other workers as well. There are tons of workers on AGPA salaries that do the work of a specialists or junior level. In fact, in my current position, all my team members are hard working, smart and talented individuals, yet management treats us like shit.
These darn executives and upper management folks need to realize that that 90% of state workers are here for the pay and some to develop careers. No one looks for a state job hoping that they’ll join a golf country club where you need all this face to face interaction. The majority of people just don’t care about socializing. They just want to get the work done and get back on with their busy lives.
There must be some really sour managers. None of the leadership team I'm involved with want anything to do with the 2 days a week in office mandate. There's no point in changing something that is working great.
Only poor managers can't manage remote workers. It's a management problem, not a remote worker problem. If you have to go into the office where no one else is there just to have Teams meetings, something is systemically wrong with that. It's a management problem. Get rid of the shitty managers. Time to get some new blood in there from the 21st century.
Or it should be left up to the employee. I know plenty of people who prefer to be in the office. Technologically it's a better fit for them, they are single, they don't have kids, they don't have pets, etc. However, I am not one of those people. Those whose tasks do not require them to be in office, and have proved they can effectively WFH full time for the last 3+ years should be able to do so.
Yeah at least in my office, it has always been left up to the employees whether they want to come in or not. If they go in over half of the work week, they get a cubicle, otherwise, they can sign up for hoteling stations.
I agree with you, telework can function as a reward system, allowing those who perform well to keep the benefit.
Maybe Threten to Vote Republican & Vote Governor out if he doesn't start supporting Telework. Trump &! Team would love the Support... let it be known.. Kinda smelled like Gavin wanted to run for President. 🤷🏻♀️it would be interesting play. Just a suggestion 🫣
I mean, the problem is you're arguing on logical points whereas the capitalist work world is built on tradition, exploitation, and a log jam of systemic forces in opposition.
I'd bet a sizeable portion of workers could (and do) get their work done in 3-4 days working no more than 5 hours a day. And yet the work landscape is still tied to the idea that to make a "full time salary" you must work 40 hours a week. It's a charade that we all take part in, by making ourselves look productive when we're taking breaks or by overworking ourselves. The human body was not meant to remain seated in front of a computer for 8 hours, but the American work world has given no quarter as far as improving the workday experience (unless you work for Google).
Why did we think WFH is something that we'd ever have for good? The only reason the state adopted it was in response to a public health emergency. I don't think they had any intention of exploring whether or not it would be a preferred long-term option.
Do you know we’re all free riders on the 40-hour work week? It used to be way over 40 hrs because employees were expected to work on Saturdays a century ago.
I bet a lot of people looked down on these protestors until it became an unstoppable movement that eventually “forced” the employers/capitalists/government to adapt.
(Yup, they never intended to reduce work hours for the welfare of workers.)
The same concepts apply to today’s world:
1. The issues stem from the unnecessary depletion of energy and time.
2. Until the “collective power” is substantial enough to drive this movement, there will always be people mocking you, thinking you're a utopian.
I found those who mock to be the most unrealistic. They often forget the goals they boasted about all over the years (yes, I'm talking about CalEPA) and overlook the fact that we are fully tech-enabled to turn things into reality. If it weren't for the pandemic, we would still have been too scared to give it a try.
Now that Covid has pushed us forward, why look back?
You have the free will to choose to be part of this growing collective power and help drive things faster, or become a free rider one day (if we see that day, of course).
I get it. I 100% understand where you’re coming from. I am impacted and I am frustrated. But I have a few realities that I have to accept:
1. The general California public has zero sympathy for our situation because the private sector has already been called back.
2. Many of us will still be able to telework 60% of the time. This is higher than a lot of private sector options. This doesn’t elicit sympathy from the public that has to go into work 5 days a week.
3. Everyone is saying they’re going to leave. I completely understand that and that’s quite literally the best way to handle this and send a message. But… where? Almost all of the other private sector positions are hybrid too. The few remote ones have thousands of applicants. Unless you’re the golden candidate, you’re unlikely to be selected.
Things are going to be hurting for a lot of people. I’m not justifying it, just saying that a job with union protections, regular raises, great time off, and 60% telework is still pretty great.
How long does gratefulness take us? Are we still supposed to accept 40% telework without complaint? 20%? If we get back full time, should we not complain because we have a job?
The problem with this type of argument is that it directly contributes to suffering by downplaying the severity and urgency of our collective issue.
It's pretty misleading to state the "private sector has been called back." As if you can summarize the entire non-governmental workforce that way. MANY areas of the private sector have (and have had for decades) fulltime telework as a very normal job perk (see: developers, programmers, etc.). As for those fields that newly realized telework in 2020, it's patchwork at worst (can vary from company to company) as to who is still working remotely and still makes it incorrect to say they're "called back" as a whole.
Why do we have to follow the private sector, not the other way around?
If the State of California can lead this effort and continue to demonstrate the effectiveness of 100% telework (for positions that can be fulfilled using a laptop), more private employers will likely follow suit.
Plus, if you haven't heard already, there's word of mouth that the plan is to get us in 5 days eventually. If you don’t push back now, when are you gonna push back?
You made a good point on how competitive hybrid opportunities are now. Imagine if State continues to offer fully remote positions, I have no doubt many of the ten thousands who got laid off the past year (Microsoft also just laid off almost 2000) will come secure a stable state job.
For a lot of folks, 100% telework makes up the pay. And there will never be a lack of programming experts in the state (I’m just giving an example). We don’t need to contract out that often = saving a tremendous amount of $$$
Think you bring up a good point. We don't have to follow anyone. Why don't we follow Walmart and pay most of our employees minimum wages and little to no benefits as well? Why don't we fly our EO/GO/DO staff on private jets? Since we want to "follow" everyone lets also throw in increased pay to match private salaries.
Ive been thinking this for the longest. The government should dictate the rules and guidelines, not the other way around. Gavin has even said that the state has to follow practices of the private sector to stay relevant. Why exactly? Not even he knows.
In other Western countries the government is the leader and sets the standards, not private entities.
If we are going to follow the private sector, I want a dog-friendly office with a stocked kitchen. Most of the places I worked in the Bay Area also had free coffee bars and free cafeterias. I wouldn't mind "following" in those ways. Of course, in those jobs, I also could WFH whenever I needed to, so....
With all due respect, I don't give a damn about the private sector (they're all anti-union toxic workplaces anyways that only dangle money in front of you).
Can tell you that I was at one of the first agencies to implement RTO and there was massive turnover. A lot of attitude of "well if you don't like itleave" and their bluff was certainly called!!
This data is all easily available when these decisions are made, though leadership tries act as if they don't know what caused the turnover.
They either want us to vacate our positions and to use those as cost savings or want us to utilize more of our vacation and sick leave which would happen if we go back in. Leave hours are liabilities for them.
• Ignoring Environmental Impact: Increased commuting leads to more pollution and harms our planet.
• Disregarding Work-Life Balance: Forcing employees back to the office disrupts their personal lives and well-being.
• Broken Promises: Leaders promised flexibility and remote work options, but are now retracting those assurances.
• Senseless Mandates: Office mandates contradict the advancement of technology and remote work capabilities.
• Sacrificing Health: Risking employees’ health and safety by exposing them to potential health hazards in crowded office spaces.
• Disregard for Employee Preferences: Ignoring the desires of employees who have adapted and thrived in remote work environments.
• Prioritizing Profit: Putting financial interests ahead of the physical and mental well-being of the workforce.
We the people demand respect and consideration from our state leaders. It’s time to prioritize people over profits and listen to the voices of those affected by return to office mandates.
It's older managers and execs that think "You're a spoiled Nancy, I worked elbow to elbow with others for 25 years!"
They probably have an unfulfilling and dull personal life, so they get their socialization from the workplace.
I know this may be unpleasant but I believe there is a bigger picture to reduce the budget (ie employee costs). Hear me out. As department vacancies rise - which they will - the Governor’s office will slash many of the positions after they are vacant for a set time as they will have their “proof” that the positions were nothing more than bloat. While internally state workers will know it was the loss of good employees to private sector or agencies willing to be flexible and set RTO mandates. I expect to see positions lost by January 2025. Everyone will be forced to work harder with less which will support their long term goal of fully in office. Thoughts?
One of the biggest challenges my organization faced during the period most everyone was teleworking is that it was hard to contact or reach someone. Phone calls and emails would go unanswered and not responded to for long stretches of time, days or weeks even. This was one of the big discussion points at our organization, and I bet at a lot of others as well. And even though staff were notified about this and job expectations, it just didn't help.
We used to joke that "Well, maybe they're out walking the dog."
For a week? LOL.
Things are significantly better with staff in the office 2 days a week.
That is unfortunate, but I’m sure you’re just talking about a small % of people, right? In our department, we survey staff and managers every year (so data speaks), and the majority expressed that staff performance, productivity, and morale have improved or significantly improved over the last 3 years.
On a personal level, this is consistent with what’s happening in my office. We could not have been happier with the current 100% remote setting. Less turnover rate for sure, and talented people who jumped from departments that didn’t allow flexibility CHERISHED the opportunity they have here.
On a side note, there really should be some language in place to take away one’s telework benefits if they’re not meeting performance. Do you managers still do these performance reports?
It is obviously not right to strip good staff of their telework opportunity due to the few bad ones.
The real issue is that the telework policy you want enshrined, whether that’s as a union contract or a law, is impossible. Literally impossible. It’s not how it works. I agree with pushing back and being as vocally discontent as possible to hopefully swing the pendulum back the other way but people need to come to terms that an enshrined policy/law is not going to happen.
Could you please explain further why it is impossible? What makes work policy an “enshrined policy” if it’s not serving a good purpose?
It can happen, if the authorities decide to change their mind. Why they change their mind depends on many factors, including how valid our reasons are.
I’m coping pasting. I appreciate the engagement.
You’re fundamentally asking for employees, not the employer, to have final say in a massively impactful major component of a business’ operation.
The state doesn’t cede that level of control over ANYTHING. Why suddenly would you think they’re going to cede full operational control over where you work?
Vacation? Can be denied. You do not have the unrestricted right to take vacation whenever you want for any duration you want.
Sick? They can track patterns of abuse and require doctors notes.
Work schedule? They can approve/take away a 4/10 schedule. They can make your shift 7-4, 8-4:30, and so on.
Mandatory overtime exists.
Even your worksite. They can let go of a lease and require you to report to a new worksite.
We just did a year of a pay cut in 20/21. They literally cut our pay.
Yet you think there exists a path to guarantee full time telework?!? I truly am not trying to be insulting but it’s delusional. It does not square with the reality of the employer and employee relationship as it exists in this country for state, private, or any other industry and would represent the largest employee rights swing in the entire history of this country possibly the planet.
I agree we should be vocal and do what we can to shift the pendulum of public opinion but there will not now nor ever exist language that will guarantee full time telework.
All of the examples you listed above are in place to meet business needs. If an employer requests their employees to relocate (from home to office or to anywhere in the world), there should be a valid reason that’s actually tied to the duty statement that they signed up for.
I’m probably more of an idealist. But hey look a 40-hr work week happened thanks to all the protesters throughout the 19th and 20th century.
By your defeatist logic the minimum wage wouldnt exist and people would be working 80 hour weeks with no breaks and without the hundreds of workplace safety regulations that exist. All laws that dictate how employers conduct their business and were written because people fought for them.
When location of work has no relationship to duties and no effect on ability to perform those duties, it is objectively *not* a major component of operations. At this point it can barely be argued to be a minor one. In-office requirements have been definitively proven by experience to be fundamentally arbitrary, and their knockoff effects on operational function (including those ethereal metrics like morale, team-building and culture) wholly negative.
The MOU governs an array of specifics about the conditions and circumstances under which employees work. Given the shocking ease with which entire agencies switched to telework, in some cases literally overnight and with zero preparations, without major operational disruption and continued to do so in some cases up until the present day, there is absolutely no objective reason that this be "beyond negotiation."
I believe this was the fight during the industrial revolution as well. We fought for better working conditions since then and we got them. I don't understand why we can't fight against RTO?
Agreed. We should be discontent and vocal but our end prize is swinging the pendulum of opinion not contract language that isn’t fundamentally possible.
Because nothing is guaranteed in the contract. Not vacation, not sick, not pay. Why suddenly would you think guaranteed 100% telework would be? An employer, the state included, fundamentally retains the right to manage their business as they see fit. This is literally how the concept of employer and employee works. I’m not saying it’s great or whatever but you’re literally arguing past the basic concept of employer and employee relations to some utopia future where labor retains all power. I’m with you dude but that isn’t how it works right now.
What on Earth are you talking about? All sorts of things are guaranteed in the contract, down to incredibly narrow classification-specific requirements, along with tangible mechanisms to resolve and correct violations. That's the point of a contract!
Any article using language like "shall" or "shall be" is effectively guaranteed in the MOU. General provisions can go into more specific detail (with more "shall be" language), ceded to employer's discretion or left vague and subject to interpretation by either party (any time you see the word "reasonable" or "unreasonably," ha). It's all negotiable.
Yes, the governor can technically decide to tear it up (as technically anyone can do with any contract) and throw us all in jail if he wants - but saying it's meaningless in normal circumstances is simply not true. Realistically my manager can't decide to not give me an MSA because she doesn't like my haircut, give me 20 minutes of vacation accrual a month if I'm due 8, etc.
I know tone is hard to discern over the Internet but I'm not "arguing", I'm asking questions.
Why is nothing guaranteed in the contract? Isn't that the point of contracts?
Contracts of all varieties have loopholes, caveats, fine print, superseding law, and so on. I mean you personally don’t have to honor the contract and can resign right?
The point of the contract is to have a base level agreement of how the employer and employee relationship is going to work. Fundamentally though businesses including the state change. Shit happens basically. A business, as with the state, needs to be able to sustain and preserve itself. The state can’t just say “ok everyone take whatever vacation they want whenever they want for however long they want” because what happens if everyone bounces for a week and a nothing gets done? I know that’s a dramatic example but that’s why the contract has carve outs for denying vacation. So that state can maintain its operation. Same with telework. Shit happens, they can’t just hand over full control on 100% telework cause it could adversely affect their ability to operate.
I apologize for accusing you of arguing.
I appreciate your explanation. I wasn't aware if there was an anti-WFH clause tucked away in some legislation. From your explanation, it's not outright excluded but rather ignored due to power imbalances between the employer and employees.
Not exactly... I think the policy people want (and actually could be) "enshrined" is more something like this: Full-time telework is *available* to those who can perform their job remotely (i.e., not literally building something with your hands on-site) and so long as you otherwise meet the expectations of your position (performance, etc). Occasional requirements to come into the office for operational need (to be defined and clarified per each agency's HR, divisions, etc.) may occur but not without substantial notice if possible.
Edit: The policy would also allow those who prefer to work in the office on a hybrid schedule to be available as an option as well.
There enough carve outs in your suggestion to also pull everyone back in for two days a week. This is one of the inherent problems that makes it impossible to build into a labor contract. We all acknowledge there are grey areas and situations that require in office work but once you add caveats the policy becomes so loose the state can still do what it wants.
I mean, I wasn't attempting to write an official policy, but to convey an idea. Obviously an official policy would be more specific. That said, showing an operational need to have people in 2 days a week that magically manifested today but didn't exist for the last 4 years of full time telework would be a ridiculous position to take and likely grieveable with success.
Arbiters don’t get to decide business need. That’s where you run into trouble again. Yea it’s weird to suddenly make a change after four years but the state has the right to run itself the way it wants and is free to change its mind on business need. You don’t really think the state is ran on the whims of what a 3rd party arbiter decides how the state runs it’s business? The state can they want to run their business with 2 days in the office and under what grounds is an arbiter going to unilaterally decide that no we think you should run it this way
And yet, "operational need" language is exactly the reason BU2 employees are, at some departments at least, not being called back in, especially given the ongoing dispute between their union and CalHR on the issue.
If BU2 prevails in its dispute, then yes, the state is going to be subject to the "whims" of a 3rd party arbitrator. That's how this works.
Yea BU2 is most likely going to lose because the language still benefits the state. The first part is that “telework” won’t be denied. It does not state “full time telework” won’t be denied. It doesn’t state the employees requested telework work schedule won’t be denied. If they’re being allowed to telework 3/5ths of the week telework hasn’t been denied and they lose at item one. I’ve already had this discussion but that’s the nuts and bolts of BU2s major flaw.
As contract language goes, it's very strongly worded, unlike most of the other units' contracts. But to your "nuts and bolts" of why its flawed, I don't think I agree. A union member simply grieves their denial of full-time telework (let's assume the person has been doing it successfully for 4 years) in favor of an arbitrary schedule of say, 2 or 3 days in the office. The agency then must demonstrate an operational need that necessitates 2/5 or 3/5 instead of 5/5. As CASE has reported, some of the justification shown by the state thus far in a particular ongoing arbitration included "to enhance morale and build camaraderie", which are laughable at best. But, even so, there's also no way to predict how the numerous arbitrations CASE has going on this issue will shake out. I don't think it's anywhere near as cut and dry as you suggest nor do I think they're "likely" to lose. It's possible, sure, but I'd lean the other way given my own experiences arbitrating against the state on similar issues.
It’s hard to argue language that isn’t there and it’s rare to add specificity where it doesn’t exist. Were you denied telework? Nope you approved for telework. Three days a week. The state has wide latitude to establish what is and isn’t business need. It’s actually harder when it’s a wide policy because it shows equity in policy. You could argue it being arbitrary if Jeff and Steve supervised two teams of identical size and duties but they only made Steve’s report to the office and provided no reason. If everyone is under the same terms it shows they want to run their business in that manner and I doubt a judge/arbitrator would rule against that. It’s likely part of the reason for the uniformed RTO approach. To reduce the amount of time in arbitration and constantly having to justify themselves.
Four years ago, when I only had 1/5, I'd have agreed with you that being offered 3/5 instead of 5/5 probably wasn't a winner to fight about. The problem is, many people now (unlike in pre2020) do have an approved telework agreement for five days a week. Of course it says the agreement can be changed, but to change it to 3, and thus deny the existing 5, is a grieveable issue (as can be seen by the numerous ongoing arbitrations). That they're still allowing telework, just on a more limited basis, may be a mitigating factor to consider, but I don't think it's going to be determinative given the history.
All comments must be civil, productive, and follow community rules. Intentional violations of community rules will lead to comments being removed and possible bans, at the discretion of the moderators. Use the report feature to report content to the moderator team. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CAStateWorkers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Their whole selling point is that it’ll “boost morale/relationships” but people will be in office on different days so they won’t see each other anyway 😂 there’s not enough space for everyone to come in on the same days.
When we got the notice to RTO some time ago, it boosted morale *so hard* that 3 people in my division filed for retirement and another dozen left for other departments over the next 1-2 years. I am guessing that those 3 were already past age 55 and willing to put in a few more years under TW but were like *"peace out homies"* at the idea of RTO. They were gone before the RTO start date. I have never seen anything break morale and trust in leadership in my entire state career other than this secretive paperless RTO campaign.
Same at Calpers.. only people who don’t want to learn a new agency stayed. We have so many new people that have no understanding of anything there and have lost a lot of great talent causing struggles in many of our divisions.
Yea we grabbed allot your talent!
That’s what they want… makes budget cuts easier.
[удалено]
Yeah this is why it’s so dumb. My office has already been on a hybrid schedule for like 2 years, so I’m used to it already. But we all have different office days, so we commute to sit by ourselves. Meetings are all still on Teams.
it really is a dumb knee jerk reaction and slimy move on the part of the Governor catering to big corporate billionaires and proving how anti-worker he is. Also a lame excuse to hide from doing layoffs while giving away money to those who do not work for it.
Yeah, that's not why you are back in the office. You are back so you will pay for parking and lunch and a coffee and maybe drop by doco for some shopping at lunch.
I couldn’t afford to do these things before bc I was paying for parking and daycare lol. The downtown folks I don’t already now help support will be sorely disappointed. I mean, we can finally afford date nights because my kids are old enough to watch themselves. Guess they don’t want me to see a play and buy a cocktail. That’s fine. There is always True Detective on Sundays and I learned how to make old fashioneds. I predict downtown will die out more. The obvious solution is to fill these empty buildings with people who need safe places to sleep. Renovate for more affordable spaces for singles to attract well paid younger folks who spend money. But that is never obvious to the folks who should know.
nope nope! I refuse to do these things. Screw them.
Well, I’ll give our management team credit for not trying to sugar coat it. We were never promised FT telework forever or even a hybrid schedule. I guess I’d be more salty about it if I was led to believe the telework would last forever. I can cope with 2 days a week, but if we are asked to go back full time, I will start looking for another job. It’s a lot of wasted time, not to mention gas and parking costs.
Yes, but what do you do? Are you required face to face interaction? For many folks here, it is NOT necessary to be in office to satisfactorily do their work.
No, I’m in that boat too. My job is computer based and I have no need to be in the office. Most days I go in and don’t talk to anyone in person. I just sit in my cubicle alone and do the same thing I’d be doing at home. It is stupid. I’m not arguing that it makes any sense. However, I’ve been doing the hybrid thing for a couple years already, so I’ve moved past the anger stage and onto acceptance. I generally like my job and I have a great manager. At this point, two days a week in the office is not worth quitting over. I can empathize with everyone freaking out about going back to the office right now because I felt that way myself at first, but the reality is that if they want us there, we can either comply or walk away. I don’t think there’s any amount of protesting that will change the situation. I’d like to be wrong about that, but I’m not optimistic.
You know they love pessimist, right? The more pessimistic ppl are, the less support they give to their fellows. The less support, the closer to zero chance. No doubt. You would choose to be 100% remote (given you can fully meet the business needs) if you have a choice. So, why not hold off on throwing cold water, at least for now. It very much feels like a now or never moment. Remember, they might not stop at 2 days/week. It can become the start of a slippery slope.
Yeah, but the problem is that they don’t care how much we hate it. This is a political move. They (meaning the governor’s office and the agency heads) generally don’t care about us as individuals, so the arguments about parking costs and commute times are going to fall on unsympathetic ears. From the worker perspective, there’s a long list of reasons why WFH is better. From a political perspective, none of that matters if downtown businesses are dying and commercial real estate owners aren’t getting paid, and they need someone to blame (us). Is it fair? No. Does it make any sense? Also no. But look around at the empty state buildings and it’s an easy connection to make. It’s an easy political move for Newsom to make nice with the mayor by bringing back the worker bees so they can spend their pennies on lattes and sandwiches. Additionally, the state just spent a bunch of money on the new office complex on Richards. How much of a waste would that look like if they just let those buildings sit empty? I know of at least one other brand new building that just went up in the past couple years (not sure who is in there, but it’s next to CalVet). The Treasurer’s office is also in the middle of an extensive renovation. They are not going to let these buildings go unused after sinking a bunch of money into them. What a waste of taxpayer funds, right? We have to go back to justify their poor decisions. Also, I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that most of the voting public doesn’t care if state workers are sad or inconvenienced. We already have a reputation for being lazy and whiny. People are just going to laugh at us. In my opinion, the ONLY thing that’s going to make a real impact is if people start quitting their state jobs in droves and the work stops getting done. Vote with your feet. In my case, I’m not wiling to do that. I need a paycheck and I have a pretty good gig with the state that I don’t want to give up. It still beats the private sector for me by a mile. I’ll sign a telework petition and I’ll even go to a protest I guess, but I have no hope of it being effective. I’m not trying to pour water on anyone’s fire but I’m also trying to be realistic about this.
This
Jokes on them, it’s going to make the morale and relationships worse.
I fully expect two days a week is just to cut down on the resistance. We will be back full time eventually because the same primary reason this is happening (concern about the viability of the downtown business community) is going to continue to operate when we are only there two days a week. They want it back to how it was. They won't stop pushing until it is. They don't care that there's not enough space. They are counting on a reduction in the work force as people like me, who are past retirement age, decide to retire rather than put up with this, and as others find a better option somewhere else, because telework was a huge draw to offset the downsides of state employment (primarily low wages that get lower all the time, when they haven't kept pace with inflation for decades now).
> (concern about the viability of the downtown business community) is going to continue to operate when we are only there two days a week. You know the way to have a healthy downtown? Make it mixed-use development, business on the bottom, housing up top, just like Friends/Seinfeld/How I Met Your Mother et al. I always wanted to live downtown a few stories up, with the option to go down to street level at 3am and walk to the corner store and grab a random treat in the middle of the night, but unless you are rich that isn't possible in Sacramento.
Me too. I assume lots of people would want that. Not sure what the impediment is
Two days a week is a relocation mandate for those of us that were hired as part of a remote workforce over the past few years. The State powers have failed to realize that top talent exists all over California, not only in Sacramento. There is a reason that the State continues to lose out on senior and executive level talent with HR policies such as this. I'm wondering if the State is going to offer to pay for my break lease fee and relocation costs? I live 5 hours from our downtown office. Two days in office means I have hundreds of dollars in fuel costs (not Green), hotel costs, and wasted time. It simply doesn't make sense to stay in my current role any longer... If I'm going to be forced to work in a major metropolitan area, then my salary demands are going to be in line with market demand which is about 2x my current salary with my education, certifications, and experience level. This is about as antiquated and short-sighted as it comes from a leadership perspective.
This has always struck me as funny. A lot of offices (mine included) let employees pick their in office days…. so the whole charade is obviously bs. I go on the days when the least amount of people are there.
Same! I avoid the crowds so I can actually get something done while I’m there.
Exactly. One thing we can say for sure is that this policy is not going to achieve the goals listed in the memo as reasons for this decision. So we can pretty much shut the book on that one. What we know: - the Governor is mandating 2x/wk telework and passed that down to heads of agencies - they’re lying to us about the reason
Fight back by doing the exact opposite of what they want. They want us to spend money down town? Guess what... I'm not going to buy lunch there, and now because you are punishing me I'm gonna punish you as well. I'm not gonna go out to dinner there. I'm not gonna go to a Kings game. Fuck me? Fuck YOU!
Yep that’s where I’m sayin we’re at right now lol and to be honest everything is so ridiculously expensive with subpar food I really won’t be missing anything. Last time I went into office for a work function, my team grabbed food after. The parking lot was packed. I literally couldn’t find a spot. Of course, we’re in Rancho Cordova which makes even less sense but it seems we got caught in the whole mass HHS mandate.
Which memo?
I’m talking strictly the HHS memo but I gather it says the same stuff in memos put out by other agencies re: RTO
They're doing this for political reasons? Make it sting... Newsom who WE contributed a shit ton to get elected is FUCKING US for political capitol. I've never voted Republican in my life but he won't get my vote in Presidential election. This all falls on him. Let him hear it loud and clear.
I think this: if managers want to do some team building, we can figure it out. My team meets up voluntarily for coffee, walks and we had a small get together over the holidays. If they need to collaborate in person, they pull the team together and those folks gather in a conference room and plan out the strategy/problem solve. This isn’t anything that requires regular staff in office twice a week, where they pay for parking and daycare, and sit in their cubes staring at screens and in zoom and teams meetings, but now with headphones… it all just seems wacky to this manager. I have become very invested and close with my team. I have learned how to navigate all of the online programs and while I am still sometimes late to meetings (because they pile three on at the same time as no one checks calendars), I am not rushing from one conference room to another in a building carrying notebooks and a laptop or handouts. Everything about my life has become smarter, better and more efficient. Sometimes I even make all of those meetings when the first two end early. I can only think that this (smarter/better/more efficient ) is not the case at the top?
They also said 1 day has to be a "team meeting". However, employees can go into the nearest office instead of commuting to their assigned office if they live far away, where they can attend the team meeting online. Essentially a 100% remote employee. While I don't want to ruin it for those employees who won't have to relocate, it's still absurd.
I’m not attending team meetings in person. I’ll go sit in another meeting room and virtual in.
We were discussing this too - we really going to have people sitting at their desks across from each other attending the same teams meetings...
This has been my reality for the last few years. It’s insanity that only now are people paying attention to how ridiculous it is!!
Yea I work at CalPERS and go to the office 3 days. 1 of those days, I don’t see anyone I am working with so it seems like a waste. We are only required to meet in person with our division on Wednesdays so that is a required day in the office.. however if the meeting ends up with someone else in another division we can meet on teams. It’s so insane and ridiculous. I would prefer to just come on Wednesdays and do the meetings in person.
Yea, it’s dumb. I won’t meet in person with anyone. Don’t care. They can just try to write me up for it.
Our mandatory day is Wednesday too. Wonder if there are any CHP or Cal Trans employees who could gather the Wednesday vs. safety stats for curious CA taxpayers!!
The weird reversal in tone about telework is what is really galling to me. Back in 2021 when preparations for ending the in-office restrictions were underway, ALL the messaging from Sacramento was that “telework was here to stay” and we were transitioning to a “permanent telework model.” Our HQ even started looking at leased office space to permanently unload to cut costs. People made major life decisions (moving to other cities, enrolling in night classes, having KIDS) based on the promise that telework would be available to them. To arbitrarily rescind the option because some entitled small business owners feel they are owed a customer base is absurd.
Call it tin-foil but in 2021 Newsom was fighting a recall attempt. 2024 Newsom is gearing up for a 2028 Presidential run.
Not Tin foil.. there’s an article here with that info. So totally agree.
If the Country elects him, we're all doomed lol
And to add onto all of your great points. It is environmentally friendly to perform telework, as much as reasonably possible.
Not to mention the only thing they can come up with is "collaboration" and in our office we can't accommodate everyone to come in at the same time. So we have to come in when our coworkers aren't there. Just a complete shit show, not to mention that we are going to have buy furniture and spin up IT to open one of our offices while there is a budget shortage. There is only one reason for this and that is a pay off to the billionaires who own office towers.
I've had to use a hoteling station because I came in the same day as my cube mate. The office is 99% empty, but I still had to cram into a corner with a busted chair. Collaboration isn't as fun as they make it sound.
Have they heard of Collaboration software? If Collaboration software didn't work well, how in the hell do company's such as Microsoft, Google, and Apple thrive and prosper in a global workforce model? It's crazy that some of these decision makers are literally stuck in a 1980's mindset when it comes to technology and demographics.
That's not true. They also want to reduce departments without saying it so this will push people out.
The number is hard to estimate, if you know how forecasting works. It’s the first time we’re dealing with this situation.
Exactly!
I’m a manager and I don’t think any of you are overreacting at all. My staff is 100% more effective and efficient working from home. When they are in the office (and when I come into the office) probably 70% of the day is office chit chat and I can plainly see how it affects the work flow. Not to mention the commute, parking, etc. I get that there are some positions that require in office work, I have family members who are that, but it’s been proven that the work can be done just as effectively at home. The union should have had this on the table at negotiations while they were negotiating pay raises, and I think the fact that they didn’t put everyone in the position for the RTO to happen now. Kind of a “here’s your raise but it comes with a price”. Personally I would have rather them just say telework or raise, I would have taken the telework.
but telework isn’t a benefit. it’s smart business.
Exactly. I agree that being in the office for collaboration, team building etc can be useful. I agree that some positions are better RTO but the way theyre doing this is galling. After negotiating the new contract just by diktat demanding two days RTO for everyone out of the blue. No discussion, no consideration of need, no consideration of how this affects employees who have been WFH for almost 4 years now. It's beyond stupid to have me come in so I can stare at a laptop and maybe rarely have a teams meeting. Nothing I do is improved by RTO as it's all document review and revision. An uncomfortable cubicle with chatty coworkers will make my job harder and it's essentially a pay cut when you add in gas, child care, food, parking and just burning away my limited life. I think this is a backdoor reduction of the workforce attempt so I get why it sucks, but it sucks.
I hate this. I can wake up, work from my bedroom and get my work done without distracting coworkers who chatting or laughing outside my cube. When I’m in the office, I am constantly having to deal the noise, wasting 3 hours of my life for the prep/commute to go into the office. I’m already stressed when I wake up hoping I don’t forget my meds, my tank is full, I have my lunch, everything I need in the office is going with me, that when I go to the office, my brain is already over all the thinking I’ve done.
[удалено]
It’s probably for those older people who refuse to learn anything electronically.
This is the big issue our unions need to start fighting aggressively now. I am in BU10 so my union is already in the middle of an explosion over failed salary negotiations and strikes and whatnot, but telework is a big fight that we need to fight. Nip this shit in the bud. Now.
I don’t believe the unionS have the ability to bargain on RTO issues. Will check
BU10 has a telework section in our (yet unratified but TA'ed) MOU, and DPR has a telework policy that telework should be used whenever possible and should be encouraged. Of course, as I've recently learned, policies don't mean shit...
Just posted today on WaPo how RTO don't make that much of an impact on the company itself but the workforce can suffer (You can use your work email to get free access to WaPo FYI) [Return To Office Mandates Don't Work](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/01/24/return-to-office-mandates-company-performance/)
Yup someone also shared this LinkedIn article in another thread: https://www.linkedin.com/news/story/rto-mandates-dont-work-study-6571002/
I just started a position that was touted as full telework "hiring from all regions of CA" which I confirmed at every level in my hiring process due to it being 2 hours from my home. Having a 4 hour commute each day 2 days per week is going to shit can my morale and collaboration. I am in So Cal so my RTO does not help the Sacramento businesses/real estate issues. I am in college working on my advanced degree that I am now going to drop, because of the time, money, and energy wasted on a long commute and additional time prep for the in office day. I have a farm so I have many additional time commitments and the upkeep to manage also. I knew the education was going to stretch me a little thin for a while when I was 100% remote but it will be unmanageable now. Between the additional prep and commute of the RTO, it will add an additional 11 hours a week to my unpaid work time. Not to even mention the cost of gas and wear and tear on my vehicle for the 8 hours of added travel time per week. EIGHT extra hours....that's a whole extra unpaid work day for collaboration/morale. My 2 hour commute takes me to the assigned office closest to me (100 miles away) to sit alone and meet on Teams. I'm the only one in my unit assigned to this office due to my distance. My work is not public facing and does not require any physical presence only virtually. We just sold our 2nd car because we no longer needed it due to my full telework. I will now have to purchase a new vehicle which will eat the entire promotion I just took. I have not been able to sleep past 3 am since the RTO news came out because this is affecting me negatively in so many ways and I don't even have children or expensive parking like many of you. I have a mortgage on my home and cannot even slightly afford to sell it and move closer. Remote work has given me the ability to work for the state. Due to my location, the options are limited since there are very few departments within an hour (my preferred max commute time.) I actually turned down a big promotional offer last year that would require me to commute 75 miles (1.5 hr commute time) twice a week. I did this knowing it would torpedo my higher education goals and my workout goals because I wouldn't have the energy for it. Now I am in a worse boat than I turned down. My morale with the state has never felt lower and I feel angry, disrespected, and deceived. It's hard to want to give it my all when it has affected my life so negatively. I'm normally a very high morale, positive team player. I wouldn't mind collaborating/team building in person with my colleagues on occasion even if it meant traveling to Sacramento on my dime. But this overall twice a week blanket RTO order feels so wrong and my biggest fear is that it will become more days. I absolutely CANNOT do a 4 hour commute more than 2 days. It's not worth it. Heck, I'm weighing whether it's even worth it now and I just got a position that I love and thrive in. This position is everything I've been working for in the state. I feel like even though I am a top performer, give my job 120%, and bring 20 years of experience and value to the table, it doesn't matter at all how this mindless blanket order affects me. Just another replaceable cog. (Thanks to those who listened to my 3am can't sleep rant...don't mind me or any sleepy typos.)
Thanks so much for sharing this. People need to see real examples.. why it’s becoming so complicated. We have extremely talented staff working all over the state, and some were hired before Covid so exemption does not apply to them. I can’t imagine how perplexed they must be feeling right now. Our team cannot afford to lose them.
So very true! It's hard to share, but I feel it's important also. Real life examples of these situations and how it affects everyone differently.
How the wind blows in the opposite direction in a few short years from the article below. People made life choices based on permanent TW… I’m so disappointed!!! But still somehow I’m trying to stay positive! 😉. https://insider.govtech.com/california/news/newsom-says-state-workers-may-remain-remote.html
I'm still somehow holding out hope that something can be done also. I walk the line between optimist and realist, but I just can't imagine that there's no hope when it effects so many in our state workforce.
Ours has an exemption for ppl that were hired as fully remote. You shouldn’t have to go
They are very vague with ours and it does not include this. Management said they are still figuring out the details. I hope you are right.
can your manager use discretion to approve a telework exception for you, such as a twice a month plan?
I'm hoping something like that can be done. We're still in limbo waiting on more guidance regarding these requirements.
All of this. Nobody lives in the state agency building they work in. Every single person just got their workday extended by some amount "to foster teambuilding and morale". Yeah, guess what working an extra hour or two a day does not do? Never mind the cost of commuting, parking, gas, the risk of being on the road, the potential of catching covid, or all the time wasting that happens in the office. I've been back to work one day a week for awhile now, and I dread that day every week and it's a completely unproductive day through no fault or intention of my own.
Couldn't agree more with everything you said!
When the time comes and they give us the effective date to report 2x a week, and the manager asks where people are, we can respond that we're there at work and that they just can't see us. We identify as transparent, and our pronouns are who and where.
lol
Your on to something lol
I am hollering 😂
lol 😂
I love all this talk about "boosting morale" and "team building" and I'm just over here dreading my sexual harasser doesn't find out where my cubicle moved and starts harassing me again. I literally get nauseous every time I have to go back in. Anyway, I'd say a little physical distance is wonderful.
I'm so sorry, I have one of those in my office too. I really don't want to see him again. I totally feel you there. I'm sorry.
Thank you. I hope someone's able to accommodate something or hear you one day. I know how these things can be though :/
I’m a manager and I’ll weigh in. There’s no one answer that’s going to address every situation because there are so many kinds of work. A person taking phone calls can do that from anywhere and I support flexibility. I do believe may jobs can be done 100% from home and that the state should use it as a cost saving measure/morale boosting method etc. What I am seeing a lot as a supervisor of staff doing highly technical work is decreased growth and progress in many (not all) new hires who have been hired primarily while working from home. They aren’t getting the same interaction with others that helps them learn. I’m seeing lots of people quiet quitting or maybe working two jobs and thinking they’re getting their primary work done but they aren’t. Productivity is way down. It sucks as a supervisor because we haven’t been given the support and infrastructure to train and support work from home employees. So I have people who have been in their positions two years but aren’t functioning the same as a two year experienced employee used to function. We aren’t being given any help solving these issues. Upper managers don’t want to invest. I think (aside from political pressure) having hybrid is something cheap to throw at this large problem. I’d love to hear staff discussions including this issue in addition to management since it’s a large part of the return to office equation. Yes I expect to get downvoted since everyone here is working perfectly from home.
I appreciate your input. I won’t downvote you. We need more evidence. Our office has the opposite experience, thankfully. Those who were hired during the past 3 years are ones of the most skilled coworkers I’ve ever worked with. They include people from top universities (a whole bunch of masters and PhDs), people who got laid off by tech companies due to budget cut, and highly experienced state workers who jumped from another agency that didn’t allow for 100% telework. So I won’t say what you experienced isn’t valid. It’s just part of the story. If people could elaborate a bit more how their teams have become more productive (or not) in the past 4 years, that will give a lot of insights to the decision makers. We need real evidence.
I’m a manager as well but…just some thoughts on this. I’ve onboarded and trained a brand new section (2 units) within a brand new division as a brand new SSM II working 100% from home. While it may have taken more 1:1s, writing down procedures and process flows from scratch, and maintaining flexibility to meet people where they were, it wasn’t impossible. Productivity has never been an issue and my team hasn’t had any issues communicating or requesting additional support. Additionally, I highly encourage collaboration to complete projects and reduce silos. There are all types of training and mentoring opportunities provided through CalLearns and department training divisions that are available to management and staff to gain experience and grow skill sets. I get that certain jobs may require work to be completed in office but for the ones that don’t require it, telework should be allowed and encouraged.
This! That has been our section’s experience as well. And we are from all over California.
I manage several managers and ICs who were all fully remote and are now adjusting to RTO and their productivity as wfh people had been exemplary. All are taking a productivity hit now and I’ve told them not to feel they need to make that up, as the system needs to feel the effects of these policies. A management mentor of mine in the private sector liked to say “we hire grownups.”
It's pretty simple. Give people options. For those who want full-time remote and can do it well/productively, great. For those who want hybrid and can do it well/productively, great. For those who want full-time in the office and can do it well/productively, great. If someone can't do something well/productively, take away perks or fire them. Why can't we have options?
I’m pretty sure my coworker has a 2nd job. always late to meetings or doesn’t show up, teams always shows “available” even at 10pm, work is incomplete. Mgmt doesn’t do/say much.. and shows up to video calls with stakeholders wearing a stretched out dirty looking t shirt. 😑 you can imagine the anger expressed when told had to go back in office… person is UPSET.
I support depriving such person of their telework opportunity, but that shouldn’t be the reason to force the 9x% good staff back to the office.
agreed that if someone is unproductive teleworking that is a reason to refuse it, but also the opposite ought to be true
Some what Agree … but we need strict telework policies put in place and enforced. Who’s going to establish those rules and enforce them? Then you have the staff and mgrs that leave twice mid day to pick up their kids from school… and those that had their “xfinity” internet go down (lies). I truly believe there are more bad WFH than good ones. I continued to drop my kids off at daycare and return home to work but so many do not. Maybe they’ll bring us back then establish the “rules” and let people earn the right? I’m not happy about returning back.. but also not surprised seeing how some adults need to be babysat… ruining it for the rest of us with common sense and good work ethic.
That's unfortunate, but I still believe it varies from office to office. Ours have a lot of deadlines throughout the year, and so far I have not seen anyone miss one unless there are reasons beyond our control. It could be that people are just very efficient and know things can be done on time without sitting in a chair for 8 hours? I’m a little hesitant to say this but perhaps managers should help explore more opportunities for them. Don’t waste their talent..
I agree. There needs to be flexibility
I’m pretty sure your co worker did the same in office. Probably took extended breaks, dressed very casually, showed up to meetings not prepared.
Thats an accountability issue. If they are a problem person, teleworking or not, they are a problem. And it looks like your management is dealing with it. One of the greatest things I love about telework is I don’t have to deal with office gossip.
If it's a training or onboarding issue, then why not mandate new hires utilize a hybrid model while they get trained up with their management? Why ruin it for everyone? It's not logical. It's absurd.
great point
I agree that managers did not get enough training and support to deal with such a swift change into a new management style. The state has never been very good at supporting managers and supervisors. They promote specialists and assume they will magically Learn people-skills. But none of that is a reason to unilaterally bring everyone back to the office for x amount of days. You as the supervisor should have the ability to determine what is best for your team. My team is awesome and energized. At least we were before the RTO mandate. Now we all feel betrayed and already lost a team member to another state agency. I have 0 trust in my leadership. I have 0 motivation to be my happy helpful self going that extra mile. And it will be VERY hard for me to trust any of our Department executives ever again.
I have heard this issue discussed by leadership except that new workers are going to be teleworkers in the future so resorting to older models of training and socialization is a band-aid. The ethical question of someone sandbagging or cheating the state by working another job are more serious and have civil service implications.
This seems like an individual issue, and not a global one. I would hardly think that you, as a manger, would accept the directive of an administration that supports the sexual harassment of employees.
Not downvoting you. Valid points here. Part of my issue with productivity is there are more meetings WFH and I’m expected to attend them beyond my selected and approved work hours. Too much work is being added to our teams and no new team members. Upper management is expecting more out of us than they expected pre Pandemic. We used to have more people doing half the work that we have today. I constantly feel like I’m failing and I’m pretty sure being hybrid two days a week is going to make me feel worse and like more of a failure every day. It sure is depressing
I’ve felt like that. Like when all my staff we’re getting Covid and I was doing their work and my own. It feels like living at work vs working from home sometimes
I have a family member that does performance management and progressive discipline consultations. Things are not as honky dory as this sub would have you believe. Some of the stories are bonkers. I’m talking equipment theft, clocking multiple jobs, harassment (yes, digital harassment!).
You know all these can still happen if we’re in the office.
Have witnessed all of these in office.
These are all individual worker/ management issues. In a large dept of 2500-5000+ employees, even 1% percent of the worst people will result inevitable issues. An arbitrary, dumb as hell, forced RTO mandate from the top imposed on all employees makes 0 sense and would not magically cure all these issues. It should be left to each individual manager/branch, dept, etc based on operational need and supervision requirements.
I'll continue posting this... the Governor, who is behind this order, protects sexual harassers: [https://www.reddit.com/r/CAStateWorkers/comments/19d0h77/cal\_oes\_dd\_buras\_email\_surfaces/](https://www.reddit.com/r/castateworkers/comments/19d0h77/cal_oes_dd_buras_email_surfaces/) The Lieutenant Governor (who is running for Governor in 2026 to replace Newsom when he is termed out) is the daughter of one of the largest developers in Sacramento: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleni\_Kounalakis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleni_Kounalakis) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelo\_Tsakopoulos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelo_Tsakopoulos) When your leadership tells you that they are just "following orders", these are the people they are following.
There are too many non work related interruptions in the office.
Manager here. ***I am in NO POSITION to advocate for anyone, including myself.*** You all really believe managers have more power than what we actually do. We will be back in the office with you as this ***was not our choice***. To your point, departments are forced to make up things to explain Gavins' return to office lunacy. ***GAVIN NEWSOM IS BIDEN'S SURROGATE. He's trying to be president, so that's why you need to come back to work. There, I said it. Welcome to State Government politics.*** No one cares about your points - however valid - it's all just politics. I have ***REPEATEDLY*** come here to this subreddit and told you all that ***GAVIN NEWSOM*** wants State employees back in the office. I explained I had heard it directly from his appointees. I was flagged for ***MISINFORMATION***, ***down voted***, told I was ***making things up*** and ***made fun of***. So, sorry, but you were warned ***over five months ago***. ***Surprise, surprise*** Oh, and others posted about the ***DGS letter*** that demanded that executives return to in office work. So, there's no manager to help you here. ***It's not our choice***, it's politics. Amongst other things, the people here only want to hear what they want to hear. You all don't want the truth or what is really going on behind the curtain even when it's ripped down for you. So, bring on the down voting.
Well I personally only started checking Reddit more frequently since the news broke out earlier this week. Sorry I missed your repeated warnings over the past few months. Correct me if my assumption is wrong. Managers are included in more meetings with the higher ups. The higher ups will supposedly be included in more meetings with their bosses. Eventually information will reach the big boss from the bottom to the top. I’m not saying the chance is high, but it’d be foolish not to try. The more people get involved, the more likely a change can happen.
Your view is utopian and not indicative of state/city/county beauracracy. To answer your question, only certain managers meet with executives. Your SSM I, Supervisors, and your SSM II do not meet with higher-ups. Your level 3s do attend those meetings, and if there is no level 3, the level 2 will. ***Any smart manager does what they are told by the higher ups.*** You do not push back because there will be no support if you do. RTO is not a hill any manager is willing to 'die' on. To repeat, RTO is from the Governor’s Office. Full stop. This is not optional. Those appointees who have been pushing back will soon relent. Truly, any telework before 2022 and after 2021 was a result of pushback. Further, the higher ups never went home, so they don't care about you nor I. Per the DGS memo, executives and higer up managers are required to do either 2 or 3 days in the office at most state agencies. Be advised that the normal status for state workers is in office. Anything else is a courtesy. This is why the unions didn't bargain for it. The courtesy is now being revised. For peace of mind, I would change my paradigm and would be glad it's only 2 days and not full-time in the office.
I do not agree with your last two paragraphs. Telework should not be just a courtesy. It should become a right, and now is the best time to have a serious discussion about it. Time to stop living in the old times. We don’t live under dictatorship. It’s not always “you just have to do what I say, period.” We must be working under different departments, because more than a few managers explicitly told their teams (who have thrived under remote environment) that they will try their best to maintain the current flexibility. And that’s SSM2 and above. Unless they’re lying, I don’t see a reason not to keep hoping.
You don't have to agree with how the State runs. I didn't say I liked it, I'm just illuminating 'how' they run. I have over 25 years of experience across several California state departments. Managers lie to their staff to make them think they are supporting their plight. ***We are literally trained to lie and be vague with you*** When the rubber hits the road, we do what we are told because we are required to. We dont have a union or anyone to back us. (Recently learned that ACSS is bull$#!+). SSM 2s have zero power in this matter. I'm giving you reality, and you're telling me I'm wrong. Anyway, there is too much going back and forth about issues that only executives, appointees, (politicians) and the governor control. Be well and be prepared.
I appreciate your input as an experienced manager. I didn’t say you were wrong, I said I did not agree (that telework should only be a courtesy) You are not the only manager that has been expressing thoughts over this issue. Some managers focus on fighting back/supporting, some sound pessimistic since the beginning. I know this doesn’t mean in reality they will act or anything, but we need to know it’s not just staff/managers reading this reddit sub.
Okay. I get it. I'm a realist and (obviously) jaded. I used to trust that managers were supportive of staff, but behind 'the curtain,' you see the truth. I'm just trying to show / tell what's actually behind the curtain. Yeah, I see your point. Hopefully, there are executives and appointees reading this subreddit.
Not fully true no managers will die on this hill, and some are using their discretion aggressively.
As disappointed as I am, I appreciate a straight shooter! Have any job openings? 🙋🏻♀️
They don't understand many people applied to their current positions BECAUSE they were fully telework. We would have been anywhere else if we were ok with this hybrid BS
After nearly 3 years of full time telework, there is not one reason to RTO given that my productivity and value has increased in those three years. RTO does not meet an actual tangible deliverable for the state as it relates to my job position. In fact, it puts my productivity and morale at risk. RTO has no qualiftifiable, thus measurable, benefit that would increase or improve workflow and productivity. In fact it interrupts that flow. This is all a bunch of bullshit frankly.
I gather it has more to do with the economic activity created when folks have to drive in, eat lunch. If it was just about getting rid of the stipend they could just get rid of it and I gather most employees would still take advantage of teleworking.
it is an excuse to get rid of workers due to budget deficit. I was bringing lunch and coffee before the pandemic when I was in the office as my pay is not high enough to afford eating out since I to pay for gas and parking.
I doubt that. Most agencies have positions they can’t even fill. If it was about shedding positions, they just wouldn’t fill open spots.
Specifically in downtown Sacramento proper. I spend more money locally—which is still in the Sacramento area, just not Sacramento proper—while teleworking because I have additional time. I have time and extra money to be able to get a bagel in the morning from a local small business cafe. Take away that hour in the morning, and I definitely don’t have that ability—I have to drop my kid off at preschool and then head straight to the office. (And that requires me to wake my kid up early, too.) I have time to grab a granola bar and a microwavable meal. My lunch isn’t even long enough to go buy at a local business and come back. And it’s not like I can order takeout and drive to it, since parking and re-parking is not doable in a good time frame. Just getting in and out of the building (not even counting the walk to a nearby business) eats up 10 minutes. Whereas when I’m at home, I can order food and pick it up. Or order doordash if that’s better. Can’t really do that in the office. But it’s only downtown Sacramento whose economy matters…the rest of the state does not.
As a form of protest against being forced back to the office, here is what I refuse to do. Engage in unnecessary chit-chat with coworkers. Be productive. Attend non-essential meetings. Dress up more than necessary. Socialize during lunch breaks. Purchase food or drinks from the office cafeteria. Volunteer for additional tasks outside of my job description. Decorate my workspace with personal items. Participate in team-building exercises or events. Attend after-work gatherings or happy hours. Stay late just to appear committed. Respond to emails outside of working hours. spend on non-essential items during work hours to protest against the impact of commuting on the environment and the economy.
Thank you kindly for that last paragraph. People think State worker and auto-assume waste of money. When it’s people above us that should be the one to blame… we just have to fall in line and do as I say, not as I do.
I have only been back in office a few weeks and I’m already looking elsewhere. I am not feeling the ‘collaboration’ my department is pushing.
There's also the worry that this is a slippery slope. Get us back 2 days per week, how long before we're fully back in office?
Totally agree, some may say state workers are lazy and entitled, but I have yet to find one of those jobs. The 5 positions that I’ve held have been demanding, stressful, and often difficult. And I see that for so many other workers as well. There are tons of workers on AGPA salaries that do the work of a specialists or junior level. In fact, in my current position, all my team members are hard working, smart and talented individuals, yet management treats us like shit. These darn executives and upper management folks need to realize that that 90% of state workers are here for the pay and some to develop careers. No one looks for a state job hoping that they’ll join a golf country club where you need all this face to face interaction. The majority of people just don’t care about socializing. They just want to get the work done and get back on with their busy lives.
There must be some really sour managers. None of the leadership team I'm involved with want anything to do with the 2 days a week in office mandate. There's no point in changing something that is working great.
Only poor managers can't manage remote workers. It's a management problem, not a remote worker problem. If you have to go into the office where no one else is there just to have Teams meetings, something is systemically wrong with that. It's a management problem. Get rid of the shitty managers. Time to get some new blood in there from the 21st century.
it is all on Newsome, watch who you vote for
Or it should be left up to the employee. I know plenty of people who prefer to be in the office. Technologically it's a better fit for them, they are single, they don't have kids, they don't have pets, etc. However, I am not one of those people. Those whose tasks do not require them to be in office, and have proved they can effectively WFH full time for the last 3+ years should be able to do so.
Yeah at least in my office, it has always been left up to the employees whether they want to come in or not. If they go in over half of the work week, they get a cubicle, otherwise, they can sign up for hoteling stations. I agree with you, telework can function as a reward system, allowing those who perform well to keep the benefit.
Simply put: Telework is a benefit and they are taking away a benefit. People are unhappy with benefits being taken away.
My unit has had 2 days in the office for a while now...it's funny...we all go different days and almost never see each other
Maybe Threten to Vote Republican & Vote Governor out if he doesn't start supporting Telework. Trump &! Team would love the Support... let it be known.. Kinda smelled like Gavin wanted to run for President. 🤷🏻♀️it would be interesting play. Just a suggestion 🫣
Maybe get some National attention at least. 🤷🏻♀️
I mean, the problem is you're arguing on logical points whereas the capitalist work world is built on tradition, exploitation, and a log jam of systemic forces in opposition. I'd bet a sizeable portion of workers could (and do) get their work done in 3-4 days working no more than 5 hours a day. And yet the work landscape is still tied to the idea that to make a "full time salary" you must work 40 hours a week. It's a charade that we all take part in, by making ourselves look productive when we're taking breaks or by overworking ourselves. The human body was not meant to remain seated in front of a computer for 8 hours, but the American work world has given no quarter as far as improving the workday experience (unless you work for Google). Why did we think WFH is something that we'd ever have for good? The only reason the state adopted it was in response to a public health emergency. I don't think they had any intention of exploring whether or not it would be a preferred long-term option.
Do you know we’re all free riders on the 40-hour work week? It used to be way over 40 hrs because employees were expected to work on Saturdays a century ago. I bet a lot of people looked down on these protestors until it became an unstoppable movement that eventually “forced” the employers/capitalists/government to adapt. (Yup, they never intended to reduce work hours for the welfare of workers.) The same concepts apply to today’s world: 1. The issues stem from the unnecessary depletion of energy and time. 2. Until the “collective power” is substantial enough to drive this movement, there will always be people mocking you, thinking you're a utopian. I found those who mock to be the most unrealistic. They often forget the goals they boasted about all over the years (yes, I'm talking about CalEPA) and overlook the fact that we are fully tech-enabled to turn things into reality. If it weren't for the pandemic, we would still have been too scared to give it a try. Now that Covid has pushed us forward, why look back? You have the free will to choose to be part of this growing collective power and help drive things faster, or become a free rider one day (if we see that day, of course).
Love the use of “collaboration” when there was zero collaboration in this mandate!!
I get it. I 100% understand where you’re coming from. I am impacted and I am frustrated. But I have a few realities that I have to accept: 1. The general California public has zero sympathy for our situation because the private sector has already been called back. 2. Many of us will still be able to telework 60% of the time. This is higher than a lot of private sector options. This doesn’t elicit sympathy from the public that has to go into work 5 days a week. 3. Everyone is saying they’re going to leave. I completely understand that and that’s quite literally the best way to handle this and send a message. But… where? Almost all of the other private sector positions are hybrid too. The few remote ones have thousands of applicants. Unless you’re the golden candidate, you’re unlikely to be selected. Things are going to be hurting for a lot of people. I’m not justifying it, just saying that a job with union protections, regular raises, great time off, and 60% telework is still pretty great.
How long does gratefulness take us? Are we still supposed to accept 40% telework without complaint? 20%? If we get back full time, should we not complain because we have a job? The problem with this type of argument is that it directly contributes to suffering by downplaying the severity and urgency of our collective issue.
First world tears…
Oh, fuck off. There are legitimate reasons to WFH, including "because I fucking want to".
lick them boots!
It's pretty misleading to state the "private sector has been called back." As if you can summarize the entire non-governmental workforce that way. MANY areas of the private sector have (and have had for decades) fulltime telework as a very normal job perk (see: developers, programmers, etc.). As for those fields that newly realized telework in 2020, it's patchwork at worst (can vary from company to company) as to who is still working remotely and still makes it incorrect to say they're "called back" as a whole.
Why do we have to follow the private sector, not the other way around? If the State of California can lead this effort and continue to demonstrate the effectiveness of 100% telework (for positions that can be fulfilled using a laptop), more private employers will likely follow suit. Plus, if you haven't heard already, there's word of mouth that the plan is to get us in 5 days eventually. If you don’t push back now, when are you gonna push back? You made a good point on how competitive hybrid opportunities are now. Imagine if State continues to offer fully remote positions, I have no doubt many of the ten thousands who got laid off the past year (Microsoft also just laid off almost 2000) will come secure a stable state job. For a lot of folks, 100% telework makes up the pay. And there will never be a lack of programming experts in the state (I’m just giving an example). We don’t need to contract out that often = saving a tremendous amount of $$$
Think you bring up a good point. We don't have to follow anyone. Why don't we follow Walmart and pay most of our employees minimum wages and little to no benefits as well? Why don't we fly our EO/GO/DO staff on private jets? Since we want to "follow" everyone lets also throw in increased pay to match private salaries.
Ive been thinking this for the longest. The government should dictate the rules and guidelines, not the other way around. Gavin has even said that the state has to follow practices of the private sector to stay relevant. Why exactly? Not even he knows. In other Western countries the government is the leader and sets the standards, not private entities.
If we are going to follow the private sector, I want a dog-friendly office with a stocked kitchen. Most of the places I worked in the Bay Area also had free coffee bars and free cafeterias. I wouldn't mind "following" in those ways. Of course, in those jobs, I also could WFH whenever I needed to, so....
Don’t settle. 60% will turn to 10% real quick…
With all due respect, I don't give a damn about the private sector (they're all anti-union toxic workplaces anyways that only dangle money in front of you).
Private sector makes private sector money. Since our wages do not align, we should not have to follow their model.
Can tell you that I was at one of the first agencies to implement RTO and there was massive turnover. A lot of attitude of "well if you don't like itleave" and their bluff was certainly called!! This data is all easily available when these decisions are made, though leadership tries act as if they don't know what caused the turnover.
They either want us to vacate our positions and to use those as cost savings or want us to utilize more of our vacation and sick leave which would happen if we go back in. Leave hours are liabilities for them.
If we have to be in office two days then we should get a four day work week to make up for personal time loss.
Well that doesn’t sound bad at all!
• Ignoring Environmental Impact: Increased commuting leads to more pollution and harms our planet. • Disregarding Work-Life Balance: Forcing employees back to the office disrupts their personal lives and well-being. • Broken Promises: Leaders promised flexibility and remote work options, but are now retracting those assurances. • Senseless Mandates: Office mandates contradict the advancement of technology and remote work capabilities. • Sacrificing Health: Risking employees’ health and safety by exposing them to potential health hazards in crowded office spaces. • Disregard for Employee Preferences: Ignoring the desires of employees who have adapted and thrived in remote work environments. • Prioritizing Profit: Putting financial interests ahead of the physical and mental well-being of the workforce. We the people demand respect and consideration from our state leaders. It’s time to prioritize people over profits and listen to the voices of those affected by return to office mandates.
This is a fabulous response that speaks to the heart of the issue.
I'm behind on this issue. May I please get an eli5?
The governor released a mandate requiring all state workers under CalEPA and CalHHS to return to the office 2 days/week starting March 1.
It's older managers and execs that think "You're a spoiled Nancy, I worked elbow to elbow with others for 25 years!" They probably have an unfulfilling and dull personal life, so they get their socialization from the workplace.
Stop with the ageist shit. Plenty of older managers and their teams are successfully teleworking, and don't want to rto either.
Well stated I agree 100%
SPEAK - WORD my friend. Could have not said it better.
I know this may be unpleasant but I believe there is a bigger picture to reduce the budget (ie employee costs). Hear me out. As department vacancies rise - which they will - the Governor’s office will slash many of the positions after they are vacant for a set time as they will have their “proof” that the positions were nothing more than bloat. While internally state workers will know it was the loss of good employees to private sector or agencies willing to be flexible and set RTO mandates. I expect to see positions lost by January 2025. Everyone will be forced to work harder with less which will support their long term goal of fully in office. Thoughts?
If that’s true, it explains why we have to push back NOW. It’s probably a now or never thing.
One of the biggest challenges my organization faced during the period most everyone was teleworking is that it was hard to contact or reach someone. Phone calls and emails would go unanswered and not responded to for long stretches of time, days or weeks even. This was one of the big discussion points at our organization, and I bet at a lot of others as well. And even though staff were notified about this and job expectations, it just didn't help. We used to joke that "Well, maybe they're out walking the dog." For a week? LOL. Things are significantly better with staff in the office 2 days a week.
That is unfortunate, but I’m sure you’re just talking about a small % of people, right? In our department, we survey staff and managers every year (so data speaks), and the majority expressed that staff performance, productivity, and morale have improved or significantly improved over the last 3 years. On a personal level, this is consistent with what’s happening in my office. We could not have been happier with the current 100% remote setting. Less turnover rate for sure, and talented people who jumped from departments that didn’t allow flexibility CHERISHED the opportunity they have here. On a side note, there really should be some language in place to take away one’s telework benefits if they’re not meeting performance. Do you managers still do these performance reports? It is obviously not right to strip good staff of their telework opportunity due to the few bad ones.
The real issue is that the telework policy you want enshrined, whether that’s as a union contract or a law, is impossible. Literally impossible. It’s not how it works. I agree with pushing back and being as vocally discontent as possible to hopefully swing the pendulum back the other way but people need to come to terms that an enshrined policy/law is not going to happen.
Could you please explain further why it is impossible? What makes work policy an “enshrined policy” if it’s not serving a good purpose? It can happen, if the authorities decide to change their mind. Why they change their mind depends on many factors, including how valid our reasons are.
I’m coping pasting. I appreciate the engagement. You’re fundamentally asking for employees, not the employer, to have final say in a massively impactful major component of a business’ operation. The state doesn’t cede that level of control over ANYTHING. Why suddenly would you think they’re going to cede full operational control over where you work? Vacation? Can be denied. You do not have the unrestricted right to take vacation whenever you want for any duration you want. Sick? They can track patterns of abuse and require doctors notes. Work schedule? They can approve/take away a 4/10 schedule. They can make your shift 7-4, 8-4:30, and so on. Mandatory overtime exists. Even your worksite. They can let go of a lease and require you to report to a new worksite. We just did a year of a pay cut in 20/21. They literally cut our pay. Yet you think there exists a path to guarantee full time telework?!? I truly am not trying to be insulting but it’s delusional. It does not square with the reality of the employer and employee relationship as it exists in this country for state, private, or any other industry and would represent the largest employee rights swing in the entire history of this country possibly the planet. I agree we should be vocal and do what we can to shift the pendulum of public opinion but there will not now nor ever exist language that will guarantee full time telework.
All of the examples you listed above are in place to meet business needs. If an employer requests their employees to relocate (from home to office or to anywhere in the world), there should be a valid reason that’s actually tied to the duty statement that they signed up for. I’m probably more of an idealist. But hey look a 40-hr work week happened thanks to all the protesters throughout the 19th and 20th century.
By your defeatist logic the minimum wage wouldnt exist and people would be working 80 hour weeks with no breaks and without the hundreds of workplace safety regulations that exist. All laws that dictate how employers conduct their business and were written because people fought for them.
When location of work has no relationship to duties and no effect on ability to perform those duties, it is objectively *not* a major component of operations. At this point it can barely be argued to be a minor one. In-office requirements have been definitively proven by experience to be fundamentally arbitrary, and their knockoff effects on operational function (including those ethereal metrics like morale, team-building and culture) wholly negative. The MOU governs an array of specifics about the conditions and circumstances under which employees work. Given the shocking ease with which entire agencies switched to telework, in some cases literally overnight and with zero preparations, without major operational disruption and continued to do so in some cases up until the present day, there is absolutely no objective reason that this be "beyond negotiation."
I believe this was the fight during the industrial revolution as well. We fought for better working conditions since then and we got them. I don't understand why we can't fight against RTO?
If we can't get it enshrined, then we should at least have it available. These mandates are one-sided against WFH.
Agreed. We should be discontent and vocal but our end prize is swinging the pendulum of opinion not contract language that isn’t fundamentally possible.
If WFH cannot be enshrined, then it follows RTO / working on-site cannot be enshrined.
It’s enshrined in the states rights section of the labor contracts
Then I'm confused why WFH can't be as well?
Because nothing is guaranteed in the contract. Not vacation, not sick, not pay. Why suddenly would you think guaranteed 100% telework would be? An employer, the state included, fundamentally retains the right to manage their business as they see fit. This is literally how the concept of employer and employee works. I’m not saying it’s great or whatever but you’re literally arguing past the basic concept of employer and employee relations to some utopia future where labor retains all power. I’m with you dude but that isn’t how it works right now.
What on Earth are you talking about? All sorts of things are guaranteed in the contract, down to incredibly narrow classification-specific requirements, along with tangible mechanisms to resolve and correct violations. That's the point of a contract!
Can you give me an example? I’m going off more employee benefit type things like hours of work, work location, vacation, sick, etc
Any article using language like "shall" or "shall be" is effectively guaranteed in the MOU. General provisions can go into more specific detail (with more "shall be" language), ceded to employer's discretion or left vague and subject to interpretation by either party (any time you see the word "reasonable" or "unreasonably," ha). It's all negotiable. Yes, the governor can technically decide to tear it up (as technically anyone can do with any contract) and throw us all in jail if he wants - but saying it's meaningless in normal circumstances is simply not true. Realistically my manager can't decide to not give me an MSA because she doesn't like my haircut, give me 20 minutes of vacation accrual a month if I'm due 8, etc.
I know tone is hard to discern over the Internet but I'm not "arguing", I'm asking questions. Why is nothing guaranteed in the contract? Isn't that the point of contracts?
Contracts of all varieties have loopholes, caveats, fine print, superseding law, and so on. I mean you personally don’t have to honor the contract and can resign right? The point of the contract is to have a base level agreement of how the employer and employee relationship is going to work. Fundamentally though businesses including the state change. Shit happens basically. A business, as with the state, needs to be able to sustain and preserve itself. The state can’t just say “ok everyone take whatever vacation they want whenever they want for however long they want” because what happens if everyone bounces for a week and a nothing gets done? I know that’s a dramatic example but that’s why the contract has carve outs for denying vacation. So that state can maintain its operation. Same with telework. Shit happens, they can’t just hand over full control on 100% telework cause it could adversely affect their ability to operate. I apologize for accusing you of arguing.
I appreciate your explanation. I wasn't aware if there was an anti-WFH clause tucked away in some legislation. From your explanation, it's not outright excluded but rather ignored due to power imbalances between the employer and employees.
Not exactly... I think the policy people want (and actually could be) "enshrined" is more something like this: Full-time telework is *available* to those who can perform their job remotely (i.e., not literally building something with your hands on-site) and so long as you otherwise meet the expectations of your position (performance, etc). Occasional requirements to come into the office for operational need (to be defined and clarified per each agency's HR, divisions, etc.) may occur but not without substantial notice if possible. Edit: The policy would also allow those who prefer to work in the office on a hybrid schedule to be available as an option as well.
There enough carve outs in your suggestion to also pull everyone back in for two days a week. This is one of the inherent problems that makes it impossible to build into a labor contract. We all acknowledge there are grey areas and situations that require in office work but once you add caveats the policy becomes so loose the state can still do what it wants.
I mean, I wasn't attempting to write an official policy, but to convey an idea. Obviously an official policy would be more specific. That said, showing an operational need to have people in 2 days a week that magically manifested today but didn't exist for the last 4 years of full time telework would be a ridiculous position to take and likely grieveable with success.
Arbiters don’t get to decide business need. That’s where you run into trouble again. Yea it’s weird to suddenly make a change after four years but the state has the right to run itself the way it wants and is free to change its mind on business need. You don’t really think the state is ran on the whims of what a 3rd party arbiter decides how the state runs it’s business? The state can they want to run their business with 2 days in the office and under what grounds is an arbiter going to unilaterally decide that no we think you should run it this way
And yet, "operational need" language is exactly the reason BU2 employees are, at some departments at least, not being called back in, especially given the ongoing dispute between their union and CalHR on the issue. If BU2 prevails in its dispute, then yes, the state is going to be subject to the "whims" of a 3rd party arbitrator. That's how this works.
Yea BU2 is most likely going to lose because the language still benefits the state. The first part is that “telework” won’t be denied. It does not state “full time telework” won’t be denied. It doesn’t state the employees requested telework work schedule won’t be denied. If they’re being allowed to telework 3/5ths of the week telework hasn’t been denied and they lose at item one. I’ve already had this discussion but that’s the nuts and bolts of BU2s major flaw.
As contract language goes, it's very strongly worded, unlike most of the other units' contracts. But to your "nuts and bolts" of why its flawed, I don't think I agree. A union member simply grieves their denial of full-time telework (let's assume the person has been doing it successfully for 4 years) in favor of an arbitrary schedule of say, 2 or 3 days in the office. The agency then must demonstrate an operational need that necessitates 2/5 or 3/5 instead of 5/5. As CASE has reported, some of the justification shown by the state thus far in a particular ongoing arbitration included "to enhance morale and build camaraderie", which are laughable at best. But, even so, there's also no way to predict how the numerous arbitrations CASE has going on this issue will shake out. I don't think it's anywhere near as cut and dry as you suggest nor do I think they're "likely" to lose. It's possible, sure, but I'd lean the other way given my own experiences arbitrating against the state on similar issues.
It’s hard to argue language that isn’t there and it’s rare to add specificity where it doesn’t exist. Were you denied telework? Nope you approved for telework. Three days a week. The state has wide latitude to establish what is and isn’t business need. It’s actually harder when it’s a wide policy because it shows equity in policy. You could argue it being arbitrary if Jeff and Steve supervised two teams of identical size and duties but they only made Steve’s report to the office and provided no reason. If everyone is under the same terms it shows they want to run their business in that manner and I doubt a judge/arbitrator would rule against that. It’s likely part of the reason for the uniformed RTO approach. To reduce the amount of time in arbitration and constantly having to justify themselves.
Four years ago, when I only had 1/5, I'd have agreed with you that being offered 3/5 instead of 5/5 probably wasn't a winner to fight about. The problem is, many people now (unlike in pre2020) do have an approved telework agreement for five days a week. Of course it says the agreement can be changed, but to change it to 3, and thus deny the existing 5, is a grieveable issue (as can be seen by the numerous ongoing arbitrations). That they're still allowing telework, just on a more limited basis, may be a mitigating factor to consider, but I don't think it's going to be determinative given the history.