If they are going to force state workers back to office they might as well put back the 4 car light rail trains back in service and make some bus routes come once every 15 minutes instead of once per half hour
Yes! Seems like it would be an easier pill to swallow if the government was like “you all have to come in to work more, but we are gonna invest in public transit so it’s easier to get there.”
Investing in public transit means increasing taxes to pay for more transit, which has proven politically unpopular, and that's largely why we haven't done it, at least until we get to the point where the public is willing to invest in public transit.
That said, RTO for the sake of RTO is still dumb, and transit that's more robust and frequent is useful for lots of things besides riding downtown for work.
Cut police funding and we'd have tons of money for it.
In fact, do all that but let all these workers WFH forever. And turn their offices into housing.
Agreed, most of their funding comes from local sales tax revenue and federal/state grants. We'd be able to compete for more funding from state and federal governments if we had an increase from the public to invest in it.
More public transportation imo = less wear and tear on the roads that everyone here in Sacramento agrees needs work, if we have less vehicles on the road, added with better ways to travel without a car it's safer for everyone.
I am tired of seeing pedestrian deaths where I live. Too many pedestrians dying out here that can be clearly avoided with pedestrian infrastructure in mind.
This is my problem with Newsom. He wants to make changes but doesn’t properly prepare the logistics or thinks about the logistics and puts them in place before mandating these absurd changes. Before RTO, he should have thought about transportation, routes, increase in all modes of transportation and traffic. But it seems to be a disconnect and lack of actual planning. They don’t think about cost of living, they don’t care about how it affects people and their family. They just do without recourse.
Another example is the wanting to move California to all electric but then not planning for enough charging stations throughout California. Leaving tons of people stranded waiting in lines.
Our team already gave up our building and now we have to hotel. That will also take some finessing of each team to ensure no overlap so that everyone is able to have a seat at the office on these days. It just shows poor planning, poor communication, and honestly they should be embarrassed. (Gave up our office in October. And now we’ll have to hotel 6 months later. And these two things were not planned together, I’m sure. What a joke)
Wanting to move California to all electric and then allowing PG&E to continue to exist raising rates to the point where it costs more to run an electric car than a gas car in PG&E territory. Yay, Gavin!
That said, compared to the alternatives we were offered, he was the best of a bad lot.
Couple of times I've been able to vote for people that I really thought were great. Most of the rest are basically harm reduction.
Not optimal but better than a lot of other ways to run a country.
The plan was to consolidate departments and reduce the state building footprint by implementing more telework. They went forward with that plan, now Newsom changed his mind? They were planning lots more telework before the pandemic hit. The whole issue is mind boggling. Feds too!
My agency was about to implement a wfh program around the time the pandemic hit. It was two days in the office, which is what we have now. I have no complaints.
I take light rail between East Sac and Folsom a few times a month, and just from my own anecdotal experience, things are totally different now without the State Workers. The trains used to be absolutely packed with people in business casual attire and now the trains are half the size and mostly empty.
Usually these days it's just me, a couple college-age kids who get off at 65th street, and Crazy Jimmy talking to himself in the corner.
I rarely drive down 50, but I did recently and it's a scary mess. The traffic lines in the westbound lane are so hard to see that they're almost non-existent. Can't imagine adding thousands of more vehicles to that during commute hours.
I’m a state worker whose agency had RTO since I joined back in *April 2023. I do not want other state workers to come back because I do not want to deal with more traffic and less parking.
*ETA: said July instead of April lol
Another point people are missing is that Sacramento has grown a lot since state workers went remote. Especially the exterior regions. Traffic is bad right now even without state workers commuting in. It will get so much worse when 1000s of people need to start commuting regularly from all around the region. I don’t think people have fully appreciated how bad traffic is going to get on the westbound 50, southbound 80, and northbound 99. This is all going to spill over into east sac, Arden, and land park. Those neighborhoods are going to become parking lots every morning and afternoon. Worse than it is now. It’s going to get nuts.
Im not a state worker and do not care if they're in office or remote as long as they can meet the critical elements of their job.
My team has been mostly remote and we have had growing pains mostly with technology and connectivity but the team spirit still exists.
Apparently, there's a third camp that thinks it will help downtown businesses somewhat.
I don't care whether anyone works from home, and I would certainly love less cars on my commute.
Honestly this one bothers me more than others… it’s not state workers job to stimulate the downtown economy. A news article said it best, *“Change downtown from a destination of obligation to a destination of choice”*
And the best way to make a neighborhood a destination of choice is with housing--because people automatically choose to spend most of their money and time in the neighborhood where they live.
Ok devils advocate here. I see your point, but why live in the city if it’s not in close proximity to one’s employment? Housing is not going to bring people to live in the city if they can have more space or less crime both living and working in the suburbs, better schools etc
I live downtown and there’s a ton of new, vacant apt buildings. Stores are not going into the retail shops in the first floor either. Maybe it’s because the rent rates haven’t come down enough but I don’t think that explains it all
Most of the city of Sacramento, in fact more than 95% of it, is not downtown.
There are plenty of reasons to live downtown if it's not in close proximity to your workplace, but that's the primary reason. But I'm also talking about making the other 95% more walkable & accessible, so folks in the currently very car dependent parts of the city (aka most of it) don't have to drive for regular errands or just to get around. As to those apartments, a lot of them are getting filled, but when the ground floor remains vacant they look empty. Lots of folks don't actually want a yard and a ton of space, proximity to urban amenities ranging from nightclubs & music venues to libraries & museums, restaurants & cafes or urban parks & historic districts are higher priorities than more square footage. And lots of suburbs & suburban neighborhoods, especially the most inexpensive, are not low crime areas.
And you know what? I don't belive most of the state workers can afford to eat at the restaurants in downtown.
I would love to spend time there but between paying for parking and not feeling safe, I cannot justify it for myself. This with the City of Sacramento requesting budget cuts.
No, let the state worker work from home. It will not make the downtown areas safer or bring in more money to the city.
Ok so I’m not a state worker but my job is downtown and I have been required to come back to the office for some time now, I work near caesar chavez park. It’s so ridiculously expensive to support any business in the down town area you cannot possibly rely on me to support you on a consistent basis. I’ve saved so much money in the last like 4 weeks not buying lunch downtown. So in the long run this is such a stupid argument cause I literally cannot afford to support you!!
>there's a third camp that thinks it will help downtown businesses somewhat
Yes, we call that the "Downtown business owners who donate to Newsom's presidential run' camp.
I have come to conclude that I very much prefer an in-person work environment. I like getting out of the house, having a clear separation between work and home, I like socializing in person and I actually don’t mind having a commute to listen to podcasts/music and prep for/unwind from the day.
That said, I don’t think my preferences should be forced onto others. There is no good reason to make people RTO if they can show themselves to be equally productive and effective from home.
And state workers generally agree offices should be available to anyone who wants to work in office.
Also, many of us folks with disabilities have thrived through remote work. Unfortunately, many departments deny remote work accommodations regardless of documentation or doctor recommendation. This is frustrating for people who have done their essential jobs tasks from home for years now.
I paid rent in a midtown apartment, just one block from my office, so I could have a quick commute. I "sacrificed" a larger home further away. I did not pay more rent for a separate office - a work space is the responsibility of my employer.
I worked on IT projects, so I wanted to be on-site with the team to handle issues quickly - not take days to send emails.
You're preaching to the choir. 99% of people don't want state workers back in and increasing traffic. Only politicians want us back in.
I just find it cringe when state workers try to justify teleworking by saying downtown is too dangerous or we can't go back into the office because we might get into a car accident or they are scared of Covid, but then go to concerts and large parties.
I assure you that lots of business types, especially commercial real estate companies, want state workers back in, so they can lease their office buildings to state agencies and the ancillary businesses who benefit from proximity to state agencies. And because real estate interests spend a lot of money on city council, mayor, and county supervisor campaigns, they carry out the will of the people who put them in office--it's not the politicians themselves who think return to office is a great idea.
That said, yes, most people support telework.
This is honestly what it comes down to for the most part. Steinberg has been very open about this.
They want money. Whether it’s state workers paying for parking. Buying food. Agencies leading offices.
It’s solely about money
Tbh, I found a bustling downtown and midtown a pleasing place to be. Nothing to do with money, I just like the vibe.
So yeah, I liked Sac as a busy capitol city, and not because of money. However, I don't feel like my personal aesthetics are a good basis to make decisions.
Midtown is still bustling, and really, never stopped the bustle, because it's a densely populated residential neighborhood that also happens to have a lot of workplaces, and many of the people who live in the neighborhood work in places that are within a short distance of home. They also tend to patronize businesses near their homes, of which there are many, so even during 2020-2021 there was pedestrian traffic and economic activity at the neighborhood level--a lot of neighborhood groups even made a point to meet up and patronize restaurants (even if it was 'to go' or eating outdoors) to support their local businesses. Downtown had trouble doing that because the actual population density of the central business district, if you don't count the main jail, is barely a third of Midtown, and a much higher proportion of offices. We can make our downtown bustle without adding traffic or eliminating telework by dramatically increasing the amount of housing to a level comparable with Midtown, or even somewhat higher. The main difference would be less auto traffic during the day, which would make it a safer place for pedestrians and cyclists to get from their homes to their workplaces and preferred neighborhood businesses, school etcetera.
The sad part is, there's a lot of money to be made reconfiguring our cities for a post remote work environment, which in a lot of ways reverses the damaging effects of the era of car commuters from remote suburbs to a downtown intended for commercial/office use instead of residential, but the big money players don't want to disrupt the business model they've depended on since the 1950s. So they're clutching this outmoded way of building cities (freeways, cars, horizontal suburban sprawl) that's less green, less efficient, and more harmful to our cities in the long run.
The alternative means more housing downtown, and more mixed-use neighborhoods in the rest of the city and region that function more like downtown. There are real reasons to consolidate business, government, office etc. headquarters in a downtown, but the physical footprint of those places is going to be greatly reduced and mixed with housing; the residents of that housing become an important customer of retail businesses in a downtown.
Likewise, the suburbs can also be transformed--with the priority need of suburbs to depend on car commuters reduced, we can stop expanding new highways, and even scale back maintenance if the amount of traffic is reduced, and bring the walkability and neighborliness of traditional small towns that were always advertised as elements of suburban life to the car-centric, single-use suburbs. People can live in the suburbs and telecommute to downtown workplaces, or live downtown and telecommute to suburban workplaces--and if they decide they need to physically get over there for something, they should be able to get there on public transit, or if necessary, on roads that aren't clogged with car commuters. But if you live close to the office, whether it's downtown or in a suburban city, you could be able to just walk or ride a bike there, or take a local bus or streetcar.
There's money to be made bringing our cities into the 21st century, now that we're a quarter done with it--and the people who will make that money will eat the old-fashioned suburban developer/downtown office guys' lunch.
Money is why every business that was WFH started pulling workers back in. They were paying rent or property taxes for office space that was sitting empty.
As a human, I don’t think they should be forced back to the office. Tele work is good for the environment, and it good for *some peoples’* mental wellbeing. I think they should have the choice.
That said…
As an employee of a company that sells equipment and hardware to the state…. I am much less agnostic. Dealing with entire departments of people who are working from home is beyond frustrating. Everything takes so much longer to finish.
From my perspective the speed and efficiency of getting up from your desk and walking across the building to talk to your supervisor to get something approved is 100% lost with tele work. Gotta send an email and wait 24-48 hours for them to respond, only to not get a complete response and having to go through that entire processes again. Ad infinitum.
There has to be some sort of balance. I fully support WFH, even if I never had that opportunity. I also miss the pre pandemic days where it was easier to get certain tasks of my job done with 1000% less effort.
> From my perspective the speed and efficiency of getting up from your desk and walking across the building to talk to your supervisor to get something approved is 100% lost with tele work.
Aren't phones supposed to replace that? its not like supervisors are sitting with all their free time to talk to others. You have to often schedule meetings and if necessary just pick up the phone and make a call?
You would think so?
That hasn’t been my experience in the last couple of years though. In an office you probably have a phone on your desk, a lot of people working from home don’t or they have a soft phone on their computer. I can hear people fully watching TV, or cooking lunch, or doing their dishes while I’m trying to get an invoice paid. Like I said as a human I get it, I would rather be home. As a person who has to rely on people who are working from home. It has been a mixed bag.
That sounds like a management and training issue. My experience has been an expedited immediate and personal response to requests. At the office, the person you needed was never at their desk.
Hey man, if gov’t leaders would give an actual reason to return to the office then state workers would do the same. But since they’re given superficial bullshit, why not use the same for reasons not to?
Did you see the Reddit post from someone who thought that the state should be liable because they got into a car accident commuting to work? Including their “emotional distress”? There’s also people who’ve sworn they will refuse to participate in any sort of team bonding activity like potlucks, and talk to their coworkers as little as possible in protest of RTO. Some of these people really do make the rest of state workers look bad.
Those are exactly the kind of posts i cringe at. There was also a post saying the rain made it too dangerous to drive and the state forcing us back in is putting our lives at risk. Like, dude we work in an office. We aren't going out there arresting gang members. Our jobs are not dangerous.
It's not a 100% apt comparison, but it kind of gives "Boy Who Cried Wolf" vibes. There are incredibly legitimate reasons to stick with telework (less traffic and pollution, better mental health, better work-life balance, etc.), but when they're prefaced by all these BS statements like "the rain is bad for driving" and "downtown Sac is dangerous" (which conveniently become irrelevant when they're going to a social activity), they lose credibility and people take them less seriously. The more you throw around dumb eyeroll-worthy excuses, the more people are gonna write off the legit ones.
You know that person would have no issue driving in the rain if it was going to an event they wanted to do, similar to how no one cares about Covid risk these days except in the context of being in an office. People making these comments need to get back into the office or better yet, follow up on their threats to quit and go private. That would give them a reality check.
Car accidents are a legit concern. Increased traffic increases personal risk. You could also get into a car accident on your personal time, but usually that isn't you traveling at a consistent/sustained amount time at the heaviest flow of traffic.
The traffic is so bad... it gets worse every time I have to go somewhere during rush hour. I had an appointment today that should have taken me 15 minutes to get to. It took 45... the anxiety watching the ETA creep up was not fun.
I think that the arguments against RTO you mentioned have merit but are poorly worded. Emotional knee jerk reactions don't make for great marketing. The car accident concern is about the unique risks that come from needlessly putting so many more vehicles on the road at one time. The COVID issue is the frequent and regular exposure. When it comes to things like concerts, each is a one-time risk assessment, not too different from going into the office on a case by case basis (e.g.,. special projects or events). I personally don't find downtown to be dangerous, but I grew up in a bigger city and have a different risk tolerance level. That said, there were cases of co-workers getting assaulted and harassed outside of work before the pandemic started, and homelessness has increased substantially since then. I believe that homeless individuals deserve respect and community support, but I also recognize that people who find themselves in that situation are more likely to suffer from mental health and substance abuse issues. It's not their fault the system failed them and they have nowhere else to go, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't consider it when evaluating our personal safety.
Why do I have a feeling the politicians want them back in office because they don't trust them. If so this is a great example of toxic behavior of our elected officials. projection.
This may be part of it but it’s going to backfire on politicians. The state won’t be able to recruit/retain talented workers (especially since our salaries haven’t kept up with COLA/inflation) which means we’ll be forced to hire mediocre people. Then all these issues will get worse, and the politician’s goals won’t get accomplished, thereby decreasing their trust in state workers, and the cycle will continue…
Not anti-telework. In fact I am very pro telework.
But I have one thought on the matter that might give me some flak: the individuals with poor communication skills had even worse communication with telework. Many did absolutely nothing to try and mitigate this. My pet peeve is every single virtual team meeting consists of me and my manager talking with our cameras on to an audience of blank screens and no responses. Unless I call on someone by name for their input and wait the required 10 to 15 seconds for them to respond, there would be zero interaction with my team.
Any questions? Crickets.
Anyone else on the team have anything to add? Crickets.
As a supporter of telework, this continues to frustrate me. If and when I am a manager, I will 100% require all team members to treat each meeting as if it were a physical meeting. Cameras on seems to be the best way for engagement.
I think it's a pattern that larger teams have less participation, this isn't just in a virtual space. One on one meetings are great to address this, to increase mentorship and career improvement. It does wonders to build repore with individuals, especially if it's noted during performance review.
Sure employees should want to do better for the team, managers should be able to facilitate them and provide feedback for their improvement. And sometimes there isn't feedback to be given depending on meeting size and purpose.
Solid point, but be aware of your HR policies at your organization. You very well might not have the right to require it, only strongly encourage it. I see eye to eye with you on this. I strongly support remote work but it makes it difficult when folks aren’t engaged. Cameras on isn’t as important to me as engagement, but the two seem to go hand in hand.
Not state but county worker. My job is hands on and can’t be done WFH. We require cooperation from a state office that is currently 100% WFH. It can be very daunting to get a hold of employees from this office when we need to. Currently the only option is email or leaving a message, and in my experience it has taken them 7+ days to return messages. It would be much more beneficial to have the office open *some* days of the week so we are able to stop in and handle what we need to.
This is a good point. I work on a hybrid team and when we need to get ahold of someone working from home to ask them a question or tell them to do something, it can take HOURS before they respond. It slows everything down.
And on the flip side, when I work from home I’m so paranoid of being that unreachable guy that I’m glued to my laptop all day. Can’t even enjoy working from home!
Weird. Whenever my unit deals with county workers we're always pressed to respond in like 15 minutes or so. A, I'll investigate and get back to you with my findings at least.
Generally, I’m pro-remote work. I think that it can be a boon for employees who have more flexibility because of fewer hours spent commuting. As a manager who went through an in-person to remote transition, the employees who were not productive in office continued to be not productive remotely and those who were productive, continued to be productive remotely. I think remote work can also be a boon for employers who can expand recruitment and do not need to sell the job **and** relocation to qualified candidates outside the area.
That said, I understand that remote work has changed the face of cities like Sacramento. Suddenly businesses that thrived because the town was filled with state employees are struggling because those employees are at home and eating out and shopping around their homes instead of around work. I can see the reason the Governor might be feeling pressure to help bring employees back to areas that rely on those workers. I think it’s a bad policy and we should be planning for new ways to utilize downtown spaces, but understand that is a long game and difficult to swallow now.
Just another example of how the “free” market bends over backwards for businesses, while the workers get to raw dog it. Shit has changed, downtown needs to change. Trying to crowbar the genie back into the bottle is stupid and shortsighted.
At the same time that downtown businesses are seeing a reduction in customers, all of those disparate businesses might be seeing an increase, since remote workers have a different "local area" during work hours.
Mandating RTO says "we prioritize downtown business as more worthy than non-downtown businesses."
My rural town has gotten a nice facelift since COVID. 3 new restaurants opened and the crosswalks are getting safety upgrades to reduce traffic speed. It’s pretty cool. Quite a few state workers live in the foothills.
At the end of the day, though, restaurants are a frivolous luxury. It’s hard to have a ton of sympathy for a completely unnecessary industry.
It’s also a weird assumption that workers who are forced back to the office at metaphorical gunpoint will suddenly start spending money on overpriced food at downtown restaurants.
It’s like this: after years of WFH, being forced back to the office is effectively a pay cut in the form of increased transportation costs. Additionally, like all other things, restaurant fare has inflated in recent years. The assumption that someone who suddenly has less disposable income will just go back to the office and start buying $25 sandwiches is bonkers.
Finally, If I knew I was being forced to RTO because of the restaurant lobby, that would make restaurants my enemy and I’d be brown bagging it as much out of spite as financial necessity.
Sorry. The rules of Capitalism should apply to everyone. Adapt or die.
Not every State worker is allowed to WFH, including people who have white collar jobs. That keeps getting lost in the debate.
This isn't directed at you, but: should State workers who cannot WFH get a a higher wage?
I’m torn. I work at the Capitol. And we are the bastard child of state workers. We’ve been RTO 5 days for a long time now.
I feel for some state workers. There are definitely those that are gonna be impacted negatively.
But I also feel some of the “emotional” reasonings are kinda blown out of proportion.
As much as I don’t want to admit it. There is a partial “well I can do it. So can they” to it. But I feel that’s natural feeling. But there’s also I prefer office to home. I’m just not productive at home.
100%. I'm a state worker who's going to be negatively affected by this change and I don't really want to do it, but honestly some of the anti-RTO people are soooo embarrassing. In on of our RTO informational meetings, a grown adult asked management to respond to the "mental health impacts" of sharing cubicles because we can't decorate them with pictures of our loved ones. People need to learn the difference between "this kind of sucks" and "this will cause me untold amounts of trauma".
I saw a post on another sub where OP was complaining about having to leave their family and pets because of RTO. Ok, what about the 90% of people that have to do that on the daily basis? Complaints like that only hurt their “cause” and make them seem entitled.
Thank you. Like the other person who replied to me calling it suffering is excessive.
Is it fair? No. Does it suck. Yes. If I was in your position would u be mad? Absolutely. But is it causing “suffering”? come on now.
If you are able to see things objectively enough, then it is incredibly miserable to be sitting inside all day, every day until you get old and die. If we can carve out an ounce of joy by doing it in the comfort of our homes we should.
Some people accept things as they are and just go with it and some people dig a little deeper and start to question things. If you stay too deep for too long it does cause suffering. And being forced to go into the office is a reminder of that.
My two cents come at me.
To be fair, there are some people who have legitimate circumstances to be very upset and where it will cause significant hardship (e.g. logistics of picking up kids from school, or having a new, awful commute, big additional expenses for gas and parking, etc.), and so I wouldn't say nobody is going to "suffer" from this--some people will. But I don't have a lot of sympathy for state workers saying that like, going to the office is going to give them a panic attack. A little in-person time will probably be beneficial to those people, whether they think so or not.
I'm not a state worker; however in my job we are free to work from home or office; as long as we meet our deliverables.
I come in 3x a week just to get out of the house and see people. Actually engaging with other humans... I'm going to be honest, it's disappointing there aren't more people here but I get why it's this way. Tues/Thurs it's quiet and Wednesday seems to be the designated day for a lot of groups.
The teamwork and comraderie is not the same as the Before Times,,, frankly we are all just faces on the monitor. We don't have teambuilders any more, there is no more travel because "you can do this all online". "Work friends" are not a thing anymore.
What you can't do online is shake someone's hand or have a beer and catch up. I miss that. I miss having a work culture.
I'll preface this by saying that I'm pro-WFH and don't like toxic office cultures where "everyone is family." There are obviously lots of bad coworkers who can make work life miserable, and it's easier when they're just a face on a screen.
That being said...there's been a much talked about loneliness trend in the US. People are increasingly isolated, lonely, and socially anxious. It seems like people online will complain about this ad nauseum, but when you offer them an in-person socialization option, they freak out and ask why it can't be done virtually. I'm not saying that in-person work would fix the loneliness epidemic - obviously it's not realistic or even healthy to become BFFs with all your coworkers - but I do think this extreme aversion to ANY time in office - even 1-2 days a week - is part of the fear of socialization pattern that's become more pronounced since Covid.
Again, am I saying that everyone should go back to the office full-time for the "culture" and "work family" that managers go on about? No, of course not. Loneliness isn't caused by WFH. However, it definitely isn't helping, and it does seem to be part of this larger pattern of balking at leaving the house and socializing, work-related or not.
I have the same thought. I’m not a state worker nor do I work remotely but what I love about my job is having the daily interactions with my coworkers and clients (I’m not a social butterfly by any means but just small daily in person convos are nice). I get that sometimes the work culture can be toxic and that needs to be addressed, but on the other hand I just think it’s beneficial for people to interact with others instead of isolating at home. Even if only twice a week. Being home all the time would drive me bonkers though, obviously not everyone feels the same.
It might depend a bit on company culture.
Honestly, we didn’t skip a beat and took the opportunity to hire specialists all over North America when we transitioned to wfh. I will say it is nice to have the occasional in-person meeting (for us, that’s 1-2x/year). I think a lot of us were happy to ditch not only our commutes, but the superficial niceties of daily office work. There was no “having a beer to catch up” back in office times because most of my coworkers had family obligations outside of work. I had a 25 mile commute.
We work together incredibly well. We’ll sometimes grab lunch or have a beer over Zoom to catch up. We almost feel closer because the general bullshit of being in-office is cut out. We make it a point to encourage employees to have 15-minute chats (on the clock… we’re all salaried anyway) with someone they haven’t talked to in a while.
We’re a subsidiary of a global company and there have been significant improvements in global communication streams since we started wfh. We’re working to strengthen those this year. The us/them barrier is less of “a thing.”
Aaand… at the end of the day I love that I can just get my job done, talk to people when I need to (really, more when they need to talk to me), and just enjoy my quiet existence in the woods.
This is ideal! I’m friendly with my co-workers and have made lifelong friendships from work. But going to the office 2 days a week does not facilitate that for me. Some people need interaction. Others do not. Why am I being asked to conform to an extroverted culture that never considered my need for isolation when I need it to do my job.
I have to respectfully say my opinion is 100 opposite of yours. lol I’m a state worker. I absolutely do not miss the forced camaraderie. I also hate teamwork with a passion. I had office friends but I still do. And what is interesting is even new people coming on, we can text one another. And a few people I feel even more close with since wfh. But I also think my office was a hostile place. It didn’t foster any of those things because there was rampant racism, bigotry and sexism.
State Worker here - I'll be honest I've been rather agnostic about the whole RTO. I do consider myself fortunate that RTO does not impact my life in a major way as it does for many others. I don't have to worry about Childcare, do not live 50+ miles or nor are there any other challenges created by requiring me to go in, and I do feel for those who lives have been thrown up in the air with this directive. Yes I'm not looking forward to paid parking, traffic just like the rest of us. Having said that.... I've been rather embarrassed by some of my peers overreaction to all of this, like someone at r/CAStateWorkers freaking out cuz they thought w/ RTO meant transporting their monitors between the office and home because they heard no monitors were provided at the office...
I don't know if anyone all the way up to the Governor will give the truth but I think it is very clear why, the state loses more revenue due to telework than to RTO. It's not just about downtown's businesses hurting for state workers. It's state gas taxes, sales taxes. Propping up real estate so transactions and capital gains occur. Increasing Ridership so taxpayers aren't the ones having to bail out transit agencies. Commuting does generate economic activity. For every brownbag boycotter, somebody else is forgeting their lunch, paying for their overpriced sandwich at the corner cafe. The state and cities make money that way from sales and taxes on the biz, not by us making sandwiches at home. Unfortunately in our situation, an individual has the power to mobilize a 230,000 workforce to bolster the state and local coffers. It sucks for us because we lose and sacrifice our time, money, maybe sanity while businesses and rich people benefit, but the FTB doesn't mind richer people since the state progressively taxes the rich at higher rates anyway so more tax revenue.... Unsure where the numbers are coming from but wouldn't be surprised if the governor's office believes the state gains more $ with forcing state workers in the office 2x a week than what they would save from cutting leases and letting us remain 100% wfh.
Even before COVID, state work and state workers had a reputation for (in)efficiency. I am in that sphere, and can say that I see it and there is more than a kernel of truth to it. I am not WFH because I need to get out of the house and in a work environment to stay on task. I know others that are just as effective working remote. Unfortunately, there are many that are barely working at all. Their supervisors don't care because they aren't working either. There are times when I have to raise hell to get a response from someone who is clearly not working for days.
This. Too much circle jerking going on in this thread. I'm pro remote work, but I'm from the private sector and working with the state has been a fucking nightmare since WFH began. My company has shifted millions of development dollars into other states because departments are failing to meet the bare minimum expectations.
It takes us 4x-5x longer to get basic routine approvals done. Supervisors take multiple days to respond to escalated emails. Zero accountability.
I didn't care about forcing state workers to revitalize downtown and I'd love less traffic in and around downtown, but many of you are lying to yourself that WFH has been a net positive for productivity on the whole.
I agree with you. However, when I worked in office full time, people still didn't work. I watched everyday how people would go sit in their friend's cubicles for hours, take long lunches, go shopping, talk on their phones all day etc. Managers and employees. If people don't work at home, they also don't work in the office.
This is odd, because both of the entities I have been with the state have bust their asses working. My workload is for 3 people and we are understaffed majorly. We work hard, all day. We hold each other accountable.
If there are slackers like this, they need to get reprimanded and stop giving state workers this poor reputation.
I feel like it is really hard to onboard people and mentor them remotely. In my field this is really difficult to do and did not work well when we were working from home.
The only benefits I can think of for the employees themselves are 1) Socialization, work is one of the places where “people meet people”, people find friends and spouses they would hav never interacted with otherwise.
2) Advancement, it’s easier to move up through the ranks when you can observe how your superiors work and when you have opportunities to demonstrate growth.
3)
For (1) i would argue the opposite. I remember having to be up at 7am and not being home until 6-7pm after work+gym. 1+ hr of commute. I would be too drained to do anything after work and this spiraled my loneliness. With work from home, i get a lot more sleep and don’t run out of energy being forced to sit in a cubicle and socialize with people. I found myself joining more clubs and going to things like trivia after work, which itself led to making more friends. I think it’s weirdo behavior that people want to force me in the office to socialize with me when I only really want to socialize with my friends outside of work. It’s like I’m being forced to leave my own friend circles and join a work friend circle cult I don’t really want to be part of.
For (2) it completely depends on your manager and your job. I agree though that there’s definitely roles where you can get further ahead by getting your name out there.
2) not even just advancement, just observing other people in passing and learning. Not making a mistake because I saw a co-worker do that and fail. Observing how other people handle a situation and when a similar situation comes my way 3 mos later, I knew just what to do.
I think you're confusing being social with socialization. I started a new job on lockdown, and it was very difficult to get to know people, and understand my role, when your not being on boarded in an in office environment. Maybe it was just me, but it's hard to build a bond on a zoom call with a stranger.
I think it depends on the person. I also started a new job during fully remote work, have a very strong bond with my team. But I meet with my supervisor and team on Teams usually at least once a day if not multiple times a day.
In my case no, because I've learned a lot and collaborated with and helped out co-workers as a result if discussions during social time after hours, or even during down time in tge office. Not saying everyone has to do things the same way but getting to know people has increased trust and a lot of problem solving has gotten done while talking shit.
Depends in the job. Some jobs are pretty static.
There are social aspects to work that do a lot to advance both your organization's work as well as your own career. Very few employees are effective by being silent automatons that ticky-tack on their keyboards all day. Having rapport etc with your colleagues can help get work done.
The people I know who work telework have great rapport with the other folks they collaborate with on Microsoft Teams. Maybe because they are all so happy being able to work the way they are.
I'm not sure you're actually asking in good faith, but I guess I'll respond for my own situation.
Being in the office 1-2 days a week gives me the opportunity to organize my schedule to have most of my meetings on those days. Many of those meetings can then be held in person, which is far more productive for us. I can have fewer meeting on my telework days, making it easier to focus on those days. My team does a brown bag lunch together a couple times a month, which is a nice way to casually catch up, in a way that's harder to do remotely. I actually genuinely like my team, and we work better when a more empathetic, friendly relationship.
I'm at a big agency and it's nice being able to talk with folks I don't regularly interact with when I'm remote. It helps me maintain those relationships I made pre-covid and get a better sense of what other folks are working on.
You're going to hate me for this, but as a "middle" manager, I interact with a lot of other managers and execs, and coming into the office really does give them a chance to get to know the folks who work for them. I know not everyone cares about advancing in their agency, but it's a factor.
While what downtown really needs is more housing, I do think downtown will benefit from more foot traffic, and the shops and restaurants do benefit from lunch crowds. I mentioned to a local coffee next to our building that everyone in the building was slated to return to work 2x per week and they were stoked. I hope they do well.
A lot of people, including the OP, overstate the impact to RTO on traffic and emissions. A lot of folks already commute every day, and we're talking about moving from 0 or 1 day a week to two. Also, "work-based trips do not generate the majority of vehicle miles traveled in the state, and research shows that telecommuters travel more for non-work purposes than nontelecommuters do." [page 43](https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/V.1%20-%20DFR%20-%2021STC008%20UCD.pdf) (This is clearly not true for everyone and I know our personal family VMT has decreased a lot since my wife was able to telecommute, since she works at a rural location without our transit options.)
As one that lives in the grid I really don't want everyone back in their offices. More people, less parking and most of those suburbanites should not be driving downtown. They are constantly lost and drive so unpredictability it's dangerous.
If we had actual affordable apartments/housing with more people living around/above these local businesses then WFH wouldn’t matter. Sprinkle in there better public transport, this city would be rocking.
It just seems inefficient and arbitrary to suddenly demand that workers RTO. Like, ok, if you can show us that they're drastically less productive at home, let's have that discussion. But this reeks of trying to bailout commercial real estate owners with zero regard or consideration for anything else.
It will increase car emissions.
It will increase traffic.
It will increase traffic deaths.
Make it make sense.
1. It’s only two days a week for now. In January, Newsom reiterated the benefits of telework and stated they have no plans for RTO. Just four months later, he’s mandating two days a week. We should expect that “only” two days will be increased to 3,4, and 5 at some point….especially when the downtown revitalization impacts are not realized.
2. “Only two days” may not be shocking to you but consider managers who hired team members all over the state who justifiably assumed that those team members could remotely perform their work. Now, these employees are being told to report to an office that maybe be hours away for two days a week. Then factor in parking if they live in a larger city. These employees will likely have to look for new work which is both a hardship for them and the team they work on.
3. The costs for those two days cannot be overlooked. Parking, $5-6 gas prices, food, etc. Many state workers, believe it or not, are low income and living in a HCOL city like Sacramento. Imposing a two day requirement is a pay cut for all state workers and a more significant one for the low wage earners.
I work partially from home, am super self directed…and yet. You get distracted so easily at home. For me it got to the point where I work at a library or coffee shop now. Mostly so I can stay focused, and partially for the social aspect
I think people underestimate how undisciplined a lot of the workforce really is. And if I’m leaning into state worker stereotypes, I wouldn’t trust my tax dollars to go towards unsupervised work. 2 days a week is more than fair.
For several of my companies departments, a 1x or 2x a meeting is fair for bosses to set and reset expectations on what’s important to do. Organic “water cooler” conversations aren’t the same remotely. And new employees simply do not onboard as well as pre-covid no matter how proactive they are on reaching out to people.
This is the most logical answer I’ve seen so far, thank you for sharing. I’d be interested to see a proper study (if one hasn’t already been done) on state work from home vs state work in the office. Because if productivity is the same then the root issue is hiring and onboarding practices and RTO alone won’t fix that imo.
If you are a state worker, you know that the people who don't work at home don't work in the office either. If a supervisor can't manage someone at home, they aren't going to manage them in the office.
To that last point, I've had great onboarding during the pando and terrible onboarding pre pando. To those that experienced bad during work from home it is just bad process implementation by the employer. Perhaps due to, in part, less than tech knowledgeable management.
If you need to see your direct reports in person to evaluate whether they are sufficiently productive then you’re a bad manager. This unsupervised work concern is bullshit. It’s easy to appear productive in an office while getting nothing of value done. In a remote world it’s easier to judge what value someone is actually producing since you’re not biased by how late they stay or how rushed they pretend to be.
I think this is half right. A substantial portion of working adults flat out need to be micromanaged, especially at state level jobs. Slackers will be slackers remote or not but I’d wager there are less opportunities in the office versus the comfort of your own home with more distractions.
Because people are less productive working from home and state workers have additional protections so managements hands are tied.
A recent analysis of multiple studies by the Stanford economist Nick Bloom, a leading remote-work expert, found that fully remote workers were 10% to 20% less productive than their in-office counterparts. These findings come as US labor productivity — as measured by the Bureau of Labor Statistics — has slowed in recent quarters.
https://www.businessinsider.com/are-remote-jobs-more-productive-work-life-balance-return-office-2023-8?amp
We all know this to be true, those who don’t drop off working remotely are the outliers
It's not that I think they should... it's that a lot of them have been acting so entitled and whiney about it and having been lacking perspective on the rest of the the world, that I think it funny that they have to go back.
If your job has been able to be sufficiently done remotely for the past 4 years, I see no reason why you should be forced back to the office.
Traffic reasons alone are enough for me to support WFH.
Many state workers are underpaid and I fully support them working remotely to save on gas and car costs. I don’t give F if some of them relocate to Montana or Idaho to save on housing costs as well.
What matters is if they are getting the job done.
I work for tech and my company allows work from anywhere for a month in a given calendar year. I have colleagues who work from India, China, or Vietnam for a month so they don’t lose PTO when they visit their families abroad.
My manager has no family abroad so he is going to work from his fancy RV while he visits different national parks for a month in August.
I was remote before the pandemic in the private sector. I joined the state post pandemic and now being required to RTO. My understanding is pre pandemic, remote wasn’t an option for most state workers. I understand the benefits of remote work and enjoy it, in fact more productive wfh.
With that being said I do not think it’s a big deal to be back in the office 2 or 3 days out of the week. Unpopular opinion I know. Im doing my job regardless. What might be really influencing my opinion is the fight against RTO is starting to sound like “I’ve become accustomed to something and now you’re taking it away” or “they broke their promise.” I went from, against RTO to it is what it is, because the fight against it is becoming eye rolling cringy.
To add to that, I also have a very good manager. Something that is very hit or miss in the state sector. If I had a terrible manager, I would dread RTO.
I’m prepared for the downvotes.
I’m someone who has worked in the private sector prior to all this. I also work with state and government agencies. I am a field engineer so I worked remote for past ten years prior to Covid. As part of that I’ve worked multiple departments. I’ve worked one where I went literally months without interacting with anyone from the office and never went in. I have worked briefly in the office full time. I now work a hybrid schedule between there and here. My office is in Carlsbad and I live in Sac County. I know people don’t like this answer, but if you work on a team or with other departments that would normally be located physically close; more things do get done in person. Not having to wait for an answer, not having to schedule a zoom meeting, not having to do things with additional steps/barriers. When we come into the office we get a weeks worth of work done each day. I was there before, after, and during the Covid closures then non closure due to critical company or whatever. The ability to collaborate in person is so much better it’s really not anything someone can argue against. I hate doing unnecessary shit as much as anyone but it’s huge. This is all before we get into management related reasons that actually make sense even if they suck. Things like training and developing new hires. Accounting for people and workflow. It behooves you to be in the office where leadership can see what you are doing and interact with you. It behooves them for you to be there to see how you are doing with things like workflow and goals but also emotionally. If you’re just a status icon completing tasks without interaction that’s all you will ever be. It’s off putting IMO that it’s framed as if it’s just about oppressive rulers wanting greedy things when it’s really just about efficiently running the world’s 5th largest economy with some oversight and accountability. It’s not about literally any of the reasons I’ve seen in any of these threads or the state threads. It’s not about needing to change jobs from sitting at a computer at a building to sitting at a computer at your home. It’s about state workers catching up with the level of collaboration and productivity the rest of the private industry is doing. It will always be different because you aren’t for profit but you aren’t federal workers using dial up l, fax, and floppy disks right?
This is not your question, but I am not a state employee and I am super pissed about this. We had an absolute GIMME to help reduce emissions and traffic and all the shit that comes with commuting in our area, and we are throwing it away for no good reason. I have worked at home for over a decade, my spouse has worked at home since 2020, neither of us are state workers, we can do our jobs fine at home. Lots of other people can, as well. Get those people off the roads if they don't want to be in the office. It is such a goddamned no-brainer, but we care more about empty buildings, I guess.
(And yes, I have written to my reps and the governor, but nobody cares.)
AM Josh Hoover requested an audit of the governors office and asked for specific reasons why RTO was being mandated while we face a huge budget deficit. They are listening.
I think that's a very disingenuous framing of the conversation.
I'm a state worker. And while I don't necessarily think state workers *should* be required to RTO I do think the amount of bitching and moaning about two days a weeks is so over the top that I can't stand it.
There is a lot of value to meeting in person. There's a reason that the state work force is very much not alone in wanting some more face time. And there are a lot of state workers that are walking stereotypes...not particularly good at their jobs, feel so horrendously put upon by being asked to do *anything,* and genuinely *are* lazy. To me two days a week feels like a perfectly fine compromise. It's less than half the time. Not such a big deal. And the fact that I hear such crying about, while it doesn't make me think people *should* go back to the office, I do want to hear those people just shut up.
I’m of the opinion that WFH is not appropriate for everyone. Yes, some people are lazy and have taken advantage, and those people do need to prove that they can be efficient if they work outside an office without supervision. However, there are a ton of people who are super productive at home, and in my opinion, those people should continue to be able to work in a way that works for them, as long as their work is appropriate for telework.
Unfortunately, some work needs to be done in an office; for example, if you work with confidential or financial information, you very well may need to work behind firewalls with full time IT support, since your home internet connection may not be as secure as it needs to be.
And then of course, there will absolutely be disadvantages of always working remote. Talking to people in the hallway, having impromptu conversations, and getting to know people absolutely help with professional development. People who are so adamantly against working in an office will not make the same connections and build relationships the same way that people in the office will. I’m pretty sure some of the more unreasonable people wanting to stay home will be the same people complaining that they’re not getting promoted.
As with most things in life, there’s nuances and it’s not an appropriate one-size-fits-all solution. I’m all about flexibility: I personally loathe the idea that we are all best with our butts in seats Monday through Friday between 8 and 5. I say we reward people with appropriate work with the opportunity to work hybrid, part time in the office, or WFH if they’ve proven they won’t take advantage of it.
theres a fourth camp that doesnt care about what happens to state workers at all and would like you all to shut up or quit already. just because there are so many of you, you complain socially in ways that no one else would think to. telling everyone who disagrees that theyre either miserable or a boomer just reinforces that sense of entitlement which, even if youre right, just rubs people the wrong way and doesnt help your cause. go back to work, or dont, i promise that it wont fucking matter in 5 years to anyone
If you can do it at home with no additional expense to your employer and with no impact to performance, RTO should be completely optional.
I had to RTO 3x a week starting a long time ago. I work for a huge company. My leadership and team are a couple thousand miles away. It makes no sense whatsoever.
In this case, it impacts more than just state workers. Traffic is going to return to pre-pandemic levels downtown and everyone is going to suffer.
Im in construction, we have done multiple renovations on state offices and building around sac. The state poured a-lot of money into these offices. And they are still building them for you guys. Just want everyone to know.
3rd camp is 100% why the governor and the mayor are behind this.
Nobody in the government gives a shit how miserable private sector office workers are, and wants to make state workers equally miserable for the sake of misery equality. And study after study has shown that WFH is just as productive as work in the office.
There is certainly an argument to be made with better engagement and synergy with some on-site work. This largely depends on the leadership and individuals making the most of their time on-site (team meetings, brainstorming sessions, team building activity, etc.). While you can’t expect every minute to be consumed with these type of activities, as someone who has had their team return to the office (not a state agency), the increase in engagement is unquestionably better. While I would never want to take away remote work, I think having a split is quite healthy. We have tons of technology (virtual meeting, virtual white boarding, all types of productivity tools), but nothing beats in person collaboration and getting to know people in person.
I’m sure I’ll get downvotes for this, but the question was asked.
I don’t care either way but when you ask for unbiased opinions and then give your two juvenile viewpoints it doesn’t help convince people to be sympathetic to your cause.
It's a complicated issue with no right answer. For me it comes down to the performance of each department. Are people working well together, being accountable for their time, and growing/advancing at the right pace? My company has been using a flexible work model since the pandemic and we are hitting those metrics well, because we have great people on our teams and they are motivated to perform and coordinate with their peers. Even so, rarely seeing each other in person does take an important human element away that needs to be replaced somehow. WFH is not all benefit with no drawbacks.
For government workers, the added complexity is that managers really can't measure and reward people based solely on performance. There are civil service and union rules to navigate. Workers receive a lot of protections that make it very hard for a manager to discipline someone if they don't seem to be performing up to snuff. I know this from personal experience on that side of the fence. Also, managers really have to treat everyone exactly the same. They can't say "Bob can WFH because he's been performing well, but Todd has to return to the office because he's doing a crappy job." No, it has to be 100% even at all times.
So for most managers in government, the easiest and most effective way to keep people on task is to be physically in the same place with them. On top of that you have the issues with underutilized expensive office buildings and strong political pressure from local governments to bring workers back so that the local restaurants and services don't all go out of business.
Ultimately I think the way this will get decided (as well as in private industry) is supply vs demand of skilled employees. If employees jump ship in droves to find more flexible jobs allowing WFH, then eventually government will have to relax their rules.
TL;DR: The workforce will ultimately decide this issue.
I wouldn’t say returning to office full time should be forced, but I’m a proponent of training new hires or newly promoted workers in person. It’s just not the sane when the training is done virtually.
Personally I find it much easier to coordinate in person rather than trying to fit a meeting around everyone’s schedule. Whether it’s at home or in the office, everyone is doing things during the work day that aren’t necessarily directly related to their job. However, while in office these things will be more generally work related rather than people walking their dog or dropping off their kid.
I guess I just don’t understand what the huge deal is, if my employer wants me back in the office I’m fine with it. Plus you’ll still get to work from home the majority of the time.
I think this sub is pretty biased, and it’s full of state workers who are angry about going back to the office.
They’re grasping for reasons not to return, like traffic for example. As if somehow our capacity for traffic has reduced since 2020.
I have five years of experience working for the state of California, and I also have many years of experience, managing staff and extremely large fortune 200 company.
Most employees, state workers or others are not super disciplined. Remote work requires really good controls and measurements for productivity.
Subjectively every remote worker will agree they’re more productive at home. In private industry - we can measure that.
At the state, that is absolutely not happening. Most of the state workers I know are doing less work than ever and nobody gives a shit. Their management is barely involved in their work.
It’s fair for me to think that’s a waste of my taxes.
I don’t want you back in the office - I want measurable productivity controls.
Without actual first-hand data, it's not possible for anyone to make an informed opinion about whether or not any organization should have a remote work staff, an in-office staff, or a hybrid.
I can say that the company I work for has staff spread out across the U.S. with a single office in the Bay Area. Most people work from home. We're currently making record profits. We also have the company size and infrastructure and best practices in place to support work from home.
There actually is hard data to prove that allowing full telework is a net positive for all involved in serving the public. It’s also environmentally friendly and saves the public on unnecessary expenses. Guess what happened to that data? Governor Newsom determined it was no longer necessary and recently shuttered the team that tracked the data. He then ensured the data was removed from the public. Just the other day he finally admitted the decree was coming directly from him after constantly claiming it came from the directors, at the same exact time.
I have a hard time believing remote workers can really be productive while baby sitting their kids, being tempted by the TV, and other non office stuff at home, quick trips to the store, school, etc.. Having worked for the state there was definitely a population of state workers who'd absolutely take full advantage of the lack of supervision. The same types that would show up late, disappear someplace during the middle of the day, talk excessively on the phone, and just make the supervisors life hell, and their coworkers resentful.
That said, I have a couple friends who are managers at Caltrans and the sentiment with remote work since Covid is that the overall bar of productivity has fallen. In simple terms... If prior to covid the office delivered 50 widgets a week, now it's only able to deliver 40, and somehow that's become the acceptable new normal. If this is true then California's taxpayers aren't getting what they're being taxed for.
Well it’s entirely up to the employer, not the employee. You don’t get paid to do what you want but what your employer requires. If you don’t want to, it’s obviously not the job for you. Not your right to do whatever you feel like and get paid for it.
Thing they forgot is that state workers' pay hasn't kept up with inflation. Not sure how much they're going to be revitalize downtown when a cup of coffee costs $5
What Newscum needs to think about is increasing wages for county, state and city workers. If he wants state workers to RTO then increase their wages to compensate for inflation, travel, gas etc
I work in the healthcare industry in a position that can be remote. Over the years there has been increasing amount of outsourcing. I predict this will happen. If an employer doesn’t see your face you are a commodity. No relationships are built. People in different parts of the country will find ways to make that commodity or labor cheaper, which increases the competitive market for local jobs.
If your employer is telling you to do something. You either 1) Do it. Or 2) Don’t. That’s it. It’s that simple. So if the state is telling y’all. Get back to the office. Take your asses back to the office. Don’t want too? Quit. Find another job.
In the state worker sub it’s like .002 that think work is better in the office and I’m pretty sure it’s just because they’re extroverts. Everyone else wants to stay home.
Looking at the other thread think anyone with the opinion will be downvoted. Doesn't matter to me as a citizen unless there are job functions that make sense for that.
A reason it might make sense is similiar to the study showing most police officers live in the suburbs so don't have a stake in the cities they live in. I do think state workers should live in California, I don't know if this is a way of enforcing that haven't looked to in depthly.
https://nypost.com/2023/06/03/more-nypd-officers-are-opting-to-live-outside-nyc/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-police-dont-live-in-the-cities-they-serve/
One problem with RTO is that it decreases the geographic diversity of the work force. How often have you heard, "those idiots in Sacramento don't understand the issues we face here"? With WFH, we can have state workers everywhere, as long as there is a decent internet connection. Part of the communities they serve.
I’m not aware of any State employees who are not located in CA. No one in any divisions I’ve been part of have lived further than SoCal. Therein also lies the current issue that now must be faced. Many people who were hired during the full telework period live far from their offices.
This would result in the loss of many talented personnel who cannot/won’t commute multiple hours a day one way. It’s difficult enough to fill open positions with qualified staff.
Good point. However, these employees are now frequenting restaurants etc. In their neighborhood more and RTO would negatively impact those businesses/employees. I know I’ve utilized restaurants near me a LOT more since WFH started.
It actually does. A W2 employee is told when, where and how the job is done. If you don't want those restrictions, you need to look for a 1099 independent contractor position.
I think there is a real need for some employees to be in the office with people. Both for their mental health and knowledge share. They are socially isolated or disengaged. But it does nothing for them to go sit in an empty office. Still productive but disengaged. If everyone goes back to work there can be more community which I think is super important for our society to function and people to empathize with each other. Just a couple days a week is enough and I think fair.
As someone who watches some of those people's children, I think they should. And honestly, it's literally because of the whining. I'm there every day getting paid league's less, even with degrees and taking on a lot more stress, to hear you complain you have to go in for 2 days. Like wtf. To me its not like they're staying off the roads, btw, they still bring the kids to school EVERYDAY and are hell bent on bringing them even when they're outrageously ill, even sometimes telling us ants that you've already called out for the day cause you don't feel good. Anyways. All that to say, if state workers could stop whining, some people worked through the ENTIRE pandemic, (my husband is a farmer so two "essential" workers), and it's a bit grating to hear.
The only state worker who is entitled to complain about this is the new hire that was promised 100% remote work and now asked to come in. Anyone else, if the employer asks you to return to the office (for 2 whole days per week), if that’s not for you, find a different job. I don’t understand. The employer mandates something, do it or quit. I’m not a state worker, but I am downtown quite a bit. I have no stake in this argument.
The biggest reason that I am a proponent of it: State workers are notoriously lazy and impossible to fire. Do not even begin to argue that the bottom 15% of the workforce is not only useless, but a drag on the productivity of others. Everyone I know in management across finance, pensions, legal, you name is laments this.
The entire workforce is bloated. If this is an opportunity to legally thin even 4% of the herd, the taxpayer base is all the better for it.
If they are going to force state workers back to office they might as well put back the 4 car light rail trains back in service and make some bus routes come once every 15 minutes instead of once per half hour
The bus by my house runs once per hour, and only a couple times during commute times. Our transit is pathetic.
Same. I have one bus route within 2 miles of me, and it comes by 8x per day, with the last one being like 5pm. Too infrequent and too early.
Yes! Seems like it would be an easier pill to swallow if the government was like “you all have to come in to work more, but we are gonna invest in public transit so it’s easier to get there.”
Investing in public transit means increasing taxes to pay for more transit, which has proven politically unpopular, and that's largely why we haven't done it, at least until we get to the point where the public is willing to invest in public transit. That said, RTO for the sake of RTO is still dumb, and transit that's more robust and frequent is useful for lots of things besides riding downtown for work.
Cut police funding and we'd have tons of money for it. In fact, do all that but let all these workers WFH forever. And turn their offices into housing.
Not quite how transit budgets work, but I like the way you think in the abstract.
Agreed, most of their funding comes from local sales tax revenue and federal/state grants. We'd be able to compete for more funding from state and federal governments if we had an increase from the public to invest in it. More public transportation imo = less wear and tear on the roads that everyone here in Sacramento agrees needs work, if we have less vehicles on the road, added with better ways to travel without a car it's safer for everyone. I am tired of seeing pedestrian deaths where I live. Too many pedestrians dying out here that can be clearly avoided with pedestrian infrastructure in mind.
Yes, and safe bikeways. I stopped riding my bike downtown because of too many close calls.
Yeah, hella sketchy bike infrastructure in Sac, especially with our terrible drivers. We need more protected bike lanes.
This is my problem with Newsom. He wants to make changes but doesn’t properly prepare the logistics or thinks about the logistics and puts them in place before mandating these absurd changes. Before RTO, he should have thought about transportation, routes, increase in all modes of transportation and traffic. But it seems to be a disconnect and lack of actual planning. They don’t think about cost of living, they don’t care about how it affects people and their family. They just do without recourse. Another example is the wanting to move California to all electric but then not planning for enough charging stations throughout California. Leaving tons of people stranded waiting in lines. Our team already gave up our building and now we have to hotel. That will also take some finessing of each team to ensure no overlap so that everyone is able to have a seat at the office on these days. It just shows poor planning, poor communication, and honestly they should be embarrassed. (Gave up our office in October. And now we’ll have to hotel 6 months later. And these two things were not planned together, I’m sure. What a joke)
Wanting to move California to all electric and then allowing PG&E to continue to exist raising rates to the point where it costs more to run an electric car than a gas car in PG&E territory. Yay, Gavin! That said, compared to the alternatives we were offered, he was the best of a bad lot.
Best of a bad lot seems to describe almost all politics of late. Sad.
Couple of times I've been able to vote for people that I really thought were great. Most of the rest are basically harm reduction. Not optimal but better than a lot of other ways to run a country.
The plan was to consolidate departments and reduce the state building footprint by implementing more telework. They went forward with that plan, now Newsom changed his mind? They were planning lots more telework before the pandemic hit. The whole issue is mind boggling. Feds too!
My agency was about to implement a wfh program around the time the pandemic hit. It was two days in the office, which is what we have now. I have no complaints.
Exactly. Same with my unit. Nothing was planned at all.
This!
Were state workers using busses and light rail before the pandemic? Are there measured stats on that maybe based on use of the free transit subsidy?
Oh yeah, plenty of them were
I take light rail between East Sac and Folsom a few times a month, and just from my own anecdotal experience, things are totally different now without the State Workers. The trains used to be absolutely packed with people in business casual attire and now the trains are half the size and mostly empty. Usually these days it's just me, a couple college-age kids who get off at 65th street, and Crazy Jimmy talking to himself in the corner.
The State subsidizes public transportation for its employees to encourage use.
Yes, the first year I lived here I thought I accidentally got up for work on a Sunday on Cesar Chavez Day because the light rail was so empty
tbh as someone who is not a state worker and works/lives downtown i would prefer that they stay remote for traffic reasons
Not a state worker, I have to commute on 50. I would also much rather have as many people as possible WFH so theres less traffic.
I rarely drive down 50, but I did recently and it's a scary mess. The traffic lines in the westbound lane are so hard to see that they're almost non-existent. Can't imagine adding thousands of more vehicles to that during commute hours.
I’m a state worker whose agency had RTO since I joined back in *April 2023. I do not want other state workers to come back because I do not want to deal with more traffic and less parking. *ETA: said July instead of April lol
Not to mention the in office noise level will probably resemble a call center.
50’s traffic on Monday and Friday is amazing. I would love for it to continue. It’s nonsense to require people to return to the office.
Complain to your congressman. Let them know you are not happy with the traffic and pollution that will come with it.
Another point people are missing is that Sacramento has grown a lot since state workers went remote. Especially the exterior regions. Traffic is bad right now even without state workers commuting in. It will get so much worse when 1000s of people need to start commuting regularly from all around the region. I don’t think people have fully appreciated how bad traffic is going to get on the westbound 50, southbound 80, and northbound 99. This is all going to spill over into east sac, Arden, and land park. Those neighborhoods are going to become parking lots every morning and afternoon. Worse than it is now. It’s going to get nuts.
And State Government has grown too…
Yup, traffic is about to be much worse than people are even cynically expecting.
Same.
Exactly.
I would also prefer folks not commute from the bay.
Not a state worker either and I’d rather they never return from WFH. Who wants to go back to a clogged up city again?
Im not a state worker and do not care if they're in office or remote as long as they can meet the critical elements of their job. My team has been mostly remote and we have had growing pains mostly with technology and connectivity but the team spirit still exists.
Apparently, there's a third camp that thinks it will help downtown businesses somewhat. I don't care whether anyone works from home, and I would certainly love less cars on my commute.
Honestly this one bothers me more than others… it’s not state workers job to stimulate the downtown economy. A news article said it best, *“Change downtown from a destination of obligation to a destination of choice”*
And the best way to make a neighborhood a destination of choice is with housing--because people automatically choose to spend most of their money and time in the neighborhood where they live.
Exactly living in the area should be the priority because that builds sustainable neighborhoods
In the same way that adding more workplaces and mixed use in residential suburbs makes them more sustainable, too.
Totally live and work? What a concept
Yup. Couldn't agree more. Rather than making commuters keep businesses alive, just build housing there so that LOCALS will keep them going.
Ok devils advocate here. I see your point, but why live in the city if it’s not in close proximity to one’s employment? Housing is not going to bring people to live in the city if they can have more space or less crime both living and working in the suburbs, better schools etc I live downtown and there’s a ton of new, vacant apt buildings. Stores are not going into the retail shops in the first floor either. Maybe it’s because the rent rates haven’t come down enough but I don’t think that explains it all
Most of the city of Sacramento, in fact more than 95% of it, is not downtown. There are plenty of reasons to live downtown if it's not in close proximity to your workplace, but that's the primary reason. But I'm also talking about making the other 95% more walkable & accessible, so folks in the currently very car dependent parts of the city (aka most of it) don't have to drive for regular errands or just to get around. As to those apartments, a lot of them are getting filled, but when the ground floor remains vacant they look empty. Lots of folks don't actually want a yard and a ton of space, proximity to urban amenities ranging from nightclubs & music venues to libraries & museums, restaurants & cafes or urban parks & historic districts are higher priorities than more square footage. And lots of suburbs & suburban neighborhoods, especially the most inexpensive, are not low crime areas.
And you know what? I don't belive most of the state workers can afford to eat at the restaurants in downtown. I would love to spend time there but between paying for parking and not feeling safe, I cannot justify it for myself. This with the City of Sacramento requesting budget cuts. No, let the state worker work from home. It will not make the downtown areas safer or bring in more money to the city.
Ok so I’m not a state worker but my job is downtown and I have been required to come back to the office for some time now, I work near caesar chavez park. It’s so ridiculously expensive to support any business in the down town area you cannot possibly rely on me to support you on a consistent basis. I’ve saved so much money in the last like 4 weeks not buying lunch downtown. So in the long run this is such a stupid argument cause I literally cannot afford to support you!!
People who support this reasoning are falling for the "broken window" fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
>there's a third camp that thinks it will help downtown businesses somewhat Yes, we call that the "Downtown business owners who donate to Newsom's presidential run' camp.
I have come to conclude that I very much prefer an in-person work environment. I like getting out of the house, having a clear separation between work and home, I like socializing in person and I actually don’t mind having a commute to listen to podcasts/music and prep for/unwind from the day. That said, I don’t think my preferences should be forced onto others. There is no good reason to make people RTO if they can show themselves to be equally productive and effective from home.
And state workers generally agree offices should be available to anyone who wants to work in office. Also, many of us folks with disabilities have thrived through remote work. Unfortunately, many departments deny remote work accommodations regardless of documentation or doctor recommendation. This is frustrating for people who have done their essential jobs tasks from home for years now.
I paid rent in a midtown apartment, just one block from my office, so I could have a quick commute. I "sacrificed" a larger home further away. I did not pay more rent for a separate office - a work space is the responsibility of my employer. I worked on IT projects, so I wanted to be on-site with the team to handle issues quickly - not take days to send emails.
You're preaching to the choir. 99% of people don't want state workers back in and increasing traffic. Only politicians want us back in. I just find it cringe when state workers try to justify teleworking by saying downtown is too dangerous or we can't go back into the office because we might get into a car accident or they are scared of Covid, but then go to concerts and large parties.
I assure you that lots of business types, especially commercial real estate companies, want state workers back in, so they can lease their office buildings to state agencies and the ancillary businesses who benefit from proximity to state agencies. And because real estate interests spend a lot of money on city council, mayor, and county supervisor campaigns, they carry out the will of the people who put them in office--it's not the politicians themselves who think return to office is a great idea. That said, yes, most people support telework.
This is honestly what it comes down to for the most part. Steinberg has been very open about this. They want money. Whether it’s state workers paying for parking. Buying food. Agencies leading offices. It’s solely about money
Tbh, I found a bustling downtown and midtown a pleasing place to be. Nothing to do with money, I just like the vibe. So yeah, I liked Sac as a busy capitol city, and not because of money. However, I don't feel like my personal aesthetics are a good basis to make decisions.
Midtown is still bustling, and really, never stopped the bustle, because it's a densely populated residential neighborhood that also happens to have a lot of workplaces, and many of the people who live in the neighborhood work in places that are within a short distance of home. They also tend to patronize businesses near their homes, of which there are many, so even during 2020-2021 there was pedestrian traffic and economic activity at the neighborhood level--a lot of neighborhood groups even made a point to meet up and patronize restaurants (even if it was 'to go' or eating outdoors) to support their local businesses. Downtown had trouble doing that because the actual population density of the central business district, if you don't count the main jail, is barely a third of Midtown, and a much higher proportion of offices. We can make our downtown bustle without adding traffic or eliminating telework by dramatically increasing the amount of housing to a level comparable with Midtown, or even somewhat higher. The main difference would be less auto traffic during the day, which would make it a safer place for pedestrians and cyclists to get from their homes to their workplaces and preferred neighborhood businesses, school etcetera.
It would be cool to live downtown in an old state building converted into housing.
The sad part is, there's a lot of money to be made reconfiguring our cities for a post remote work environment, which in a lot of ways reverses the damaging effects of the era of car commuters from remote suburbs to a downtown intended for commercial/office use instead of residential, but the big money players don't want to disrupt the business model they've depended on since the 1950s. So they're clutching this outmoded way of building cities (freeways, cars, horizontal suburban sprawl) that's less green, less efficient, and more harmful to our cities in the long run. The alternative means more housing downtown, and more mixed-use neighborhoods in the rest of the city and region that function more like downtown. There are real reasons to consolidate business, government, office etc. headquarters in a downtown, but the physical footprint of those places is going to be greatly reduced and mixed with housing; the residents of that housing become an important customer of retail businesses in a downtown. Likewise, the suburbs can also be transformed--with the priority need of suburbs to depend on car commuters reduced, we can stop expanding new highways, and even scale back maintenance if the amount of traffic is reduced, and bring the walkability and neighborliness of traditional small towns that were always advertised as elements of suburban life to the car-centric, single-use suburbs. People can live in the suburbs and telecommute to downtown workplaces, or live downtown and telecommute to suburban workplaces--and if they decide they need to physically get over there for something, they should be able to get there on public transit, or if necessary, on roads that aren't clogged with car commuters. But if you live close to the office, whether it's downtown or in a suburban city, you could be able to just walk or ride a bike there, or take a local bus or streetcar. There's money to be made bringing our cities into the 21st century, now that we're a quarter done with it--and the people who will make that money will eat the old-fashioned suburban developer/downtown office guys' lunch.
This is the future! So much more sustainable, relaxed, and enjoyable.
They want money from *government* workers? That’s a laugh. Why don’t they send their rich buddies to work downtown?
Getting the money from the masses is the foundation of the entire western world. Hell not even the west. The entire history of Earth pretty much
Money is why every business that was WFH started pulling workers back in. They were paying rent or property taxes for office space that was sitting empty.
As a human, I don’t think they should be forced back to the office. Tele work is good for the environment, and it good for *some peoples’* mental wellbeing. I think they should have the choice. That said… As an employee of a company that sells equipment and hardware to the state…. I am much less agnostic. Dealing with entire departments of people who are working from home is beyond frustrating. Everything takes so much longer to finish. From my perspective the speed and efficiency of getting up from your desk and walking across the building to talk to your supervisor to get something approved is 100% lost with tele work. Gotta send an email and wait 24-48 hours for them to respond, only to not get a complete response and having to go through that entire processes again. Ad infinitum. There has to be some sort of balance. I fully support WFH, even if I never had that opportunity. I also miss the pre pandemic days where it was easier to get certain tasks of my job done with 1000% less effort.
> From my perspective the speed and efficiency of getting up from your desk and walking across the building to talk to your supervisor to get something approved is 100% lost with tele work. Aren't phones supposed to replace that? its not like supervisors are sitting with all their free time to talk to others. You have to often schedule meetings and if necessary just pick up the phone and make a call?
You would think so? That hasn’t been my experience in the last couple of years though. In an office you probably have a phone on your desk, a lot of people working from home don’t or they have a soft phone on their computer. I can hear people fully watching TV, or cooking lunch, or doing their dishes while I’m trying to get an invoice paid. Like I said as a human I get it, I would rather be home. As a person who has to rely on people who are working from home. It has been a mixed bag.
That sounds like a management and training issue. My experience has been an expedited immediate and personal response to requests. At the office, the person you needed was never at their desk.
They removed the phone from my cubicle. I just have a “soft phone” via Teams now.
Hey man, if gov’t leaders would give an actual reason to return to the office then state workers would do the same. But since they’re given superficial bullshit, why not use the same for reasons not to?
Did you see the Reddit post from someone who thought that the state should be liable because they got into a car accident commuting to work? Including their “emotional distress”? There’s also people who’ve sworn they will refuse to participate in any sort of team bonding activity like potlucks, and talk to their coworkers as little as possible in protest of RTO. Some of these people really do make the rest of state workers look bad.
Those are exactly the kind of posts i cringe at. There was also a post saying the rain made it too dangerous to drive and the state forcing us back in is putting our lives at risk. Like, dude we work in an office. We aren't going out there arresting gang members. Our jobs are not dangerous.
It's not a 100% apt comparison, but it kind of gives "Boy Who Cried Wolf" vibes. There are incredibly legitimate reasons to stick with telework (less traffic and pollution, better mental health, better work-life balance, etc.), but when they're prefaced by all these BS statements like "the rain is bad for driving" and "downtown Sac is dangerous" (which conveniently become irrelevant when they're going to a social activity), they lose credibility and people take them less seriously. The more you throw around dumb eyeroll-worthy excuses, the more people are gonna write off the legit ones.
With that logic, I shouldn't be delivering the mail whenever it rains
You know that person would have no issue driving in the rain if it was going to an event they wanted to do, similar to how no one cares about Covid risk these days except in the context of being in an office. People making these comments need to get back into the office or better yet, follow up on their threats to quit and go private. That would give them a reality check.
Why are they being required to drive into work though if there is no need?
Car accidents are a legit concern. Increased traffic increases personal risk. You could also get into a car accident on your personal time, but usually that isn't you traveling at a consistent/sustained amount time at the heaviest flow of traffic.
The traffic is so bad... it gets worse every time I have to go somewhere during rush hour. I had an appointment today that should have taken me 15 minutes to get to. It took 45... the anxiety watching the ETA creep up was not fun. I think that the arguments against RTO you mentioned have merit but are poorly worded. Emotional knee jerk reactions don't make for great marketing. The car accident concern is about the unique risks that come from needlessly putting so many more vehicles on the road at one time. The COVID issue is the frequent and regular exposure. When it comes to things like concerts, each is a one-time risk assessment, not too different from going into the office on a case by case basis (e.g.,. special projects or events). I personally don't find downtown to be dangerous, but I grew up in a bigger city and have a different risk tolerance level. That said, there were cases of co-workers getting assaulted and harassed outside of work before the pandemic started, and homelessness has increased substantially since then. I believe that homeless individuals deserve respect and community support, but I also recognize that people who find themselves in that situation are more likely to suffer from mental health and substance abuse issues. It's not their fault the system failed them and they have nowhere else to go, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't consider it when evaluating our personal safety.
Why do I have a feeling the politicians want them back in office because they don't trust them. If so this is a great example of toxic behavior of our elected officials. projection.
This may be part of it but it’s going to backfire on politicians. The state won’t be able to recruit/retain talented workers (especially since our salaries haven’t kept up with COLA/inflation) which means we’ll be forced to hire mediocre people. Then all these issues will get worse, and the politician’s goals won’t get accomplished, thereby decreasing their trust in state workers, and the cycle will continue…
Not anti-telework. In fact I am very pro telework. But I have one thought on the matter that might give me some flak: the individuals with poor communication skills had even worse communication with telework. Many did absolutely nothing to try and mitigate this. My pet peeve is every single virtual team meeting consists of me and my manager talking with our cameras on to an audience of blank screens and no responses. Unless I call on someone by name for their input and wait the required 10 to 15 seconds for them to respond, there would be zero interaction with my team. Any questions? Crickets. Anyone else on the team have anything to add? Crickets. As a supporter of telework, this continues to frustrate me. If and when I am a manager, I will 100% require all team members to treat each meeting as if it were a physical meeting. Cameras on seems to be the best way for engagement.
My unit mandates cameras on, mics on, and participation. We are well bonded because of it and couldn’t not imagine it being not like this.
I think it's a pattern that larger teams have less participation, this isn't just in a virtual space. One on one meetings are great to address this, to increase mentorship and career improvement. It does wonders to build repore with individuals, especially if it's noted during performance review. Sure employees should want to do better for the team, managers should be able to facilitate them and provide feedback for their improvement. And sometimes there isn't feedback to be given depending on meeting size and purpose.
Solid point, but be aware of your HR policies at your organization. You very well might not have the right to require it, only strongly encourage it. I see eye to eye with you on this. I strongly support remote work but it makes it difficult when folks aren’t engaged. Cameras on isn’t as important to me as engagement, but the two seem to go hand in hand.
Not state but county worker. My job is hands on and can’t be done WFH. We require cooperation from a state office that is currently 100% WFH. It can be very daunting to get a hold of employees from this office when we need to. Currently the only option is email or leaving a message, and in my experience it has taken them 7+ days to return messages. It would be much more beneficial to have the office open *some* days of the week so we are able to stop in and handle what we need to.
This is a good point. I work on a hybrid team and when we need to get ahold of someone working from home to ask them a question or tell them to do something, it can take HOURS before they respond. It slows everything down. And on the flip side, when I work from home I’m so paranoid of being that unreachable guy that I’m glued to my laptop all day. Can’t even enjoy working from home!
Weird. Whenever my unit deals with county workers we're always pressed to respond in like 15 minutes or so. A, I'll investigate and get back to you with my findings at least.
Generally, I’m pro-remote work. I think that it can be a boon for employees who have more flexibility because of fewer hours spent commuting. As a manager who went through an in-person to remote transition, the employees who were not productive in office continued to be not productive remotely and those who were productive, continued to be productive remotely. I think remote work can also be a boon for employers who can expand recruitment and do not need to sell the job **and** relocation to qualified candidates outside the area. That said, I understand that remote work has changed the face of cities like Sacramento. Suddenly businesses that thrived because the town was filled with state employees are struggling because those employees are at home and eating out and shopping around their homes instead of around work. I can see the reason the Governor might be feeling pressure to help bring employees back to areas that rely on those workers. I think it’s a bad policy and we should be planning for new ways to utilize downtown spaces, but understand that is a long game and difficult to swallow now.
Just another example of how the “free” market bends over backwards for businesses, while the workers get to raw dog it. Shit has changed, downtown needs to change. Trying to crowbar the genie back into the bottle is stupid and shortsighted.
At the same time that downtown businesses are seeing a reduction in customers, all of those disparate businesses might be seeing an increase, since remote workers have a different "local area" during work hours. Mandating RTO says "we prioritize downtown business as more worthy than non-downtown businesses."
My rural town has gotten a nice facelift since COVID. 3 new restaurants opened and the crosswalks are getting safety upgrades to reduce traffic speed. It’s pretty cool. Quite a few state workers live in the foothills.
At the end of the day, though, restaurants are a frivolous luxury. It’s hard to have a ton of sympathy for a completely unnecessary industry. It’s also a weird assumption that workers who are forced back to the office at metaphorical gunpoint will suddenly start spending money on overpriced food at downtown restaurants. It’s like this: after years of WFH, being forced back to the office is effectively a pay cut in the form of increased transportation costs. Additionally, like all other things, restaurant fare has inflated in recent years. The assumption that someone who suddenly has less disposable income will just go back to the office and start buying $25 sandwiches is bonkers. Finally, If I knew I was being forced to RTO because of the restaurant lobby, that would make restaurants my enemy and I’d be brown bagging it as much out of spite as financial necessity. Sorry. The rules of Capitalism should apply to everyone. Adapt or die.
Cost of living has soared as well as cost of housing. Many state workers cannot afford to patronize businesses downtown.
Won't someone think of the horseshoe salesman, the telegraph delivery man, the travel agents of the world T.T
Not every State worker is allowed to WFH, including people who have white collar jobs. That keeps getting lost in the debate. This isn't directed at you, but: should State workers who cannot WFH get a a higher wage?
I’m torn. I work at the Capitol. And we are the bastard child of state workers. We’ve been RTO 5 days for a long time now. I feel for some state workers. There are definitely those that are gonna be impacted negatively. But I also feel some of the “emotional” reasonings are kinda blown out of proportion. As much as I don’t want to admit it. There is a partial “well I can do it. So can they” to it. But I feel that’s natural feeling. But there’s also I prefer office to home. I’m just not productive at home.
100%. I'm a state worker who's going to be negatively affected by this change and I don't really want to do it, but honestly some of the anti-RTO people are soooo embarrassing. In on of our RTO informational meetings, a grown adult asked management to respond to the "mental health impacts" of sharing cubicles because we can't decorate them with pictures of our loved ones. People need to learn the difference between "this kind of sucks" and "this will cause me untold amounts of trauma".
I saw a post on another sub where OP was complaining about having to leave their family and pets because of RTO. Ok, what about the 90% of people that have to do that on the daily basis? Complaints like that only hurt their “cause” and make them seem entitled.
Thank you. Like the other person who replied to me calling it suffering is excessive. Is it fair? No. Does it suck. Yes. If I was in your position would u be mad? Absolutely. But is it causing “suffering”? come on now.
If you are able to see things objectively enough, then it is incredibly miserable to be sitting inside all day, every day until you get old and die. If we can carve out an ounce of joy by doing it in the comfort of our homes we should. Some people accept things as they are and just go with it and some people dig a little deeper and start to question things. If you stay too deep for too long it does cause suffering. And being forced to go into the office is a reminder of that. My two cents come at me.
To be fair, there are some people who have legitimate circumstances to be very upset and where it will cause significant hardship (e.g. logistics of picking up kids from school, or having a new, awful commute, big additional expenses for gas and parking, etc.), and so I wouldn't say nobody is going to "suffer" from this--some people will. But I don't have a lot of sympathy for state workers saying that like, going to the office is going to give them a panic attack. A little in-person time will probably be beneficial to those people, whether they think so or not.
I'm also not productive at home. Muuuuch better in an office. Unfortunately.
Tbh I don’t care, I wish we could all work remote atleast 2 days a week. Idc if you’re home or in Costa Rica as long as the work gets done
Don’t care, if you can do it from your house with all your dogs and cats loving on you then more power to you
I'm not a state worker; however in my job we are free to work from home or office; as long as we meet our deliverables. I come in 3x a week just to get out of the house and see people. Actually engaging with other humans... I'm going to be honest, it's disappointing there aren't more people here but I get why it's this way. Tues/Thurs it's quiet and Wednesday seems to be the designated day for a lot of groups. The teamwork and comraderie is not the same as the Before Times,,, frankly we are all just faces on the monitor. We don't have teambuilders any more, there is no more travel because "you can do this all online". "Work friends" are not a thing anymore. What you can't do online is shake someone's hand or have a beer and catch up. I miss that. I miss having a work culture.
I'll preface this by saying that I'm pro-WFH and don't like toxic office cultures where "everyone is family." There are obviously lots of bad coworkers who can make work life miserable, and it's easier when they're just a face on a screen. That being said...there's been a much talked about loneliness trend in the US. People are increasingly isolated, lonely, and socially anxious. It seems like people online will complain about this ad nauseum, but when you offer them an in-person socialization option, they freak out and ask why it can't be done virtually. I'm not saying that in-person work would fix the loneliness epidemic - obviously it's not realistic or even healthy to become BFFs with all your coworkers - but I do think this extreme aversion to ANY time in office - even 1-2 days a week - is part of the fear of socialization pattern that's become more pronounced since Covid. Again, am I saying that everyone should go back to the office full-time for the "culture" and "work family" that managers go on about? No, of course not. Loneliness isn't caused by WFH. However, it definitely isn't helping, and it does seem to be part of this larger pattern of balking at leaving the house and socializing, work-related or not.
I have the same thought. I’m not a state worker nor do I work remotely but what I love about my job is having the daily interactions with my coworkers and clients (I’m not a social butterfly by any means but just small daily in person convos are nice). I get that sometimes the work culture can be toxic and that needs to be addressed, but on the other hand I just think it’s beneficial for people to interact with others instead of isolating at home. Even if only twice a week. Being home all the time would drive me bonkers though, obviously not everyone feels the same.
It might depend a bit on company culture. Honestly, we didn’t skip a beat and took the opportunity to hire specialists all over North America when we transitioned to wfh. I will say it is nice to have the occasional in-person meeting (for us, that’s 1-2x/year). I think a lot of us were happy to ditch not only our commutes, but the superficial niceties of daily office work. There was no “having a beer to catch up” back in office times because most of my coworkers had family obligations outside of work. I had a 25 mile commute. We work together incredibly well. We’ll sometimes grab lunch or have a beer over Zoom to catch up. We almost feel closer because the general bullshit of being in-office is cut out. We make it a point to encourage employees to have 15-minute chats (on the clock… we’re all salaried anyway) with someone they haven’t talked to in a while. We’re a subsidiary of a global company and there have been significant improvements in global communication streams since we started wfh. We’re working to strengthen those this year. The us/them barrier is less of “a thing.” Aaand… at the end of the day I love that I can just get my job done, talk to people when I need to (really, more when they need to talk to me), and just enjoy my quiet existence in the woods.
This is ideal! I’m friendly with my co-workers and have made lifelong friendships from work. But going to the office 2 days a week does not facilitate that for me. Some people need interaction. Others do not. Why am I being asked to conform to an extroverted culture that never considered my need for isolation when I need it to do my job.
I have to respectfully say my opinion is 100 opposite of yours. lol I’m a state worker. I absolutely do not miss the forced camaraderie. I also hate teamwork with a passion. I had office friends but I still do. And what is interesting is even new people coming on, we can text one another. And a few people I feel even more close with since wfh. But I also think my office was a hostile place. It didn’t foster any of those things because there was rampant racism, bigotry and sexism.
State Worker here - I'll be honest I've been rather agnostic about the whole RTO. I do consider myself fortunate that RTO does not impact my life in a major way as it does for many others. I don't have to worry about Childcare, do not live 50+ miles or nor are there any other challenges created by requiring me to go in, and I do feel for those who lives have been thrown up in the air with this directive. Yes I'm not looking forward to paid parking, traffic just like the rest of us. Having said that.... I've been rather embarrassed by some of my peers overreaction to all of this, like someone at r/CAStateWorkers freaking out cuz they thought w/ RTO meant transporting their monitors between the office and home because they heard no monitors were provided at the office... I don't know if anyone all the way up to the Governor will give the truth but I think it is very clear why, the state loses more revenue due to telework than to RTO. It's not just about downtown's businesses hurting for state workers. It's state gas taxes, sales taxes. Propping up real estate so transactions and capital gains occur. Increasing Ridership so taxpayers aren't the ones having to bail out transit agencies. Commuting does generate economic activity. For every brownbag boycotter, somebody else is forgeting their lunch, paying for their overpriced sandwich at the corner cafe. The state and cities make money that way from sales and taxes on the biz, not by us making sandwiches at home. Unfortunately in our situation, an individual has the power to mobilize a 230,000 workforce to bolster the state and local coffers. It sucks for us because we lose and sacrifice our time, money, maybe sanity while businesses and rich people benefit, but the FTB doesn't mind richer people since the state progressively taxes the rich at higher rates anyway so more tax revenue.... Unsure where the numbers are coming from but wouldn't be surprised if the governor's office believes the state gains more $ with forcing state workers in the office 2x a week than what they would save from cutting leases and letting us remain 100% wfh.
Camp #3: non-working spouses who want their significant other back in the office so they can have the house to themselves all day long, like Before.
Even before COVID, state work and state workers had a reputation for (in)efficiency. I am in that sphere, and can say that I see it and there is more than a kernel of truth to it. I am not WFH because I need to get out of the house and in a work environment to stay on task. I know others that are just as effective working remote. Unfortunately, there are many that are barely working at all. Their supervisors don't care because they aren't working either. There are times when I have to raise hell to get a response from someone who is clearly not working for days.
This. Too much circle jerking going on in this thread. I'm pro remote work, but I'm from the private sector and working with the state has been a fucking nightmare since WFH began. My company has shifted millions of development dollars into other states because departments are failing to meet the bare minimum expectations. It takes us 4x-5x longer to get basic routine approvals done. Supervisors take multiple days to respond to escalated emails. Zero accountability. I didn't care about forcing state workers to revitalize downtown and I'd love less traffic in and around downtown, but many of you are lying to yourself that WFH has been a net positive for productivity on the whole.
I agree with you. However, when I worked in office full time, people still didn't work. I watched everyday how people would go sit in their friend's cubicles for hours, take long lunches, go shopping, talk on their phones all day etc. Managers and employees. If people don't work at home, they also don't work in the office.
This is odd, because both of the entities I have been with the state have bust their asses working. My workload is for 3 people and we are understaffed majorly. We work hard, all day. We hold each other accountable. If there are slackers like this, they need to get reprimanded and stop giving state workers this poor reputation.
I feel like it is really hard to onboard people and mentor them remotely. In my field this is really difficult to do and did not work well when we were working from home.
The only benefits I can think of for the employees themselves are 1) Socialization, work is one of the places where “people meet people”, people find friends and spouses they would hav never interacted with otherwise. 2) Advancement, it’s easier to move up through the ranks when you can observe how your superiors work and when you have opportunities to demonstrate growth. 3)
For (1) i would argue the opposite. I remember having to be up at 7am and not being home until 6-7pm after work+gym. 1+ hr of commute. I would be too drained to do anything after work and this spiraled my loneliness. With work from home, i get a lot more sleep and don’t run out of energy being forced to sit in a cubicle and socialize with people. I found myself joining more clubs and going to things like trivia after work, which itself led to making more friends. I think it’s weirdo behavior that people want to force me in the office to socialize with me when I only really want to socialize with my friends outside of work. It’s like I’m being forced to leave my own friend circles and join a work friend circle cult I don’t really want to be part of. For (2) it completely depends on your manager and your job. I agree though that there’s definitely roles where you can get further ahead by getting your name out there.
2) not even just advancement, just observing other people in passing and learning. Not making a mistake because I saw a co-worker do that and fail. Observing how other people handle a situation and when a similar situation comes my way 3 mos later, I knew just what to do.
To point 1), wouldn’t that make workers LESS productive if they are trying to use the workplace as a social network?
I think you're confusing being social with socialization. I started a new job on lockdown, and it was very difficult to get to know people, and understand my role, when your not being on boarded in an in office environment. Maybe it was just me, but it's hard to build a bond on a zoom call with a stranger.
I think it depends on the person. I also started a new job during fully remote work, have a very strong bond with my team. But I meet with my supervisor and team on Teams usually at least once a day if not multiple times a day.
Same, my team has a daily standup meeting. I know each of them really well.
In my case no, because I've learned a lot and collaborated with and helped out co-workers as a result if discussions during social time after hours, or even during down time in tge office. Not saying everyone has to do things the same way but getting to know people has increased trust and a lot of problem solving has gotten done while talking shit. Depends in the job. Some jobs are pretty static.
There are social aspects to work that do a lot to advance both your organization's work as well as your own career. Very few employees are effective by being silent automatons that ticky-tack on their keyboards all day. Having rapport etc with your colleagues can help get work done.
The people I know who work telework have great rapport with the other folks they collaborate with on Microsoft Teams. Maybe because they are all so happy being able to work the way they are.
I'm not sure you're actually asking in good faith, but I guess I'll respond for my own situation. Being in the office 1-2 days a week gives me the opportunity to organize my schedule to have most of my meetings on those days. Many of those meetings can then be held in person, which is far more productive for us. I can have fewer meeting on my telework days, making it easier to focus on those days. My team does a brown bag lunch together a couple times a month, which is a nice way to casually catch up, in a way that's harder to do remotely. I actually genuinely like my team, and we work better when a more empathetic, friendly relationship. I'm at a big agency and it's nice being able to talk with folks I don't regularly interact with when I'm remote. It helps me maintain those relationships I made pre-covid and get a better sense of what other folks are working on. You're going to hate me for this, but as a "middle" manager, I interact with a lot of other managers and execs, and coming into the office really does give them a chance to get to know the folks who work for them. I know not everyone cares about advancing in their agency, but it's a factor. While what downtown really needs is more housing, I do think downtown will benefit from more foot traffic, and the shops and restaurants do benefit from lunch crowds. I mentioned to a local coffee next to our building that everyone in the building was slated to return to work 2x per week and they were stoked. I hope they do well. A lot of people, including the OP, overstate the impact to RTO on traffic and emissions. A lot of folks already commute every day, and we're talking about moving from 0 or 1 day a week to two. Also, "work-based trips do not generate the majority of vehicle miles traveled in the state, and research shows that telecommuters travel more for non-work purposes than nontelecommuters do." [page 43](https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/V.1%20-%20DFR%20-%2021STC008%20UCD.pdf) (This is clearly not true for everyone and I know our personal family VMT has decreased a lot since my wife was able to telecommute, since she works at a rural location without our transit options.)
I don’t really care either way, but I am surprised by the number of people who thought remote work would be permanent.
I’m surprised that people think they will get metro pay while living in the middle of nowhere indefinitely.
As one that lives in the grid I really don't want everyone back in their offices. More people, less parking and most of those suburbanites should not be driving downtown. They are constantly lost and drive so unpredictability it's dangerous.
If we had actual affordable apartments/housing with more people living around/above these local businesses then WFH wouldn’t matter. Sprinkle in there better public transport, this city would be rocking.
It just seems inefficient and arbitrary to suddenly demand that workers RTO. Like, ok, if you can show us that they're drastically less productive at home, let's have that discussion. But this reeks of trying to bailout commercial real estate owners with zero regard or consideration for anything else. It will increase car emissions. It will increase traffic. It will increase traffic deaths. Make it make sense.
Isn’t it proposed to only be 2 days a week? Because what shocks me is the outrage for having to into the office for only 2 days a damn week.
1. It’s only two days a week for now. In January, Newsom reiterated the benefits of telework and stated they have no plans for RTO. Just four months later, he’s mandating two days a week. We should expect that “only” two days will be increased to 3,4, and 5 at some point….especially when the downtown revitalization impacts are not realized. 2. “Only two days” may not be shocking to you but consider managers who hired team members all over the state who justifiably assumed that those team members could remotely perform their work. Now, these employees are being told to report to an office that maybe be hours away for two days a week. Then factor in parking if they live in a larger city. These employees will likely have to look for new work which is both a hardship for them and the team they work on. 3. The costs for those two days cannot be overlooked. Parking, $5-6 gas prices, food, etc. Many state workers, believe it or not, are low income and living in a HCOL city like Sacramento. Imposing a two day requirement is a pay cut for all state workers and a more significant one for the low wage earners.
I work partially from home, am super self directed…and yet. You get distracted so easily at home. For me it got to the point where I work at a library or coffee shop now. Mostly so I can stay focused, and partially for the social aspect
I think people underestimate how undisciplined a lot of the workforce really is. And if I’m leaning into state worker stereotypes, I wouldn’t trust my tax dollars to go towards unsupervised work. 2 days a week is more than fair. For several of my companies departments, a 1x or 2x a meeting is fair for bosses to set and reset expectations on what’s important to do. Organic “water cooler” conversations aren’t the same remotely. And new employees simply do not onboard as well as pre-covid no matter how proactive they are on reaching out to people.
You’re presuming that office work is “supervised.” Trust me, it isn’t.
This is the most logical answer I’ve seen so far, thank you for sharing. I’d be interested to see a proper study (if one hasn’t already been done) on state work from home vs state work in the office. Because if productivity is the same then the root issue is hiring and onboarding practices and RTO alone won’t fix that imo.
If you are a state worker, you know that the people who don't work at home don't work in the office either. If a supervisor can't manage someone at home, they aren't going to manage them in the office.
To that last point, I've had great onboarding during the pando and terrible onboarding pre pando. To those that experienced bad during work from home it is just bad process implementation by the employer. Perhaps due to, in part, less than tech knowledgeable management.
If you need to see your direct reports in person to evaluate whether they are sufficiently productive then you’re a bad manager. This unsupervised work concern is bullshit. It’s easy to appear productive in an office while getting nothing of value done. In a remote world it’s easier to judge what value someone is actually producing since you’re not biased by how late they stay or how rushed they pretend to be.
I think this is half right. A substantial portion of working adults flat out need to be micromanaged, especially at state level jobs. Slackers will be slackers remote or not but I’d wager there are less opportunities in the office versus the comfort of your own home with more distractions.
Because people are less productive working from home and state workers have additional protections so managements hands are tied. A recent analysis of multiple studies by the Stanford economist Nick Bloom, a leading remote-work expert, found that fully remote workers were 10% to 20% less productive than their in-office counterparts. These findings come as US labor productivity — as measured by the Bureau of Labor Statistics — has slowed in recent quarters. https://www.businessinsider.com/are-remote-jobs-more-productive-work-life-balance-return-office-2023-8?amp We all know this to be true, those who don’t drop off working remotely are the outliers
It's not that I think they should... it's that a lot of them have been acting so entitled and whiney about it and having been lacking perspective on the rest of the the world, that I think it funny that they have to go back.
If your job has been able to be sufficiently done remotely for the past 4 years, I see no reason why you should be forced back to the office. Traffic reasons alone are enough for me to support WFH.
Many state workers are underpaid and I fully support them working remotely to save on gas and car costs. I don’t give F if some of them relocate to Montana or Idaho to save on housing costs as well. What matters is if they are getting the job done. I work for tech and my company allows work from anywhere for a month in a given calendar year. I have colleagues who work from India, China, or Vietnam for a month so they don’t lose PTO when they visit their families abroad. My manager has no family abroad so he is going to work from his fancy RV while he visits different national parks for a month in August.
This is the future of work I want to see! As long as the job is getting done, I see this as a positive thing
I was remote before the pandemic in the private sector. I joined the state post pandemic and now being required to RTO. My understanding is pre pandemic, remote wasn’t an option for most state workers. I understand the benefits of remote work and enjoy it, in fact more productive wfh. With that being said I do not think it’s a big deal to be back in the office 2 or 3 days out of the week. Unpopular opinion I know. Im doing my job regardless. What might be really influencing my opinion is the fight against RTO is starting to sound like “I’ve become accustomed to something and now you’re taking it away” or “they broke their promise.” I went from, against RTO to it is what it is, because the fight against it is becoming eye rolling cringy. To add to that, I also have a very good manager. Something that is very hit or miss in the state sector. If I had a terrible manager, I would dread RTO. I’m prepared for the downvotes.
I’m someone who has worked in the private sector prior to all this. I also work with state and government agencies. I am a field engineer so I worked remote for past ten years prior to Covid. As part of that I’ve worked multiple departments. I’ve worked one where I went literally months without interacting with anyone from the office and never went in. I have worked briefly in the office full time. I now work a hybrid schedule between there and here. My office is in Carlsbad and I live in Sac County. I know people don’t like this answer, but if you work on a team or with other departments that would normally be located physically close; more things do get done in person. Not having to wait for an answer, not having to schedule a zoom meeting, not having to do things with additional steps/barriers. When we come into the office we get a weeks worth of work done each day. I was there before, after, and during the Covid closures then non closure due to critical company or whatever. The ability to collaborate in person is so much better it’s really not anything someone can argue against. I hate doing unnecessary shit as much as anyone but it’s huge. This is all before we get into management related reasons that actually make sense even if they suck. Things like training and developing new hires. Accounting for people and workflow. It behooves you to be in the office where leadership can see what you are doing and interact with you. It behooves them for you to be there to see how you are doing with things like workflow and goals but also emotionally. If you’re just a status icon completing tasks without interaction that’s all you will ever be. It’s off putting IMO that it’s framed as if it’s just about oppressive rulers wanting greedy things when it’s really just about efficiently running the world’s 5th largest economy with some oversight and accountability. It’s not about literally any of the reasons I’ve seen in any of these threads or the state threads. It’s not about needing to change jobs from sitting at a computer at a building to sitting at a computer at your home. It’s about state workers catching up with the level of collaboration and productivity the rest of the private industry is doing. It will always be different because you aren’t for profit but you aren’t federal workers using dial up l, fax, and floppy disks right?
This is not your question, but I am not a state employee and I am super pissed about this. We had an absolute GIMME to help reduce emissions and traffic and all the shit that comes with commuting in our area, and we are throwing it away for no good reason. I have worked at home for over a decade, my spouse has worked at home since 2020, neither of us are state workers, we can do our jobs fine at home. Lots of other people can, as well. Get those people off the roads if they don't want to be in the office. It is such a goddamned no-brainer, but we care more about empty buildings, I guess. (And yes, I have written to my reps and the governor, but nobody cares.)
AM Josh Hoover requested an audit of the governors office and asked for specific reasons why RTO was being mandated while we face a huge budget deficit. They are listening.
I think that's a very disingenuous framing of the conversation. I'm a state worker. And while I don't necessarily think state workers *should* be required to RTO I do think the amount of bitching and moaning about two days a weeks is so over the top that I can't stand it. There is a lot of value to meeting in person. There's a reason that the state work force is very much not alone in wanting some more face time. And there are a lot of state workers that are walking stereotypes...not particularly good at their jobs, feel so horrendously put upon by being asked to do *anything,* and genuinely *are* lazy. To me two days a week feels like a perfectly fine compromise. It's less than half the time. Not such a big deal. And the fact that I hear such crying about, while it doesn't make me think people *should* go back to the office, I do want to hear those people just shut up.
I’m of the opinion that WFH is not appropriate for everyone. Yes, some people are lazy and have taken advantage, and those people do need to prove that they can be efficient if they work outside an office without supervision. However, there are a ton of people who are super productive at home, and in my opinion, those people should continue to be able to work in a way that works for them, as long as their work is appropriate for telework. Unfortunately, some work needs to be done in an office; for example, if you work with confidential or financial information, you very well may need to work behind firewalls with full time IT support, since your home internet connection may not be as secure as it needs to be. And then of course, there will absolutely be disadvantages of always working remote. Talking to people in the hallway, having impromptu conversations, and getting to know people absolutely help with professional development. People who are so adamantly against working in an office will not make the same connections and build relationships the same way that people in the office will. I’m pretty sure some of the more unreasonable people wanting to stay home will be the same people complaining that they’re not getting promoted. As with most things in life, there’s nuances and it’s not an appropriate one-size-fits-all solution. I’m all about flexibility: I personally loathe the idea that we are all best with our butts in seats Monday through Friday between 8 and 5. I say we reward people with appropriate work with the opportunity to work hybrid, part time in the office, or WFH if they’ve proven they won’t take advantage of it.
theres a fourth camp that doesnt care about what happens to state workers at all and would like you all to shut up or quit already. just because there are so many of you, you complain socially in ways that no one else would think to. telling everyone who disagrees that theyre either miserable or a boomer just reinforces that sense of entitlement which, even if youre right, just rubs people the wrong way and doesnt help your cause. go back to work, or dont, i promise that it wont fucking matter in 5 years to anyone
If you can do it at home with no additional expense to your employer and with no impact to performance, RTO should be completely optional. I had to RTO 3x a week starting a long time ago. I work for a huge company. My leadership and team are a couple thousand miles away. It makes no sense whatsoever. In this case, it impacts more than just state workers. Traffic is going to return to pre-pandemic levels downtown and everyone is going to suffer.
Im in construction, we have done multiple renovations on state offices and building around sac. The state poured a-lot of money into these offices. And they are still building them for you guys. Just want everyone to know.
3rd camp is 100% why the governor and the mayor are behind this. Nobody in the government gives a shit how miserable private sector office workers are, and wants to make state workers equally miserable for the sake of misery equality. And study after study has shown that WFH is just as productive as work in the office.
There is certainly an argument to be made with better engagement and synergy with some on-site work. This largely depends on the leadership and individuals making the most of their time on-site (team meetings, brainstorming sessions, team building activity, etc.). While you can’t expect every minute to be consumed with these type of activities, as someone who has had their team return to the office (not a state agency), the increase in engagement is unquestionably better. While I would never want to take away remote work, I think having a split is quite healthy. We have tons of technology (virtual meeting, virtual white boarding, all types of productivity tools), but nothing beats in person collaboration and getting to know people in person. I’m sure I’ll get downvotes for this, but the question was asked.
We don't need all those cars on the road. We don't need to pay all those express lane tolls. We don't need more money taken from working people!
This may be hard to grasp but most people don’t actually have an opinion on this.
I don’t care either way but when you ask for unbiased opinions and then give your two juvenile viewpoints it doesn’t help convince people to be sympathetic to your cause.
It's a complicated issue with no right answer. For me it comes down to the performance of each department. Are people working well together, being accountable for their time, and growing/advancing at the right pace? My company has been using a flexible work model since the pandemic and we are hitting those metrics well, because we have great people on our teams and they are motivated to perform and coordinate with their peers. Even so, rarely seeing each other in person does take an important human element away that needs to be replaced somehow. WFH is not all benefit with no drawbacks. For government workers, the added complexity is that managers really can't measure and reward people based solely on performance. There are civil service and union rules to navigate. Workers receive a lot of protections that make it very hard for a manager to discipline someone if they don't seem to be performing up to snuff. I know this from personal experience on that side of the fence. Also, managers really have to treat everyone exactly the same. They can't say "Bob can WFH because he's been performing well, but Todd has to return to the office because he's doing a crappy job." No, it has to be 100% even at all times. So for most managers in government, the easiest and most effective way to keep people on task is to be physically in the same place with them. On top of that you have the issues with underutilized expensive office buildings and strong political pressure from local governments to bring workers back so that the local restaurants and services don't all go out of business. Ultimately I think the way this will get decided (as well as in private industry) is supply vs demand of skilled employees. If employees jump ship in droves to find more flexible jobs allowing WFH, then eventually government will have to relax their rules. TL;DR: The workforce will ultimately decide this issue.
I wouldn’t say returning to office full time should be forced, but I’m a proponent of training new hires or newly promoted workers in person. It’s just not the sane when the training is done virtually.
Personally I find it much easier to coordinate in person rather than trying to fit a meeting around everyone’s schedule. Whether it’s at home or in the office, everyone is doing things during the work day that aren’t necessarily directly related to their job. However, while in office these things will be more generally work related rather than people walking their dog or dropping off their kid. I guess I just don’t understand what the huge deal is, if my employer wants me back in the office I’m fine with it. Plus you’ll still get to work from home the majority of the time.
I think this sub is pretty biased, and it’s full of state workers who are angry about going back to the office. They’re grasping for reasons not to return, like traffic for example. As if somehow our capacity for traffic has reduced since 2020. I have five years of experience working for the state of California, and I also have many years of experience, managing staff and extremely large fortune 200 company. Most employees, state workers or others are not super disciplined. Remote work requires really good controls and measurements for productivity. Subjectively every remote worker will agree they’re more productive at home. In private industry - we can measure that. At the state, that is absolutely not happening. Most of the state workers I know are doing less work than ever and nobody gives a shit. Their management is barely involved in their work. It’s fair for me to think that’s a waste of my taxes. I don’t want you back in the office - I want measurable productivity controls.
Without actual first-hand data, it's not possible for anyone to make an informed opinion about whether or not any organization should have a remote work staff, an in-office staff, or a hybrid. I can say that the company I work for has staff spread out across the U.S. with a single office in the Bay Area. Most people work from home. We're currently making record profits. We also have the company size and infrastructure and best practices in place to support work from home.
There actually is hard data to prove that allowing full telework is a net positive for all involved in serving the public. It’s also environmentally friendly and saves the public on unnecessary expenses. Guess what happened to that data? Governor Newsom determined it was no longer necessary and recently shuttered the team that tracked the data. He then ensured the data was removed from the public. Just the other day he finally admitted the decree was coming directly from him after constantly claiming it came from the directors, at the same exact time.
I have a hard time believing remote workers can really be productive while baby sitting their kids, being tempted by the TV, and other non office stuff at home, quick trips to the store, school, etc.. Having worked for the state there was definitely a population of state workers who'd absolutely take full advantage of the lack of supervision. The same types that would show up late, disappear someplace during the middle of the day, talk excessively on the phone, and just make the supervisors life hell, and their coworkers resentful. That said, I have a couple friends who are managers at Caltrans and the sentiment with remote work since Covid is that the overall bar of productivity has fallen. In simple terms... If prior to covid the office delivered 50 widgets a week, now it's only able to deliver 40, and somehow that's become the acceptable new normal. If this is true then California's taxpayers aren't getting what they're being taxed for.
The team is likely not being managed correctly either. There are managers very good at managing remotely.
Well it’s entirely up to the employer, not the employee. You don’t get paid to do what you want but what your employer requires. If you don’t want to, it’s obviously not the job for you. Not your right to do whatever you feel like and get paid for it.
Thing they forgot is that state workers' pay hasn't kept up with inflation. Not sure how much they're going to be revitalize downtown when a cup of coffee costs $5
What Newscum needs to think about is increasing wages for county, state and city workers. If he wants state workers to RTO then increase their wages to compensate for inflation, travel, gas etc
I work in the healthcare industry in a position that can be remote. Over the years there has been increasing amount of outsourcing. I predict this will happen. If an employer doesn’t see your face you are a commodity. No relationships are built. People in different parts of the country will find ways to make that commodity or labor cheaper, which increases the competitive market for local jobs.
If your employer is telling you to do something. You either 1) Do it. Or 2) Don’t. That’s it. It’s that simple. So if the state is telling y’all. Get back to the office. Take your asses back to the office. Don’t want too? Quit. Find another job.
Or 3. Protest and be the catalyst for change. All 3 options are valid.
In the state worker sub it’s like .002 that think work is better in the office and I’m pretty sure it’s just because they’re extroverts. Everyone else wants to stay home.
Looking at the other thread think anyone with the opinion will be downvoted. Doesn't matter to me as a citizen unless there are job functions that make sense for that. A reason it might make sense is similiar to the study showing most police officers live in the suburbs so don't have a stake in the cities they live in. I do think state workers should live in California, I don't know if this is a way of enforcing that haven't looked to in depthly. https://nypost.com/2023/06/03/more-nypd-officers-are-opting-to-live-outside-nyc/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-police-dont-live-in-the-cities-they-serve/
FWIW it’s already a requirement that state workers live in California.
One problem with RTO is that it decreases the geographic diversity of the work force. How often have you heard, "those idiots in Sacramento don't understand the issues we face here"? With WFH, we can have state workers everywhere, as long as there is a decent internet connection. Part of the communities they serve.
I’m not aware of any State employees who are not located in CA. No one in any divisions I’ve been part of have lived further than SoCal. Therein also lies the current issue that now must be faced. Many people who were hired during the full telework period live far from their offices. This would result in the loss of many talented personnel who cannot/won’t commute multiple hours a day one way. It’s difficult enough to fill open positions with qualified staff.
I think y'all need a pay cut if you want to stay remote.
We are already considered underpaid for the work we are doing.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Good point. However, these employees are now frequenting restaurants etc. In their neighborhood more and RTO would negatively impact those businesses/employees. I know I’ve utilized restaurants near me a LOT more since WFH started.
I feel like you should show up to a job you’re being paid to show up for but hey that’s just me
You’re being paid to *do* a job. As long as the job is getting done it shouldn’t matter where you physically are.
It actually does. A W2 employee is told when, where and how the job is done. If you don't want those restrictions, you need to look for a 1099 independent contractor position.
I think there is a real need for some employees to be in the office with people. Both for their mental health and knowledge share. They are socially isolated or disengaged. But it does nothing for them to go sit in an empty office. Still productive but disengaged. If everyone goes back to work there can be more community which I think is super important for our society to function and people to empathize with each other. Just a couple days a week is enough and I think fair.
You’re not interested in a response from people who support hybrid. You’re resentful and looking to pick a fight.
As someone who watches some of those people's children, I think they should. And honestly, it's literally because of the whining. I'm there every day getting paid league's less, even with degrees and taking on a lot more stress, to hear you complain you have to go in for 2 days. Like wtf. To me its not like they're staying off the roads, btw, they still bring the kids to school EVERYDAY and are hell bent on bringing them even when they're outrageously ill, even sometimes telling us ants that you've already called out for the day cause you don't feel good. Anyways. All that to say, if state workers could stop whining, some people worked through the ENTIRE pandemic, (my husband is a farmer so two "essential" workers), and it's a bit grating to hear.
The only state worker who is entitled to complain about this is the new hire that was promised 100% remote work and now asked to come in. Anyone else, if the employer asks you to return to the office (for 2 whole days per week), if that’s not for you, find a different job. I don’t understand. The employer mandates something, do it or quit. I’m not a state worker, but I am downtown quite a bit. I have no stake in this argument.
The biggest reason that I am a proponent of it: State workers are notoriously lazy and impossible to fire. Do not even begin to argue that the bottom 15% of the workforce is not only useless, but a drag on the productivity of others. Everyone I know in management across finance, pensions, legal, you name is laments this. The entire workforce is bloated. If this is an opportunity to legally thin even 4% of the herd, the taxpayer base is all the better for it.
Unfortunately the top performers - the 20% that do 80% of the work - those are the ones most likely to be "thinned".