Return to office: State workers say looming mandate would cost more than money
Matt Williams has never worked a hybrid schedule before — only 100% in person or 100% telework from his home. The latter, he said, benefits both state employees and California taxpayers.
For four years before the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, Williams drove each day from his home in Elk Grove to the California Air Resources Board’s office in downtown Sacramento — roughly a 30- to 50-minute commute each way.
The COVID lockdown shuttered most state offices, and Williams and thousands of other state workers found themselves working from home nearly full-time.
Not having to go into the office every day allowed Williams, an air pollution specialist, to “walk the talk” when it came to reducing his carbon footprint. He moved to midtown and sold his car. Now, he gets around either on foot or by bicycle.
But this spring, Williams would be just one of tens of thousands of employees called back to their offices twice a week as state agencies push return-to-office plans.
The California Environmental Protection Agency, which oversees CARB among other boards, offices and departments, has told its employees to plan for two days a week in-office starting sometime in March. The California Health and Human Services Agency, as well as the Employment Development Department, have issued similar announcements. The agencies must meet and confer with state employee unions before implementing any changes.
“I know many of you are curious to know the ‘why’ behind this shift,” said CalEPA Secretary Yana Garcia in an all-staff meeting Wednesday morning. “And the truth is, there are many ‘why’s.’”
Garcia touted what she saw as the “critical opportunities” that in-person work provides — mentorship and networking for early-career employees and knowledge-sharing through impromptu hallway conversations, among them.
But, by and large, state workers said they aren’t sold on the aforementioned benefits of in-office work.
Common themes from the more than 500 responses to a Sacramento Bee return-to-office survey include less time spent with family, and more stress, money and time spent on commuting.
The majority of those who volunteered their thoughts in the survey gave myriad reasons why such a mandate, even if for just two days a week, would make them unhappy. The costs of changing their routines after four years of remote work also varied — factors parking and gas prices frequently cited.
Altering schedules to accommodate young children, dogs and aging parents brought them another dimension of stress.
Respondents also criticized the state’s reasoning for bringing people back in person — which includes buzzy phrases such as “fostering collaboration” and “improving workplace culture.” They believe the state, facing an estimated $38 billion budget deficit, is adding costs.
“We don’t see any benefits from coming into the office,” Williams said. “All we see are costs.”
One state worker who took the survey summed it up: “There are no positives.”
Work performance isn’t a factor
Employees also say departments have provided no evidence that worker performance has dipped due to telework. The agencies concede that performance factors had no bearing on the decision to bring people back.
“This is not meant to address any deficiency or performance issue,” wrote CalHHS spokeswoman Sami Gallegos in response to The Bee’s questions, “but an opportunity to strengthen and improve existing dynamics.”
Williams acknowledged he won’t battle the same lengthy commutes that many of his colleagues would on their way to work. Nor would he have to buy a car to get to and from the office, because he lives in a walkable neighborhood.
His concerns run deeper than the inconveniences that return-to-office imposes. Several of Williams’ colleagues who were hired after the embrace of telework are based in places that don’t have easy access to a CARB office or satellite location. He worried that mandated in-office work would hamper the department’s ability to recruit and retain a racially, socioeconomically and geographically diverse workforce.
“The programs we implement affect people. And the effects should be equitable,” he said. “It’s important that those voices be integral to our decision-making.
“The best employees — the ones we need — are also the ones with options. They will have no trouble getting another job.”
Williams thinks about how taxpayers will ultimately foot the bill. Any extra office space or necessary equipment would cost taxpayer dollars. Plus, more in-office work means more commuters on the road, and more drivers means more congestion and emissions.
UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy: