This is NOT going to end well for Newsome!

[hurley1980]

California State worker required to return to office 2 days aweek starting in June!

As a consultant for a state agency, I fall under this.  My coworkers are already saying they are either just not going to go into the office, or they will quit.  

Also, the only reason this is happening is because downtown Sacramento has fallen apart since WFH.  So basically, they just want us to come back to spend money on failing restaurants and real estate.  It has NOTHING to do with the work being done. 

Lawyers and Union Reps are already getting involved.  No one wants more cars/traffic and pollution on the road.  Even people who don't WFH dont want this.  

Newsome is an idiot!


www.yahoo.com/news/return-office-state-workers-ordered-014334768.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

[thyme4change]

2 days seems pretty nominal. Most companies around here are at 4 days in office.

[hurley1980]

Its more that for the longest time, Newsome was saying he wouldn't mandate a RTO.  But now that real estate and restaurants aren't making as much money, he has gone back on his word.  Productivity is the same if not better, and we have been able to get better talent from hiring remote workers. 

Just in my department we have people in NY, LA, TX, and WA. I would say about 12 people total.  They were told they wouldn't have to relocate.  It will be interesting to see how it unfolds

[Tennesseer]

Private businesses have done the same.  MY ex-employer (from which I am retired from since 2004) allowed the vast majority of office workers to work from home during the Covid epidemic.  Here is Memphis  those employees worked at two multi-building complexes prior to the epidemic.  During the epidemic, those complexes were mostly vacant.  Once it was safe to return back to the office, they were called back in.  Those multi-building complexes which they own cost millions of dollars to build and maintain.  My employer has other other office complexes around the country.  Some were rentals but others also owned.  Where possible after the epidemic was over, the rental office leases were allowed to expire and those employees reassigned to company-owned buildings.

[NastyWoman]

To be honest I don't have a who!e lot of problems with tne idea that California State workers would be required to live in California. JMO.

[hurley1980]

My agency went from 6 leased floors down to 3.  So a savings for tax payers.  Also, a lot of the parking garages in the downtown area have been removated to housing, so its going to be a mess to find parking, and it is going to be crazy expensive.  

I could understand if this had been done years ago, but we were told, and agencies made adjustments based on the fact that we would be remote.  Now Newsome is going back on his word to help his RE buddies and agencies are scrambling to figure out were to put all these people.  

Also, our roads are a mess, and traffic is already bad.  This is just stupid on his part!  And there is no real reason for it that has to do with the work that state workers do...

[Opti]

Apr 12, 2024 16:19:01 GMT -5 hurley1980 said:

My agency went from 6 leased floors down to 3.  So a savings for tax payers.  Also, a lot of the parking garages in the downtown area have been removated to housing, so its going to be a mess to find parking, and it is going to be crazy expensive.  

I could understand if this had been done years ago, but we were told, and agencies made adjustments based on the fact that we would be remote.  Now Newsome is going back on his word to help his RE buddies and agencies are scrambling to figure out were to put all these people.  

Also, our roads are a mess, and traffic is already bad.  This is just stupid on his part!  And there is no real reason for it that has to do with the work that state workers do...

My guess is he'd prefer not to do this, but don't you think the loss of tax revenue from restaurants etc. in SF and Sacramento far exceeds the cost savings of cutting those leased floors in half? 

[hurley1980]

Apr 12, 2024 16:35:49 GMT -5 Opti said:

Apr 12, 2024 16:19:01 GMT -5 hurley1980 said:

My agency went from 6 leased floors down to 3.  So a savings for tax payers.  Also, a lot of the parking garages in the downtown area have been removated to housing, so its going to be a mess to find parking, and it is going to be crazy expensive.  

I could understand if this had been done years ago, but we were told, and agencies made adjustments based on the fact that we would be remote.  Now Newsome is going back on his word to help his RE buddies and agencies are scrambling to figure out were to put all these people.  

Also, our roads are a mess, and traffic is already bad.  This is just stupid on his part!  And there is no real reason for it that has to do with the work that state workers do...

My guess is he'd prefer not to do this, but don't you think the loss of tax revenue from restaurants etc. in SF and Sacramento far exceeds the cost savings of cutting those leased floors in half? 

I mean, maybe.  But that is just my agency.  Also, most of the shops that catered to state workers are already gone.  Its been 4 years.  The restaurants that are still going strong are the ones around the venues....our basketball area, the performing arts center, etc. I feel like this is too little too late. I don't mind going 2 days a week, but man, the word I am hearing around town is that if he really wanted to do this, he should have done it in 2022. Right now, it just looks like a money grab for his RE friends. 

[Opti]

Apr 12, 2024 16:39:45 GMT -5 hurley1980 said:

Apr 12, 2024 16:35:49 GMT -5 Opti said:

My guess is he'd prefer not to do this, but don't you think the loss of tax revenue from restaurants etc. in SF and Sacramento far exceeds the cost savings of cutting those leased floors in half? 

I mean, maybe.  But that is just my agency.  Also, most of the shops that catered to state workers are already gone.  Its been 4 years.  The restaurants that are still going strong are the ones around the venues....our basketball area, the performing arts center, etc. I feel like this is too little too late. I don't mind going 2 days a week, but man, the word I am hearing around town is that if he really wanted to do this, he should have done it in 2022. Right now, it just looks like a money grab for his RE friends. 

Turning over commercial building is not a quick process. It requires approvals, permits, and lots of money and will to stay the course. A redevelopment in the county seat just got overturned as the company that won the bid did not do anything for a year.
Monmouth Mall in NJ is proceeding with whatever plan is in place now, but I think articles suggest it has been at least a two plus year process. So while you think its a money grab for those people, I'd be surprised if any of them end up being made whole
over his decision. And I could be wrong on that but realize as governor he needs to balance the needs and health of the entire state. 

From my perspective in NJ, things weren't that normal until sometime in 2023, so I am not surprised a push back to the office did not occur in 2022. 

[djAdvocate]

Apr 12, 2024 15:29:05 GMT -5 hurley1980 said:

California State worker required to return to office 2 days aweek starting in June!

As a consultant for a state agency, I fall under this.  My coworkers are already saying they are either just not going to go into the office, or they will quit.  

Also, the only reason this is happening is because downtown Sacramento has fallen apart since WFH.  So basically, they just want us to come back to spend money on failing restaurants and real estate.  It has NOTHING to do with the work being done. 

Lawyers and Union Reps are already getting involved.  No one wants more cars/traffic and pollution on the road.  Even people who don't WFH dont want this.  

Newsome is an idiot!


www.yahoo.com/news/return-office-state-workers-ordered-014334768.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

i believe it is Newsom.  if you are going to destroy a guy on a public board, at least spell his name right.  

[hurley1980]

State workers are paid less than private sector.  And our state workers took pay cut during the pandemic that has not gone back to where it was before WFH.  Plus, it is expensive to work downtown.  We have crappy public transportation and most state workers drive to work. I was paying $300 a month for a parking pass when I was in office.  Parking is about $25 a day now.  So thats $200 a month I will have to pay now just to go to work.  They also discontinued the tax write off for parking.  Also, I am not going to go to lunch and paying $20 for a salad, or buy overpriced coffee.  Most of us can't afford that with inflation. 

I get it, most people think we should just suck it up and go.  But putting this on the backs of state workers doesn't seem fair.  My agency has 2 main offices....Sacramento and Fresno.  That means our employees hired to work remotely in LA, will now have to commute 2 days a week to Fresno, after being told for years we were going to stay remote. My boss will have to drive from Napa to downtown Sacramento. 

I mean, maybe I'm wrong on this, and it will work out fine.  I just don't have much faith in the choices Newsom (thanks DJ!  ) makes anymore.  Also he is still better than any republican.  

This was just announced a couple of days ago, so we will have to see what happens.  But so far, state workers seem to be ready to fight back.  

[thyme4change]

One of the problems is that some people don’t work well at home, but you can’t just call them back to work. It would be a giant banner of who they do and do not trust.

[Opti]

I hope you can get your tax write-off for parking again or be put in a building with free parking. 

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

My sister’s company has let the lease lapse on their office building in downtown Minneapolis.  There is no place for employees to come back to, even if they changed the rules on them.

[scgal]

I can see where the traffic is a major issue but that is about the only issue I see. As far as the cost of parking it was there before the shutdown. People are whining because they got used to being catered to not getting up early to get ready and drive, dealing with the public, comfort of home etc...made most at best lazy. All govt employees should have been returned back to work immediately when the requirement was lifted, after all their salaries are paid by the taxpayers they shouldn't get the luxury of staying home to work. Private businesses are seperate from this. 

I'm sure there were alot of resentment from govt employees that had to go into work while others worked from home. I that was me I would have been pushing for this a long time ago. 

Now full disclaimer I mostly have to go into work but I do wfh sometimes. I don't take advantage of this too often usually when i'm done travelling for the company and I had a long flight then the next day I will wfh. If my team had to be in I should have to be there too. 

This is probably the only thing Newsom has done right even then he should have made it full time. 

[moon/Laura]

I'm not sure what my parent company (I'm a contractor) has done as far as the space we used to work from (meaning I have no idea if it was owned or leased to begin with), but I hope we never have to go back onsite. I save 1.5 hrs of commute time a day, plus gas and wear and tear on the car by being able to WFH. The extra sleep is nice, too, of course. And I'm no less productive here than there. Do I sometimes miss the human interaction? Yes, but not enough to want to work that way again. Fortunately, there haven't been any rumblings about returning.

[Pink Cashmere]

My job is not the kind that can be done wfh. But I don’t hate on people that have the option of working from home. Well, I kinda did during the pandemic, but that was different lol.

Allowing people to wfh improves most people’s work/life balance. It reduces pollution from cars and the demand for gasoline. It decreases the need for commercial real estate, which I understand affects a few industries and has economic repercussions, but my naive self thinks that means that at some point the decreased need for huge ugly buildings for corporate offices could lead to more land available for something more beneficial or heck, maybe even just left undeveloped and in a natural state. 

When we were quarantined, the earth had a chance to start trying to heal from all the destruction we’ve caused. Shifting to people working from home when it is feasible, won’t have the same impact, but it can at least make a small difference. I really don’t see any negatives about it.

If employees are slacking and not performing because they don’t have somebody standing over them, deal with them as if they were in the office slacking and not performing. What is the difference?

The restaurants and whatnot that survive because they are in close proximity to where a lot of people work, will have to step their game up to stay in business. There is a small sandwich shop right across the street from my job. The food is mediocre at best. They stay in business because of their location, not because it’s good food. I seriously doubt that many people go out of their way to get food from there, people go there because it is convenient.

[teen persuasion]

DS2 is fully WFH and they are eliminating the office in his city - they are merging with another company elsewhere. Everyone is perfectly happy with the arrangement, it's a win-win. No commute for workers, no real estate expense for employer.

SIL1 is also WFH. Not sure if he has an office to go to occasionally, or not.

Not every job can be WFH, but software and other tech jobs certainly can. Laptop and internet connection are all they need.

I would think we'd want to encourage more WFH positions, it solves lots of problems. Housing - people can live anywhere, not just near employers - move out to less densely populated areas instead of crowding into metro areas. Traffic congestion. Pollution. Wear and tear on roads. Fossil fuel usage - both gasoline for commutes and heating/cooling of unneeded office space. Work/life balance - all the hours reclaimed from commuting.

[bean29]

I would think the state and the city could have a lot of $$ at stake if a downtown area is not vibrant. Commercial loans are often 3-5 years.  So those office buildings that used to be filled up with workers will need to be refinanced soon.  Quite Possibly during the pandemic and just after when the loans needed to be refinanced, leases that were negotiated before the pandemic were still in place.  Now, if they are up for refinance again and the banks want to see P&L and leases to support the loan amount, the borrowers may not be able to support the loans. Like you said, many businesses did not renew leases on excess space, and businesses that did renew asked for Tenant Improvements or rent concessions. If they can get the building refinanced, the interest rates are probably significantly higher, again adversely affecting P&L. 

Cities often provide development grants for infrastructure, that are repaid by Property Taxes in TIF (Tax Incremental Financing Districts), and there are loans that are provided by the government that may never be paid back if businesses fail.  I am sure Newsom is between a rock and a hard place.  It is not just about the workers, he has to consider what is best for the entire population of California, and both the businesses and the citizens.

[djAdvocate]

yes. the economic stakes are enormous.

more than most people are used to dealing with.

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

My sister doesn’t have an office to go back to.  When they decided to go to a WFH model, the trial run during Covid showed them it could work, so they gave up their lease on their building.  

Not saying it’s impossible for the company to revert back to the office, but not likely.

[tractor]

I think we will see more of this. I have nothing to back this up, other than my own observations, but I believe wfh worked because most of the employees came from an office environment and they knew what was expected of them. As those workers have retired, quit, or moved to other companies, the wfh scenario is very difficult to train/integrate new employees into the company culture and expectations.

I think a hybrid would be great, first year (or two), expected to be in the office, wfh on a limited basis after that.

This is based on what I see within my teams, it's hard to integrate new people if we can't have in-person interactions with them. Possibly use wfh as an incentive instead as an expectation (?) for more seasoned employees.

[resolution]

My former employer sent everyone home to do 100% telecommute during the pandemic. About a year ago they started requiring all the local staff to come in twice a month, and they staggered the days between units so that it was only a couple of units at a time. They gave up a lot of leased space and all the equipment has been sent to people's homes, so there is no equipment other than the laptops that people carry in. 

The twice a month thing was a disaster because people were coming in with covid, and within six months we had three separate covid outbreaks where someone came in and made a bunch of other people sick. I caught covid myself during a visit where I came in on an in person day. So now they plan to scale it back to once per month, but they are making everyone come in on the same day. I am not sure what they plan to do for workstations, as there are more staff than desks or chairs at this point.

[teen persuasion]

Apr 20, 2024 9:55:35 GMT -5 resolution said:

My former employer sent everyone home to do 100% telecommute during the pandemic. About a year ago they started requiring all the local staff to come in twice a month, and they staggered the days between units so that it was only a couple of units at a time. They gave up a lot of leased space and all the equipment has been sent to people's homes, so there is no equipment other than the laptops that people carry in. 

The twice a month thing was a disaster because people were coming in with covid, and within six months we had three separate covid outbreaks where someone came in and made a bunch of other people sick. I caught covid myself during a visit where I came in on an in person day. So now they plan to scale it back to once per month, but they are making everyone come in on the same day. I am not sure what they plan to do for workstations, as there are more staff than desks or chairs at this point.

Umm, everyone at once would increase the odds of a mass outbreak, wouldn't it? Especially if there's little space for everyone to cram into. I don't get it.

[resolution]

Apr 20, 2024 12:49:15 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

Apr 20, 2024 9:55:35 GMT -5 resolution said:

My former employer sent everyone home to do 100% telecommute during the pandemic. About a year ago they started requiring all the local staff to come in twice a month, and they staggered the days between units so that it was only a couple of units at a time. They gave up a lot of leased space and all the equipment has been sent to people's homes, so there is no equipment other than the laptops that people carry in. 

The twice a month thing was a disaster because people were coming in with covid, and within six months we had three separate covid outbreaks where someone came in and made a bunch of other people sick. I caught covid myself during a visit where I came in on an in person day. So now they plan to scale it back to once per month, but they are making everyone come in on the same day. I am not sure what they plan to do for workstations, as there are more staff than desks or chairs at this point.

Umm, everyone at once would increase the odds of a mass outbreak, wouldn't it? Especially if there's little space for everyone to cram into. I don't get it.

Random and illogical decisions by management were a factor in my decision to retire a few months ago. I just heard about this mass outbreak plan yesterday from a former coworker, so it sounds like things haven't improved. Plus where will people even sit? 

[hurley1980]

Apr 20, 2024 9:55:35 GMT -5 resolution said:

My former employer sent everyone home to do 100% telecommute during the pandemic. About a year ago they started requiring all the local staff to come in twice a month, and they staggered the days between units so that it was only a couple of units at a time. They gave up a lot of leased space and all the equipment has been sent to people's homes, so there is no equipment other than the laptops that people carry in. 

The twice a month thing was a disaster because people were coming in with covid, and within six months we had three separate covid outbreaks where someone came in and made a bunch of other people sick. I caught covid myself during a visit where I came in on an in person day. So now they plan to scale it back to once per month, but they are making everyone come in on the same day. I am not sure what they plan to do for workstations, as there are more staff than desks or chairs at this point.

My former employer had everyone come in one day a week.  Not only did more people get sick, but no work got done that day.  Everyone used the day to catch up and just hang out....take longer lunches, hang out in meeting rooms.  They are physically there, so no need to be glued to the computer, and meetings were just a bunch of people all in the same meeting, but in different cubicles with their headphones on. I'm not sure if they are still doing it, since I haven't talked to my old coworkers in a while, but productivity definitely went down on their in office day.
 

[thyme4change]

If it is super obvious that more work is done wfh than in office, why would so many (90%) of companies having some version of RTO. Why do executives that are obsessed with profit and have access to all the financial data make decisions that decrease productivity? I’m just not buying that WFH is this panacea of productivity.

[djAdvocate]

speaking personally, in manufacturing, we can't have people working from home. service industry? i could not really say.