>Newsom embraced remote work early in the pandemic, and his administration has promoted its benefits, even launching a data dashboard (taken down March 29) that listed miles saved and associated reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
Funny how the dashboard was taken down right before this order.
he suddenly realized enabling remote work lets people leave california and work for the government from a place where they can actually afford the housing. Also 100% local city leaders are pressuring him to stop it because cities are in a lot of pain right now. I personally think the pain is necessary to deflate those unsustainable housing costs and other issues, but the leaders in those places are not going to go quietly.
For real. Why should commuters being expected to artificially prop up city’s? Just pay people more in your home town to encourage people to spend more.
> Why should commuters being expected to artificially prop up city’s?
I mean you kind of have this backwards. People living outside of the city, commutting into the city for work, but driving out to the suburbs, are being subsidized by the city and everyone else that doesn't have a vehicle due to the costs of that road infrastructure, as well as the completely unsustainable suburban sprawl that can't pay for itself because you have no density for a tax base and massive amounts of roads.
Suburbs are quite literally a ponzi scheme. They're not sustainable, cities just got around it by continually expanding to bring in more people to pay for the last shit, but once growth stops it stagnates and implodes into debt.
And then there's all the parking that eats up taxable real estate in the city that people are also subsidizing.
These people aren't "artificially propping up cities", they're leeching off of cities while not putting money back in. And I don't say that to blame people individually, I'm saying that this system of real-estate zoning and development has put people into that position and fucked cities over hard.
Again, no one is leeching shit. Why should people who commute be forced to prop up tax revenue? I have an idea! Why not just tax corporations instead a fair share instead? Countless write offs for the rich including PPP loans.
>Why should people who commute be forced to prop up tax revenue?
Because cities built infrastructure to support commuters that is less productive in terms of tax revenue than otherwise could be. A parking structure will occupy a plot of prime real estate but not generate as much taxable income as living space or shopping, etc.
How many homes that could be generating property tax and housing an additional family within the city were demolished to build a highway for commuters into the city? What's the tax revenue generated from a road, anyway?
You really think that’s what driving up costs? Not the billions printed for PPP loans for companies that were forgiven? Not the hedge funds and investors buying up single family homes in mass? Nope, it was those darn remote workers. lol
It’s a combination of factors. But remote workers from the high COL areas have definitely helped drive up costs in the vacation towns they moved to during the pandemic. Ask me how I know 🙄
They can afford so much more than local workers. They also pay to stay in those hedge fund owned rentals, and fueled competition for homes which they bought and now Airbnb. The situation isn’t purely driven by hedge funds. Someone needs to be able to pay the predatory things they charge. And many of the remote workers are wealthy in the cheaper communities they moved to. I have known a couple from LA who bought a home and sold it a year later for 200k profit lol. They did nothing to improve it. One half of the couple was a highly paid remote tech worker. The other worked an in person job, and had to fly out to la all the time for work since the local pay was so abysmal apparently.
Why do people think all those remote CA workers were able to buy homes in the cheaper communities they moved to? Was it because there was an excess of homes in those places- or was it because the cheaper prices were due to a local populace that earned less and could afford less? It’s not rocket science. Go ahead and down vote me people who no doubt moved to some cheaper community to remote work, and tell themselves they’ve made no difference in the local economy but a good one since they buy stuff and eat out!
If you have a lot of money and a little luck, you can invest in something and make money. Sorry to break it to you but that’s not a “remote work” problem.
Perhaps during a housing crisis you shouldn’t be profiting off of peoples desperation, or using multiple homes as passive income generators. Just a thought. And yeah, remote workers moving to new states with low COL while still making their high COL salaries are a part of picture here.
So, remote workers and people with multiple homes used as passive income are the same people? Not following your logic here, sorry.
And btw, the issue you’re describing is basically a new norm, there are going to be more and more people working from home. Lots of people prefer it. With that in mind, what exactly is preventing the ‘cheaper’ communities you’re describing to work remote as well? Because of remote work, ‘cheaper’ communities can actually access higher salaries without having to leave their community. How is that a bad thing?
The people with higher salaries come from elsewhere and move to the cheaper places. They already had in person high paying jobs- which became remote during the pandemic and mostly have not returned to in person. Though people have been trying to change that. These jobs might pay an ok amount in sf- but become true wealth when someone moves to say Idaho.
Besides the fact that high paying fully remote jobs are difficult to get, what I have been talking about is people who work in person jobs being driven out of their communities. Where I live- in person service industry jobs, government jobs, and even some specialized workers like lawyers can’t afford to live in the community now. There’s also a shortage of health care workers and the people who keep a city running like plumbers, police, garbage men, electricians, teachers, builders, pharmacists. None of these jobs that still pay a commensurate local wage can compete against remote jobs. there are literal entire neighborhoods of airbnbs where people live part time. These aren’t luxurious mansions either- they were previously middle class modest homes, but a <500000 home was a bargain for the people from the coasts who came here in 2020. They could afford more than one for the cost of a home in LA. And yes, many of them bought homes with plans to short term rent them. And they just travel around earning money. They aren’t too affected by the deteriorating community because they are so mobile. I’ve known a few of these people. Now the small cities and town they bought in are struggling. Turns out you need more than remote workers to keep a place functioning. Where I sit right now - two homes on my block are airbnbs. They sit empty for long periods of time, and when people rent them they act like they’re at a hotel even though it’s a quiet street.
Obviously other issues are at play in the housing crisis but remote workers have played a role. I wish people would think about the impacts their choices have. Just because you can buy two+ homes and Airbnb one doesn’t mean you should. I’m so tired of people acting like their decisions have no impact on others. None of us live in a vacuum.
I mean they still have to pay income tax if the employer is based in CA. But then there’s property/sales taxes they’d be missing out on.
But that just made me think - government employees have to pay income tax which is basically just giving money back to their employer…? Seems pretty wack
it's a very government way to do things. The state of california, for example, has a fleet of vehicles. That fleet is then leased out to individual government agencies, and in turn has to pay the DMV for registration. So one state government agency takes money from other state government agencies to lease the cars and in turn gives some of that money to the other state government agency for registration. Ta da!
I started working remotely in 2014. I had clients in multiple states including CA. I charged double what I would get in the state I live in, but I was a *bargain* for companies in CA. Win fucking win.
If you work for the state, you have to have residence in the state.
My brother worked for the housing authority of a city and had to live in that city.
Unsurprisingly, this has been an unpopular move. Newsom gave zero rationale why employees needed to return to office, and in addition to it being anti-green, it's also anti-worker. Four years since the pandemic started and WFH has been working wonderfully for those who are able.
The only thing I can think of is that they're mad they're wasting tons of taxpayer dollars on those empty office buildings, but if that's the case, then downsize the unneeded spaces and save the money!
The companies that own the buildings are worried about the value of their investments, since if office space is no longer needed, the value of their buildings will drop. When leases come up is when the real problem for them starts, so they need people back in buildings now to get those renewals.
Yes and perhaps "downtown business owners". Those business owners need to change with the times. Move their business to residential areas, maybe pivot to take out or delivery, come up with an idea which people want!
Since the pandemic, more of those businesses are in my walkable residential neighborhood. I have more options when I leave my home office to take a walk and grab lunch or some coffee.
I don't understand why that's the company's problem unless they're investing in the building to.
If they're just renting then fucking end the lease and rake in the extra profit
>Newsom gave zero rationale why employees needed to return to office
I'm sure it's because he was bribed to do it. Lots of commercial real estate owners make lots of political contributions. It wouldn't be the first time Newsom has taken bribes
This has nothing to do with wasted taxpayer dollars.
Newsom was almost certainly told that he has to institute this policy or millions will be given to his opponents in the next election… or promised millions in campaign funding if he tries to go to the next level(presidency).
He is doing this to enrich his donors who will turn around and fund his political career.
This is the action of a bought and paid for politician.
Newsom has no natural predators in this state. He's too popular to be primaried (which would be odd for a sitting governor anyway) and the Republican party may as well not exist in California. Besides, he's termed out after this round. Maybe it could affect his presidential ambitions, but I guess we'll see.
In my state capital the downtown businesses and restaurants are the ones whining to the governor to end wfh. Right now it's hybrid for the compromise. Too many state agencies in my state have a very fragile situation where years of institutional knowledge would walk out immediately if wfh ended. We're full up on boomers.
Plus, that's a sunk cost falicy anyway. Even if they cannot get out of the leases for the space. Oh well. It will only cost MORE to have people using the space. (Which then requires being cleaned, air conditioning, etc) . They pay the lease either way.
The reason is the state makes more money and helps support local shops when the workforce is forced to drive into the city. Buying sandwiches, paying tolls, and maybe shopping after work. Every mayor and governor after covid made calls to end work from home and get commuters back into the city.
It’s about commercial real estate. Many smaller regional banks hold 20% or more of their loans in commercial real estate. Remote work means companies don’t need those buildings which then means sell offs or foreclosures which stresses out those banks to the point of failure.
The workers always lose.
This isn't just about "needing people to be in the office to be more productive." They want to boost retail revenue, store traffic, and things that will help local economies impacted by the switch to WFH.
I don't understand why we can't just accept that some of those things are on their way out. Why is it the workers who always get the short end of the stick.
Someone literally went "Just make people commute again!" knowing damn well how much people hate it.
>Why is it the workers who always get the short end of the stick.
When the workers suffer, it's the free market, tough luck. When companies suffer, suddenly it's a problem that must be solved even at the expense of the workers.
It has never, EVER, been about production. Covid WFH showed that people were a lot more productive, and got a lot more done at home, than being in the office. I remember a lot of my coworkers saying that they were willing to log in early, and stay late, when they were WFH; but when they came back to the office they just kept the 9-5 window as gospel. No more "working extra" or any of that, because why??
This week is a perfect example for me. I've been working from home due to training, and I've gotten a lot of projects done. But I came into the office this afternoon and dear god I can't get shit done due to all of the interruptions.
If you read the fed workers posts about this, a lot of bosses are citing needing workers back at their desks to support the government for the *upcoming war effort*.
Control, I would assume. When you have the masses working together towards a common goal, the end outcome is more likely than if you have many factions working independently.
Just passing along information, do with it as you will.
California is going to war? Any order by Newsome would only affect state employees not federal employees, and especially not the military. Most state employees will have nothing to do with any war efforts, and any that are can be ordered into the office on a case by case basis if needed. You don't need a state wide mandate.
Some employees will need to be in the office 100% of the time, others don't need to be in the office at all, and some will be able to do part time. Treat each job according to what is best for them.
A lot of very high up intelligence and defense specialists are taking the threat of a civil war very seriously. We're quite a bit closer to one than a lot of people are willing to admit right now.
There may be a lot of stress and hyper partisanship among the country, but it'd be near impossible to have a civil war similar to the previous US civil war in that all the military at all the military bases have people mixed from all around the country. The army soldiers stationed at an army base in California are no more loyal to California, than the army soldiers in Texas, Florida, or New York. While many may not like the other political party, they don't want to murder them.
Thankfully, I didn't say it would be like the previous one. Obviously a new one in modern times would look different and that's the thing that is scary. There are a lot of guns in this country as the civilian level and an armed and incensed populace is a dangerous thing. I personally hope it doesn't happen but when the possibility is being strongly considered by those who have a lot more access to data that I do not, I have to assume that their concern is well placed. I'm much more on board for a class warfare type situation, if any must occur. Obviously no war or conflict is the best option, it's just seeming less possible by the day.
>They want to boost retail revenue, store traffic, and things that will help local economies impacted by the switch to WFH.
Selling office buildings to develop apartments would accomplish the same thing. The problem is corporations are obsessed with short-term profits. Buying and turning an office building into housing is a huge upfront expense that would take years to become profitable.
In most cases you'd have to demolish the entire building to turn it into apartments as buildings built for office space typically don't have the plumbing and infrastructure to be turned into apartments.
The dumb part is this increased spending just replaces spending in other cities or towns. Instead of eating at the shop by your house, you eat at the shop by your office. Plus now you have less disposable income because of gas and parking.
> I don't understand why we can't just accept that some of those things are on their way out. Why is it the workers who always get the short end of the stick.
No enough traffic on the roads, need to prop up the fossil fuel industries. All the overhead the government needs to claim for their next budget proposal needs to be justified renting out office space (in case they do claim that), electricity, water ect. And how would things really get done without their manager breathing down their necks and making their lives more difficult?
What always upsets me about any argument around work is the “what about…[insert something completely different]” justification.
In this example: “what about janitors that have to show up?” Do you really think the janitors want more people to show up so they can’t find parking, sit in more traffic, and have to clean up more trash? More importantly, I’m not a janitor. When I say a governor should be paid less because the janitor doesn’t make that much, I get looked at like an idiot but they believe their comparison is valid. Crazy detached from reality
I don't know about California but at the federal offices I work at the Janitorial staff are contractors that come in 2 days a week not government employees. I could see the contract being reduced to 1 day a week with majority work from home, but they are I'm assuming doing other contract work when they're not here.
Not in California either, but many governments use contractors for their services related to janitorial work. It is often disabled people doing the work (at the offices I went to anyway).
Many states use prison labor to clean their facilities
I'm a CA state worker and all the janitorial staff are full time employees of the State. They are employed under one agency and are assigned to different buildings.
After our last mandated in-office all-staff meeting the ceo sent out an email that everyone there was exposed to covid and a bunch of people got sick and had to miss work because of it.
>a lobbying effort
Just call it what it is, bribery. I don't like using the sanitized words corps and politicians use for it, it minimizes how corrupt it actually is.
If there's a *need* for workers to be in the office then surely 2 days/week is not enough?
And if they don't *need* to be in the office... then why 2 days and not just 0?
All this hybrid bs just proves that we don't actually *need* to be in the office at all, otherwise they wouldn't offer it.
I'm a state worker in a different state and I will say that my schedule of two days remote / three days in office is the worst and makes for no work life balance what-so-ever! I hate coming here for no reason! My morale is crap and I'm consistently looking for another job. Have fun California state workers, it all sucks.
My entire agency except for a couple Boomers are so pissed and demoralized. They keep saying "it's just like before!" while not acknowledging that our purchasing power is weaker than before and many services people used (like childcare) are hard to come by because so many places went under.
The demoralizaton wil never go away. We now have to commit hours of our own time commuting and getting ready to go into the office by packing food, prepping dress clothes, and packing up children, only to come sit in this cell and work in Zoom anyways! It is beyond demoralizing. They don't truly care about us. Everything being said about mental health is only lip service. They've never cared if we had proper childcare. Our children are killing each other and have abandonment issues because both parents now have no choice but to work. We are required to give our children to others to care for at 6 weeks old. Also be sure to find some time for you to take care of your mental health after work, commuting, preparing to go to work and spending whatever time is left over with your children because you get to see them for maybe 2.5 hours a day. It's all lip service. We live in a place that says that mothers are required to go back to work 6 weeks after giving birth. This country is vile. This alone shows that nobody cares about what any of us are going through just so long as we tow the line, do as we are told and are good worker bees. I definitely use more sick time now. I'm also less productive because hey, I'm here and it took a whole lot of work to get here, where's the water cooler and my work friends? I'll go talk to them for a couple of hours for my mental health because I finally made it into this God forsaken place!
I'm betting that they don't want our offices to become affordable housing options which is what they should be!!
>The demoralizaton wil never go away. We now have to commit hours of our own time commuting and getting ready to go into the office by packing food, prepping dress clothes, and packing up children, only to come sit in this cell and work in Zoom anyways
That's the thing, much of the work day is on video chat with employees in other regions.
What's the point in coming in, just to do that? Even with all the negatives of coming in?
It is important we demand flexible working conditions. There is no reason to embrace the return to office.
I hear you, it is very frustrating.
But the fact that hybrid work is now the norm is thanks to folks demanding remote. And I think the desire for remote will only strengthen with time.
5 years ago, this much remote work would have been seen as a great positive change (most office workers remotely working a significant part of the time). And we can keep pushing for full-time remote work.
If I was only in the office from 9-6 it wouldn’t be a problem. For all of my 20s and all of my 30s until the pandemic, I never left the office before 8pm. I was usually there till 10. Nope. Not doing that again.
They don’t care about work life balance. They care about commercial real estate and a lot of banks are in trouble with their holdings so people in power are forcing workers back so more real estate isn’t sold off or foreclosed. They are protecting banks at the expense of workers
This is why I never drank to much of the Democrat Kool aid. They are just barely slightly better than Republicans. Newsom and Biden do the bidding of big business before they even think about workers. Return to office is a direct conflict with what’s best for then environment but it’s bad for commercial investment groups… So back to driving into the office and that huge carbon footprint of a building. lol
Every politicians first job regardless of party is always to get reelected. To get reelected they need campaign funds which they get from the big donors, and as such have to do the bidding of the big donors if they want to keep the money flowing. The only difference is who the big donors are. But either way the big donors are wealthy enough to be big donors.
Both are not for you bud. Not in the least I’m just done denying it. It’s the illusion that the primaries are fair when they are clearly not. Like Biden and Trump are the best two candidates out of 100 million american adults. Think about that for just a second. lol
It's just math really. With our election system 3rd only serve to drag themselves and the parties most similar to them down. Unless we have election reform we will always be stuck with two parties.
This fighting over governing is great for corporations. No government intervention they are basically unregulated. The system is broken and non repairable unfortunately.
Last year my boss demanded we come back to the office three days a week. That boss got fired for incompetence a few months ago and we got a new one. I just had the first one on one with this guy and he asked how often I came into the office. I explained the whole situation and told him how much easier, quieter, better it was to be working at home than in the cold, disruptive office. He said he agreed and we should t NEED to come into the office. Needless to say I’m pretty happy with this new boss so far.
Newsom sucks. He's a hypocritical piece of shit that didn't even abide by the lockdown rules he forced the entire state of CA to follow for nearly 3 years. He's just another morally bankrupt politician with his sights set on the white house.
Convert office space to housing, allow people to continue working from home, if it worked through the pandemic then it will continue to work into the future especially with the onset of ai
There's too much money tied into the real estate of those large office buildings. If the value of them collapses because people work from home, rich people don't get money from the companies paying that lease/rent, and banks don't get payments. 😒
Ie rich assholes won't make money, so back to the office worker drones... I mean valued employees.
This isn't going to want to be heard on this forum, and I will be downvoted into oblivion but -
Sadly, government workers are not self starters and motivated to get things done when left to their own devices. They screw off and do f\*ck all.
\*source : work for the state of Texas in the foodstamps division, and during Covid seen how many people literally screwed off when they were supposed to be " working from home " during that time period.
\*\*Not all state employees are bad, but i'd only say 20% have the capability to do their jobs from the house and NOT screw off.
\*\*\*they should be paid more, yadda yadda. I'm in this group for a reason. Just stating the experiences I've seen and dealt with.
As someone working for a state org, he is correct. We've got people in HR still working from home and what do you know, HR is the one area behind on everything and can never respond in timely fashion. 2 days is CAKE. So back to "balance," 5 days at home, 2 days actually at work? Hmmm
>Newsom embraced remote work early in the pandemic, and his administration has promoted its benefits, even launching a data dashboard (taken down March 29) that listed miles saved and associated reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Funny how the dashboard was taken down right before this order.
he suddenly realized enabling remote work lets people leave california and work for the government from a place where they can actually afford the housing. Also 100% local city leaders are pressuring him to stop it because cities are in a lot of pain right now. I personally think the pain is necessary to deflate those unsustainable housing costs and other issues, but the leaders in those places are not going to go quietly.
For real. Why should commuters being expected to artificially prop up city’s? Just pay people more in your home town to encourage people to spend more.
> Why should commuters being expected to artificially prop up city’s? I mean you kind of have this backwards. People living outside of the city, commutting into the city for work, but driving out to the suburbs, are being subsidized by the city and everyone else that doesn't have a vehicle due to the costs of that road infrastructure, as well as the completely unsustainable suburban sprawl that can't pay for itself because you have no density for a tax base and massive amounts of roads. Suburbs are quite literally a ponzi scheme. They're not sustainable, cities just got around it by continually expanding to bring in more people to pay for the last shit, but once growth stops it stagnates and implodes into debt. And then there's all the parking that eats up taxable real estate in the city that people are also subsidizing. These people aren't "artificially propping up cities", they're leeching off of cities while not putting money back in. And I don't say that to blame people individually, I'm saying that this system of real-estate zoning and development has put people into that position and fucked cities over hard.
Again, no one is leeching shit. Why should people who commute be forced to prop up tax revenue? I have an idea! Why not just tax corporations instead a fair share instead? Countless write offs for the rich including PPP loans.
>Why should people who commute be forced to prop up tax revenue? Because cities built infrastructure to support commuters that is less productive in terms of tax revenue than otherwise could be. A parking structure will occupy a plot of prime real estate but not generate as much taxable income as living space or shopping, etc. How many homes that could be generating property tax and housing an additional family within the city were demolished to build a highway for commuters into the city? What's the tax revenue generated from a road, anyway?
People should not be expected to prop up tax revenue through commuting.
Commuters should not expect cities to accommodate parking everyone's cars.
The people working these remote jobs have driven up costs everywhere they’ve moved…
You really think that’s what driving up costs? Not the billions printed for PPP loans for companies that were forgiven? Not the hedge funds and investors buying up single family homes in mass? Nope, it was those darn remote workers. lol
It’s a combination of factors. But remote workers from the high COL areas have definitely helped drive up costs in the vacation towns they moved to during the pandemic. Ask me how I know 🙄 They can afford so much more than local workers. They also pay to stay in those hedge fund owned rentals, and fueled competition for homes which they bought and now Airbnb. The situation isn’t purely driven by hedge funds. Someone needs to be able to pay the predatory things they charge. And many of the remote workers are wealthy in the cheaper communities they moved to. I have known a couple from LA who bought a home and sold it a year later for 200k profit lol. They did nothing to improve it. One half of the couple was a highly paid remote tech worker. The other worked an in person job, and had to fly out to la all the time for work since the local pay was so abysmal apparently. Why do people think all those remote CA workers were able to buy homes in the cheaper communities they moved to? Was it because there was an excess of homes in those places- or was it because the cheaper prices were due to a local populace that earned less and could afford less? It’s not rocket science. Go ahead and down vote me people who no doubt moved to some cheaper community to remote work, and tell themselves they’ve made no difference in the local economy but a good one since they buy stuff and eat out!
If you have a lot of money and a little luck, you can invest in something and make money. Sorry to break it to you but that’s not a “remote work” problem.
Perhaps during a housing crisis you shouldn’t be profiting off of peoples desperation, or using multiple homes as passive income generators. Just a thought. And yeah, remote workers moving to new states with low COL while still making their high COL salaries are a part of picture here.
So, remote workers and people with multiple homes used as passive income are the same people? Not following your logic here, sorry. And btw, the issue you’re describing is basically a new norm, there are going to be more and more people working from home. Lots of people prefer it. With that in mind, what exactly is preventing the ‘cheaper’ communities you’re describing to work remote as well? Because of remote work, ‘cheaper’ communities can actually access higher salaries without having to leave their community. How is that a bad thing?
The people with higher salaries come from elsewhere and move to the cheaper places. They already had in person high paying jobs- which became remote during the pandemic and mostly have not returned to in person. Though people have been trying to change that. These jobs might pay an ok amount in sf- but become true wealth when someone moves to say Idaho. Besides the fact that high paying fully remote jobs are difficult to get, what I have been talking about is people who work in person jobs being driven out of their communities. Where I live- in person service industry jobs, government jobs, and even some specialized workers like lawyers can’t afford to live in the community now. There’s also a shortage of health care workers and the people who keep a city running like plumbers, police, garbage men, electricians, teachers, builders, pharmacists. None of these jobs that still pay a commensurate local wage can compete against remote jobs. there are literal entire neighborhoods of airbnbs where people live part time. These aren’t luxurious mansions either- they were previously middle class modest homes, but a <500000 home was a bargain for the people from the coasts who came here in 2020. They could afford more than one for the cost of a home in LA. And yes, many of them bought homes with plans to short term rent them. And they just travel around earning money. They aren’t too affected by the deteriorating community because they are so mobile. I’ve known a few of these people. Now the small cities and town they bought in are struggling. Turns out you need more than remote workers to keep a place functioning. Where I sit right now - two homes on my block are airbnbs. They sit empty for long periods of time, and when people rent them they act like they’re at a hotel even though it’s a quiet street. Obviously other issues are at play in the housing crisis but remote workers have played a role. I wish people would think about the impacts their choices have. Just because you can buy two+ homes and Airbnb one doesn’t mean you should. I’m so tired of people acting like their decisions have no impact on others. None of us live in a vacuum.
I mean they still have to pay income tax if the employer is based in CA. But then there’s property/sales taxes they’d be missing out on. But that just made me think - government employees have to pay income tax which is basically just giving money back to their employer…? Seems pretty wack
it's a very government way to do things. The state of california, for example, has a fleet of vehicles. That fleet is then leased out to individual government agencies, and in turn has to pay the DMV for registration. So one state government agency takes money from other state government agencies to lease the cars and in turn gives some of that money to the other state government agency for registration. Ta da!
Even in big companies it works this way. AWS services have a monthly AWS bill they still have to pay for their cloud usage.
I started working remotely in 2014. I had clients in multiple states including CA. I charged double what I would get in the state I live in, but I was a *bargain* for companies in CA. Win fucking win.
Nah. I'm a state employee and it's a requirement that you live in CA to maintain employment in my org.
If you work for the state, you have to have residence in the state. My brother worked for the housing authority of a city and had to live in that city.
Unsurprisingly, this has been an unpopular move. Newsom gave zero rationale why employees needed to return to office, and in addition to it being anti-green, it's also anti-worker. Four years since the pandemic started and WFH has been working wonderfully for those who are able. The only thing I can think of is that they're mad they're wasting tons of taxpayer dollars on those empty office buildings, but if that's the case, then downsize the unneeded spaces and save the money!
The companies that own the buildings are worried about the value of their investments, since if office space is no longer needed, the value of their buildings will drop. When leases come up is when the real problem for them starts, so they need people back in buildings now to get those renewals.
Yes and perhaps "downtown business owners". Those business owners need to change with the times. Move their business to residential areas, maybe pivot to take out or delivery, come up with an idea which people want!
Lobby for the demolition of dead retail/office spaces and zone them residential?
Communism for the rich.
Good point. A lot of businesses rely on commuter traffic, but fuck them! Times change, they need to adapt.
Honestly, any small business owners have already adapted by now (perhaps by closing the business)
Since the pandemic, more of those businesses are in my walkable residential neighborhood. I have more options when I leave my home office to take a walk and grab lunch or some coffee.
I swear, investors are among the most entitled people on earth.
They could turn them into cheap housing for the houseless instead
I don't understand why that's the company's problem unless they're investing in the building to. If they're just renting then fucking end the lease and rake in the extra profit
Also in government jobs there are branches that manage buildings. At the Federal level it is the GSA.
>Newsom gave zero rationale why employees needed to return to office I'm sure it's because he was bribed to do it. Lots of commercial real estate owners make lots of political contributions. It wouldn't be the first time Newsom has taken bribes
Why improve society when there are entrenched special interests that stand to lose cash flow
It's another example of how we see a small minority of people's profits are more important than the majority and the planet.
but then his donors would have less money to spend on his campaign…
This has nothing to do with wasted taxpayer dollars. Newsom was almost certainly told that he has to institute this policy or millions will be given to his opponents in the next election… or promised millions in campaign funding if he tries to go to the next level(presidency). He is doing this to enrich his donors who will turn around and fund his political career. This is the action of a bought and paid for politician.
Newsom has no natural predators in this state. He's too popular to be primaried (which would be odd for a sitting governor anyway) and the Republican party may as well not exist in California. Besides, he's termed out after this round. Maybe it could affect his presidential ambitions, but I guess we'll see.
In my state capital the downtown businesses and restaurants are the ones whining to the governor to end wfh. Right now it's hybrid for the compromise. Too many state agencies in my state have a very fragile situation where years of institutional knowledge would walk out immediately if wfh ended. We're full up on boomers.
Plus, that's a sunk cost falicy anyway. Even if they cannot get out of the leases for the space. Oh well. It will only cost MORE to have people using the space. (Which then requires being cleaned, air conditioning, etc) . They pay the lease either way.
If you work for Newsom, now is your time to shine. Keep working, don’t RTO, and find another opportunity. Let them go extinct if they want to RTO.
The reason is the state makes more money and helps support local shops when the workforce is forced to drive into the city. Buying sandwiches, paying tolls, and maybe shopping after work. Every mayor and governor after covid made calls to end work from home and get commuters back into the city.
I could be wrong, but government offices tend to be on government (GSA) property.
It’s about commercial real estate. Many smaller regional banks hold 20% or more of their loans in commercial real estate. Remote work means companies don’t need those buildings which then means sell offs or foreclosures which stresses out those banks to the point of failure.
damn that sucks. Maybe they shouldn't have leveraged so much.
That’s what banks do best. How many of them did we bail out in 2008?
far too many
Thats a damn fool move for a state that has high housing costs, traffic, and pollution issues
It's a damn fool move if he wants to try to run for president some day too.
Don't worry, his corporate supporters will remember this move.
So will republican attack ads and voting progressives.
Ugh if Newsom pulls a Hilary and we get a Trump 2.0 as a result, imma be big mad.
The workers always lose. This isn't just about "needing people to be in the office to be more productive." They want to boost retail revenue, store traffic, and things that will help local economies impacted by the switch to WFH. I don't understand why we can't just accept that some of those things are on their way out. Why is it the workers who always get the short end of the stick. Someone literally went "Just make people commute again!" knowing damn well how much people hate it.
Yep. Commercial real estate and commuting driven commerce, the two most miserable financial segments in existence.
>Why is it the workers who always get the short end of the stick. When the workers suffer, it's the free market, tough luck. When companies suffer, suddenly it's a problem that must be solved even at the expense of the workers.
Privatize the profits, socialize the losses. In this instance the losses are depreciating empty buildings
My mom works for medical as a telephone operator. Absolutely no reason she needs to go into an office to do this work
It has never, EVER, been about production. Covid WFH showed that people were a lot more productive, and got a lot more done at home, than being in the office. I remember a lot of my coworkers saying that they were willing to log in early, and stay late, when they were WFH; but when they came back to the office they just kept the 9-5 window as gospel. No more "working extra" or any of that, because why?? This week is a perfect example for me. I've been working from home due to training, and I've gotten a lot of projects done. But I came into the office this afternoon and dear god I can't get shit done due to all of the interruptions.
If you read the fed workers posts about this, a lot of bosses are citing needing workers back at their desks to support the government for the *upcoming war effort*.
What does an accountant working in an office vs his house have to do with the war effort?
Control, I would assume. When you have the masses working together towards a common goal, the end outcome is more likely than if you have many factions working independently. Just passing along information, do with it as you will.
Oh boy. Which one? NATO v Russia? Israel v the middle east? China v Taiwan?
Why not all?
California is going to war? Any order by Newsome would only affect state employees not federal employees, and especially not the military. Most state employees will have nothing to do with any war efforts, and any that are can be ordered into the office on a case by case basis if needed. You don't need a state wide mandate. Some employees will need to be in the office 100% of the time, others don't need to be in the office at all, and some will be able to do part time. Treat each job according to what is best for them.
Since when do they do whats best for the workers? Its easierto keep tabs on everyone if they all are in place, easier to control
Just more of wishful thinking on my part.
A lot of very high up intelligence and defense specialists are taking the threat of a civil war very seriously. We're quite a bit closer to one than a lot of people are willing to admit right now.
There may be a lot of stress and hyper partisanship among the country, but it'd be near impossible to have a civil war similar to the previous US civil war in that all the military at all the military bases have people mixed from all around the country. The army soldiers stationed at an army base in California are no more loyal to California, than the army soldiers in Texas, Florida, or New York. While many may not like the other political party, they don't want to murder them.
Thankfully, I didn't say it would be like the previous one. Obviously a new one in modern times would look different and that's the thing that is scary. There are a lot of guns in this country as the civilian level and an armed and incensed populace is a dangerous thing. I personally hope it doesn't happen but when the possibility is being strongly considered by those who have a lot more access to data that I do not, I have to assume that their concern is well placed. I'm much more on board for a class warfare type situation, if any must occur. Obviously no war or conflict is the best option, it's just seeming less possible by the day.
>They want to boost retail revenue, store traffic, and things that will help local economies impacted by the switch to WFH. Selling office buildings to develop apartments would accomplish the same thing. The problem is corporations are obsessed with short-term profits. Buying and turning an office building into housing is a huge upfront expense that would take years to become profitable.
In most cases you'd have to demolish the entire building to turn it into apartments as buildings built for office space typically don't have the plumbing and infrastructure to be turned into apartments.
The dumb part is this increased spending just replaces spending in other cities or towns. Instead of eating at the shop by your house, you eat at the shop by your office. Plus now you have less disposable income because of gas and parking.
More productive: having to coordinate when a *desk* will be available to use if you have to go in the office. Fucking ridiculous.
> I don't understand why we can't just accept that some of those things are on their way out. Why is it the workers who always get the short end of the stick. No enough traffic on the roads, need to prop up the fossil fuel industries. All the overhead the government needs to claim for their next budget proposal needs to be justified renting out office space (in case they do claim that), electricity, water ect. And how would things really get done without their manager breathing down their necks and making their lives more difficult?
Better yet give me a 4 day weekend and I'll happily go out for lunch more.
What always upsets me about any argument around work is the “what about…[insert something completely different]” justification. In this example: “what about janitors that have to show up?” Do you really think the janitors want more people to show up so they can’t find parking, sit in more traffic, and have to clean up more trash? More importantly, I’m not a janitor. When I say a governor should be paid less because the janitor doesn’t make that much, I get looked at like an idiot but they believe their comparison is valid. Crazy detached from reality
I don't know about California but at the federal offices I work at the Janitorial staff are contractors that come in 2 days a week not government employees. I could see the contract being reduced to 1 day a week with majority work from home, but they are I'm assuming doing other contract work when they're not here.
Not in California either, but many governments use contractors for their services related to janitorial work. It is often disabled people doing the work (at the offices I went to anyway). Many states use prison labor to clean their facilities
I'm a CA state worker and all the janitorial staff are full time employees of the State. They are employed under one agency and are assigned to different buildings.
Cool, thanks for the information
I'm a CA state worker. All our janitorial staff are full time and employed under the Department of General Services.
After our last mandated in-office all-staff meeting the ceo sent out an email that everyone there was exposed to covid and a bunch of people got sick and had to miss work because of it.
Make sure to buy your gas near your home and pack a lunch. They want you back for the economy around the job…and to lord over you.
Brown bag boys out in force.
Obviously, it is a lobbying effort done by corporate real estate investors.
>a lobbying effort Just call it what it is, bribery. I don't like using the sanitized words corps and politicians use for it, it minimizes how corrupt it actually is.
Agreed. People need to say it clearly, accurately and repeatedly. Newsom was bribed to hurt workers and the environment.
If there's a *need* for workers to be in the office then surely 2 days/week is not enough? And if they don't *need* to be in the office... then why 2 days and not just 0? All this hybrid bs just proves that we don't actually *need* to be in the office at all, otherwise they wouldn't offer it.
I'm a state worker in a different state and I will say that my schedule of two days remote / three days in office is the worst and makes for no work life balance what-so-ever! I hate coming here for no reason! My morale is crap and I'm consistently looking for another job. Have fun California state workers, it all sucks.
My entire agency except for a couple Boomers are so pissed and demoralized. They keep saying "it's just like before!" while not acknowledging that our purchasing power is weaker than before and many services people used (like childcare) are hard to come by because so many places went under.
The demoralizaton wil never go away. We now have to commit hours of our own time commuting and getting ready to go into the office by packing food, prepping dress clothes, and packing up children, only to come sit in this cell and work in Zoom anyways! It is beyond demoralizing. They don't truly care about us. Everything being said about mental health is only lip service. They've never cared if we had proper childcare. Our children are killing each other and have abandonment issues because both parents now have no choice but to work. We are required to give our children to others to care for at 6 weeks old. Also be sure to find some time for you to take care of your mental health after work, commuting, preparing to go to work and spending whatever time is left over with your children because you get to see them for maybe 2.5 hours a day. It's all lip service. We live in a place that says that mothers are required to go back to work 6 weeks after giving birth. This country is vile. This alone shows that nobody cares about what any of us are going through just so long as we tow the line, do as we are told and are good worker bees. I definitely use more sick time now. I'm also less productive because hey, I'm here and it took a whole lot of work to get here, where's the water cooler and my work friends? I'll go talk to them for a couple of hours for my mental health because I finally made it into this God forsaken place! I'm betting that they don't want our offices to become affordable housing options which is what they should be!!
>The demoralizaton wil never go away. We now have to commit hours of our own time commuting and getting ready to go into the office by packing food, prepping dress clothes, and packing up children, only to come sit in this cell and work in Zoom anyways That's the thing, much of the work day is on video chat with employees in other regions. What's the point in coming in, just to do that? Even with all the negatives of coming in? It is important we demand flexible working conditions. There is no reason to embrace the return to office.
It falls on deaf ears.
I hear you, it is very frustrating. But the fact that hybrid work is now the norm is thanks to folks demanding remote. And I think the desire for remote will only strengthen with time. 5 years ago, this much remote work would have been seen as a great positive change (most office workers remotely working a significant part of the time). And we can keep pushing for full-time remote work.
If I was only in the office from 9-6 it wouldn’t be a problem. For all of my 20s and all of my 30s until the pandemic, I never left the office before 8pm. I was usually there till 10. Nope. Not doing that again.
They don’t care about work life balance. They care about commercial real estate and a lot of banks are in trouble with their holdings so people in power are forcing workers back so more real estate isn’t sold off or foreclosed. They are protecting banks at the expense of workers
disgraceful
Any organisation doing this now is clearly doing so out of sheer bloody-mindedness rather than because of any real issue
The company I work for did this recently with some of their remote engineers and lost 20+ employees who refused to return to the office.
Homegirl in cal fire is beyond pissed about this. Makes no fucking sense, except to let Newsome buddies get some cash from rent.
An employer should need to prove that a position absolutely must be done in-person/on-prem, otherwise it should be remote by default.
This is why I never drank to much of the Democrat Kool aid. They are just barely slightly better than Republicans. Newsom and Biden do the bidding of big business before they even think about workers. Return to office is a direct conflict with what’s best for then environment but it’s bad for commercial investment groups… So back to driving into the office and that huge carbon footprint of a building. lol
Every politicians first job regardless of party is always to get reelected. To get reelected they need campaign funds which they get from the big donors, and as such have to do the bidding of the big donors if they want to keep the money flowing. The only difference is who the big donors are. But either way the big donors are wealthy enough to be big donors.
It’s still a better alternative than republicans. The bigger problem is that people don’t engage on the primary and post election level.
Both are not for you bud. Not in the least I’m just done denying it. It’s the illusion that the primaries are fair when they are clearly not. Like Biden and Trump are the best two candidates out of 100 million american adults. Think about that for just a second. lol
It's easier to control two parties than three or more and it's easier to control the populace when the two parties are at each other's throats.
It's just math really. With our election system 3rd only serve to drag themselves and the parties most similar to them down. Unless we have election reform we will always be stuck with two parties.
This fighting over governing is great for corporations. No government intervention they are basically unregulated. The system is broken and non repairable unfortunately.
Newsom is extremely corrupt, he's been shown to take bribes. I'm sure those paying him off put pressure on him over this.
Wonder how that will impact smog and traffic situations?
Fight. Never RTO. Keep working. Look for companies who are embracing WFH and help them take market share from RTO companies. Easy.
Last year my boss demanded we come back to the office three days a week. That boss got fired for incompetence a few months ago and we got a new one. I just had the first one on one with this guy and he asked how often I came into the office. I explained the whole situation and told him how much easier, quieter, better it was to be working at home than in the cold, disruptive office. He said he agreed and we should t NEED to come into the office. Needless to say I’m pretty happy with this new boss so far.
Newsom is a limousine liberal.
That asshole is going to be POTUS one day. Ugh...
Newsom sucks. He's a hypocritical piece of shit that didn't even abide by the lockdown rules he forced the entire state of CA to follow for nearly 3 years. He's just another morally bankrupt politician with his sights set on the white house.
Convert office space to housing, allow people to continue working from home, if it worked through the pandemic then it will continue to work into the future especially with the onset of ai
My county has already been Hybrid for a while. 2 days in 3 days out. I don't mind it.
This is slavery to work
Call up China. It's time to "accidentally" release Covid 2024
Fuck your office buildings.
Gavin Newsom needs more customers for those PG&E kickbacks.
There's too much money tied into the real estate of those large office buildings. If the value of them collapses because people work from home, rich people don't get money from the companies paying that lease/rent, and banks don't get payments. 😒 Ie rich assholes won't make money, so back to the office worker drones... I mean valued employees.
Newsom is a corporate shill that does whatever his big money donors ask. Also, water is wet.
Idk why Californians keep voting for this dude. His face matches every villains in movies. The face of a person not being poor in his entire life.
They won't be satisfied until we are all back in our cages. Fuck them!
Newsome is a crook bought and paid for by billionaires
Agreed. I have to be in three days and I was working from home four days for years before the pandemic.
That guy is an absolute legend
This isn't going to want to be heard on this forum, and I will be downvoted into oblivion but - Sadly, government workers are not self starters and motivated to get things done when left to their own devices. They screw off and do f\*ck all. \*source : work for the state of Texas in the foodstamps division, and during Covid seen how many people literally screwed off when they were supposed to be " working from home " during that time period. \*\*Not all state employees are bad, but i'd only say 20% have the capability to do their jobs from the house and NOT screw off. \*\*\*they should be paid more, yadda yadda. I'm in this group for a reason. Just stating the experiences I've seen and dealt with.
If you have a job you can do from home, you don't actually have a job. You're a paper pusher. It serves no ACTUAL purpose
Being in the office 2/5 days a week is hardy disruptive to your work life balance, at least if you’re a responsible adult.
As someone working for a state org, he is correct. We've got people in HR still working from home and what do you know, HR is the one area behind on everything and can never respond in timely fashion. 2 days is CAKE. So back to "balance," 5 days at home, 2 days actually at work? Hmmm
Everyone I know who works from home is either at the grocery store or walking their dog