Virtually every other state and most private sector employers in California and nationally returned to normal employment arrangements years ago.
A February Bay Area Council survey showed 84 percent of private sector employers have already implemented long-term in-person work policies, and just 6 person of employers do not require employees to work in the office. A January report from Bevi found that “every industry is spending more time in the office each year than the year before,” and Los Angeles office attendance has climbed to roughly 80 percent of pre-pandemic numbers.
But that’s not sufficient for noisily protesting public employee unions. Professional Engineers in California Government filed a complaint with the Public Employment Relations Board in March, alleging Newsom should have collectively bargained with unions before issuing the order.
The public employee union stance is rich given their long standing fight to take away worker freedom on everything from working as they choose, where they choose in the gig economy to whether to join a union at all.
Angry union members have also launched a e-fundraising effort to raise money for a digital billboard criticizing Newsom’s move – citing “bad traffic” of all things.
Last week, members of the Assembly Budget Committee grilled the administration over its plans.
As the Sacramento Bee reported, Asm. Sharon Quirk Silva, D-La Palma, cited Democrats losing the 2024 presidential election on the issue of affordability in challenging Newsom’s plan, calling it, “another example of politicians being seen as out of touch with affordability concerns.” Really?
Asm. Chris Ward, D-San Diego cited the plan’s costs, questioning whether this “is this the year that we would want to, just overnight, implement something that might actually put a lot more pressure on us?”
Give me a break.
Any costs associated with return-to-work orders will be minimal in the context of a $300 billion state budget. It’s not like we have to build dozens of new office buildings overnight – they’ve been sitting mostly empty in Sacramento and other cities since March 2020.
While the Democratic lawmakers’ newfound commitment to austerity is welcomed, it would be refreshing to see them channel the same budget cutting spirit in reviewing inefficient state programs with higher price tags, such as the billions spent on ineffective government homeless programs. But then again, their public employee union supporters aren’t banging the drums on that spending.
While some leases were cancelled during the pandemic, the state owns or leases more than enough space to accommodate all state workers back in the office. In fact, two huge new state office buildings in Sacramento opened during the pandemic and have been significantly underutilized with COVID work-from-home arrangements. The amount of state owned office space increased by more than 3 million square feet over the past five years according to the Bee.
And if personal preference or life circumstances make working in person difficult or impossible, no one is forcing them to return to the office. That’s what the free market is all about, employees making a free choice to work in the professional environment they wish. There are many private sector employers that offer hybrid or fully remote work options. And remote work may make sense for efficiency or a company’s bottom line.
State employees functioned just fine before the COVID-19 pandemic when they were required to come into the office five days a week. The sky will not fall if they actually have to drive, bike, or take the bus or train to work four days a week. Virtually every other private sector worker in California has to do this every morning – the millions who have little sympathy for the noisy union protests demanding yet another benefit for government workers that few outside it enjoy.
Tim Anaya is the Pacific Research Institute’s vice president of marketing and communications and co-author of The California Left Coast Survivor’s Guide.
