July 1 marked the start of four day in-person work requirement along with the expiration of workers’ union’s contract with the state
On July 1, Governor Gavin Newsom’s return to office (RTO) executive order came into effect. The RTO requires state workers to come into the office four days a week, increasing from the previous two days a week requirement.
The change faced backlash from workers, with SEIU Local 1000, a workers union representing over 96,000 state workers, holding a rally at the Capitol on Wednesday when the mandate started.
Looming issues and concerns include office space and capacity for the increase in employees, as well as financial burdens on workers with high gas prices, parking and potential childcare costs.
SIEU Local 1000 President Anica Walls was interviewed on the matter prior to the mandate.
“Lots of frustration and lots of uncertainties,” Walls said. “Especially when again there’s a different reality for the people who are actually doing the jobs versus the mandates we’re getting from people who don’t.”
According to an audit published in August 2025, maintaining telework options could save the state up to $225 million a year — telework allows workers the flexibility to work remotely instead of at the office. The audit looked into costs regarding space maintenance, department needs, and the effectiveness of oversight on telework policies by the Department of General Services.
SEIU Local 1000 also filed an Unfair Labor Practice Charge with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). That complaint has gone through the initial review process and has been issued as a complaint by PERB. The case will then go through a mediation conference to allow for further discussion.
The union’s contract with the state also expired just prior to the executive order on June 30. The State rejected the union’s proposals which included salary increases, improvements to healthcare coverage, as well as expansion of telework protections.
The union’s Chief Negotiator Bobby Roy released a statement following the state’s response to the proposal.
“We knew we weren’t going to get everything we asked for, but we expected real conversations and meaningful progress,” Roy said. “Instead, the State rejected our economic proposals and came back with nothing. Not a meaningful counterproposal. Not a compromise. Just a no. That’s not negotiation — that’s disrespect.”
Other efforts to allow for more flexibility for state workers include Assembly Bill (AB) 1729, authored by state Assemblymember Alex Lee. The bill, if passed, would require agencies to provide written justification for why employees need to report in person to the workplace.
It allows individual agencies and departments to decide on telework and work from office options and requirements for employees. It also asks for the reinstatement of a dashboard that shows the productivity and cost-efficiency of telework statewide — an initiative previously launched under Newsom, but which has since ended.
Lee wrote a comment in a statement when the bill was first introduced in February.
“AB 1729 empowers and supports our state workers by ensuring transparency about their agency’s telework policy,” said Lee. “The State Auditor has shown that telework could save upwards of $225 million annually, while significantly reducing carbon emissions. These environmental benefits and cost savings directly benefit the public.”
The bill is currently going through committee which is scheduled to have a hearing date on August 3. The bill, if passed by both houses, will go to the governor’s desk.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
The bill, if passed, would require agencies to provide written justification for why employees need to report in person to the workplace.
And would there then be an “approval process” in regard to those written justifications? Or is this just b.s. in regard to general statements they can put forth?
Honestly, I’ve never figured out why employers want employees to show up at work, IF they’re getting the work done either way. (Makes me wonder how they made such determinations when employees were required to show up at work.)
I suspect that there’s part of the desire is to exhibit/demonstrate “control” over employees. Part of the same reason for dress codes, etc.
But there’s also potential issues such as IT support when working from home.
It would be unfortunate if the state starts selling-off their facilities, as the “Governator” attempted to do about 20 years ago.
Though I have noticed when calling some agencies/businesses that I’m now hearing dogs and kids in the background (during those times I’m not routed to an AI agent or lengthy “phone tree” system).
“Please listen carefully, as our options have changed” (as if I was keeping track of their previous options). All I can tell you with near-certainty is to press “1” if you want to make a payment.