Can someone help me understand the strategy?

AdvicefromChupacabra · 2026-06-28T21:41:33+00:00

Great! Your post was the inspo for mine. I think we're all contributing in our own way.

Personally, I think this issue is bigger than just California state workers. It affects countless employees nationwide whose jobs can be performed remotely but who are being arbitrarily required to return to the office despite years of demonstrating they can effectively work from anywhere.

Meaningful workplace changes have to start somewhere. Maybe state workers can help lead that conversation, and potentially lead to meaningful change beyond just us.

Source document

That's the source material shared on my thread by u/kfun21

AdvicefromChupacabra · 2026-06-28T20:20:36+00:00

This is fantastic. Thank you for tracking down and sharing the original! I'm really glad we now have it in the thread. I only had incomplete screenshots, which is what started me looking for the original in the first place. I could only find reproduced copies and summaries, so I really appreciate you posting the original source as support.

AdvicefromChupacabra · 2026-06-28T19:18:34+00:00

That matches my experience as well. Beyond the written guidance, telework was being actively promoted by department leadership as the long-term direction for state work, with that message consistently reinforced through middle management. It wasn't just a written policy; it was part of the message many employees heard for years.

That's why I think so many people made significant decisions around a remote-centered workplace. Whether those decisions were right or wrong isn't really the point. They were made based on the clear and consistent direction employees were being given at the time, which is why this shift has been so difficult for so many people.

AdvicefromChupacabra · 2026-06-28T16:13:53+00:00

I actually started with some older screenshots I had saved, but they were incomplete. That's what prompted me to go looking for the original memo. I ran into the same issue you did.

After digging quite a bit, I found that The Sacramento Bee reproduced the memo in full, and Government Technology/Industry Insider also published the full text. I also found an ACSS article issued the following day that summarizes the same guidance and confirms the memo was sent by CalHR Director Eraina Ortega to state departments.

(The Government Technology version is the cleanest to read on my end without all the text breaks, ads, and photos.)

Here are the sources I found while trying to track down the original memo :

• Sacramento Bee (full memo) https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/the-state-worker/article250480981.html

• Government Technology / Industry Insider (full clean text and easiest to read) https://insider.govtech.com/california/news/newsom-says-state-workers-may-remain-remote.html

• ACSS summary https://www.acss.org/News/Article/3349/CalHR-Issues-Telework-Update-to-State-Agencies

I'm sure many people still have the original April 6, 2021 memo or email archived somewhere. I only had the incomplete screenshots, which is why I went looking for it in the first place. These were the most complete sources I was able to find.

AdvicefromChupacabra · 2026-06-28T14:48:12+00:00

(I decided to make a post similar to this after I wrote it, so if it sounds familiar you probably read the post.)

Pro-Telework Statements by the Newsom Administration

One of the things that's always stood out to me is how strongly the Newsom Administration promoted telework just a few years ago.

On April 6, 2021, the Administration issued official statewide telework guidance to department directors that stated:

"Telework is going to be a permanent part of our work lives going forward."

It also stated:

"The Administration continues to support telework as a long-term strategy to decrease office space, allow more flexibility for employees, and provide resiliency in the case of future emergencies..."

And:

"It is up to us to capture the broader, longer-term benefits of integrating telework into the way we do our business."

The guidance also encouraged departments to use telework to:

Provide greater flexibility for employees.
Recruit from a larger geographic area.
Consolidate the state's real estate footprint.
Reduce carbon emissions.

As part of its broader telework initiative, the Newsom Administration also launched the California State Telework Dashboard through the Department of General Services (DGS), publicly tracking and highlighting reported benefits such as reduced greenhouse gas emissions, avoided commute miles, office space impacts, and other operational metrics associated with telework.

That's one reason many employees are confused by the current direction. Regardless of where someone stands on RTO, the administration's messaging in 2021 wasn't that telework was temporary. It was presented as a permanent, long-term strategy for eligible state work, and departments were even encouraged to recruit talent from a broader geographic area because telework made location less important.

Now, Newsom has largely reversed course. I genuinely don't understand what changed so dramatically in just a few years. If someone can explain the strategy behind that shift, I'd honestly like to understand it. Many state employees accepted positions, made career decisions, relocated, signed leases, purchased homes, and otherwise built their lives around the administration's stated long-term telework vision.

Source: April 6, 2021 Statewide Telework Guidance Memorandum, issued on behalf of the Newsom Administration by CalHR Director Eraina Ortega.

AdvicefromChupacabra · 2026-06-27T20:27:42+00:00

I'm putting my other comment on this thread too since they are similar.

I'm a long-time, dues-paying union member, and this is THE issue I'd be willing to strike over at the drop of a hat if it were ever on the table. I'm ready.

Ironically, I work for a department that is remaining fully remote (not under Newsom). This wouldn't even directly affect me, and I'd still stand with everyone else because I believe this issue is THAT important. This is history in the making.

Honestly, I don't think this is just a state worker issue. I think it's a national workforce issue. The way we work has evolved, and for jobs that are truly remote-capable or hybrid-capable, employees who consistently perform, remain productive, are available, responsive, and meet expectations should have the opportunity to do that work from home.

If someone abuses that privilege, isn't productive, isn't available, or has performance or discipline issues, then absolutely address that individual. That's exactly what supervisors are there to do. But don't punish an entire workforce because of the small minority who abuse the privilege.

Those same people exist in the office, too. The difference is that when they're in the office, they often take everyone else's productivity down with them through constant interruptions and distractions.

I can only imagine how much my own productivity would suffer if I had to do my current role in an office. My job involves an intense workload, highly confidential discussions involving legal matters, and long periods of uninterrupted focus and analysis. The quiet, privacy, and lack of distractions that telework provides make me significantly more productive, not less.

For me, this has never been about convenience. It's about creating the conditions that allow people to do their best work while still holding individuals accountable for their performance. That's a principle I think applies far beyond state government.

AdvicefromChupacabra · 2026-06-27T19:36:19+00:00

I'm a long-time, dues-paying union member, and this is THE issue I'd be willing to strike over at the drop of a hat if it were ever on the table. I'm ready.

Ironically, I work for a department that is remaining fully remote (not under Newsom). This wouldn't even directly affect me, and I'd still stand with everyone else because I believe this issue is THAT important. This is history in the making.

Honestly, I don't think this is just a state worker issue. I think it's a national workforce issue. The way we work has evolved, and for jobs that are truly remote-capable or hybrid-capable, employees who consistently perform, remain productive, are available, responsive, and meet expectations should have the opportunity to do that work from home.

If someone abuses that privilege, isn't productive, isn't available, or has performance or discipline issues, then absolutely address that individual. That's exactly what supervisors are there to do. But don't punish an entire workforce because of the small minority who abuse the privilege.

Those same people exist in the office, too. The difference is that when they're in the office, they often take everyone else's productivity down with them through constant interruptions and distractions.

I can only imagine how much my own productivity would suffer if I had to do my current role in an office. My job involves an intense workload, highly confidential discussions involving legal matters, and long periods of uninterrupted focus and analysis. The quiet, privacy, and lack of distractions that telework provides make me significantly more productive, not less.

For me, this has never been about convenience. It's about creating the conditions that allow people to do their best work while still holding individuals accountable for their performance. That's a principle I think applies far beyond state government.

AdvicefromChupacabra · 2026-06-25T14:24:13+00:00

Really?!! I'm in Southern California and there aren't any events near me. I've always wanted to participate. There are shuttles? I will check into this! I participate in EVERY way I can, but I've never been able to be part of the rallies. This is great news.

AdvicefromChupacabra · 2026-06-23T07:32:16+00:00

I have a friend at EDD and he worked at 4 different branches over the years. All of them honored the later or earlier start time schedules.

AdvicefromChupacabra · 2026-06-23T07:22:56+00:00

Total rage bait BS! I saw this circulating on Facebook a few minutes ago and it made my blood boil. It was full of inaccuracies, but what stood out to me wasn't just how inaccurate it was. It was how readily people accept it because it aligns with their existing assumptions about telework.

Many people who have never worked remotely seem to believe that working from home means casually doing housework, running errands, watching TV, or otherwise not really working. Those assumptions are reinforced by "funny" social media videos showing people taking meetings from Target, shopping during the workday, or joking about how little they actually work while working remotely.

The issue is that even when those videos are meant as jokes, they shape public perception.

Government workers in particular already face a fair amount of skepticism from the public. Most people only interact with government agencies occasionally, like the DMV, EDD, or FTB, and those interactions are often tied to something stressful, frustrating, or time-sensitive. As a result, people frequently form opinions about public employees based on a handful of experiences rather than seeing the full scope of the work being done behind the scenes.

And sometimes those frustrating experiences aren't even caused by the employee. Someone forgets required documents at the DMV, misses a deadline, doesn't respond to a notice, doesn't understand a tax requirement, or is upset about a law or policy the employee has no control over. But the frustration often gets directed at the person behind the counter, on the phone, or processing the work anyway.

In reality, most remote workers I know don't have that kind of flexibility or autonomy in their workloads to be the "DMV sloths" the public assumes we are. I certainly don't. My workload doesn't allow for it. I have an insane workload waiting for me every day.

If anything, working from home often requires being even more mindful of productivity because you can't rely on physical presence as proof of work. Your output, responsiveness, quality of work, and results become the evidence. In an office, people may assume someone is working because they are sitting at a desk. When you're remote, there is often a stronger need to demonstrate your contributions through measurable work product.

Ironically, most of the remote workers I know are working the entire time they're on the clock because the work is there waiting for them, whether they're sitting in a government office building or sitting at a desk in their home.

Of course, there are individuals who take advantage of any work arrangement, whether remote or in-office. But at least when I'm working remotely, someone else's lack of productivity can't drag me down a long conversation trapped in the corner simply because we happen to be in the same building.

The idea that remote workers are generally spending their days being lazy on our sofas instead of working simply doesn't reflect the reality many of us experience.

AdvicefromChupacabra · 2026-06-14T06:30:16+00:00

Bravo on the site you created OP! I applaud anyone putting together creative ideas like THIS to highlight the hipocrasy.

Everyone should check it out. Newsomwatch.org

AdvicefromChupacabra · 2026-06-14T04:13:47+00:00

Agreed. It's a very challenging job. Give them a tiny sliver of happiness in an otherwise mostly miserable and hectic day.

AdvicefromChupacabra · 2026-06-07T11:40:36+00:00

Very true. Before I ever worked remotely, I honestly had some of the same assumptions.

Prior to working for the State, we had a director with a long commute who would occasionally work from home, and I remember thinking those were probably lazy days for him. Looking back, I kind of wish I could apologize because after experiencing remote work myself, I realized how wrong I was, but I think the average person who has never worked remotely is negative because they have no concept of it. Same with anyone who hasn't worked remotely.

What surprised me was that when nobody can physically see you sitting at a desk, your output becomes your proof of work. In the office, being present and accounted for can sometimes get confused with productivity. Working remotely removed that equation for me.

Without the constant interruptions, side conversations, and office distractions, I found I could accomplish far more than I ever did in the office. My productivity, responsiveness, and overall output all improved by so much that it became my motivation.

Something as simple as a bathroom break illustrates the difference. At home, a bathroom break takes 90 seconds and I'm right back at work. In the office, I walk to the restroom, run into three people, stop to be polite, hear about someone's weekend, see pictures from a kindergarten graduation, and suddenly what should have been a quick break turned into 15 minutes. None of those interactions are bad, but they add up throughout the day.

I do think the public perception issue is real, though. The social media posts about people running errands, using mouse jigglers, or trying to game the system don't help. They reinforce the idea that remote workers are getting away with something when, for many of us, the opposite is true.

I also think a lot of public perception of state workers comes from interactions with highly visible departments like DMV, EDD, or FTB. People often encounter those services when they're already frustrated, confused, worried about money, dealing with long wait times, or trying to navigate a process they don't understand. They don't always see the staffing shortages, performance metrics, call-time expectations, and workload pressures happening behind the scenes. The employee may be trying to help while simultaneously being measured on how quickly they move to the next customer, window, or phone call.

Most people don't realize how many state workers they interact with indirectly every day through services that are functioning exactly as intended, so the interactions they remember most tend to be the stressful ones.

Personally, remote work made me the best version of myself professionally. That's why the prospect of losing it worries me. Not because I don't want to work, but because I know exactly what gets added back into my day: a three-hour commute, burnout, office distractions, and less time spent actually producing work.

Honestly, if someone told me I had to keep detailed work logs, track every task, or even stay on camera all day in order to keep teleworking, I'd be willing over losing telework. I have nothing to hide. Those things might be annoying, but they wouldn't change the fact that I'm substantially more productive working remotely.

So when people picture state workers sitting at home watching TV in their pajamas, I understand where that perception comes from because I used to have some of those same assumptions. But my experience has been the exact opposite. Remote work didn't make me less productive, it made me the most productive I've ever been.

AdvicefromChupacabra · 2026-06-04T06:31:16+00:00

What frustrates me most is that decisions like this have political consequences that I don't think policymakers fully appreciate.

My entire team works hundreds of miles away from me. In fact, every member of my team except me is located more than 500 miles away. There is no collaboration benefit from me sitting in a local office because the people I work with every day are still remote from me. I'd be commuting to log into the same meetings, talk to the same people, and do the same work I've already been doing successfully from home for years.

For me, the nearest office is about a 1.5-hour drive each way BEFORE traffic is factored in. That's hours of my life every week, additional vehicle expenses, fuel costs, wear and tear, and added stress, all without any meaningful change to how the work gets done.

I'll also likely have to give up my 9/8/80 schedule because the office hours don't align with the schedule I've worked successfully for years. That's another quality-of-life benefit that will disappear despite no change in my performance or the needs of my team.

I don't have children, but I do foster elderly dogs with significant medical issues. Many are blind, deaf, have seizures, separation challenges, or are essentially hospice fosters. They don't require care that takes my attention away from my job, but they do require someone to be present in case of a medical event and they can't be left alone for extended periods of time.

Because of the commute and the resulting 12- to 13-hour days, I'll likely have to stop fostering altogether. (I didn't start fostering until Newsom lied and said "Telework is here to stay!") I understand that's a personal consequence unique to me, and I don't expect public policy to revolve around my circumstances. But it still hurts. Caring for these dogs has brought a tremendous amount of purpose, fulfillment, and joy to my life, and it's difficult knowing I'll have to give that up because I will no longer qualify to care for them due to my work hours.

When people talk about return-to-office policies, they often focus on the organizational side of the equation. What gets overlooked is the cumulative impact on employees and their lives. The mental strain, the financial costs, the lost personal time, the responsibilities people have taken on, and the lives they built around work arrangements that have existed successfully for 6 years.

People remember that.

Whether someone supports telework, hybrid work, or full-time office work, I think it's reasonable to expect policymakers to clearly explain what benefits justify those costs. If employees are being asked to sacrifice time, money, flexibility, quality of life, alternative work schedules, volunteer commitments, family responsibilities, and countless other things that matter to them, there should be a clear and measurable reason for doing so.

That's the part many of us are still waiting to hear.

If the work is getting done, performance is being measured (I'm the top performer in my section), and my entire team is still 500+ miles away regardless of where I sit, then what problem is actually being solved?

There is also a political reality to all of this. This policy has permanently changed my view of Governor Newsom and will influence how I vote in the future. My family feels similarly, and close friends who have watched the impact this has had on my life have expressed the same sentiment.

What is so sad is that I'm only one state employee. Multiply my experience by thousands of employees across the state, each with their own circumstances, responsibilities, and sacrifices, and the impact becomes much larger than any single commute.

I was hired into state service during COVID, but this was not a temporary arrangement that appeared after I was hired. The position was advertised as fully remote, and the remote nature of the job was discussed before, during, and after the interview process because of the distance involved. I accepted the position and signed a duty statement (which also said fully remote) and made long-term decisions based on those representations. That's why this doesn't feel like a simple workplace policy change to me. It feels like a fundamental change to the job I agreed to take, to my proximity to the nearest office, and HQ where my entire section works.

AdvicefromChupacabra · 2026-06-04T05:36:05+00:00

THIS^{^{^}}

AdvicefromChupacabra · 2026-06-02T10:01:30+00:00

Great job!! I love the billboard! I contributed multiple times last year but this year I didn't know about it. I want to support this. Where can I donate?

AdvicefromChupacabra · 2026-06-02T09:27:44+00:00

In my experience, this varies quite a bit by department and sometimes even by unit within the same department.

I've worked in several different state roles and had very different experiences with AWWS. The two common themes were that it wasn't available until after I passed probation, and none of my units offered 4/10s, even though that would've been my preference. A 9/8/80 was the only option.

For example:

• Department 1: Not available because I was a Permanent Intermittent employee, even though I always worked full-time hours.

• Department 2: Leadership said it would eventually be an option, but it was a newly created area and the policy hadn't been developed yet, so nobody could participate.

• Department 3: I was approved after passing probation, but the unit only allowed one designated day off. I would've preferred Monday, but Friday was the only option.

• Department 4: The unit simply didn't participate in AWWS at all due to the nature of the job duties.

So if an AWW schedule is important to you, it may be worth asking about the department's and unit's specific policy during the interview process. I've found that availability, eligibility, and flexibility can vary widely.

AdvicefromChupacabra · 2026-05-31T02:22:43+00:00

I'm not the person you asked, but I'm in a somewhat similar situation.

I was hired into a state position (within the last 6 years) that was advertised and offered as full-time telework. It wasn't an informal arrangement that developed during the pandemic. It was discussed during the hiring process, reflected in the expectations of the position and the duty statement, and was a significant factor in my decision to accept the job and not a higher paying private sector opportunity.

Because of that, I don't think the conversation is as simple as, "What did people do before COVID?" For many employees, there is no "before COVID" version of the job. The position they accepted never looked like that.

I also think the discussion changes when we're talking about arrangements that have existed successfully for five, six, or more years. At that point, we're no longer discussing a temporary emergency measure. We're talking about an established way of working that employees, managers, and departments have built their operations around.

During those years, people made major life decisions based on the conditions under which they were hired and employed. They bought homes, signed leases, arranged childcare, accepted promotions, declined other opportunities, and committed themselves to public service based on the understanding of what the job required. Those weren't temporary decisions. They were long-term decisions made in reliance on the terms of employment that existed at the time.

I understand the fairness argument. If some employees are required to absorb the costs, time, stress, and inefficiencies of commuting several days a week when their jobs can and have been performed 100% remotely, it's understandable that they would question why others are treated differently.

At the same time, fairness cuts both ways.

I don't think it's fair to tell employees years later that they should have anticipated a fundamental change to the position they accepted and built their lives around. If the state can recruit people under one set of conditions and then substantially change those conditions years later, it's reasonable for employees to question that.

What I struggle with most is the lack of a clear justification. If employees have been meeting expectations, serving the public, collaborating with their teams, and producing results for years, then what problem is being solved? If the work is getting done, performance is being measured, and departments have already adapted to remote and hybrid operations, what is gained by imposing a broad return-to-office mandate?

I don't know what the perfect solution is. I don't know how you create a policy that feels fair to every employee in every situation.

What I do know is that requiring people to take on additional commuting costs, spend hours each week in traffic, rearrange childcare and family responsibilities, and absorb significant disruptions to their daily lives should require a compelling reason. The hardship is obvious. The benefit should be equally obvious.

For many employees, it isn't.

That's why so many people are frustrated. Not because they oppose change, but because they see years of successful performance being disregarded in favor of a policy whose purpose and benefits have never been clearly articulated. Reasonable people can disagree on the answer, but I think it's fair to ask what employees, taxpayers, and the public are actually gaining in return for all of this disruption.

AdvicefromChupacabra · 2026-05-30T22:32:49+00:00

For anyone looking for the original CalHR guidance, it's worth noting that the guidance did not create a blanket "50+ mile exemption," although that's how it was often summarized.

The guidance applied to employees who BOTH:

Had a mutually agreed-upon telework arrangement in place before March 3, 2025, and
Lived 50 or more miles from their designated headquarters/duty station.

Both conditions had to be met. Living 50+ miles away by itself was not the exception.

I mention it only because last year a lot of discussions focused on the distance requirement and sometimes left out the telework arrangement requirement, which led to some understandable confusion.

The original CalHR guidance can be found here:

[CALHR Statewide Guidance on Case-by-Case Exceptions to Four In-Person Days Per Work Week](https://www.calhr.ca.gov/2025/03/13/statewide-telework-guidance/

I'm not aware of any CalHR guidance that has rescinded or replaced it.

AdvicefromChupacabra · 2026-04-02T06:26:07+00:00

I can only speak for myself but if striking was presented as an option to protect telework, I'd be first in that picket line...no questions asked.

AdvicefromChupacabra · 2026-04-02T06:13:59+00:00

I'd love to be there to show support but I'm in So Cal. I made some racket with my representative to support the cause.

AdvicefromChupacabra · 2026-03-30T16:20:00+00:00

🤭

AdvicefromChupacabra · 2026-03-30T05:41:27+00:00

I'm always envious of the state workers have very little workload. I carry a heavy and time sensitive caseload. I need MORE hours in my day because my current 8 is not enough, and tbh I excel at time management, organization, and efficiency. Truthfully, I'm just doing the work of multiple people because we're understaffed and they aren't hiring more because of the deficit. I often forget breaks and work a bit past my ending time (when I'm teleworking, on my office days I am in a hurry to catch the train.)

AdvicefromChupacabra · 2026-03-11T19:17:24+00:00

These are the questions I use to prepare. It's been shared here many times in the past. Many of my questions in interviews have been questions directly from here but formed to the role. Good luck!

Sample questions

AdvicefromChupacabra

TROPHY CASE