California wanted state workers back in the office. Here’s how many have returned

Reality Check is a Bee series holding officials and organizations accountable and shining a light on their decisions. Have a tip? Email realitycheck@sacbee.com .

In opposition to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s return to the office directive for public employees, labor groups filed grievances, lawmakers demanded a state audit of the policy and workers picketed in the rain .

But in the two months since Newsom told employees to get back to their desks, it’s become clear who has the final say in the debate over telework.

Over 90% of workers that fall under the governor’s umbrella have returned to offices at least two days a week. But the most recent data from the state confirms employees and labor leaders’ concerns with the mandate: Not all departments are enforcing the return to office mandate.

In one example of workers attempting to resist the return-to-office mandate, an arbitrator ruled with the state and said it can demand two days of in-person work after a union filed a grievance against a department’s telework policy.

The state must bargain over changes to working conditions, Tim Yeung, a public sector labor law expert said. But contracts between the state and the civil workforce don’t include clear provision guaranteeing remote work privileges, he added.

“If the state really wanted to make everyone return to work, they could do that,” Yeung said.

The state said the return-to-office directive is successfully being put into action.

“As our employees transition more fully to a hybrid workplace, [the Department of General Services’] most recent data shows that approximately 92.1% of workers in the administration are in the office or in the field at least twice per week,” said Roy Kennedy, California Government Operations Agency’s deputy secretary of communications.

Data from DGS shared with The Sacramento Bee showed that in many departments upwards of 90% of workers eligible for remote work are complying with the mandate. In other departments, as few as 50% of telework employees were back in the office two days a week as of June.

Independent agencies and departments that are run by officials other than Newsom are not subject to the return-to-office mandate. Though some of those departments may have individual telework policies requiring employees to work in person, DGS data from June revealed that civil servants who don’t report to Newsom came to the office less frequently than their peers.

The state previously published telework data, including estimates of the environmental benefits of remote work, on a public facing dashboard. That resource disappeared earlier this year after funding for the unit tasked with maintaining that dashboard expired in June 2024.

Telework by the numbers

Not all state workers were called back to the office this past April when Newsom issued the directive.

The numbers indicated that of 10,639 telework employees — those who are eligible to work partially from home — 37% came to the office at least two days a week. These are workers in departments such as the Department of Justice and the Department of Education.

As of June, other departments subject to the in-person work mandate reported nearly full compliance with Newsom’s directive.

The California Department of Transportation reported over 99% of all employees were working from the office or the field at least two days a week. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reported 95% of its employees complied with the mandate in June, though the vast majority of CDCR employees are not eligible for remote work.

Of the departments subject to the in-person directive, there are 92,253 public employees eligible for telework, according to the June numbers. Of those civil servants, 82% were back in the office two days a week.

Among other departments, compliance with the in-person requirements ranged significantly.

At the California Department of Public Health, for instance, 50% of its 4,059 telework employees had returned to at least two days in the office. At the Department of Housing and Community Development, 24% of the department’s employees eligible for remote work were compliant. At the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, 16% of telework employees showed up to the office at least twice a week.

The state noted that some employees with accommodations are exempt from the mandate. Hourly workers and office moves might have impacted the percentage of workers who are back in the office, the state said. Additionally, the return-to-office deadline, which was June 17, came in the middle of the month when departments reported these numbers, which the state said could have led to an undercount of the actual number of employees back at their desks.

Inconsistencies among departments

Prior to Newsom’s directive, there was even more inconsistency around telework policies between departments. The administration cited it as a reason for issuing a state-wide mandate for departments under its purview.

“Unfortunately, the varied approaches have created confusion around expectations and are likely to exacerbate inconsistencies across agencies and departments,” read a memo from Cabinet Secretary Ann Patterson telling workers to show up for two in-office days a week.

The most recent numbers indicate there still is uneven enforcement of the policy, confirming what union leaders have heard from their members.

Union leader Anica Walls said the uneven nature of the mandates has continued in the two months since workers were told to return to the office. She said the inconsistency, which she said varied between departments, divisions and even managers, has frustrated her members.

In some cases, supervisors look the other way and have allowed workers to continue working from home, Walls said, while in other cases, the state has denied reasonable accommodations for members seeking to telework for health reasons, she noted.

“Telework has clearly been a win for everyone — boosting productivity and even helping the environment — yet the state keeps pushing these rigid return-to-office policies that just don’t make sense for our members,” Walls said.

The state told The Bee that each department is responsible for implementing and enforcing the telework policy. Since the directive was issued, there have been no changes to those expectations.

For large shops like Service Employees International Union Local 1000, which Walls estimated has roughly 40,000 members who are eligible for telework, the inconsistency of the return to office mandates has complicated the union’s ability to argue on behalf of their members who want to remain remote. Among telework eligible members in Local 1000, some want the union to advocate strongly on their behalf around the issue, while others don’t want to draw attention to their good situation.

Earlier this year, the union celebrated the blockage of a proposal by Newsom to cut public employees’ telework stipends as a way to eliminate $51.2 million from the budget shortfall. The state would have needed to bargain over the issue with the unions. Ultimately, the state did not pursue the cost-saving measure.

Negotiating, and arguing, over a return

For unionized employees, the location of work is something that must be negotiated with the union before management can change it unilaterally, said Catherine Fisk, a law professor with the University of California, Berkeley Law. Regardless of whether there is a provision in the contract explicitly addressing remote work, Fisk added that location of work, like other conditions of work, is a mandatory subject of bargaining.

Many of California’s contracts with the public workforce include language for telework.

“Employee requests to telework shall not be denied except for operational needs,” reads the memorandum of understanding for CASE, the state attorneys’ union that stands for California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers in State Employment.

Tim O’Connor, the president of CASE, described this telework language as “cooperative,” meaning there is room for negotiation over the parameters.

“If an agency says, ‘Hey, we’re just saying come in three times a week, that’s not denying telework,’ it becomes arguable,” O’Connor said.

Unions like CASE and SEIU Local 1000 have argued over this language. The state attorneys’ shop has filed 37 grievances against various departments with the state. Of those, CASE has requested to enter arbitration proceedings with more than a dozen different departments.

Among those grievances, only one decision has been rendered. A labor arbitrator ruled that California Public Employees’ Retirement System can order employees back to the office two days a week to meet operational needs, such as improving communication.

The decision highlights that ultimately the state has the authority to direct workers back to the office, within reason.

“At the end of the day, you have to bargain, and if you can’t reach an agreement, the employer is allowed to impose what the employer wants to do,” said Yeung, the labor law expert who was previously a legal advisor to the California Public Employment Relations Board.

As for the “loosey goosey” language in contracts, Yeung said it’s difficult for unions to challenge because how the contract is written gives the state flexibility to direct workers back into the office for at least part of the week.