SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Ronald Reagan’s infamous line that “nothing lasts longer than a temporary government program” wasn’t so much a clever quip as a matter-of-fact observation. Once government creates a bureaucracy, there really is no rolling it back. But I’ll build on that point: Nothing lasts longer than a temporary benefit provided to government workers. Any special new benefit or accommodation immediately becomes etched in stone and workers’ unions will fight to maintain it.
The COVID-19 pandemic has been a memory for more than two years. It was understandable for state officials to require state workers to work — or whatever it is they do most of the time — from home while the government was imposing its unnecessarily disruptive social-distancing rules. And there’s no question that the pandemic has permanently changed the nature of our work and commutes.
Research shows that only 7 percent of U.S. workers worked from home in 2019, with that number soaring to 61 percent during the pandemic. That number is down to around 35 percent these days, with many companies insisting that more of their employees show up at the office. Increasingly, U.S. companies — especially those in white-collar industries — have adopted some form of hybrid work schedule, where employees mix up their schedules between home and office.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics found that initial productivity dropped during the pandemic orders — but that over time “most of the industries that experienced substantial increases in the percentage of remote workers were able to enhance output during this time without a corresponding increase in labor.” Companies can also realize significant cost savings, by reducing the rent and utilities they need to pay to house armies of workers.
In a market system, you show up to work if your employer requires it — or stay at home if that’s part of the deal. If you don’t like the terms and conditions, you can seek employment elsewhere. Currently, California’s state workers are upset that their ultimate boss, Gov. Gavin Newsom, has required the vast majority to begin returning to their offices next month. He’s allowing a hybrid schedule, whereby they work at home one day a week.
It’s a perfectly reasonable requirement, but state employees are complaining about parking costs and the hassles of commuting. They already enjoy above-average pay and pension benefits that dwarf those in the private sector — and now they are pushing back against having to do what so many private-sector workers must do, by showing up to work years after the end of the COVID orders.
The Sacramento Bee reported on a protest at the Capitol by hundreds of state workers who are “fighting to continue working from home and for their paychecks.” It’s not that hard to fight for their paychecks, as they’ll continue to receive them if they do as the governor has required.
I drove past a billboard along a freeway outside downtown Sacramento declaring, “Newsom has mandated more traffic,” but I doubt many commuters will jump on their bandwagon. They’re encouraged to call the governor’s office and complain that the taxpayer-funded employees at home might suddenly have to join them on the freeways. It’s hard to see this campaign getting much traction.
Unlike private-sector workers, state employees have outsized political representation. Assemblyman Josh Hoover, the Folsom Republican who represents a large share of Sacramento state workers, argued that “people working in the office already will very much notice a difference on their highways when it comes to traffic congestion.” He also pointed to the high cost of maintaining state office buildings — and that some of them can be converted to housing.
Sure, but it’s easy to fire private-sector employees who are unproductive from home, It’s extremely difficult to fire a state employee. One of the few proven ways for a state union worker to get fired is to not show up for work. And now they don’t have to do that, either. I’d love to see any policies the state has implemented to provide oversight of work-at-home productivity for state workers. Once I see that, I’m open to changing my mind.
Already, public-employee unions have filed their challenges. The Bee reported on a lawsuit from the California engineers union arguing that the governor failed “to meet and confer with the union over the impact of a return-to-office order on supervisors and managers.” So, the governor can unilaterally allow them to work at home, but needs union permission to send them back to work? I doubt that will fly.
Another Bee report found that the California Department of Education — run by an elected state superintendent who presumably needs union support for his future political endeavors — delayed “the four-day requirement until the end of 2025.” Perhaps Superintendent Tony Thurmond reacted to department employees who “mounted a months-long campaign” to reverse the return-to-work order that included “solidarity breaks” outside the building that occasionally featured “more than 50 loud office workers.”
I’ve worked from home for years and it has unquestionably increased my productivity, as I don’t have to waste time getting dressed up, sitting in traffic, and chatting around the proverbial water cooler. But such work requirements are ultimately up to my employer.
State employees’ sudden concern about cost savings is charming. They probably are right that’s it’s overly costly to maintain hulking Sacramento-area office buildings. But as Matthew Fleming noted in his recent Bee column, it’s rather “silly” for them to make that case. He’d be “happy to provide many suggestions on how they can save taxpayers money if they’re so interested.” I suspect they’re not particularly interested given their lack of concern about taxpayers when they push for higher pay and benefits.
Like everything in our state government, this is another case of the tail wagging the dog. State workers and their legislative allies make some reasonable points, but we know they aren’t being made after a careful examination of productivity and any pluses and minuses for the services provided to the public. It’s all about the convenience of the employees themselves. And it’s another reminder for politicians to be careful what benefits they grant to public employees even on a temporary basis — because it’s going to be a tough slog to roll them back.
Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.
READ MORE by Steven Greenhut:
Legislature Takes ‘Pro-Development’ Turn
