Lawmakers ‘astonished’ CA still doesn’t know the cost of return-to-office order
Less than six weeks before the deadline, the state still does not have an idea of the cost to bring its workers back to offices four days a week, department officials said during an emotional budget subcommittee meeting Wednesday. Democratic lawmakers said the lack of information was “bewildering” and “disappointing.”
“I’m astonished that you still don’t have numbers for us,” Assemblymember Liz Ortega, D-Hayward, said in response to comments from officials with the California Department of Human Resources and the Department of General Services.
Dozens of state workers provided emotional testimony about how the costs associated with commuting — on top of potentially being denied a pay raise — would make it even more difficult to make ends meet during the ongoing affordability crisis in California.
Elijah Portugal, a senior environmental scientist with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, said he expected the new telework policy to cost him hundreds of dollars a month in additional childcare costs for his two school- age children.
“I’m a public servant for the state of California, and I can barely afford to live here,” Portugal said.
Also on Wednesday’s agenda was Newsom’s proposal to save the state $767 million by withholding salary increases to state workers. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended rejecting the savings measure given the damaging impact the deal could have on labor relations.
A collective bargaining ‘sledgehammer’
At the beginning of Wednesday’s hearing, Assemblymember Sharon Quirk-Silva, D-La Palma, criticized Gov. Gavin Newsom’s return-to-office order, calling the policy a “sledgehammer to the collective bargaining process and the trust of state employees.”
The subcommittee chair urged the administration to delay the July 1 deadline for public employees to begin working in the office four days a week.
“I don’t believe in 40 days we are ready to return thousands of people to work,” Quirk-Silva said. “If we are going to enforce this policy, we should be basing it on a lot more data.”
During an April hearing, department officials said the state did not know how much it would cost to provide desks for roughly 90,000 employees who will be shifting to a four-day, in-person schedule.
Because the state doesn’t know how exemptions to the executive order and vacancies will impact the total cost, the governor’s May revision did not include any request for additional money, said Danielle Brandon, a Finance Department official.
Each department is managing the transition individually, though with the assistance of DGS, a department official said. During testimony, public employees expressed fears that any additional cost associated with bringing workers back to offices would come out of their department’s budgets, further stressing agencies during tight fiscal times.
Eraina Ortega, the director of CalHR, said with people already in the office at least two days a week, the department doesn’t expect significant additional operational needs come July.
Without any new information, it’s difficult for legislators to support this, said Assemblymember Christopher Ward, D-San Diego. Particularly now, given lawmakers are having to make difficult budgetary decisions.
Even an estimate from department officials would have been helpful, Ward said.
‘Damaging effects on labor relations’
The real “slap” to state workers, Quirk-Silva said, is that months after Newsom directed his employees to back to offices, California announced the civil servant payroll would be part of the “budget solution” to close a $12 billion deficit.
Ortega said that the administration is hoping to achieve the savings through negotiations with California’s 21 bargaining units to defer salary increases, instead of cutting pay, which she said has been floated in previous years to solve budget issues.
If negotiations don’t result in the desired savings, the administration has another plan. Ortega said the administration hopes to impose reductions to employee compensation, which could include various savings measures. That would only go into effect if both the administration and the Legislature approve the current proposal, she said.
Legislators would have to weigh the decision of achieving savings with the impact that would have on labor relations with bargaining units, Nick Schroeder, a public employment analyst with the Analyst’s Office, told the subcommittee members.
“Certainly, not funding economic provisions of agreements would have damaging effects on labor relations,” he said
Newsom’s salary freeze proposal felt like a betrayal, said Amber Grace, a California Department of Education analyst, prior to Wednesday’s hearing.
“At a time when government workers across the country are being treated with disrespect and neglect, you would think in California at least our contracts could be maintained,” said Grace, who is also a steward with the Service Employees International Union Local 1000.
The suggestion came as a surprise, Grace said, considering the union was fighting for an additional 1% salary raise this year just before last Wednesday’s budget announcement.
On top of the return-to-office order, which will stress workers’ pocketbooks, Grace said she hopes lawmakers will reject the freezes to pay increases given the state of the economy for middle class workers, like many state employees.
This story was originally published May 22, 2025 at 7:00 AM.
