Pink tax 2.0: How return-to-office policies unfairly burden women | Opinion

Like many industries, the State of California is considering whether to require employees to shift toward more in-person work. Proponents of this shift argue that in-person work will foster more collaboration and productivity. Others say that employees are generally more productive from home and that hybrid provides a better work-life balance and flexibility.

The reality probably lies somewhere in the middle. But what’s abundantly clear is that whichever direction the state or any organization chooses, leaders should take into consideration the 47% of women who make-up California’s workforce and the hidden consequences that “time poverty” may have that could lead to regressions in women’s equity.

Time poverty can be distinct from financial poverty, as one is about resources, and the other is about discretionary time, but they’re often interconnected; women off all backgrounds report not having enough hours in the day to meet basic needs. And as more workplaces “return to normal,” many women grapple with hidden, increased responsibilities.

It’s more than feeling busy — it is the reality of juggling work demands, caregiving duties and personal responsibilities without adequate structural support. Think of the mother who commutes two hours daily, sustains her family, manages homework, answers late-night emails and wakes up early just to do it again.

On paper, women may be thriving. But in practice, these pressures can leave women feeling empty.

This is what I call Pink Tax 2.0 — a modern tax on women’s time. Much like the original Pink Tax, which charged women more for everyday products and services, this new version disproportionately drains women of the resource they can least afford to lose.

I was moved by a recent op-ed in The Sacramento Bee describing how a proposed return-to-office order would cost one state employee $730 each month in commuting, child care and food expenses — while also robbing her of 90 minutes each day with her young son.

Multiply her story by thousands, and you begin to see the scope of Pink Tax 2.0.

The data reinforces this reality: Women still spend around twice as much time as men on unpaid caregiving and household work. Economic pressures, insufficient childcare infrastructure and the “always-on” culture fueled by technology only exacerbate the problem. The result is a generation of working women who are time-poor in ways that quietly undermine their health, sleep and career progression.

The consequences are wide in scope, affecting society: Burnout, turnover and the loss of highly skilled talent are all downstream effects of time poverty. Burned-out employees are six times more likely to seek a new job, with turnover costs running 50–200% of annual salary.

The encouraging news is that solutions exist: Forward-looking industries are treating time as a strategic resource, recognizing that employee well-being and productivity are inseparable.

For example, hybrid and flexible scheduling at companies such as Microsoft and Google reduce commuting burdens and allow employees to better align work with family needs. Parental leave programs at firms like Netflix and PayPal acknowledge that caregiving responsibilities must be accommodated, not penalized.

On-site or subsidized childcare options, offered by companies including Patagonia and Goldman Sachs, directly address one of the largest drivers of time poverty for working parents.

Mental health and wellness benefits, from recharge days to counseling services, are becoming common among major companies that understand burnout is both a human and financial liability.

These steps aren’t perks; they are investments in long-term resilience and competitiveness. When employees have the time and support to thrive outside of work, they bring their best selves inside of work.

If we are serious about equity, then time must be treated with the same urgency as compensation. We need to measure it, protect it and design workplaces that do not simply acknowledge the hidden costs of Pink Tax 2.0, but actively dismantle them.

The test for leaders today is not whether they can mandate a return to office, it is whether they can create environments where people can do their best work without sacrificing their well-being, their families or themselves.

Colleen Nerius is the executive vice president and chief human resources officer at SAFE Credit Union.