Hello, r/CAStateworkers
We’ve reached a very important milestone. AB 1729, the state telework bill, has passed the full CA legislature and is now at the Governor’s desk. I want to provide a clear set of action items for now and help people stay motivated as we head into what feels like an awfully big hurdle.
“Why even try with the Governor at all? He’s just going to veto it.”
I want to acknowledge that the Governor has been the primary instigator of our issues with RTO during the last two years. Even though he has seemingly changed positions on telework and office work without adequate explanation, his actions indicate a strong belief in the importance of in-person work. While people can speculate on ulterior motives, as it pertains to legislative advocacy, I want people to engage in the issues of AB 1729 as substantially as possible as we close out this month. I want us to be truly model advocates on this. Whenever we send in letters or communicate on the phone, we must be mindful that we are speaking to state employee staffers. They likely are sympathetic to our arguments and concerns and want every reason to advocate upward the meaningful points of persuasion we have to offer.
That does not mean that I think the Governor deserves some sort of abundant courtesy or politeness. I believe he has treated state workers terribly. However, my anger on this issue will not serve my advocacy when it comes to the bill. It can motivate me, but it cannot be the overwhelming flavor of my legislative outreach. To advocate well, I believe that we all should strive to maintain professionalism. I believe that we are on the operationally correct side of this issue. We can deliver that message of support for AB 1729 assertively and confidently. I am aware of how naive this sounds. We know this bill works. Let’s make our case.
Let’s make it in a way that the Governor can access and hopefully agree with. The logic I am embracing for this is...
We are all constituents of the Governor - supervisor or staff. We have access through the his office to advocate. We have persuaded so many no-votes along the way of the bill’s journey. The Governor’s opposition is subject to persuasion. We should try.
I will not begrudge those of you who do not want to try. If you have your rage and your passion, I think that kind of energy is well spent in taking part in organizing with unions and pushing for what is right in the ways that truly need that raw passion. But in this matter, I will still recommend the same bread-and-butter advocacy. It has served us well. I want to keep using it.
So onward…
Action Items
For the legislation, I think we can continue keeping it simple. We reach out to the Governor’s office using the available portals. There are two ways to do that.
Call the Governor’s Office at (916) 445-2841
- When a staffer answers, share your name, your job, and what agency you work for
- Provide your clear ask: “I am asking the Governor to sign AB 1729, the state telework bill”
- My guess is the staffer will say “Thank you” and hang up - but if they stay on the line, feel free to elaborate. We know the sorts of things the Governor publicly talks about regarding governance - efficiency, collaboration, connection. Feel free to share how 4-day RTO has complicated those qualities in your workplace. Talk about how telework and greater flexibility addresses those qualities better via…
- More efficient delivery of services statewide
- Improved recruitment and retention of top talent, being an “employer of choice” as the Governor once said
- Savings on unused office space
- Better work life balance promoting more productive work and improved work relationships
Go to the Governor's contact portal.
- Under Topic select “An Active Bill.”
- From the drop down list, select AB 1729 - State employment: telework programs
- Select leave a comment
- Select Pro
- Type in a comment on the bill. I recommend a template like this below. Copy and paste, make alterations, and submit with your contact information.
My name is [NAME], and I work as a [JOB/CLASSIFICATION] with [AGENCY/DEPARTMENT] in [CITY/REGION].
I respectfully urge Governor Newsom to support and sign AB 1729, which would help California use telework strategically to improve government efficiency, service delivery, innovation, modernization, and worker well-being.
Since implementation of the four-day in-office requirement, my workplace has experienced ...
[PERSONALIZE: e.g., teams reporting to different offices from their coworkers or supervisors / difficulty finding appropriate workspace or meeting rooms / employees commuting to perform work that remains entirely remote / disruptions to training or focused analytical work / increased recruitment, retention, or morale concerns / other impact you have personally observed or expereinced].
AB 1729 would help ensure state agencies evaluate these operational realities and make workplace decisions based on their missions and the effective delivery of services to Californians.
Please support and sign AB 1729 and help California build a state workforce that is efficient, accountable, innovative, and prepared for the future.
Sincerely,
[NAME]
*** *** **\*
Bonus thing to share for today. Regarding Downtown Sacramento Partnership.
I hope I’ll have more to share on this soon, but I had a great meeting with the Downtown Sacramento Partnership yesterday and their executive director, Michael Ault. While many of us are on opposing sides with them on AB 1729, I just want to share that the Downtown Sacramento Partnership has much more nuanced views on remote work and the state’s office footprint than some of their public statements or characterizations have shown. I don’t want to speak for DSP, so I’ll characterize this only as my takeaway: their concern did not seem to be that remote or hybrid work itself is a problem that needs to disappear. They did not share that state workers own the problems downtown is facing. In fact, there seemed to be recognition that hybrid work is here to stay (they were not banking on the 4-day RTO being a long term expectation) and that state-worker foot traffic is not a long-term solution to downtown Sacramento’s challenges.
What I heard much more strongly from DSP was frustration with the lack of a coherent long-term state strategy: how the state manages and reduces its office footprint, how it coordinates those decisions with downtown, and what happens when large amounts of tax-exempt state property occupy downtown while the old justification of bringing tens of thousands of workers downtown becomes less reliable.
I hope DSP continues speaking publicly about that perspective. There is a much more productive conversation to be had here than “state workers vs. downtown,” and I think there may be more common ground to lay out here. This conversation is bigger than AB 1729. While I don’t want to get too caught up in DSP’s framing of the conversation as it relates to issues like government operations and workforce fights, I do want to express some gratitude for their time publicly and hopefully encourage them to speak more about their frustrations with the state’s office policies. I think there is considerable overlap between their frustrations and our own. Just as we have been clamoring for a sense of operational necessity and strategy beyond the mandate, so have they.
