The purpose of this letter is to express concern over the potential return-to-work plans that are being discussed at the management level at the State Water Resources Control Board (Waterboards). While we acknowledge that many employees may prefer a partial or full return to office work and should be given this option, we are simply advocating for maximum flexibility and the ability to be fully remote-based, for those who continue to be productive when doing so.

In 2020, Governor Newsom noted that the “COVID-19 pandemic has required an unprecedented shift to telework for state government that has allowed state managers, led by the Government Operations Agency, to rethink their business processes. This transformation will result in expanded long-term telework strategies, reconfigured office space, reduced leased space, and flexible work schedules for employees when possible.” (https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/05/14/governor-newsom-submits-may-revision-budget-proposal-to-legislature-5-14-20/)

On April 16, 2021, an email was sent from the Director of California Human Resources (CalHR) that detailed that “the Administration continues to support telework as a long-term strategy to decrease office space, allow more flexibility for employees, and provide resiliency in the case of future emergencies that may require people to work outside the office…Telework is going to be a permanent part of our work lives going forward.”

Maximum flexibility (i.e., full-time telework) allows state agencies to be more inclusive, reduce inequality, and hire a greater diversity of people.

The Waterboards has an entire commitment page dedicated to Environmental Justice[1] and Racial Equity[2] . Remote work supports equity, diversity, inclusion, access, and anti-racism throughout the Waterboards.

Many scientists have already expressed concerns about office work once again subjecting them to the unwelcoming treatment they have experienced in-person, from which they have been buffered during telework. Commuting to office locations also requires costs of vehicle ownership and maintenance—and critically, cost-of-living within commuting distance of offices, which is all too often unaffordable. These costs are especially burdensome for those from underrepresented, often lower-income communities. The state’s willingness to exclude these people from employment by imposing unnecessary financial and other costs upon them would demonstrate that current messaging around environmental justice principles is, as is all too often the case, yet another performative gesture that masks an underlying unwillingness for transformative, long-overdue change.

There is substantial evidence that teleworking has a powerful impact on the income and quality of life for low-income people (Kanellopoulos 2010). Teleworking has been shown to decrease levels of harassment and micro-aggressions (ILO 2020). People with disabilities can more easily be hired (as coming into an office may be challenging or even impossible with some disabilities).

Additionally, flexibility is necessary as parents continue to deal with unsettled childcare and school situations; this is slowing as COVID recedes, but it still occurs regularly. For example, one state scientist indicated that their child’s school is no longer offering morning childcare options nor allowing drop-off before 7:45am—a change that the school has made permanent—and thus, it would be impossible for them to be at work at 8am. However, when teleworking, the employee could start earlier, and simply take a short break to drop their child off at school.

Teleworking offers many opportunities for inclusion for people with disabilities, the flexibility of a home office can bring a lot of opportunities here (Igeltjorn & Habib, 2020).

Teleworking can improve relationships with the employee, their colleagues, and their employer. A survey among the Flemish population showed that people with a migration background experienced teleworking as a result of the COVID pandemic more positively than people without a migration background by experiencing less conflicts. One explanation could be that teleworking makes diversity characteristics less visible, which reduces discrimination by colleagues or managers (Baert et al., 2020).

The employability of employees who do not have sufficient confidence in their digital skills or who, due to gender, socio-economic or ethno-cultural background, feel barriers to make full use of the opportunities for teleworking will be reduced. In the highly digitized post-covid world, teleworking will be one of the most important resilience strategies (Zamfir & Aldea, 2020).

Barack Obama stated “millions of Americans continue to struggle day-in and day-out to balance work and family life – to juggle their job responsibilities with caring for a child, an elderly relative, or a loved one with a disability” and “attracting and retaining employees who are more productive and engaged through flexible workplace policies is not just good for business or for our economy—it’s good for our families and our future” (The White House, 2010)[3].

Commuting and in-office work can have a negative impact on both physical and mental health of employees, while allowing employees to telework can tremendously improve their work-life balance.

According to information from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System, nearly 40,000 Americans lost their lives while driving each year. Twenty-four percent of those–nearly 10,000 deaths–were associated with commuting. As state employees, we risk our lives every single day that we get into a vehicle to travel to or from an office location, in a state where traffic is ranked among the worst globally (INRIX 2021). In requiring regular office days for its employees, the state would declare to its employees—and the watching world—that it is willing to risk the lives of its own employees in exchange for whatever benefits it perceives from a one-size-fits-all approach to telework. Additionally, commuting has been shown to contribute to emotional and mental stress.

Requiring remotely based employees to spend a significant portion of time in offices can also have impacts on ergonomics and productivity. Employees will be able to have an ergonomic set in only one of their locations. Remotely-based employees who are mandated to come into the office will be required to spend a significant portion of time at a non-ergonomic workstation (e.g., if we are required to be in the office two days a week, 40% of our time will be spent at a non-ergonomic workstation), which will be out of compliance with the requirements of state law (Labor Code 6400 et seq. and California Code of Regulations, sections 3203 & 5110). Further, the in-office workstation will be minimal due to screens, keyboards, etc. being located at the home station. Working solely from a laptop will significantly decrease productivity while working in the office.

Teleworking allows staff to spend time that would have been spent commuting with family and friends, contributing to a better work-life balance and an overall state of well-being (Mann et al. 2000; Duxbury and Higgins 2003). Teleworking can also positively impact health through increased sleep as time is no longer needed to both get ready and commute. Finally, recent polling during the COVID-19 pandemic found that telework is preferred by many introverts and those with social anxiety[4].

Telework is an ideal arrangement for those who want to attain a better work-life balance, which is one of the reasons for the very rapid growth of this work mode in recent times (Ko & Kim, 2018; Thulin et al., 2019; Vilhelmson & Thulin, 2016).

Telework improves productivity because it allows employees to work away from the office, which avoids coworker interruptions and also generates autonomy and flexibility, workers have more opportunity to devote their time to their personal matters, thus coordinating these two important aspects of life without one intruding on the other (Gálvez et al., 2020). As a result, this generates commitment, which is positively related to job performance (Iddagoda & Opatha, 2020).

There are a number of environmental benefits to increased telework (Guerin 2021), which should be a priority to Waterboards as an Environmental Protection Agency.

Office buildings consume significantly more energy (per person) than the average home, even when accounting for extra energy usage when working from home (Romm et al. 1999). Office buildings consume almost one-fifth of all commercial energy produced (U.S. Dept of Energy, Energy Information Administration). Teleworking can reduce energy consumption by up to 77% (translating to emissions reductions of 48% for total organic gases, 64% for carbon monoxide, 69% for nitrogen oxide, and 78% for particulate matter; Koenig et al. 1996).

Emissions from cars play a significant role in both air pollution and climate change—about ⅓ of air pollution in U.S. is a result of vehicles (U.S. EPA Green Vehicle Guide), commuting accounts for about one-quarter of all traffic in the U.S. Reduction in the number of cars on the road results in decreases in both carbon emissions and pollution (Zhu and Mason 2014; O’Keefe et al. 2016; Hopkins and Mckay 2019). The city of Phoenix, for example, eliminates 1.3 million commuter vehicle miles and avoids more than 47,000 pounds of air pollutant emissions each day of telework[5].

Furthermore, research has shown that employees tend to act less environmentally conscious at the office than at home (Carrico and Reimer 2011). Working from home has also significantly reduced paper waste. Many people may go back to printing documents when they have the equipment and supplies easily available.

Track Telework found that at Waterboards alone between 02/2021-12/2021, teleworking cumulatively saved and/or prevented: 14,8000,000 commute miles, 329,000 commute hours (37.6 years), 605,000 gallons of gas, 5,378 metric tons of CO2 avoided with 1,858 (85.8%) of SWRCB staff teleworking fulltime, 270 (12.5%) teleworking partially, and 37 (1.7%) not teleworking (out of 2,165 eligible telework staff) (https://telework.govops.ca.gov/track-telework/).

Telework will have a beneficial impact on the state agencies that embrace it.

The State of California has already acknowledged the cost savings, increased productivity, and other benefits of the majority of the workforce engaging in telework. There are also numerous studies that demonstrate increased employee productivity during telework (e.g., Doucette 1997; Montreuil and Lippel 2003). Additional benefits to Waterboards for increased telework include a reduction in operating costs, greater organization flexibility, increased employee motivation, and higher employee satisfaction and retention.

The State already struggles with retention of scientists due to the disparity in pay, and allowing maximum flexibility (i.e., full-time remote) in telework can buffer that significantly. We do not want to see our agencies lose any more excellent scientists to employers who are providing more flexibility to their employees.

We acknowledge that in-office time can be very beneficial for many, and we are not advocating for full-time telework for all. We are advocating for options. We are advocating for recognition of employees as individuals with varying needs. Given the potential benefits to both the Waterboards and its employees in allowing maximum flexibility in telework as well as the well-established gaps in justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion for in-person work, we strongly urge you to consider this proposal.

Sincerely,

Waterboard Scientists

Baert, S., Lippens, L., Moens, E., Sterkens, P., & Weytjens, J. (2020). The COVID-19 crisis and telework: A research survey on experiences, expectations and hopes. GLO Discussion Paper n. 532. Essen: Global Labor Organization.

Carrico, A. R., and M. Riemer. 2011. Motivating energy conservation in the workplace: An evaluation of the use of group-level feedback and peer education. Journal of Environmental Psychology 31:1–13.

Doucette, N. 1997. Teleworking: The melding of changing workstyles and technology. CBS International Business Network Resource Library. Available from: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3615/is_199701/ai_n8746217

Duxbury, L. E., and C. A. Higgins. 2003. Where to work in Canada? An examination of regional differences in work life practices. CPRN research report commissioned by the BC Work-Life Summit 2003. Available from: http://www.cprn.com/en/doc.cfm?doc=1220

Gálvez, A., Tirado, F., Martínez, M. J. (2020). Work–life balance, organizations and social sustainability: Analyzing female telework in Spain. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(9), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12093567

Guerin, T. 2021. Remote possibilities: Environmental benefits of teleworking. Governance Directions 73(2):69–74.

Hopkins, J. L., and J. Mckay. 2019. Investigating ‘anywhere working’ as a mechanism for alleviating traffic congestion in smart cities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 142:258–272.

Iddagoda, Y. A., Opatha, H. H. D. N. P. (2020). Relationships and mediating effects of employee engagement: An empirical study of managerial employees of Sri Lankan listed companies. SAGE Open, 10(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020915905

Igeltjorn, A., & Habib, L. (2020). Homebased Telework as a Tool for Inclusion? A Literature Review of Telework, Disabilities and Work-Life Balance. In M. Antona & C. Stephanidis (Eds.), Universal Acces in Human-Computer Interaction: applications and practice (pp. 420–436). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49108-6

INRIX. 2021. Global Traffic Scorecard. Available from: https://inrix.com/scorecard/ [Accessed 2 April 2022]

International Labour Office (ILO). 2020. Practical Guide on Teleworking during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. A practical guide. International Labour Office, Geneva, Switzerland.

Kanellopoulos, D. N. 2010. How can teleworking be pro-poor? Journal of Enterprise Information Management 24(1):8–29.

Ko, E. J., Kim, S. S. (2018). Intention to use flexible work arrangements: The case of workers in Korea and gender differences in motivation. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 31(7), 1438–1460. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-01-2018-0001

Koenig, B. E., D. K. Henderson, and P. L. Mokhtarian. 1996. The travel and emissions impacts of telecommunity for the state of California telecommuting pilot project. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 4:13–32.

Mann, S. R. Varey, and W. Button. 2000. An exploration of the emotional impact of teleworking. Journal of Managerial Psychology 15:668–690.

Montreuil, S., and K. Lippel. 2003. Telework and occupational health: a Quebec empirical study and regulatory implications. Safety Science 41(4):339–358.

O’Keefe, P., B. Caulfield, W. Brazil, and P. White. 2016. The impacts of telecommuting in Dublin. Research in Transportation and Economics 57:13–20.

Thulin, E., Vilhelmson, B., Johansson, M. (2019). New telework, time pressure, and time use control in everyday life. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113067

Vilhelmson, B., Thulin, E. (2016). Who and where are the flexible workers? Exploring the current diffusion of telework in Sweden. New Technology, Work and Employment, 31(1), 77–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12060

Zamfir, A.-M., & Aldea, A. B. (2020). Digital Skills and Labour Market Resilience. Postmodern Openings, 11(1Sup2), 188–195. https://doi.org/10.18662/po/11.1sup2/151

Zhu, P., and G. Mason. 2014. The impact of telecommuting on personal vehicle usage and environmental sustainability. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 11:2185–2200.

[1] Environmental Justice | California State Water Resources Control Board

[2] https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/racial_equity/

[3] https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2010/10/25/statement-president-national-work-and-family-month

[4] https://podtail.com/en/podcast/the-pulse/the-undercurrent-of-anxiety/

[5] http://www.valleymetro.org/Rideshare/Telework/gtp.htm