Latest news with #BayAreaCouncil
San Francisco Chronicle
4 days ago
- Business
- San Francisco Chronicle
Kellyanne Conway defends Trump, draws mixed reaction at S.F. business event
Longtime top Donald Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway was in San Francisco on Tuesday to share what her hosts, the Bay Area Council business group, billed as 'a unique window in this administration's thinking.' But can you really trust the insights of the person who coined the phrase 'alternative facts'? Me, neither. We largely got a predictable whitewashing of our orange president as Conway sought to spin everything Trump. Though Trump gleefully brags about ending the national right to abortion, Conway said Trump is all about giving women more power by virtue of his hiring women for high ranking positions in his administration. And so on. Conway spun away on everything from DOGE to DEI. But what was unexpected was how so many of the Bay Area's top leaders are subtly adapting and reacting to the political realities of Trump 2.0, even as they rail against him. Conway, who said she still regularly speaks to Trump even though she's no longer in the administration, wasn't in fighting mode Tuesday afternoon before the group that represents over 300 of the top employers in the region. 'I come in peace,' Conway said. With four teenage children at home, Conway said the opportunity to fly to San Francisco for the day to give a speech 'is like a spa day.' Still, she wasn't above some snarky asides. Conway tartly noted, 'You had a San Franciscan (former Vice President Kamala Harris) in the White House for four years. You had her on the top of the ticket. I don't know that things have improved much. Maybe they did. I'll let you be the judge of that.' The council's moderator felt a sort of need to explain/apologize to any snowflakes in attendance for platforming Conway. 'This isn't an endorsement,' Conway's interviewer Michael Covarrubias, a former chairman of the Bay Area Council, said as their chat began. 'It's about gathering intelligence' on the new administration, in the same way that any business would gather intel on their new market. Not that there was a lot of intel produced in the volumes of spin spewed Tuesday. Some of Conway's answers occasionally veered toward answering the question asked. She did include a few bits of news-you-can-use, like tips for dealing with Trump: 'Don't be obsequious.' Conway advised. Trump hates that, she said. 'That's the dumbest thing to do with President Trump.' He doesn't want 'yes-men,' Conway insisted. Which doesn't explain how he's gotten virtually no pushback from his Cabinet or from any Republican congressional member. Case in point: Secretary of State Marco Rubio used to call Russian President Vladimir Putin 'a war criminal' when he was a senator. But Rubio refused to do so last week at a House Foreign Affairs Committee now that he's being puppeteered by Trump Yet Conway didn't have to flex Trump's influence here. The California panelists who followed her presentation — populated by the region's mayors and the leaders of its top universities — did that for her. If there's one positive thing Trump's victory did, it was to shame Democrats into spending less time virtue-signaling and more time focusing on proving they can govern. The mayors of the Bay Area's three largest cities didn't mention Trump's name once during their sessions. Instead of performatively bragging how they were 'Trump-proofing' their cities or virtue-signaling how supportive they were of say, abortion rights, they talked about public safety and what they were doing to beef up their police departments. (Business groups always love to hear about more police to protect their investments. Save the feel good pronouncements about criminal justice reform for another crowd.) San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie bragged about his police department recently using technology to track people who attempted to carjack someone in San Francisco all the way to Emeryville, where police arrested three gun-toting alleged perpetrators. San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan talked about how he wants to 'show what a pro growth, inclusive, upwardly mobile city looks like sworn-in Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee, who said she'd like Oakland to get '700-plus' officers (from about 678 now), said she was focused on making sure that the city is working for its residents. She promised to focus on 'How do we deliver services? ' like fixing a pothole or removing an encampment. Conway had little sympathy for the millions in research funding Trump is cutting from university funding. Perhaps her disdain is rooted in how she continues to blame experts at federal health-related agencies for their handling of the COVID pandemic (but says nothing about how Trump once asked experts whether disinfectants could be injected to tackle COVID-19.) 'It's very frustrating to know that we were among the people that run NIH and CDC and FDA for years. It's not my job to know what's going to happen. It was theirs. It's very frustrating to know that we were all there together and like, 'Who's minding the store, who's looking out for this? ' That is their job. So the question is not whether research should continue, or health is important… the question is who should pay for it, and at what price?' Conway said. UC Berkeley chancellor Rich Lyons said 'it would be very hard in any near term to backfill the federal government's role, because it's just so important.' He anticipated that some 'indirect' or 'overhead' costs associated with research funding may be reduced. He said Berkeley could lose $100 million a year. Part of the reason that Trump and his DOGE master Elon Musk have been able to cut university funding is because, as Stanford president Jonathan Levin said, 'universities were collectively guilty of having done a truly terrible job explaining (research funding)to the American public. So there's lots of confusion about the details of how science funding works and or how endowments work, and the finances of universities and so forth, and we have to try to rectify that and try to explain it.' Both said that they hoped that grants from foundations and private industry partnerships would make up for some of the loss of federal funding. Conway also defended Trump for cutting $3.2 billion in federal grants and contracts recently from Harvard University and his attempt to end the university's right to enroll foreign students. Trump has cast the cuts as payback for the university's liberal bias, for continuing to use racial considerations in admitting students despite a legal ban against it, and for permitting antisemitic behavior on campus. 'There is rank, raw, disgusting antisemitism on many of our college campuses,' Conway said. Berkeley's Lyons pushed back against the crackdown on free speech on campuses. He said a faculty member recently told him that 'It feels like we're going into a world where there are acceptable questions and unacceptable questions. That's anathema to academics. It's just sort of like all questions are accepted. We should be able to research, discover the reading and learn how different people can disagree.' The audience applauded weakly at the pursuit of preserving free speech showing at least some resistance to Trump remains. As for Conway, she said Gov. Gavin Newsom has asked her to be a guest on his much maligned podcast. So she'll soon provide Californians with more 'intel' they didn't ask for.
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
A new push to bring recovery homes into state's 'housing first' homeless model
After a long journey of personal recovery and years volunteering as a substance abuse peer counselor, Thea Golden launched her own recovery home. She and her husband, Tyler, bought a house in the Jefferson Park neighborhood west of USC, turned an illegally converted garage into a permitted ADU, formed a nonprofit and put out word through their unofficial social services network that they had two beds for women seeking a sober environment. Her tiny program, LA Recovery Connect, opened in 2021. Since then, five enrollees have lived in the unit behind their home and moved on to their own housing — two reunited with family and three into their own homes paying their own way. Now Golden wants to buy or lease another house and add four or five more beds. But even though she's housing people who would otherwise be homeless, Golden has no access to the hundreds of millions of dollars California hands out each year to do exactly that. A 2016 law adopting the "housing first" model as state policy prohibits state homelessness money from being spent on programs that are based in abstinence. The rationale is that there should be no condition, such as religious indoctrination or required sobriety, on a homeless person receiving housing. That could change this year as even some of the strongest proponents of housing first are rethinking that rigid restriction, amid growing evidence that a large share of homeless people would prefer to live in a sober environment. "When we passed our 'housing first' law we were so intent on reducing barriers to addicts that we inadvertently created new barriers to addicts who wanted to get sober," said Adrian Covert, senior vice president of policy at the Bay Area Council. Assemblyman Matt Haney (D-San Francisco), who supports the state's "housing first" policy, is now pushing legislation that would amend it to allow funding of sober living homes. The bill, AB 255, would authorize local jurisdictions to channel up to a fourth of their state homelessness funds to residential programs that practice sobriety. An earlier version in the last legislative session died in the Appropriations Committee. Haney has made changes to quell opposition, and the new bill has passed through the Assembly's housing and health committees. It's now in Appropriations. "If somebody wants to get off of a deadly, dangerous drug like fentanyl, they often need to be as far away from it as possible, and yet the state currently prohibits any of our funding to go towards effective, proven models of drug-free recovery housing," Haney said in an interview. "It's counterproductive. It's wrong. For many people it's dangerous." Debate over the bill revolves around the perceived incompatibility of "recovery" housing that requires residents to maintain sobriety with the "harm reduction" policy that "recognizes drug and alcohol use and addiction as a part of tenants' lives," as defined in current law. In a 2015 policy brief, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development advised that recovery housing "can fulfill a unique and specific role within a community's homelessness services and behavioral healthcare systems." California went the other way, however, adopting SB 1380, written by then-state Sen. Holly Mitchell, which required housing programs to follow the principle that "housing should not be denied to anyone, even if they are abusing alcohol or other substances." For providers of recovery housing like Golden, that effectively closed the door to state funding such as the multibillion-dollar Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention program. The Haney bill is responding to growing support for a counter-argument that, as currently practiced, harm reduction is actually harmful for people seeking sobriety by forcing them into housing where drugs and alcohol are used. "We're trying to break the cycle of relapse for people in recovery," Salvation Army recovery advocate Tom Wolf told the Assembly Health Committee in an April hearing. "People exit treatment after a 90-day Medi-Cal program and they get placed into an SRO where everybody around them is still using drugs. If you're trying to be clean and sober in that environment back in that same neighborhood in Skid Row or the Tenderloin, it's next to impossible." Proponents of the bill cite recent surveys showing a strong connection of substance use with homelessness and a preference of more than a third of unsheltered homeless people for abstinence-based housing. There is no organized opposition to Haney's bill, which he's amended to reconcile the two philosophical positions. It requires a harm reduction option to be available to anyone offered recovery housing. Relapse cannot not be a cause for eviction, and the provider must assist a tenant who wishes to leave the program in finding alternate housing following principles where abstinence is not required. Housing California, an advocacy group that backs housing first, is not currently opposing the bill but still has objections that it hopes can be worked out in the state Senate, said policy director Christopher Martin. "We do think there is a place for sober living," Martin said. "We want to make sure it is not abused." Martin said Housing California is concerned that the bill could direct too much money to recovery homes and will try to get the 25% limit reduced to 10%. Haney said that he negotiated that threshold with homeless services providers but that he is still open to discussing any objections. There's also concern about chronic complaints about bad operators who abuse insurance or summarily evict residents who relapse. "There are a ton of great providers out there that follow great practices," Martin said. "We have to protect against the worst behaviors." In four lawsuits against a network of for-profit recovery homes, attorney Karen Gold alleges that her clients were transported to California from other states, stashed in poorly supervised homes and then put on the street when their insurance ran out. "From my standpoint, any level of care is only as good as they are regulated," Gold said. "The more any level of care is regulated, the better results you are going to get." The bill requires the state Department of Health Care Services to establish certification of recovery homes and adopt standards. It specifies that those could come from of a private association, the National Alliance for Recovery Residences, a government agency, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, or another, unspecified, group. While the two sides are working out their policy disagreements, practical implications for small-scale providers such as Golden remain up in the air. Golden said said she follows the guidelines of another group, the California Consortium for Addiction Programs and Professional, but has not sought certification. She's not sure how her policy on relapses fits in. It's a complex issue. Relapse is generally accepted as a natural part of recovery. A first relapse would be handled through peer counseling. A second would probably lead to a referral to outpatient treatment and a third to a residential treatment program with the bed held for the resident's return. Golden said she would try to find alternate housing for someone who gives up on abstinence. She hasn't had to yet but can see the possibility. "This is a hard space to step into when you get into the nitty-gritty and it's the daily routine and we keep that structure and we have a curfew," Golden said. "If this isn't a fit for you, let's get you into the next step." With no access to the formal housing system it could be problematic. So far, Golden's residents who graduated have found new homes through her informal recovery network. Another option she hasn't had to use yet is SHARE!, a Culver City-based nonprofit where she received her peer counselor training and volunteered. SHARE! supports recovery meetings across the county and leases about 40 single-family homes that provide low-cost housing in shared bedrooms with peer counseling support. SHARE! worked with Haney on his first bill and hopes to gain access to state funding, said Jason Robison, director of advocacy, business development and training. But it isn't clear if its shared-bedroom model would be consistent with language in the law requiring state-funded housing to "ensure individual rights of privacy, dignity and respect." "Sharing bedrooms is an essential component" for both types of housing at SHARE!, Robinson said. "In the abstinence-based models, if someone relapses, they are far more likely to overdose and die if they have their own bedroom." He said the homes maximize privacy with outdoor seating, family rooms, dens and home offices "so that people can choose to be by themselves or with other individuals when they are outside of their bedrooms." For Golden, and hundreds of other small recovery programs, there is no direct path to obtain state money. The bill authorizes local agencies to fund recovery housing. That money is distributed through bidding and generally goes to large nonprofits such as PATH and the People Concern. Covert, of the Bay Area Council, thinks that to the extent local agencies choose to invest in recovery homes it would be to expand the supply with new construction. "I would be surprised if a significant amount of money went toward programs currently providing services," Covert said. Even if she never obtains direct financial support, Golden still sees benefit in the policy change. "I'm an advocate for opening up services to people and if it's not us — I want it to be — but if it's not, I'm still here to be an advocate for that to open up to other places that I know it would help." Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
13-05-2025
- Health
- Los Angeles Times
A new push to bring recovery homes into state's ‘housing first' homeless model
After a long journey of personal recovery and years volunteering as a substance abuse peer counselor, Thea Golden launched her own recovery home. She and her husband, Tyler, bought a house in the Jefferson Park neighborhood west of USC, turned an illegally converted garage into a permitted ADU, formed a nonprofit and put out word through their unofficial social services network that they had two beds for women seeking a sober environment. Her tiny program, LA Recovery Connect, opened in 2021. Since then, five enrollees have lived in the unit behind their home and moved on to their own housing — two reunited with family and three into their own homes paying their own way. Now Golden wants to buy or lease another house and add four or five more beds. But even though she's housing people who would otherwise be homeless, Golden has no access to the hundreds of millions of dollars California hands out each year to do exactly that. A 2016 law adopting the 'housing first' model as state policy prohibits state homelessness money from being spent on programs that are based in abstinence. The rationale is that there should be no condition, such as religious indoctrination or required sobriety, on a homeless person receiving housing. That could change this year as even some of the strongest proponents of housing first are rethinking that rigid restriction, amid growing evidence that a large share of homeless people would prefer to live in a sober environment. 'When we passed our 'housing first' law we were so intent on reducing barriers to addicts that we inadvertently created new barriers to addicts who wanted to get sober,' said Adrian Covert, senior vice president of policy at the Bay Area Council. Assemblyman Matt Haney (D-San Francisco), who supports the state's 'housing first' policy, is now pushing legislation that would amend it to allow funding of sober living homes. The bill, AB 255, would authorize local jurisdictions to channel up to a fourth of their state homelessness funds to residential programs that practice sobriety. An earlier version in the last legislative session died in the Appropriations Committee. Haney has made changes to quell opposition, and the new bill has passed through the Assembly's housing and health committees. It's now in Appropriations. 'If somebody wants to get off of a deadly, dangerous drug like fentanyl, they often need to be as far away from it as possible, and yet the state currently prohibits any of our funding to go towards effective, proven models of drug-free recovery housing,' Haney said in an interview. 'It's counterproductive. It's wrong. For many people it's dangerous.' Debate over the bill revolves around the perceived incompatibility of 'recovery' housing that requires residents to maintain sobriety with the 'harm reduction' policy that 'recognizes drug and alcohol use and addiction as a part of tenants' lives,' as defined in current law. In a 2015 policy brief, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development advised that recovery housing 'can fulfill a unique and specific role within a community's homelessness services and behavioral healthcare systems.' California went the other way, however, adopting SB 1380, written by then-state Sen. Holly Mitchell, which required housing programs to follow the principle that 'housing should not be denied to anyone, even if they are abusing alcohol or other substances.' For providers of recovery housing like Golden, that effectively closed the door to state funding such as the multibillion-dollar Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention program. The Haney bill is responding to growing support for a counter-argument that, as currently practiced, harm reduction is actually harmful for people seeking sobriety by forcing them into housing where drugs and alcohol are used. 'We're trying to break the cycle of relapse for people in recovery,' Salvation Army recovery advocate Tom Wolf told the Assembly Health Committee in an April hearing. 'People exit treatment after a 90-day Medi-Cal program and they get placed into an SRO where everybody around them is still using drugs. If you're trying to be clean and sober in that environment back in that same neighborhood in Skid Row or the Tenderloin, it's next to impossible.' Proponents of the bill cite recent surveys showing a strong connection of substance use with homelessness and a preference of more than a third of unsheltered homeless people for abstinence-based housing. There is no organized opposition to Haney's bill, which he's amended to reconcile the two philosophical positions. It requires a harm reduction option to be available to anyone offered recovery housing. Relapse cannot not be a cause for eviction, and the provider must assist a tenant who wishes to leave the program in finding alternate housing following principles where abstinence is not required. Housing California, an advocacy group that backs housing first, is not currently opposing the bill but still has objections that it hopes can be worked out in the state Senate, said policy director Christopher Martin. 'We do think there is a place for sober living,' Martin said. 'We want to make sure it is not abused.' Martin said Housing California is concerned that the bill could direct too much money to recovery homes and will try to get the 25% limit reduced to 10%. Haney said that he negotiated that threshold with homeless services providers but that he is still open to discussing any objections. There's also concern about chronic complaints about bad operators who abuse insurance or summarily evict residents who relapse. 'There are a ton of great providers out there that follow great practices,' Martin said. 'We have to protect against the worst behaviors.' In four lawsuits against a network of for-profit recovery homes, attorney Karen Gold alleges that her clients were transported to California from other states, stashed in poorly supervised homes and then put on the street when their insurance ran out. 'From my standpoint, any level of care is only as good as they are regulated,' Gold said. 'The more any level of care is regulated, the better results you are going to get.' The bill requires the state Department of Health Care Services to establish certification of recovery homes and adopt standards. It specifies that those could come from of a private association, the National Alliance for Recovery Residences, a government agency, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, or another, unspecified, group. While the two sides are working out their policy disagreements, practical implications for small-scale providers such as Golden remain up in the air. Golden said said she follows the guidelines of another group, the California Consortium for Addiction Programs and Professional, but has not sought certification. She's not sure how her policy on relapses fits in. It's a complex issue. Relapse is generally accepted as a natural part of recovery. A first relapse would be handled through peer counseling. A second would probably lead to a referral to outpatient treatment and a third to a residential treatment program with the bed held for the resident's return. Golden said she would try to find alternate housing for someone who gives up on abstinence. She hasn't had to yet but can see the possibility. 'This is a hard space to step into when you get into the nitty-gritty and it's the daily routine and we keep that structure and we have a curfew,' Golden said. 'If this isn't a fit for you, let's get you into the next step.' With no access to the formal housing system it could be problematic. So far, Golden's residents who graduated have found new homes through her informal recovery network. Another option she hasn't had to use yet is SHARE!, a Culver City-based nonprofit where she received her peer counselor training and volunteered. SHARE! supports recovery meetings across the county and leases about 40 single-family homes that provide low-cost housing in shared bedrooms with peer counseling support. SHARE! worked with Haney on his first bill and hopes to gain access to state funding, said Jason Robison, director of advocacy, business development and training. But it isn't clear if its shared-bedroom model would be consistent with language in the law requiring state-funded housing to 'ensure individual rights of privacy, dignity and respect.' 'Sharing bedrooms is an essential component' for both types of housing at SHARE!, Robinson said. 'In the abstinence-based models, if someone relapses, they are far more likely to overdose and die if they have their own bedroom.' He said the homes maximize privacy with outdoor seating, family rooms, dens and home offices 'so that people can choose to be by themselves or with other individuals when they are outside of their bedrooms.' For Golden, and hundreds of other small recovery programs, there is no direct path to obtain state money. The bill authorizes local agencies to fund recovery housing. That money is distributed through bidding and generally goes to large nonprofits such as PATH and the People Concern. Covert, of the Bay Area Council, thinks that to the extent local agencies choose to invest in recovery homes it would be to expand the supply with new construction. 'I would be surprised if a significant amount of money went toward programs currently providing services,' Covert said. Even if she never obtains direct financial support, Golden still sees benefit in the policy change. 'I'm an advocate for opening up services to people and if it's not us — I want it to be — but if it's not, I'm still here to be an advocate for that to open up to other places that I know it would help.'
American Military News
11-05-2025
- Business
- American Military News
Work-from-home more prevalent in Bay Area than rest of US and world, surveys show
Bay Area white-collar workers are spending about three days a week in the office, and survey results show most companies do not plan to mandate more days in the workplace, new data show. Nearly two-thirds of office-based employees attended workplaces on three consecutive days: Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, according to a survey by the Bay Area Council of 236 companies with mostly white-collar workforces. When the council first began surveying companies about remote work, in October 2021, the average number of days in office was 2.3. About 40% of companies responding to the February survey said they had mandated increased in-office days over the previous six months, but only 22% said they planned to boost the number over the following six months. However, larger firms, with 1,000 or more employees, were considerably more likely to say they would add mandatory office days over the next half year, said Abby Raisz, research director at the Economic Institute of the Bay Area Council, which represents businesses including major Silicon Valley tech companies Google, Meta and Apple. Among companies making efforts to bring workers back to offices, some ask and some tell, with differing results, Raisz said. 'Overwhelmingly we found that those that require employees to come in feel like their policy is very effective,' Raisz said. 'When they request, it's less effective.' The data comes as local and state government return-to-work mandates spark pushback. In Oakland, unionized city workers had been ordered to work four days in offices starting in early April, but the mandate was delayed until June 2, while San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie delayed a similar four-day order from April 28 to Aug. 18, according to local media reports. Gov. Gavin Newsom's order mandating four days in the office for state workers has riled employees and a state workplace regulator. The COVID-19 pandemic upended working life and companies' employment models after the outbreak pushed office-based workers to their homes, leading many to develop a strong appreciation for commute-free employment. However, as the pandemic waned, many companies backed away from remote work, with Mountain View, California-based digital-advertising giant Google in 2022 ordering most employees back to the office three days a week and others taking similar action. Bobby Khullar works for an engineering, design and construction company in Walnut Creek, California, that requires in-office work three or four days a week. 'It's decent, but if I had my druthers it would definitely be working from home,' said Khullar, 50. His meetings are typically via video with clients, and there's no real need to be in an office, he said. 'If the cameras are on, you just have to get the top half of yourself ready to go and you're fine,' Khullar said. A recent global survey of thousands of workers in 40 countries found that America trails only Canada in the number of people working from home. The average number of days worked remotely in the U.S. was 1.8 in the period between November and February, slightly lower than Canada's two days, according to the Global Survey of Working Arrangements, co-conducted by Stanford University economics professor Nick Bloom. Those numbers reflect the 'hybrid' model that has become widespread in English-speaking countries after the pandemic. 'Hybrid working from home is just so profitable for firms,' said Bloom, who collaborated on the survey with other researchers from the U.S., Europe and Mexico. 'It reduces recruitment and retention costs without any productivity impact.' Mixing remote with office work is 'here to stay,' Bloom concluded. Raisz said remote work has gained and maintained traction in the Bay Area because major industries like technology involve large numbers of jobs that can be done from home. Also, many companies recognize that many employees live far from the office, with time-consuming and costly commutes, and offer flexible schedules, Raisz said. That gives workers more power to leave jobs that force them into the office more than they would like, she said. Sharon He of San Francisco, who works for a New York-based insurance firm, helped get her auditing team exempted from a companywide order to work at least four days a week in an office. 'We couldn't hire anybody with that policy,' said He, 31. 'We need to be competitive.' In Silicon Valley, 'hybrid seems to have won out,' Bloom said by email this week. 'The large majority of tech and finance firms out here are hybrid, typically having folks come into the office 2 or 3 days a week,' Bloom said. 'Managers and employees are happy with this, and it seems to be sufficient days to get work done and push through on productivity. Fully remote has become pretty rare, with a few folks lingering on from the pandemic and some elite coders.' Meanwhile, furor is growing over a March executive order by Newsom mandating four office days a week for state workers. Newsom in his order — to take effect July 1 — cited 'enhanced collaboration, cohesion, creativity and communication' and better opportunities for mentorship, supervision and accountability when employees work together from the office. But on April 17, the state Public Employment Relations Board that oversees union-related laws covering state employees issued a preliminary finding alleging Newsom's office broke state law by failing to meet and confer with an engineers union — which filed a complaint about the order — before he issued it. The matter is to go before an administrative law judge. And foes of the order, as of Thursday, had crowd-funded more than $16,000 to erect a billboard in Sacramento showing a laughing Newsom with the words, 'Think traffic is bad now? Wait until July 1st.' Newsom's office referred questions to the state's human resources department, which declined to comment. The number of people doing their jobs from home varies widely around the world, the Global Survey of Working Arrangements found. In Latin American countries where workers were surveyed, the rate of working from home was much lower than in the U.S., with an average of one day in Mexico and 1.4 days in Brazil. Asian countries had the lowest rates, with China, Japan and South Korean workers spending on average less than one day a week remote. In India, the working-from-home average came in at 1.6 days a week. In a January presentation to the American Economics Association, Bloom broke down working-from-home by industry, saying finance and insurance workers did the most remote work, at about 2.4 days a week, with information workers — including some tech employees — following close behind at about 2.3 days. In retail, hospitality and food services, which require many on-site workers, the average was less than one day a week. Bloom highlighted the commuting issue that has driven much of the conflict between employees and employers, telling the economists' group that workers save 70 minutes on average every day they do their jobs from home. Another 10 minutes a day of time savings comes from being able to work without showering, donning fresh clothing, shaving or putting on makeup, Bloom said. Bloom also noted that remote work has hollowed out the downtowns of many U.S. cities. In the San Jose area, only about 51% of seats in offices were occupied as of April 16, and in the San Francisco area, only about 43% of space was occupied, Kastle Systems, which generates office-occupancy numbers using data from people using badges to enter their workplaces, reported this week. 'Folks selling office space are not happy,' Bloom noted. ___ © #YR@ MediaNews Group, Inc. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
Yahoo
28-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Hybrid work in the Bay Area here to stay, survey indicates
(KRON) — Hybrid work could be here to stay in the Bay Area — at least for the time being. Those are the findings of a recent survey from the Bay Area Council. More than five years from the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, a majority of Bay Area workers remain on some kind of hybrid schedule. As of February, 27% of employers surveyed require workers to come into the office three days a week, 17% to come in two days a week, and 7% to come in just one day a week. A quarter of employers surveyed, 25%, require workers to come in five or more days a week. Burke Williams SF store closes permanently amid safety concerns Meanwhile, 11% of workers surveyed remained on a full work-from-home schedule, with zero days in the office. The survey has been conducted annually since April 2021 and is sent out to a group of over 100 employers who signed up to participate. Employers from all nine Bay Area counties and across different sectors took part. A majority of employers surveyed — 84% — said they had already fully implemented their long-term policy for in-person and remote work. Another 5% said they would be implementing it in the next five to six months, while 3% said they would implement theirs within at least a year. The number of employers who require some or all employees to visit or work in the workplace rose slightly to 68% compared to 62% in May 2024. More than half of employers in the survey — 61% — said they had not changed their attendance policies in the past six months. An even greater number — 78% — said they had no plans to change their attendance policy in the next six months. The major reason most employers felt their employees don't come in to the office more often was the amount of time it takes to commute, according to 73% of survey respondents, followed by preference for working at home at 71%. Some 236 companies took part in the February survey, up from 138 companies in the prior most recent survey in May 2024. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
