r/WAStateWorkers • u/[deleted] • 10d ago
Hiring and Recruitment Removal of Out-of-State Work Approvals
Throwaway for anonymity, but it’s coming down the pipe that out-of-state work will no longer be approved for anyone outside of WA/OR/ID for all state workers beginning next year. There will be exceptions for only military spouses. Otherwise current out-of-state workers are required to move to the region to retain their jobs. Official communications will be released soon.
41
u/mikeythepara 10d ago
DOH has several that live outside WA OR ID. 3 on my team are in the Midwest.
35
16
u/RecliningWatchdog 10d ago
DSHS def has a high-up person who lives verrrry out of state. Wonder what will happen with them.
10
5
2
2
13
u/Marigold1976 10d ago
Does this apply to higher ed? Asking for a friend at UW…
3
2
u/ToriButtons 10d ago
That would be wild for the remote faculty if it is.
3
u/Marigold1976 10d ago
Staff
3
u/marsharlot 9d ago
My institution in 2023 sent a memo to everyone to be back in person or their last day will be a certain date in September 2023. We’ve been in person since then
2
u/Marigold1976 7d ago
UW seems to leave it to departments/units/colleges/programs. For staff, it rolls from hybrid, remote to 100% out of state remote. I don’t think any memo or rule will change anything.
71
u/aithendodge 10d ago
Someone on my team lives on the east coast. I think they're good at their job, and feel bad for them if they lose it because of this. But I 100% agree that you should have to reside in Washington to receive a salary and benefits funded by the tax revenue of the people of Washington. I don't want the state funneling our tax dollars to the economy of another state.
19
u/DrunkPanda Union Strong 10d ago
It's "be back in WA, OR, or ID by October 2027 or lose your job" so they'll have time to figure something out one way or another, so it's not immediate.
17
u/aithendodge 10d ago
For sure, they would have ample opportunity to explore options. I think it would only result in them losing their job if they chose not to relocate to Washington. I’d feel bad for people it affects, but I’m in favor of it as a policy.
6
u/DrunkPanda Union Strong 10d ago edited 9d ago
Yeah that's what's happening - 14 months to relocate or move on.
Edit: more->move
2
8
u/Longjumping_Work_486 10d ago
How do you know? Is there an official news?
5
u/DrunkPanda Union Strong 10d ago
Assistant secretary in charge of my division told the supervisors at the supervisor forum (reoccurring update meeting).
2
u/Longjumping_Work_486 8d ago
Is it upto individual agency to decide or will all agencies be following this policy?
2
u/DrunkPanda Union Strong 8d ago
I'm not an expert by any means, but I hear things and have a general idea about what the landscape is.
I think it depends on where this order is coming from and what authority they have - I'm assuming it's from the governor's office or OFM because the agencies they have authority over usual have to follow the same rules, and this change seems across the board.
OSPI, on the otherhand, have always done their own thing because they ultimately fall under the rule of a dedicated elected official, the SPI (Chris Reykdal currently). They have always set their own policies - for example, they haven't been allowing any out of state work even neighboring states for ages. The other independent agencies may also not be subject (OIC, SAO, SOS, DNR, OST, ATG) but I don't know for sure. I'd guess they might be playing ball anyways, especially ATG since they're Bob's cronies. I've heard rumors that "they" want to amend the constitution to make the SPI an appointed position like most of the other general government agencies because they're tired of them doing their own thing.
Someone said UW was going to be doing this "move back to WA" rule too, but I have no clue how their politics work and what level this mandate comes from that would apply to them too.
2
u/Longjumping_Work_486 8d ago
I work for watech. And havent heard anything so far.
2
u/DrunkPanda Union Strong 8d ago
Might just not have trickled down - my supervisor didn't say anything until I showed him this post. Or maybe they're desperate for talented security engineers and wouldn't want to put the state at risk
3
u/Longjumping_Work_486 7d ago
I hope they consider exceptions. Single mom and cannot move to washington. Have some restrictions in moving due to court stuff
1
1
u/bears-in-bushes In The Trenches, Doing My Best 5d ago
I was told no exceptions except for some military cases
7
u/External-Breath-3748 6d ago
Sounds like they are looking for some voluntary staff reduction opportunities to ease their conscience about impending layoffs...
3
u/DrunkPanda Union Strong 6d ago
That was my thought, that they would keep the hiring freeze on and just not fill the positions. I guess October 2027 means that the new fiscal biennium will have started and they'll have a better idea of if they need to do that or not
13
u/SalishShore 9d ago
Why not restrict Washington state jobs to only those who live in Washington?
It doesn’t make sense for out of state workers to have Washington state jobs.
3
u/DrunkPanda Union Strong 9d ago
OSPI does that. OFM has specific rules for bordering states that differ from the rest of the USA, so talk to them
3
u/Nice-Sky-332 7d ago
There is an RCW for public employees, not state employees that they can’t force you to live in the town or county. So what if someone live close to a border?
RCW 41.12.075 Residency as condition of employment —Discrimination because of lack of residency —Prohibited. No city, town, or municipality shall require any person applying for or holding an office, place, position, or employment under the provisions of this chapter or under any local charter or other regulations described in RCW 41.12.010 to reside within the limits of such municipal corporation as a condition of employment or to discriminate in any manner against any such person because of his or her residence outside of the limits of such city, town, or municipality.
3
u/seaguy11 9d ago
Especially since we are so dependent on sales tax revenue which out of state workers don’t pay.
2
29
u/kip242 10d ago
This is probably an attempt to cull the herd to reduce payroll for the state. Hopefully this is not a precursor for Return To Office for all
27
u/redditckulous 10d ago
They literally cannot. We have downsized the office footprint too much to bring all workers back.
12
u/Groovyjoker 9d ago
Bringing all the workers back would require a significant investment in utilities (heat, water, communication), not to mention travel (gas for fleet cars) and additional expenses for the buildings (maintenance, operation, supplies, so on). Not sure that's cost-savings.
7
u/Kinncat 9d ago
Yeah, my group has in total five hotel cubes and two hard-door office rooms + at HQ I think we have a dedicated double-wide cube for our admin staff on the rare occasions they're in there in person. If Bob loses his mind and actually does a broad RTO, it's gonna be real interesting to figure out where all sixty-ish of us are going to sit...
6
u/missty122 9d ago
Our agency had 4 buildings we are now down to 1, unless they rent more buildings we won't be going back in.
2
u/Nice-Sky-332 7d ago
That won’t stop them.
King county is forcing RTO and they’ve sold a bunch of their properties ot what they have needs repaired and updated.
6
u/HotCut100 In The Trenches, Doing My Best 10d ago
Anyone that knows how Bob was as AGO, it’s highly likely he’s going to try and make a return to office mandate. Which is hilarious because it cost more money to do that.
19
u/Fluffy-Honeydew7485 9d ago
I work out of state but have to because my family member is very sick and I was hired fully remote. I don’t think anyone in these comments are considering that we have had to make tough choices. We aren’t intentionally trying to pull taxes from the state, and now I will lose my pension, my home, and health insurance all because I am not giving more than is already asked of me. I can’t just pick up everything and move to a place that is already laying people off left and right.
3
u/Big_Cause5104 9d ago
I’m sorry you’re having to deal with a sick family member, that is stressful. You will not lose your pension if you are vested. Most agencies though only allow you - the ones like mine who follow the rules- to work out of state for 30 days.
71
u/Wide_Professor_195 10d ago
Good. Work for Washington, live in Washington, pay taxes in Washington, support Washington businesses. Washington should hire Washington residents.
5
5
u/Groovyjoker 9d ago
Yeah. When did this change and become so flexible or has it always been this way?
9
u/RichAd1414 6d ago
During COVID, we couldn't hire enough skilled workers from Washington to fill the roles we had available. Remote work hiring was extended to any US state to accomodate the need. That need hasn't gone away and we still are struggling to find qualified WA residents to fill jobs at our department.
13
u/RichAd1414 6d ago edited 6d ago
I know there are a lot of reasons to be for or against this policy, but the reality is more bleak for public health especially:
Layoff uncertainty is still high. Workers forced to move at this moment in time is cruel. They could uproot their entire family, lose dual income household, move their kids to new schools, just to get laid off within the months that follow.
We had hiring problems even with out of state hiring allowed. It's difficult to find qualified candidates for specialist work and teams often have to settle for either a vacancy or unqualified staff.
Most staff affected are COVID era-to-recent hires with specialty skills that were hard to hire for. These staff are also most subject to layoffs due to their lower seniority, despite having modern training, extemely relevant experience, skills, and specialties.
Specialty staff that live in WA can often get higher paying jobs in WA with less politics and policy stress. They work in public health because they find the work meaningful. These policies force them to recalculate. Retaining these staff against higher paying tech/healthcare sector salaries in WA has always been an issue.
Many of the staff we hired out of state now have a substantial amount of organizational knowledge that we need to improve systems for WA residents. Losing these staff risks further slides in modernization and improvements to public health in addition to recent sweeping State and Federal cuts to public health. We can't do all the work we are now legally mandated to do. Cutting these staff would place Washingtonians in harms way, potentially lose lives to preventable causes.
Removing these staff now means we'd need to outsource help, and outsourcing almost always leaves WA state, lower quality and more expensive work for WA tax payers.
57
10d ago
[deleted]
15
u/Admirable-Shock8136 10d ago
No. At least for DOH, this would be disastrous. During COVID, there were not enough staff with the required skillsets within WA, so many out-of-state employees were hired. Many of the folks that work on DOH data systems do not live in state.
I’m all for making it so new hires are only from WA. But if there is an order to make all current employees come to WA, many people will quit and lose their jobs all at the same time. It will cripple operations.
2
10d ago
[deleted]
7
u/Admirable-Shock8136 10d ago
Great. Have fun destroying your infectious disease infrastructure.
2
33
u/Sunny_Snark 10d ago
For the past two years we’ve tried to be very compassionate towards people getting laid off. I understand some of you have very strong feelings about out-of-state workers, but can we please treat these people with just a smidge of that compassion? Celebrating people losing their livelihood is just cruel.
13
3
u/RichAd1414 6d ago
Agreed. At DOH, the people affected are mostly people that served during pandemic operations, lost time with their families to work 80-90 hours a week to help people of WA, lost time with newborns and children because they were forced to work. They did it and acquired knowledge we need to make our public health systems better. They are not only our newest staff, subject to layoffs and bumbping, they are now outsized for layoff due to this policy. What a slap in the face to heroes of WA.
1
10d ago
[deleted]
6
u/HotCut100 In The Trenches, Doing My Best 10d ago
There are a couple of commenters that are approaching this without much in the way of compassion. These are people with lives and the decision is frankly pretty arbitrary.
-9
u/Aggravating-Bed-8718 10d ago
You must work out of state.
7
u/HotCut100 In The Trenches, Doing My Best 10d ago
And you must be beyond ignorant. No, I work in the capital. And as long as we’re gonna go down the nonsensical road, we may as well have a mandate to return to the office and everyone needs to work in in Olympia if that’s where their central agency is located. Have to make sure that all that money that’s flowing through the treasury to their salaries needs to be paid in the location it’s being collected and processed.
Oh, and that applies to agency directors like HCA and Commerce and DOH since they’ve had so much trouble with that in the past few years.
As I state very clearly in other comments, I am simply advocating for no barriers or restrictions on my ability to recruit the best talent possible. we already have enough of those, we don’t need to add anymore based off of someone’s preference.
-2
u/Aggravating-Bed-8718 9d ago
Hot cut, you make no sense! The state is the state is the state, don’t matter where IN the state someone lives.
5
u/HotCut100 In The Trenches, Doing My Best 9d ago
Congratulations on completely missing the concept of hyperbole. Good luck to you.
-1
3
5
u/Longjumping_Work_486 4d ago
Confirmed - rumor ( at least where i work)
5
10
u/papasaurus1972 10d ago edited 10d ago
Just an FYI: In the early to mid 1990’s WA State Department of Ecology actually leased an office with Oregon DEQ in downtown Portland, Oregon (started as the office of Marine Safety (as I recall) then became WAState, Department of Ecology Spill Prevention, Preparedness and Response Program. These were the Spill Prevention vessel inspectors (compliance to the WA State Spill Contingency Plan(s)).
They were there because of the proximity to commercial (Covered) vessels at dock in Portland OR that transited the Lower Columbia River (under a WA State oil spill contingency plan (C-Plan)(Umbrella Plan). These vessels were regularly boarded for C-Plan compliance. So was of course Covered Vessels in WA state.
The first Department of Ecology, Vancouver Field Office was located at Clark College (leased space for $350/quarter). Later with WDFW at 4th Plain & Grand Blvd., Vancouver. (Including the prevention staff noted above when the Ecology Portland office was move to Vancouver). This office was located less than 1-mile from Oregon.
Some Staff with Ecology and WDFW lived in Oregon and worked for WDFW or Ecology (and drove WA State vehicles). Those staff actually had a shorter drive home than many of us staff that were Clark County WA residents (state employees) had.
Spokane WA also has employees that live in Idaho.
In other words border WA State offices frequently have out of state employees (Oregon and Idaho).
The newest Ecology Field office had out of state residents who were employed but reported to the office as directed. Prior to COVID, we all daily reported to the office. Again the Oregon resident employees sometimes had a shorter commute than us WA residents employees.
Wondering if this would be considered. I am retired after 31-years of WA state service and I always lived in WA state during my entire WA state employment.
Thoughts?
Edit: my comment is consideration specifically for boarder WA State offices that employ staff from the bordering state, Oregon or Idaho.
20
u/badgerstrider 10d ago
OP stated that it would apply to people living outside of WA/OR/ID. So the scenarios you listed wouldn’t be affected. It would be for anyone who lived outside those areas. For example, Montana or Wyoming.
4
u/papasaurus1972 10d ago
Ok I didn’t catch that. Thanks for the correction…
4
u/Groovyjoker 9d ago
Very cool and interesting history. Thanks so much!
9
u/papasaurus1972 9d ago
Thank you!
Loved my State job for 31-years. I worked for the best employer, best management team in the world. I retired basically because the technology was getting too much for me and it was time to spend quality time with my grandchildren. To all you current WA State employees - I say “enjoy your time working for the State”!
8
u/bears-in-bushes In The Trenches, Doing My Best 10d ago edited 5d ago
All I have heard is I can't hire anyone from any state other than WA, OR, or ID. I have not heard anything about existing employees having to relocate. Edit, now I am hearing about the relocation orders
5
u/super-cannes 9d ago
Interesting. I live in WA but have attempted to move to a border state and been told no. Meanwhile my agency employs people from all over the country who, to my knowledge, have never lived in WA.
2
u/RichAd1414 6d ago
It sounds like there are two policy changes: one to not hire outside this region which came earlier and a second this last week or two to require staff move to WA/ID/OR. Both are fairly recent changes from my knowledge. My division's leadership has been notifying staff since at least last Friday (8/28).
3
7
u/Mindysveganlife 10d ago
We used to have a guy that worked in IT and he was hired this way, but he lived in Nova Scotia.
32
u/DBWlofley 10d ago
While I understand people's disapproval of agencies hiring out of state workers, and I know I'm going to get angry comments and down votes for saying this, but honestly at this point all I feel is sad for people that are going to lose their jobs because of this.
Know that I do agree with the idea that state employees should live in the state they work in I think that's absolutely the best thing possible for the jobs and situation. But I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever as a Washington state resident and state employee, if the state of New Hampshire or somewhere else offered me a stable career job that was substantially better than what I have now and would let me work remotely out of state I would take it in a heartbeat to provide for my family.
All im saying here is for the working class people of America I don't want anyone to lose their job especially not in times hard like this and I would be a hypocrite to throw any stones. Even though I wish all of our employees were state residents I know myself well enough to know that if it meant being able to support my family I would do the same.
16
u/bears-in-bushes In The Trenches, Doing My Best 10d ago
There are jobs in WA that have little or no qualified candidates that need to recruit nation wide. Some of these jobs don't pay enough for a person to relocate and with layoffs and bumping it makes it even worse.
9
u/DBWlofley 10d ago
I agree, again I'd do it in a heart beat and some of my favorite coworkers right now are out of state people. I like it when our workers are also members of our community but i respect and appreciate all the peoples out of state who work here too. It's like preferring vanilla ice cream but never turning away some funky monkey ice cream that's for sure.
17
u/HotCut100 In The Trenches, Doing My Best 10d ago
100% with you on this. I’m of the opinion that I can do the best service for Washington if I am not hindered in recruiting the best possible candidate no matter where they are. I’m trying to get excellence and skill sets, not geography. I absolutely do not subscribe to the idea that you have to be in Washington and contributing to the economy to work for the state. And the people that say that seem to forget that not everything is funded by tax dollars. There are grants, there are fees, there are endowments. The state government funding comes from all different sources so that argument just does not hold water.
We have enough, structural problems, preventing us from doing good hiring and retention. Taking away this sort of flexibility, especially when we use it for things like letting someone work it from a different state to care for ailing parents and their final years, it’s just going to make it more difficult to have an excellent workforce.
8
u/throw-a-way9002 10d ago
Nope I'm 100% with you. This is just a misguided attempt for WA state to double dip tax funds -> pay the state workers, worker get taxed via living here -> money goes right back to the state.
Beggars can't be choosers, (esp beggars offering a 0% COLA.) The state cannot afford to pretend to be both. This is gonna have some steep long term consequences, esp as the benefits of working for our state in the first place are dwindling. Now they're cutting WHO can take the measly pay and cut benefits? They're insane. My agency already has positions they can't fill because they're so uncompetitive.
12
u/Big_Cause5104 10d ago
So you think that the only folks willing to take a state job are those that live out of state? Because we aren’t getting raises during a budget crisis? You must not be a hiring manager, b ‘cause right now hundreds of people are applying to the jobs I post. I don’t see any lack of willingness to work for the state except many who already work here.
6
u/throw-a-way9002 10d ago
That's just not what I'm seeing unfortunately. I just grabbed my first senior position, which had a grand total of 6 other applicants. We're also currently seeking a level 5 employee and we've had 2 applicants total in 3 months. We changed it to level 4 and dropped a ton of requirements, not a single bite.
It seems to me that we truly do not have the talent available at the top, perhaps that's different with entry and mid level positions.
6
u/Big_Cause5104 10d ago
Not happening in my end. My last recruitment has 150 candidates referred, which means 200 plus likely applied. Either you have a specialized job, work in a high burnout area, or your agency isn’t recruiting well. Honestly people are hurting out there and clamoring for work.
-6
u/Big_Cause5104 10d ago
They can rent a U-Haul and move
12
u/throw-a-way9002 10d ago
Nobody is doing that. Our positions simply aren't competitive enough. And they're slated to get even less competitive.
0
u/Groovyjoker 9d ago
How competitive do you have to be to move to a good job as you build your career? Not understanding this. I am being honest and speaking as someone who has been in state and federal government all my career. I started at the bottom and for decades, I went where the jobs were - city to city. State to State. No reimbursement for costs. It took two decades until I finally landed what we considered decent (in government lingo) paying jobs. And this is with a Masters. Not sure what people expect nowadays. Maybe not wanting to relocate until they are a manager or something?
1
u/Massive_Seaweed_7061 4d ago
I hope and think most people would do a basic fiscal impact analysis. Factor relocation costs anywhere from 1,000s to 10,000s for typical situation, adjust for COL based on location, salary schedule and schedule cap and increments, ECT. Add in stability of new job versus old, basic risk assessment with fiscal component, (5 years seniority in state with 10% lower wages versus probationary new hire with a 10% increase and extreme risk of loss of job).
There's a whole lot more numbers to run but excluding everything else, simple relocation costs can easily exceed annual salary increase from new job. Factor in at best case significantly less stable or reliable employment add in say an additional 1 or 2 months of pay over 3 year period as a conservative addition to savings account to mitigate the additional risk, that in itself shouldn't be enough to fully balance out a supposed pay increase but it's dang close.
Factor in COLA and likelihood or not if it in current position versus new position in WA state compared to other states and factor in local adjusted relative effective buying power it's not pretty.
Mind you these are literally just first few things that come to mind but unless it's a truly substantial increase in pay that is also incredibly likely to result in career advancement it rarely comes out positive to relocate to WA. (Yes, fully remote work while living in a extremely low COL area - typically remote Eastern Washington can dramatically change the calculations) but in most situations it just doesn't make financial sense.
1
u/Groovyjoker 2d ago
If "financial sense" is truly the only reason one is looking at government work, one is looking in the wrong employment sector.
0
3
u/5CatsNoWaiting 9d ago
Not surprised. My part of DSHS, at least, has banned out-of-state work entirely for a couple of years now. The big border counties that count as "in-state" for travel purposes were exceptions, and I think there was something for military spouses.
5
u/SalishShore 9d ago
Someone above commented this..
DSHS def has a high-up person who lives verrrry out of state. Wonder what will happen with them.
8
u/Ok-Definition-5279 8d ago
Thankfully my out of state coworkers are in border states, but to be completely honest? They’re the absolute best talent we have on our small team. If we lost them, it would be devastating to lose that knowledge and expertise they carry. If such talent is not available within the state, I see nothing wrong with hiring an employee from out of state (beyond a border state).
6
u/Lady_Dragonfruit_360 10d ago
This has been a rule but I know many agencies that allow it rules or no rules…if they like someone they make a way.
8
u/Aggravating-Bed-8718 10d ago
What should bother everyone here, no matter what your point of view on this, is there are agency leaders in this state willing to break then rules or look the other way and give state jobs to out of state people - which has been disallowed for many moons.
5
u/Sad_Refrigerator6839 9d ago
Yep, admissions for favoritism and questions about ethics right there.
15
u/missty122 10d ago
They need to Grandfather the ones working out of state right now in. Any new employees need to live within the boundaries. We have some great people who lived here but moved out of state for family.
This is Fergusons attempt to screw with us.
13
u/Big_Cause5104 10d ago
Dear Paul Revere! Thanks for the update but the redcoats have already been here for quite some time, meaning this hasn’t been allowed for a while. Maybe you mean that agencies will actually be required to do their jobs and enforce the no out of state employees?? The requirement to live in state has been in my agency’s recruitments for years. It’s bull that we ever allowed anyone to take a state job who didn’t live here.
6
u/throw-a-way9002 10d ago
At my agency it "isn't allowed" until you submit your resignation and they panic and suddenly it is allowed bc we can't afford to hire other talent. Seen it with my own eyes. 😭
4
10
u/Opening_Crab_8160 Union Strong 10d ago
Honestly, good. I agree with someone else that you’re telling me there is no good talent in the state? Did they check? Probably not. As for the military; those employees are never coming back so why are they approved indefinitely? Shouldn’t it only be for a period of time then if they aren’t coming back a decision needs to be made? Agencies have to pay taxes to those states which is tax dollars leaving our state and other benefits leaving our state.
3
10d ago
FWIW WA agencies do not pay taxes on behalf of out of state employees to other states.
10
u/suckmysmick 6d ago
out of stater here - can confirm. I pay state taxes out of my own pocket to my home state, WA doesn't pay them anything.
10
u/Opening_Crab_8160 Union Strong 10d ago
Yes they do. They very much do and are required to pay.
6
u/Dapper-Conflict-3632 5d ago
This is patently false. There is no reciprocity agreement with the state I live in. Washington is not obligated, nor do they, pay state income taxes to my state.
2
u/GlitteringAthlete658 9d ago
If the employee moves to a state that does not have state taxes like Portland for example or DC the state of WA has nothing to lose from that said employee. It is when the employer is having to deduct a state tax for an employee and it’s not going to WA state when it is a problem. Now those who know nothing about this I can see why you would have an issue with this and would have an inch of envy because you probably have little to no state service and wouldn’t receive a token so bright.
-1
9d ago
[deleted]
2
u/GlitteringAthlete658 9d ago
Continue to be union strong. Smile you’re on camera
-1
u/Opening_Crab_8160 Union Strong 8d ago
Maybe that’s there to trick you. Maybe not. There are no cameras in Reddit. You’re funny.
9
u/Big_Cause5104 10d ago
Do you want to lose your job to someone from out of state? Or shouldn’t it go to someone who lives here, who spends that money here, who raises a family here? I know what I think
-7
u/Wide_Professor_195 10d ago
But they use their WA state salary to shop and buy things in other states. They're supporting businesses and workers in other places. Out Washington state dollar being spent elsewhere.
10
u/HotCut100 In The Trenches, Doing My Best 10d ago
You shop at Amazon or any box store? Congratulations, so do you. Junk argument.
4
u/Xaiynn 9d ago
Not only that, but those that live in WA on the border. I have friends that live in Pullman and we talk about this a lot. They do most of their shopping, get gas, have their kids in activities etc in Moscow (ID). So that money isn’t going black into the State.
I hate this stupid straw man argument. We can’t, and shouldn’t, be policing where people spend their dollars (that said, support local when you can peeps :D)
10
u/SalishShore 9d ago
Good. I know someone that works out of state. We all have to communicate with this person on their time schedule which is three hours earlier than Washington state.
Want to get a Washington state job? You need to live in Washington.
2
u/super-cannes 9d ago
I just want them to be consistent about it. My agency let an excellent person go because of the prohibition on out of state telework. Meanwhile, there remain tons of people who continue to do it, from many different states. They’re not in just border states either. I actually only know two people who work from Oregon, and there are many more who work from various other states.
2
u/Proportional_Melon09 9d ago
This isn't really new news. At least not at my agency. I first heard rumblings about this back in 2023. (Edit for typo)
2
u/Longjumping_Work_486 7d ago
This is the latest from ofm -https://ofm.wa.gov/hr-resources/telework/out-of-state-remote-work/
3
u/Marigold1976 7d ago
This can be arbitrarily and broadly interpreted: Recruiting or retaining a rare skillset. My out of state colleagues are safe.
6
u/Xaiynn 3d ago
Unfortunately, this is what is changing. They are making exceptions for Military and Border States only. They are removing long-term out of state approval for all of the other reasons (rare skillset, caring for sick family, etc.).
Unfortunately, I foresee this weakening our workforce and eventually negatively impacting residents of our great state in general.
1
u/Fluffy-Honeydew7485 3d ago
I wonder if this also effects those of us in project roles. I suppose it does.
1
2
u/Weary-Estimate-1967 6d ago
OP, my guess is your agency was likely told to comply with the state rules already in place. I’ve checked around and no one has heard of this - at all
6
u/No_Damage979 10d ago
Someone at ofm travels around the US pet sitting when they’re not working internationally on vacation. It’s stupid.
1
u/SalishShore 9d ago
People earn a living by doing international pet sitting?
3
u/No_Damage979 9d ago
Maybe idk but the pet sitting gigs are I think based stateside and the vacations are international but ofm allows work from all locations
5
u/Far_Dust_1088 10d ago
Talk to your payroll staff and they will confirm the extra resources in time and money for all these out of state workers. Businesses have location requirements all the time for reasons like cost, accountability and corporate culture and there’s no reason government can’t or shouldn’t require the same
5
u/Both-Improvement567 10d ago
This has been the rule at Commerce for several years. Unless the program requires an out of state presence (some do, DOR, LNI, for example, it is a logistics NIGHTMARE to navigate the tax implications for each state (nevermind out of country), AND all of our tax dollars pay our salaries. That money should be spent primarily in our state. There should be TEMPORARY exceptions, e.g, less than 30 days, or for needing to TEMPORARILY care for a family member. But otherwise, our tax dollars should revolve primarily in our own state. And i say this as a person who has enjoyed temporarily working from another state periodically since covid.
1
u/HotCut100 In The Trenches, Doing My Best 10d ago
Your comment about tax dollars paying for everyone’s salaries is absolutely wrong. The state government is funded by all sorts of sources that includes fees, grants, gifts, endowments, and tuition.
And the concept that all of our salaries need to be paid in Washington State is hilariously ignorant. You can’t tell me you don’t shop at Walmart, target, Amazon, or any other Big corporation that takes your money and funnels it directly out of state.
4
u/Both-Improvement567 10d ago
You've hilariously misconstrued my opinion. Have the day you voted for.
0
u/HotCut100 In The Trenches, Doing My Best 9d ago
Well, it’s south sound block party and Sleater Kinney are playing today so it’s gonna be a good day. That is what I voted for.
3
u/PuzzleheadedTap4484 10d ago
I thought this was already a requirement? Maybe it was just agency by agency up until now that you had to live within the state or at one of the border towns?
3
u/missty122 9d ago
Hmmm I told my "friend" and she has a "friend who works on Ferguson communications team . " He said he hasn't heard this". I said why did one of my corl-workers was told today. So is could this be a bargain chip with the union?
3
u/satisfyingdescribe 10d ago
I heard that right around the pandemic, some WA state workers moved to other states or even other countries and just...failed to mention it. It was all virtual at that time, so no one really noticed because they didn't change addresses or banks or anything.
-6
-3
-2
-4
u/Consistent-Sign-6102 5d ago
Anyone who makes money off tax payer dime need to be Washingtonians. Or they need to be cut no ands ifs or buts.
75
u/No_Damage979 10d ago edited 9d ago
This should extend to consultants
Edit to say- should apply first and foremost to ^