u/Resident_Artist_6486

My parents own property worth about $2m. They want to sell me that property for $300k so they can improve their second home in Florida and live the rest of their lives down there. I don't really see a down side to this except I have numerous siblings who are upset that the parents are selling me the property (none of the siblings have the means or the ability to live on that property due to it's remote location). I am retiring next year and this would be a good move for me. However; there is no Trust set up. They have a will - which I have no idea what is in it. I know they have difficult relationships with all of the children except me - mostly because I am the oldest and was very independent and took care of myself from an early age.

Is there any chance this could come bite me in the butt later on when they pass? Is there something I need to do to protect myself from any of my siblings who might raise a legal stink?

This leaked memo popped up in one of the many several RTO threads from the last 24 hours after the statewide department RTO notices went out to employees statewide.

What follows is the leaked memo word for word, and a crafted letter of rebuttal using AI to help frame the argument in its entirety for SEIU/CAPS/PECG, and the Legislature. PLEASE COPY AND SHARE THE REBUTTAL WITH UNIONS AND LEGISLATORS to help them in this fight. We should NOT accept a standardized, one-size-fits-all RTO order simply to bolster real estate and geographic business needs.

Leaked Memo:

>Dear Cabinet Secretaries –

>As promised this morning, I write to remind everyone of Executive Order N-22-25, which requires all departments to bring state employees back to the office for a minimum of 4 in-person days per week. As you all know, CalHR last year negotiated agreements with the unions to delay the implementation of the Executive Order until July 1, 2026. Cabinet Secretaries should take all necessary steps to implement the Executive Order, effective July 1, 2026, with an expectation of working in the office or in the field 4 days per week.

>In implementing the Executive Order, agencies and departments should be well underway with their plans to address office space needs and other work-related conditions as we return all telework-eligible employees to the office 4 days per week. As you evaluate your current operations, including space needs, be thoughtful in your transition and use a structured and equitable approach. Individual departments will approach this transition in different ways depending upon what works best and what makes the most sense for your organization and its operations. We all, however, should move to a hybrid schedule that involves telework no more than one day each week.

>Ninety-eight percent of departments have sufficient space for all employees to return to the office 4 days per week. We recognize that some departments do have real space constraints that will preclude every covered employee from returning to the office 4 days each week on July 1. However, we understand this space shortage to affect fewer than 2% of state employees, when incorporating the following guidance. We will address those constraints individually.

>In the interim, departments with ongoing space needs should make sure that all existing space is filled on July 1. Not having sufficient space for all employees to be in the office at least 4 days will not excuse or delay a return to office to the maximum extent feasible. Importantly, all available workstations must be filled at least four days per week.

>For those departments without sufficient space, continue working with the Department of General Services (DGS) to address space needs. We encourage agencies and departments to consider that not every office visit needs a large workstation and to be efficient with space use. Consider the options listed below as a guide and note that this is not an exhaustive list. These approaches should be considered temporary until adequate space is secured:

>Strategically expand space availability. Are there ways to add desks or augment workstations to make better use of existing office space to maximize the use of existing resources? Confirm actual constraints. For July 1, 2026, focus on the number of state employees, less vacancies and exemptions. Prioritize space for state employees first. At this stage, vacancies should not be factored into space needs. Assuming the office space is used as extensively as possible, how many employees eligible for the 4-day return to office would not have a workstation? Consider, for example: How many employees are eligible for one of the exemptions listed in the CalHR exception guidance? Consider if a dedicated space is needed for individuals where their work is at an alternate work location. For example, auditors and field staff may only need meeting rooms or quiet rooms for a short stay to complete the remainder of their day if otherwise required to work off site. View office space from a portfolio, not specific location, perspective. If one office building has an excess of workstations and another in the same geographic area has too few, restack space within your portfolio to maximize the number of workstations utilized. Understand that the SAM guidelines related to space are maximums, not minimums, and are not entitlements. Generally, employees who might be allowed to have a private office in the guidelines (ex: upper management) are not required to be in an office. Utilize the space types you have instead of focusing on configurations/setups that go beyond requirements. DGS has identified additional office space available in Sacramento. Departments with insufficient space should work with DGS to explore these alternative spaces. Reach out to state departments in the same building, city, and/or region to see if they have excess space that your employees could occupy. If, after assessing space availability and actual need, departments remain short on workstations, departments should prioritize keeping teams together to facilitate collaboration when determining how to allocate available space. Solutions should be intentional, fact-based, based on objective criteria, and applied consistently. A rotational program where employees work in the office fewer than four days per week is not an appropriate solution.

>Agencies and departments should work with their labor relations offices for communications to employee representatives. CalHR has issued statewide guidance on exceptions to this directive, and questions about guidance may be directed to LR.Info@calhr.ca.gov. Questions about space should be directed to DGS at DGSRTOInquiry@dgs.ca.gov. As more information becomes available, we will keep you informed and update this guidance. Transitioning to a 4-day-per-week hybrid structure allows greater collaboration and cohesion across our teams and enhances our ability to serve all Californians effectively.

>Thank you very much for your collaboration on this Administration priority. (and FYI – CalHR will soon be reaching out to your Departments to help coordinate the next steps)

The AI Rebuttal Letter:

>IN RESPONSE TO THE STATEWIDE RETURN-TO-OFFICE DIRECTIVE

>The recent Return-to-Office memorandum raises significant concerns regarding workforce impacts, operational consistency, fiscal responsibility, and the absence of evidence supporting a mandatory four-day in-office schedule for telework-eligible employees.

>For several years, state employees have continued delivering critical public services under hybrid and remote work arrangements. Departments have maintained operations, met statutory obligations, implemented major programs, and adapted successfully to evolving service demands. Yet the memorandum does not provide measurable evidence demonstrating that current telework practices have reduced productivity, harmed collaboration, or impaired service to Californians.

>Instead, the directive imposes a near-uniform statewide requirement without adequately accounting for the substantial differences in departmental missions, classification duties, geographic realities, recruitment conditions, and operational needs.

>The memorandum repeatedly references “collaboration” and “cohesion,” but offers no objective metrics establishing why four in-office days are necessary, why fewer days are insufficient, or which functions specifically require physical presence. Many telework-eligible employees perform analytical, technical, administrative, policy, and project-based work that has demonstrably been completed successfully in remote environments.

>The memo also reveals serious operational inconsistencies. While claiming that nearly all departments have adequate space, it simultaneously directs departments to compress workstations, reconfigure offices, share facilities, eliminate dedicated spaces, use temporary overflow arrangements, and maximize occupancy of every available workstation. These measures strongly suggest that many departments are not operationally prepared for implementation.

>Employees should not bear the burden of insufficient planning, inadequate facilities, or shifting workplace standards through overcrowding, hoteling arrangements, reduced privacy, or diminished working conditions.

>Additionally, the directive fails to address foreseeable impacts on recruitment and retention. Telework flexibility has become a critical factor in attracting and retaining skilled employees, particularly in classifications where state compensation already struggles to remain competitive with the private sector and local governments. Reducing workplace flexibility without corresponding compensation adjustments risks increasing vacancies, turnover, burnout, and loss of institutional knowledge.

>The directive also appears inconsistent with broader statewide goals related to climate policy, traffic reduction, modernization, and efficient use of taxpayer resources. Increased commuting, expanded facility utilization, and additional office infrastructure costs may generate substantial expense without demonstrated operational benefit.

>We believe decisions affecting tens of thousands of employees should be evidence-based, operationally justified, equitable, and developed collaboratively with labor organizations and affected departments. A one-size-fits-all attendance mandate does not reflect the operational realities of California’s workforce.

>We urge the Administration to:

• Provide measurable data supporting the operational necessity of a four-day in-office mandate;
• Allow departments flexibility to determine appropriate telework levels based on actual business needs;
• Preserve negotiated working conditions and meaningful labor engagement;
• Consider recruitment, retention, accessibility, and regional workforce impacts;
• Prioritize measurable public-service outcomes over workstation occupancy targets.

>California state employees have consistently demonstrated professionalism, adaptability, and commitment to public service. Workplace policies should build upon that success rather than impose rigid requirements unsupported by transparent operational evidence.

Pretty much what the title says. I was rated on multiple conditions at 20% service connected on each - while deferred on PTSD and TBI pending C&Ps. So they already applied VA math and rated me at 70% - but I'm wondering if they come back and recalculate this after my next round of C&Ps and adjusted disability %?