Federal Reserve RTO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is depressing. I used to work for the Fed, and I thought the staff was better than this. The answer to RTO is to form a union or strategically use leave to cover it? Thank goodness the Chair is more dedicated to the mission than those in it for an easy paycheck. Really, really disappointing.

Wow. Your response is what's depressing and disappointing. There's nothing like being lectured about loyalty to the mission by someone who left. Way to set an example. The sneering reference to a union (working people who demand a say in how their workplace is run? what horror!) matches up with the bootlicking mindset on display here.

If there's anyone who's loyal to public service, it's the current career employees who work hard every day to get the job done. That's why RTO is so frustrating, because study after study shows that employees are more efficient and productive at home, away from office gossip and idle hallway chatter. They donate otherwise wasted commuting time to doing work. But the Board members mandating this obviously love the idea of having people around saluting and fawning over them in person to stroke their egos, which is what this is about. There's a reason the RTO message didn't cite a single objective reason for the change in policy, because there isn't one. And to think they are in this for the mission? Haha, more like in it for the book deals and future paid Wall Street jobs and speaking gigs (even Saint Yellen). It's "the staff" who make the place run and do the work, and they do it better offsite.

Pretty cynical and narcissistic: no one cares as much about the Fed as poor you. You have no idea why the PP left. Maybe they’re now a SAHM. Or switched careers, retired, or moved for a spouse’s reassignment. You make it sound like they abandoned the mission for a crypto firm. As for unions, they have typically thrived where workers have been abused. Think filthy conditions, long hours, no breaks, and poor pay. None of that applies to the Fed and its employees. You’re not being abused. As for WFH, many studies show that WFH is NOT GOOD for innovation and employee engagement. WFH leads to a check-the-box mentality that wants to complete a set of tasks and sign off. Long-term, an organization like that will fail because the world is changing too quickly. As for higher ups pushing RTO to have others fawn over them, I think you’re projecting. When was the last time you fawned over a Board member? In fact, protocol denies staff such opportunities. As for leaders serving the Fed for a book deal or a Wall Street job, most of them have been-there-done-that before they get to the Fed.

Sounds like you’re completely unconcerned about only being able to hire staff living in DC or willing to relocate?

You’d prefer someone lacking experience who will come to the office as opposed to someone who worked for a large bank living in NYC and unwilling to relocate?

I’m more concerned with talent and skill set than where the person’s office is located.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP nailed it.

The total lack of justification for this move from an organization which is supposed to be "data dependent " is disappointing .

Agree. It makes me think the higher ups are completely detached from the reality of the current labor market. There seems to be this belief that employees are forced to stay and put up with this due to the labor market. This is crazy considering the unemployment rate.

An organization with an attrition rate like the Board should be way more careful in rolling out policy changes like this.

Can you share the attrition data or how you’re measuring attrition? Not long ago this argument was made in our division, but when HR shared the division’s and the Board’s current attrition rate, it was consistent with the past. Why do you think it is different?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is depressing. I used to work for the Fed, and I thought the staff was better than this. The answer to RTO is to form a union or strategically use leave to cover it? Thank goodness the Chair is more dedicated to the mission than those in it for an easy paycheck. Really, really disappointing.

Wow. Newsflash - you can be a union supporter AND support “the missiom.” There is a reason every single other financial agency has a union and it’s not that Fed workers are somehow more dedicated to the “mission.” Unless your view is that the “mission” means employees shouldn’t care about the terms and conditions of their employment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many large and admired private organizations (Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.) are now cutting jobs because they overhired during the pandemic. Yet, they expect to do just as well or better in the future. These same companies are also requiring more people to return to the office. One issue they cite is the decline in innovation. What makes you think that the Fed - a government bureaucracy - is immune to the same issues and remedies?

Because the Fed should be more concerned with hiring talent with the appropriate experience than forcing them to go into an office to innovate. The Fed isn’t google.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP nailed it.

The total lack of justification for this move from an organization which is supposed to be "data dependent " is disappointing .

Agree. It makes me think the higher ups are completely detached from the reality of the current labor market. There seems to be this belief that employees are forced to stay and put up with this due to the labor market. This is crazy considering the unemployment rate.

An organization with an attrition rate like the Board should be way more careful in rolling out policy changes like this.

Can you share the attrition data or how you’re measuring attrition? Not long ago this argument was made in our division, but when HR shared the division’s and the Board’s current attrition rate, it was consistent with the past. Why do you think it is different?

Our division was told the complete opposite. Our division is hemorrhaging staff. It’s been a problem since early 2022.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is depressing. I used to work for the Fed, and I thought the staff was better than this. The answer to RTO is to form a union or strategically use leave to cover it? Thank goodness the Chair is more dedicated to the mission than those in it for an easy paycheck. Really, really disappointing.

Wow. Newsflash - you can be a union supporter AND support “the missiom.” There is a reason every single other financial agency has a union and it’s not that Fed workers are somehow more dedicated to the “mission.” Unless your view is that the “mission” means employees shouldn’t care about the terms and conditions of their employment.

I don’t understand why any of them have a union. As a PP said, unions are typically found where workers are abused and cannot effectively negotiate for themselves. I wouldn’t characterize $300k, a pension, a 401k, and lots of vacation and sick time for 40 hours of work in an individual office with a door as being abused. Also, the Fed has been VERY generous with WFH, including massive tolerance for parents with young children at home, during the pandemic. Your work conditions and pay are beyond compare for what you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is depressing. I used to work for the Fed, and I thought the staff was better than this. The answer to RTO is to form a union or strategically use leave to cover it? Thank goodness the Chair is more dedicated to the mission than those in it for an easy paycheck. Really, really disappointing.

Wow. Newsflash - you can be a union supporter AND support “the missiom.” There is a reason every single other financial agency has a union and it’s not that Fed workers are somehow more dedicated to the “mission.” Unless your view is that the “mission” means employees shouldn’t care about the terms and conditions of their employment.

I don’t understand why any of them have a union. As a PP said, unions are typically found where workers are abused and cannot effectively negotiate for themselves. I wouldn’t characterize $300k, a pension, a 401k, and lots of vacation and sick time for 40 hours of work in an individual office with a door as being abused. Also, the Fed has been VERY generous with WFH, including massive tolerance for parents with young children at home, during the pandemic. Your work conditions and pay are beyond compare for what you do.

They have a union to establish the terms and conditions of employment in a way that uses their collective influence and does not rest on the arbitrary whims of a manager. Not too hard to understand! Unions also protect against retaliation and unfair discipline - very important to maintain examiner integrity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is depressing. I used to work for the Fed, and I thought the staff was better than this. The answer to RTO is to form a union or strategically use leave to cover it? Thank goodness the Chair is more dedicated to the mission than those in it for an easy paycheck. Really, really disappointing.

Wow. Newsflash - you can be a union supporter AND support “the missiom.” There is a reason every single other financial agency has a union and it’s not that Fed workers are somehow more dedicated to the “mission.” Unless your view is that the “mission” means employees shouldn’t care about the terms and conditions of their employment.

I don’t understand why any of them have a union. As a PP said, unions are typically found where workers are abused and cannot effectively negotiate for themselves. I wouldn’t characterize $300k, a pension, a 401k, and lots of vacation and sick time for 40 hours of work in an individual office with a door as being abused. Also, the Fed has been VERY generous with WFH, including massive tolerance for parents with young children at home, during the pandemic. Your work conditions and pay are beyond compare for what you do.

They have a union to establish the terms and conditions of employment in a way that uses their collective influence and does not rest on the arbitrary whims of a manager. Not too hard to understand! Unions also protect against retaliation and unfair discipline - very important to maintain examiner integrity.

(Also - who is getting 300k?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many large and admired private organizations (Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.) are now cutting jobs because they overhired during the pandemic. Yet, they expect to do just as well or better in the future. These same companies are also requiring more people to return to the office. One issue they cite is the decline in innovation. What makes you think that the Fed - a government bureaucracy - is immune to the same issues and remedies?

Because the Fed should be more concerned with hiring talent with the appropriate experience than forcing them to go into an office to innovate. The Fed isn’t google.

If you don’t think the Fed needs to innovate, the Fed should fire you. Let’s see, in the past few years there’s been crypto/digital coins, climate, fintech, financial stability, payment processing, LIBOR/SOFR to name a few issues that have required new or significantly revised study, policy, and supervisory changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many large and admired private organizations (Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.) are now cutting jobs because they overhired during the pandemic. Yet, they expect to do just as well or better in the future. These same companies are also requiring more people to return to the office. One issue they cite is the decline in innovation. What makes you think that the Fed - a government bureaucracy - is immune to the same issues and remedies?

Because the Fed should be more concerned with hiring talent with the appropriate experience than forcing them to go into an office to innovate. The Fed isn’t google.

The Fed cannot compete on private sector salaries, so it MUST compete on other terms & conditions, like WFH. There are actual scholarly articles written about how the financial markets cannot be well regulated unless financial regulators can attract and retain the best staff, given ALL the money on the other side. It’s not optional - the Fed cannot treat its employees as disposible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many large and admired private organizations (Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.) are now cutting jobs because they overhired during the pandemic. Yet, they expect to do just as well or better in the future. These same companies are also requiring more people to return to the office. One issue they cite is the decline in innovation. What makes you think that the Fed - a government bureaucracy - is immune to the same issues and remedies?

Because the Fed should be more concerned with hiring talent with the appropriate experience than forcing them to go into an office to innovate. The Fed isn’t google.

If you don’t think the Fed needs to innovate, the Fed should fire you. Let’s see, in the past few years there’s been crypto/digital coins, climate, fintech, financial stability, payment processing, LIBOR/SOFR to name a few issues that have required new or significantly revised study, policy, and supervisory changes.

Does one have to show up in the office to “innovate”? It’s an easy calculus - WFH attracts and retains smart people who can innovate on Teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many large and admired private organizations (Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.) are now cutting jobs because they overhired during the pandemic. Yet, they expect to do just as well or better in the future. These same companies are also requiring more people to return to the office. One issue they cite is the decline in innovation. What makes you think that the Fed - a government bureaucracy - is immune to the same issues and remedies?

Because the Fed should be more concerned with hiring talent with the appropriate experience than forcing them to go into an office to innovate. The Fed isn’t google.

If you don’t think the Fed needs to innovate, the Fed should fire you. Let’s see, in the past few years there’s been crypto/digital coins, climate, fintech, financial stability, payment processing, LIBOR/SOFR to name a few issues that have required new or significantly revised study, policy, and supervisory changes.

That’s not innovation. It’s reacting and responding to innovation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is depressing. I used to work for the Fed, and I thought the staff was better than this. The answer to RTO is to form a union or strategically use leave to cover it? Thank goodness the Chair is more dedicated to the mission than those in it for an easy paycheck. Really, really disappointing.

Wow. Newsflash - you can be a union supporter AND support “the missiom.” There is a reason every single other financial agency has a union and it’s not that Fed workers are somehow more dedicated to the “mission.” Unless your view is that the “mission” means employees shouldn’t care about the terms and conditions of their employment.

I don’t understand why any of them have a union. As a PP said, unions are typically found where workers are abused and cannot effectively negotiate for themselves. I wouldn’t characterize $300k, a pension, a 401k, and lots of vacation and sick time for 40 hours of work in an individual office with a door as being abused. Also, the Fed has been VERY generous with WFH, including massive tolerance for parents with young children at home, during the pandemic. Your work conditions and pay are beyond compare for what you do.

They have a union to establish the terms and conditions of employment in a way that uses their collective influence and does not rest on the arbitrary whims of a manager. Not too hard to understand! Unions also protect against retaliation and unfair discipline - very important to maintain examiner integrity.

You’ve defined what a union does, but not why the Fed needs one. Based on the previous post, I don’t understand how a union could improve your life, except full-time telework/remote for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many large and admired private organizations (Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.) are now cutting jobs because they overhired during the pandemic. Yet, they expect to do just as well or better in the future. These same companies are also requiring more people to return to the office. One issue they cite is the decline in innovation. What makes you think that the Fed - a government bureaucracy - is immune to the same issues and remedies?

Because the Fed should be more concerned with hiring talent with the appropriate experience than forcing them to go into an office to innovate. The Fed isn’t google.

If you don’t think the Fed needs to innovate, the Fed should fire you. Let’s see, in the past few years there’s been crypto/digital coins, climate, fintech, financial stability, payment processing, LIBOR/SOFR to name a few issues that have required new or significantly revised study, policy, and supervisory changes.

Does one have to show up in the office to “innovate”? It’s an easy calculus - WFH attracts and retains smart people who can innovate on Teams.

And in terms of hiring someone to write policy for these market innovations, would you rather be able to hire someone in another part of the country with a lot of experience? Or do you want to be limited to hiring people in DC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many large and admired private organizations (Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.) are now cutting jobs because they overhired during the pandemic. Yet, they expect to do just as well or better in the future. These same companies are also requiring more people to return to the office. One issue they cite is the decline in innovation. What makes you think that the Fed - a government bureaucracy - is immune to the same issues and remedies?

Because the Fed should be more concerned with hiring talent with the appropriate experience than forcing them to go into an office to innovate. The Fed isn’t google.

If you don’t think the Fed needs to innovate, the Fed should fire you. Let’s see, in the past few years there’s been crypto/digital coins, climate, fintech, financial stability, payment processing, LIBOR/SOFR to name a few issues that have required new or significantly revised study, policy, and supervisory changes.

That’s not innovation. It’s reacting and responding to innovation.

It’s innovation in research, policy, and supervisory practice. You seem to have a very narrow view of innovation. Regardless what you call it, such initiatives require a lot of time and coordination from a lot of individuals, which is better done at the office.