Biden wants RTO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My office is paying over $1M a year for rent and utilities for a nearly empty floor of an office building in the DC suburbs. That's just one 100 FTE group out of the entire fed workforce. GAO said most federal offices have less than 25% occupancy.

SOMETHING needs to happen. Either we return to the office more, or they let these leases go (doesn't even include the federally-owned buildings around the country).

My program terminated lease and consolidated spaces last year and now they are talking about bringing workers back, there is no space. The stupidity of the management has no end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a bad move. I'm a DOJ attorney, and constantly evaluating my private sector options. If WFH is reduced, I'll go with the money, understanding that I am being paid more and going in at least as often.

Private sector is demanding more and more days in office. Many top firms now want 3-4 days in the office a week. There are firms offering full-time virtual or more flexible hybrid schedules, but increasingly they are offering them to a segregated workforce. So partners and partner-track associates are in office more, but staff attorneys might be virtual. But there's a significant loss in pay associated with that.

Firms are increasingly worried about the impact on by culture and productivity of widespread WFH. Sure, it works in some legal specialties and for some people. But I am hearing more and more partners talking about issues with associates not even coming close to their billable targets, or just a general loss of camaraderie at the firm due to the combination of WFH and a very active lateral market.

All of which is to say, I think you are idealizing private practice because you are mad about having to go into the office. And the feds actually know that private industry is moving more and more back to the office, that's part of why this push is happening.

Did you happen to read the post? OP said they knew they would have to go in more if they went private, but they would be paid a lot more, which sounds like an accurate assessment of the market.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a bad move. I'm a DOJ attorney, and constantly evaluating my private sector options. If WFH is reduced, I'll go with the money, understanding that I am being paid more and going in at least as often.

And the DOJ will replace you in a heartbeat. Bye!

sure. but the agency loses someone who presumably has worked there for several years over something stupid.

This happens everyday in the private sector. People come and go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a bad move. I'm a DOJ attorney, and constantly evaluating my private sector options. If WFH is reduced, I'll go with the money, understanding that I am being paid more and going in at least as often.

And the DOJ will replace you in a heartbeat. Bye!

Same, we have all of these people in their 60s and 70s threatening to retire if we return to the office and although I’d rather stay home too I hope we go back just enough for them all to retire from the jobs they’ve been sitting in for decades.

+1. They all believe they're irreplaceable. Call their bluff.

Exactly. How many threads alone are there on DCUM asking how to get a federal job if you are not a military vet? A helluva lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a bad move. I'm a DOJ attorney, and constantly evaluating my private sector options. If WFH is reduced, I'll go with the money, understanding that I am being paid more and going in at least as often.

And the DOJ will replace you in a heartbeat. Bye!

Same, we have all of these people in their 60s and 70s threatening to retire if we return to the office and although I’d rather stay home too I hope we go back just enough for them all to retire from the jobs they’ve been sitting in for decades.

+1. They all believe they're irreplaceable. Call their bluff.

No one is replaceable but it takes a loooooooooong time to hire even one. If a few leave, that program will suffer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a bad move. I'm a DOJ attorney, and constantly evaluating my private sector options. If WFH is reduced, I'll go with the money, understanding that I am being paid more and going in at least as often.

And the DOJ will replace you in a heartbeat. Bye!

sure. but the agency loses someone who presumably has worked there for several years over something stupid.

This happens everyday in the private sector. People come and go.

Agreed. Not sure why government workers think they’re irreplaceable. At my agency, there are hundreds of applicants for every job. If the rage quitters leave, we’ll never miss their lazy/non-existent efforts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a bad move. I'm a DOJ attorney, and constantly evaluating my private sector options. If WFH is reduced, I'll go with the money, understanding that I am being paid more and going in at least as often.

And the DOJ will replace you in a heartbeat. Bye!

Same, we have all of these people in their 60s and 70s threatening to retire if we return to the office and although I’d rather stay home too I hope we go back just enough for them all to retire from the jobs they’ve been sitting in for decades.

+1. They all believe they're irreplaceable. Call their bluff.

No one is replaceable but it takes a loooooooooong time to hire even one. If a few leave, that program will suffer

Yes, but you weren’t doing anything anyway. So, pay a big salary to a permanent loser or pay a lower salary to a new worker four months from now who wants to contribute so they’ll be promoted next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We’re now seriously arguing that if Trump were president he wouldn’t be ordering federal workers back to the office? Really?

No Ms. Strawman, we are not arguing that because Trump is not in office and its irrelevant.
Really.

Only replying to the poster who said they wouldn’t vote Biden 2024 because of RTO. Republicans are much more hellbent on making life difficult for Feds.

This is not as clear an issue as you'd think, and I'll take my chances with a Republican if Biden continues this nonsense. For example, the former chair of FDIC was a Republican and was very pro-WFH, then she quit and now her successor, who is a Democrat, has been endlessly trying to find ways to undercut WFH, even though the CBA allows full-time WFH for most employees. The Republican former chair was pro-WFH because she thought it was good for cutting costs associated with expensive building leases.

Also, if you look back historically, pay raises for federal employees have been more generous under Republican administrations. Remember all those pay freezes under Obama? (Don't rely on the pay raise that happened in the past year, which was an anomaly in the grand scheme.)

I'm a Democrat, but while most stuff that happens at the national level really doesn't impact me, forcing me to go back to the office absolutely does, and so for the first time in my life, I will vote for a Republican president if Biden continues this effort.

Obama proposed a federal pay raise and the Republican congress blocked it, forcing a pay freeze. But ok, his fault. Have you read anything that Trump or DeSantis has said about the deep state and federal employees? If you're a single issue voter on the federal workforce this is not a close call.

This is a rewriting of history. Obama preemptively offered the two-year pay freeze because he was a terrible negotiator. There was no proposal for a pay raise that was blocked. I was a federal employee at the time, and we were shocked by it.

https://thehill.com/regulation/business/142381-house-overrides-obama-votes-to-freeze-federal-pay-for-third-straight-year/

[Anonymous]

My agency is currently at 2 days in office per pay period, which was agreed to by our union. If they increase in-office days, I think the most they could go to is 2x per week, since that was the max required before the pandemic. Annoying, but not really that big of a deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well sounds like all these federal attorneys will have no trouble finding private sector jobs and everyone is good buying coffee near their house so I guess we'll just let central business districts die and it will have no negative impacts on anyone including the people who are crying about the idea of having to go into an office 3 days a week. Cool story, bro.

That's also why we should prop up coal mining forever! Capitalism! Free market!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a bad move. I'm a DOJ attorney, and constantly evaluating my private sector options. If WFH is reduced, I'll go with the money, understanding that I am being paid more and going in at least as often.

And the DOJ will replace you in a heartbeat. Bye!

Maybe not, given budget issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a bad move. I'm a DOJ attorney, and constantly evaluating my private sector options. If WFH is reduced, I'll go with the money, understanding that I am being paid more and going in at least as often.

And the DOJ will replace you in a heartbeat. Bye!

Same, we have all of these people in their 60s and 70s threatening to retire if we return to the office and although I’d rather stay home too I hope we go back just enough for them all to retire from the jobs they’ve been sitting in for decades.

+1. They all believe they're irreplaceable. Call their bluff.

No one is replaceable but it takes a loooooooooong time to hire even one. If a few leave, that program will suffer

No, it really won't. Back in the Bush II administration, all of our vacancies were taken away, we were cut to whatever FTE on-board count we were at the moment.

And we didn't suffer. Instead we had to really think about which positions to replace.

There's a LOT of fluff and we all know it.

[Anonymous]

I've never understood federal employee unions. Feds already have tons of protections, what is the need?

[Anonymous]

I've never understood federal employee unions. Feds already have tons of protections, what is the need?

I was in one when I worked as a writing attorney, and I did find it helpful in terms of the union negotiating standards for number of decisions needed to get a good rating, as well as detail and training opportunities (which not everyone could do at once). Not at the VA, which I know was discussed a lot here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've never understood federal employee unions. Feds already have tons of protections, what is the need?

One example at my agency management gave up a ton of office space and they are now expecting employees to store federal records at their houses. This isn't coming from the line managers, it's the political appointees that pull this nonsense.