Do you think DOGE will eliminate remote policy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In life, if you spread yourself too thin and try to do too many things at once, you'll succeed at none of them. DOGE seems to forget this key lesson. Just too unfocused.

Exactly. Ditto for the entire administration. The notion that Trump is gonna burn one ounce of political capital on Vivek’s little obsession (that nobody in normal America understands or cares about) is absurd.

I haven’t heard Trump even mention DOGE — I think he has bigger fish to fry with, like, wars, immigration, economy. Stuff he actually ran on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In life, if you spread yourself too thin and try to do too many things at once, you'll succeed at none of them. DOGE seems to forget this key lesson. Just too unfocused.

Exactly. Ditto for the entire administration. The notion that Trump is gonna burn one ounce of political capital on Vivek’s little obsession (that nobody in normal America understands or cares about) is absurd.

I haven’t heard Trump even mention DOGE — I think he has bigger fish to fry with, like, wars, immigration, economy. Stuff he actually ran on.

Trump doesn’t like the deep state and is completely on board with project 2025, which discusses shrinking the federal workforce.

I would am more terrified of Musk’s influence.

[Anonymous]

So what’s to keep Trump from announcing he’s forced thousands of Federal workers to return to the office or that he’s cut the workforce and saved millions or billions of dollars? It seems like fact-checking him is something his supporters are generally reluctant to and like those who want and benefit from remote work would be hesitant to point out the claims are bogus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DOGE is just two guys in room. They’re not Congress, an office or anything. Baddies how long til Trump gets sick if musk and moves on to his next shiny object?

I agree. It's just bluster right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DOGE is just two guys in room. They’re not Congress, an office or anything. Baddies how long til Trump gets sick if musk and moves on to his next shiny object?

I agree. It's just bluster right now.

I don't get this "only two guys" thing. Those two guys have DT's ear... That's the only thing that matters for now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i do hope they mandate 5 days per week in office. i have a few people i'd like to get rid of in my office.

Just get rid of them. If you actually cared, you’d go through the steps to document performance issues and terminate them.

If whatever about them you dislike doesn’t rise to that level and you actually can’t fire them, you’re just a nasty excuse for a human being.

Me too. Some of them are just deadweight and federal laws/Union makes it so difficult and time consuming. I am hoping this would help getting rid of some of the non-performers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i do hope they mandate 5 days per week in office. i have a few people i'd like to get rid of in my office.

Just get rid of them. If you actually cared, you’d go through the steps to document performance issues and terminate them.

If whatever about them you dislike doesn’t rise to that level and you actually can’t fire them, you’re just a nasty excuse for a human being.

Me too. Some of them are just deadweight and federal laws/Union makes it so difficult and time consuming. I am hoping this would help getting rid of some of the non-performers.

Just do your job and fire them. You are the problem here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i do hope they mandate 5 days per week in office. i have a few people i'd like to get rid of in my office.

Just get rid of them. If you actually cared, you’d go through the steps to document performance issues and terminate them.

If whatever about them you dislike doesn’t rise to that level and you actually can’t fire them, you’re just a nasty excuse for a human being.

Me too. Some of them are just deadweight and federal laws/Union makes it so difficult and time consuming. I am hoping this would help getting rid of some of the non-performers.

Just do your job and fire them. You are the problem here.

lol, you can't fire them silly. they are protected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i do hope they mandate 5 days per week in office. i have a few people i'd like to get rid of in my office.

Just get rid of them. If you actually cared, you’d go through the steps to document performance issues and terminate them.

If whatever about them you dislike doesn’t rise to that level and you actually can’t fire them, you’re just a nasty excuse for a human being.

Me too. Some of them are just deadweight and federal laws/Union makes it so difficult and time consuming. I am hoping this would help getting rid of some of the non-performers.

Just do your job and fire them. You are the problem here.

lol, you can't fire them silly. they are protected.

This. I have email chains and other paper trails to get rid of someone. You know what they did, move them to a different department so they could spend their last few years until retirement checking emails.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i do hope they mandate 5 days per week in office. i have a few people i'd like to get rid of in my office.

Just get rid of them. If you actually cared, you’d go through the steps to document performance issues and terminate them.

If whatever about them you dislike doesn’t rise to that level and you actually can’t fire them, you’re just a nasty excuse for a human being.

Me too. Some of them are just deadweight and federal laws/Union makes it so difficult and time consuming. I am hoping this would help getting rid of some of the non-performers.

Just do your job and fire them. You are the problem here.

lol, you can't fire them silly. they are protected.

This. I have email chains and other paper trails to get rid of someone. You know what they did, move them to a different department so they could spend their last few years until retirement checking emails.

Exactly. And when it comes to old workers, the cost and time involved of firing someone exceedss the cost of just allowing them to read the Post all day until retirement.

So yes, it is possible to fire someone, but it isn't the most cost-effective option.

They should really make it much easier to fire people older than 50. That's when productivity, skills, and intellect seem to nose-dive. Or at least make it much easier to demote them two grades.

[Anonymous]

My wife and I work for the Federal government. She has WFH from the COVID beginning. Her agency repurposed her office (and several others. an entire floor) during COVID so that she no longer occupies a dedicated office on site. She only returns to the office for extraordinary reasons, once every 6 weeks or so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My wife and I work for the Federal government. She has WFH from the COVID beginning. Her agency repurposed her office (and several others. an entire floor) during COVID so that she no longer occupies a dedicated office on site. She only returns to the office for extraordinary reasons, once every 6 weeks or so.

How is this in any way responsive?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife and I work for the Federal government. She has WFH from the COVID beginning. Her agency repurposed her office (and several others. an entire floor) during COVID so that she no longer occupies a dedicated office on site. She only returns to the office for extraordinary reasons, once every 6 weeks or so.

How is this in any way responsive?

Because remote policy cannot be eliminated if no office exists to which the employee can return.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My wife and I work for the Federal government. She has WFH from the COVID beginning. Her agency repurposed her office (and several others. an entire floor) during COVID so that she no longer occupies a dedicated office on site. She only returns to the office for extraordinary reasons, once every 6 weeks or so.

No one cares if your wife has a dedicated office if the agency or dept has office space she can be called back to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DOGE is just two guys in room. They’re not Congress, an office or anything. Baddies how long til Trump gets sick if musk and moves on to his next shiny object?

I agree. It's just bluster right now.

I don't get this "only two guys" thing. Those two guys have DT's ear... That's the only thing that matters for now.

I also don't get why people seem so confident laws and rules will matter to these folks.