Does anyone thinking about leaving fed job (or taking a break) if forced to RTO 5 days a week?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What did anti-RTO people do before the pandemic?

I only took jobs within areas where I could handle the commute. But I'm in a fully remote job now, and the location where we would RTO isn't a location where I ever would have accepted a job.

Also, I worked my 8 hours and I went home. I work a lot more and my career has grown, and I'm not giving that up.

It’s not your call. Why not find another job if they force you to? The system will continue to move with or without any of us.

It actually will be hurt if there are significant numbers of quits. I don't think that will happen, but federal employees by and large do things that are Congressionally mandated. Often they are congressionally mandated programs serving citizens, who will no longer be served.

Yes, that maybe but the system will still move forward. Do you really think the new team cares about that? It’s all about evening news and headcount.

do they care if their constituents are hurt? I realize that the administration does not, but I have to believe that even R house members care about reelection.

You’re kidding, right?

No. House R's already are negotiating on cutting various social spending programs, because they come from poor districts that benefit from those programs. I realize you've moved to nihilism, so maybe just get off the internet for a while.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll go back. I'll be much more of a clock watcher, though.

However, we are 50% in the office, as we don't have space for everyone. Where will they put us?

they will double you up

That is false.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is a common set-up: two parents out of the house 10 hours a day, scrambling to provide care for their own children. We make it work because we have to.

And what benefit is there to society in making more people have to deal with this?

Did you care about the rest of society before this impacted you?

Answer the question first. What is the benefit of this?

NP. There is no benefit. RTO is a step backwards for society. They just like to crap on women who will be disproportionately affected by childcare conflicts and forced to resign.

Why are women watching their kids when they are supposed to be working. You do see you actually answered the question "what is the benefit" - the company actually gets a full time employee back for the full time they have been paying people who were not actually working. THATS the benefit. The companies have caught on to your BS and now you are mad. Get over it.

First of all- some of us who worked from home with small kids had nanny or mother’s helper part time.
Second, not all work a 9-5. So I had a ton of flexibility to be able to handle some kid stuff so long as my supervisor know when I was on/off.
Finally, a good agency Will properly manage remote workers. We have metrics and performance standards in place. It’s apparent if someone is t working. I was able
To receive several performance awards while working at home with kids.

Just because you cannot fathom how moms working from home get work done.. . Well that doesn’t mean sh—. It’s doable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What did anti-RTO people do before the pandemic?

My agency had generous telework (including during the first Trump administration). Remote/telework was encouraged across government agencies. This has been the case since about 2014.

+2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What did anti-RTO people do before the pandemic?

Many of us … worked from home long before the pandemic. 🤷‍♀️

COVID has just made the technology better to do so, that was the biggest change.

And was a cost saving measure, which apparently is what all those Real Americans want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is a common set-up: two parents out of the house 10 hours a day, scrambling to provide care for their own children. We make it work because we have to.

And what benefit is there to society in making more people have to deal with this?

So your question (why should I have to suffer like you, essentially) comes across as a bit… privileged to those of us who do essential in-person jobs.

Nice try. Answer the question. What benefit is there to society in making other people’s lives worse?

You mean: What if we are all as self-serving as you?

Who is going to teach your children? Who is going to provide after-school activities and childcare for you? Who is going to be at the urgent care when you or your child get sick?

See, it’s really tiresome for those of us who work for the betterment of society (which often has to be done in person) to hear the woe-is-me from somebody who may have to experience a bit of what we do. It’s hard to feel sympathy when your argument is “well, you’re suffering, but thankfully I don’t have to!”

No one is proposing to make YOUR life worse, while you are rejoicing in making our lives worse, and potentially hurts families and children the most. What kind of poor upbringing have you had?

I’m not rejoicing. Why would I bother to do that?

Just don’t “woe-is-me” about it. Consider your audience. When you have service workers who drive 45 minutes to their jobs (like me and many others), it’s really tiresome to hear people complain about RTO.

Want an example? Just look at your post. It’ll hurt YOUR family and children “the most.” Um… my long hours don’t affect MY family and children? I guess not as much as your RTO will hurt yours, huh?

So, what kind of poor upbringing have YOU had?

You have the option of not coming to DCUM and not clicking on threads. I also don't see a whole lot of moaning and wailing. I see people being pissed that their working conditions are being altered for no good reason, that they are being demeaned just to further political divide, and trying to figure out how they make the change in conditions doable. I see other threads about Amazon RTO where people are grappling with the same life upheavals generated by RTO.

If you merely comment on challenges, I get it. But there are comments on this thread that are actually insulting to those of us who work in person.

I like my job enough that I accept the fact I can’t WFH. But it is challenging to juggle childcare costs, commutes, etc. To read others on this thread who believe they are above the challenges the rest of us face? That they somehow deserve better? That’s hard to take.

[Anonymous]

Back before COVID we actually had heavy pressure to go remote if we were eligible because they were running out of space. This was during the Trump admin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is a common set-up: two parents out of the house 10 hours a day, scrambling to provide care for their own children. We make it work because we have to.

And what benefit is there to society in making more people have to deal with this?

So your question (why should I have to suffer like you, essentially) comes across as a bit… privileged to those of us who do essential in-person jobs.

Nice try. Answer the question. What benefit is there to society in making other people’s lives worse?

You mean: What if we are all as self-serving as you?

Who is going to teach your children? Who is going to provide after-school activities and childcare for you? Who is going to be at the urgent care when you or your child get sick?

See, it’s really tiresome for those of us who work for the betterment of society (which often has to be done in person) to hear the woe-is-me from somebody who may have to experience a bit of what we do. It’s hard to feel sympathy when your argument is “well, you’re suffering, but thankfully I don’t have to!”

Well that isn’t the argument. The point is that where a fed works has zero effect on your job, so why are you so insulted that we are upset about potentially losing a workplace flexibility that makes our lives as working parents easier?

Also, as someone who does have telework I have no desire to see people who do work in-person lose any of their flexibilities that I don’t have. For instance, I have to work on random school holidays and summers, which means I have to deal with childcare issues my teacher friends don’t.

If suddenly teachers lost summers off for the same pay they make now, it would be super weird and crappy if I was like “well I’ve been paying for camps for years now!.” And then told them that their complaints were implying they don’t think they should have to “suffer” and drop thousands on camps like I do.

Instead I would be like that totally sucks and 100% understand if they decide to leave the profession over it. And as a taxpayer who benefits from their work, I’d be upset at the school board for making such a terrible decision that would affect the ability to attract qualified teachers.

But I’m not a bitter, spiteful person like you PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is a common set-up: two parents out of the house 10 hours a day, scrambling to provide care for their own children. We make it work because we have to.

And what benefit is there to society in making more people have to deal with this?

So your question (why should I have to suffer like you, essentially) comes across as a bit… privileged to those of us who do essential in-person jobs.

Nice try. Answer the question. What benefit is there to society in making other people’s lives worse?

You mean: What if we are all as self-serving as you?

Who is going to teach your children? Who is going to provide after-school activities and childcare for you? Who is going to be at the urgent care when you or your child get sick?

See, it’s really tiresome for those of us who work for the betterment of society (which often has to be done in person) to hear the woe-is-me from somebody who may have to experience a bit of what we do. It’s hard to feel sympathy when your argument is “well, you’re suffering, but thankfully I don’t have to!”

Well that isn’t the argument. The point is that where a fed works has zero effect on your job, so why are you so insulted that we are upset about potentially losing a workplace flexibility that makes our lives as working parents easier?

Also, as someone who does have telework I have no desire to see people who do work in-person lose any of their flexibilities that I don’t have. For instance, I have to work on random school holidays and summers, which means I have to deal with childcare issues my teacher friends don’t.

If suddenly teachers lost summers off for the same pay they make now, it would be super weird and crappy if I was like “well I’ve been paying for camps for years now!.” And then told them that their complaints were implying they don’t think they should have to “suffer” and drop thousands on camps like I do.

Instead I would be like that totally sucks and 100% understand if they decide to leave the profession over it. And as a taxpayer who benefits from their work, I’d be upset at the school board for making such a terrible decision that would affect the ability to attract qualified teachers.

But I’m not a bitter, spiteful person like you PP.

This. It's a non zero sum game. If anything the government setting an example that workers should be treated with hostility sets a tone an example that can drag down the norms elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is a common set-up: two parents out of the house 10 hours a day, scrambling to provide care for their own children. We make it work because we have to.

And what benefit is there to society in making more people have to deal with this?

So your question (why should I have to suffer like you, essentially) comes across as a bit… privileged to those of us who do essential in-person jobs.

Nice try. Answer the question. What benefit is there to society in making other people’s lives worse?

You mean: What if we are all as self-serving as you?

Who is going to teach your children? Who is going to provide after-school activities and childcare for you? Who is going to be at the urgent care when you or your child get sick?

See, it’s really tiresome for those of us who work for the betterment of society (which often has to be done in person) to hear the woe-is-me from somebody who may have to experience a bit of what we do. It’s hard to feel sympathy when your argument is “well, you’re suffering, but thankfully I don’t have to!”

No one is proposing to make YOUR life worse, while you are rejoicing in making our lives worse, and potentially hurts families and children the most. What kind of poor upbringing have you had?

I’m not rejoicing. Why would I bother to do that?

Just don’t “woe-is-me” about it. Consider your audience. When you have service workers who drive 45 minutes to their jobs (like me and many others), it’s really tiresome to hear people complain about RTO.

Want an example? Just look at your post. It’ll hurt YOUR family and children “the most.” Um… my long hours don’t affect MY family and children? I guess not as much as your RTO will hurt yours, huh?

So, what kind of poor upbringing have YOU had?

You.arent.our.audience.

This is a thread specially about fed employees and RTO. Why are you joining in our conversations and then telling us we need tailor the discussion of this topic to your feelings?

No one asked you to be here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is a common set-up: two parents out of the house 10 hours a day, scrambling to provide care for their own children. We make it work because we have to.

And what benefit is there to society in making more people have to deal with this?

So your question (why should I have to suffer like you, essentially) comes across as a bit… privileged to those of us who do essential in-person jobs.

Nice try. Answer the question. What benefit is there to society in making other people’s lives worse?

You mean: What if we are all as self-serving as you?

Who is going to teach your children? Who is going to provide after-school activities and childcare for you? Who is going to be at the urgent care when you or your child get sick?

See, it’s really tiresome for those of us who work for the betterment of society (which often has to be done in person) to hear the woe-is-me from somebody who may have to experience a bit of what we do. It’s hard to feel sympathy when your argument is “well, you’re suffering, but thankfully I don’t have to!”

No one is proposing to make YOUR life worse, while you are rejoicing in making our lives worse, and potentially hurts families and children the most. What kind of poor upbringing have you had?

I’m not rejoicing. Why would I bother to do that?

Just don’t “woe-is-me” about it. Consider your audience. When you have service workers who drive 45 minutes to their jobs (like me and many others), it’s really tiresome to hear people complain about RTO.

Want an example? Just look at your post. It’ll hurt YOUR family and children “the most.” Um… my long hours don’t affect MY family and children? I guess not as much as your RTO will hurt yours, huh?

So, what kind of poor upbringing have YOU had?

You have the option of not coming to DCUM and not clicking on threads. I also don't see a whole lot of moaning and wailing. I see people being pissed that their working conditions are being altered for no good reason, that they are being demeaned just to further political divide, and trying to figure out how they make the change in conditions doable. I see other threads about Amazon RTO where people are grappling with the same life upheavals generated by RTO.

If you merely comment on challenges, I get it. But there are comments on this thread that are actually insulting to those of us who work in person.

I like my job enough that I accept the fact I can’t WFH. But it is challenging to juggle childcare costs, commutes, etc. To read others on this thread who believe they are above the challenges the rest of us face? That they somehow deserve better? That’s hard to take.

I don't read anyone saying they are above you or whatever. But why are you taking this personally? No one is out to harm you. This isn't about you or your circumstances, if you aren't a fed employee.

[Anonymous]

I suspect Negative Nancy is the "MOCO teacher" who needs to center herself and the teaching profession in all threads. Or the bot/character with those characteristics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is a common set-up: two parents out of the house 10 hours a day, scrambling to provide care for their own children. We make it work because we have to.

And what benefit is there to society in making more people have to deal with this?

So your question (why should I have to suffer like you, essentially) comes across as a bit… privileged to those of us who do essential in-person jobs.

Nice try. Answer the question. What benefit is there to society in making other people’s lives worse?

You mean: What if we are all as self-serving as you?

Who is going to teach your children? Who is going to provide after-school activities and childcare for you? Who is going to be at the urgent care when you or your child get sick?

See, it’s really tiresome for those of us who work for the betterment of society (which often has to be done in person) to hear the woe-is-me from somebody who may have to experience a bit of what we do. It’s hard to feel sympathy when your argument is “well, you’re suffering, but thankfully I don’t have to!”

Well that isn’t the argument. The point is that where a fed works has zero effect on your job, so why are you so insulted that we are upset about potentially losing a workplace flexibility that makes our lives as working parents easier?

Also, as someone who does have telework I have no desire to see people who do work in-person lose any of their flexibilities that I don’t have. For instance, I have to work on random school holidays and summers, which means I have to deal with childcare issues my teacher friends don’t.

If suddenly teachers lost summers off for the same pay they make now, it would be super weird and crappy if I was like “well I’ve been paying for camps for years now!.” And then told them that their complaints were implying they don’t think they should have to “suffer” and drop thousands on camps like I do.

Instead I would be like that totally sucks and 100% understand if they decide to leave the profession over it. And as a taxpayer who benefits from their work, I’d be upset at the school board for making such a terrible decision that would affect the ability to attract qualified teachers.

But I’m not a bitter, spiteful person like you PP.

I posted above. It’s the tone of some of these posts. They are insulting. I have only responded to a couple that were written in poor taste, in which their struggles mean more than others, and their families deserve more than others.

If you don’t want to be called out for intensive posts, don’t be insensitive to others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is a common set-up: two parents out of the house 10 hours a day, scrambling to provide care for their own children. We make it work because we have to.

And what benefit is there to society in making more people have to deal with this?

So your question (why should I have to suffer like you, essentially) comes across as a bit… privileged to those of us who do essential in-person jobs.

Nice try. Answer the question. What benefit is there to society in making other people’s lives worse?

You mean: What if we are all as self-serving as you?

Who is going to teach your children? Who is going to provide after-school activities and childcare for you? Who is going to be at the urgent care when you or your child get sick?

See, it’s really tiresome for those of us who work for the betterment of society (which often has to be done in person) to hear the woe-is-me from somebody who may have to experience a bit of what we do. It’s hard to feel sympathy when your argument is “well, you’re suffering, but thankfully I don’t have to!”

Well that isn’t the argument. The point is that where a fed works has zero effect on your job, so why are you so insulted that we are upset about potentially losing a workplace flexibility that makes our lives as working parents easier?

Also, as someone who does have telework I have no desire to see people who do work in-person lose any of their flexibilities that I don’t have. For instance, I have to work on random school holidays and summers, which means I have to deal with childcare issues my teacher friends don’t.

If suddenly teachers lost summers off for the same pay they make now, it would be super weird and crappy if I was like “well I’ve been paying for camps for years now!.” And then told them that their complaints were implying they don’t think they should have to “suffer” and drop thousands on camps like I do.

Instead I would be like that totally sucks and 100% understand if they decide to leave the profession over it. And as a taxpayer who benefits from their work, I’d be upset at the school board for making such a terrible decision that would affect the ability to attract qualified teachers.

But I’m not a bitter, spiteful person like you PP.

I posted above. It’s the tone of some of these posts. They are insulting. I have only responded to a couple that were written in poor taste, in which their struggles mean more than others, and their families deserve more than others.

If you don’t want to be called out for intensive posts, don’t be insensitive to others.

I think you maybe are reading things that aren't there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll go back. I'll be much more of a clock watcher, though.

However, we are 50% in the office, as we don't have space for everyone. Where will they put us?

they will double you up

Double up where? At my agency there is literally not enough space for all the employees to be there at the same time, even if they only have a chair at a table in an open area. We can physically only fit 25-30 percent of employees at the same time because we surrendered most of our pre pandemic space.