Biden wants RTO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the motivation? To increase productivity or just because so many office buildings are empty?

Motivation is political. Reality is that the US economy needs it. Cities are dying for a number of reasons, but the main economic issue is the impact on service industries to include restaurants, bars, the local travel industry such as Metro in DC, etc.

Commercial real estate market crumbling, with thought of turning federal leased space into condos or apartments. Who is gong to move to DC.

Can replace DC with any number of city names. Work from home will gradually die, too many people taking advantage of the situation, loss of productivity etc.

To return feds back downtown, all it would take is an executive order from the White House ordering agencies to return to pre-pandemic telework and remote work policies by such and such date with instructions to release their compliance status. That’s it.
Maybe the memorandum from Zients was met more for the wider public and not the government?

Most agencies had pretty generous remote and telework even before the pandemic. Honestly going to pre-pandemic policies would be fine.

I disagree, but my agency put in a pretty draconian new policy pre-pandemic - zero telework for supervisors, because "supervision is an inherently in person responsibility." That sounds laughable 3.5 years later after what we've been through, but if we went back to that, I'd be on the first lateral transfer to a nonsupervisory job I could get. (I have a few such applications in just in case, although I'd rather move up than over.)

Okay. No one is irreplaceable in the office. You'd move to a position that is more suited to you - that's great!
You are irreplaceable though as a spouse, daughter, son, friend, etc. though. But to government, they'll find a person who, chances are, will do as good or better job than you did.

Yes, of course someone would fill my job. But vacancies in my agency and division tend to take 1-2 years to fill, during which time my boss would have to take on my workload (and is already dropping balls due to covering for another vacant position).

I just don't get the idea that turnover is great and has zero cost. Obviously you don't want everyone staying in the same job forever, from an individual or organizational perspective, but losing people much faster than you can replace them DOES harm productivity. Driving up churn without having the capacity to deal with the impact isn't some grand "the market will sort it out" thing, there is no great plan here.

Of course there’s a temporary cost to seasoned people quitting. But the government has been doing this a long time. The plan is in place. You will return to the office. The vast majority will deal with it and make it work. Some will rather quit and if quitting is their choice, so be it. Others will fill their shoes.

Please let us know where we can find people with masters degrees and PhDs in STEM fields, who can pass all the clearances plus haven't smoked any weed in the past 7 years...and would prefer to work in the DC metro rather than work remotely for private industry.

Not everyone is an admin assistant pp, those are the easily replaced feds. And also the ones who are doing more remote work than many of the rest of us.

There will absolutely be a temporary hit. But I think that people vastly exaggerate how many people will actually leave (due to people that don't like the instability/uncertainty of private sector, don't have the motivation for the change, and the finite job market) and how drawn out that attrition will actually be (not everyone is leaving on the same day or same quarter or same year).

I think this amounts to “I’m guessing this won’t be too bad.” But you don’t know how bad. Nobody does. And we can’t quantify what benefits RTO would provide, if any. So why force through a widespread high-impact policy when nobody can produce a reliable cost/benefit analysis? That’s incredibly foolish.

You are correct that I can't give you, nor have I seen anywhere, I highly data-driven analysis for or against.

But that doesn't mean a decision to increase onsite presence is a bad one. Overall reasoned cost benefit analysis is also a thing. I didn't see any highly data-driven reports when agencies started telework policies before the pandemic either. Should they not have done that?

It can reasonably be believed that adjusting the balance of onsite work would, or even could, create positive benefits for the overall economy and long term health of federal organizations. It can reasonably be believed that the hit of attrition is manageable in the long run and would be spread out over time (and that attrition itself coming with some silver linings.)

I think a lot of the objections here are that we're hearing stuff like "it can reasonably be believed..." in the absence of ANY cost benefit analysis. We can reasonably believe a lot of things. In April all the agencies were asked for data. And yet the actual RTO policies don't indicate any has has been collected or used.

I'm not even arguing that the government shouldn't bring people into the office at all. I'm just frustrated at the idea that we have to accept that someone has done enough analysis to show that the benefits will be greater than the costs and we can therefore trust the impacts won't be bad for where WE work (because nobody works for the whole government, we work in specific places doing specific things that aren't interchangeable).
Nobody has! If they had it would be published and shouted from the rooftops in this administration that loves words like "data driven"! Just admit it!

[Anonymous]

When you think about it to government doesn't have to give a reason for RTO. Doing so gives the perception that they are looking for buy in. Giving a reason is a waste of time anyway, there is always a contrived rebuttal. You are never going to get buy in from self interested parties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the motivation? To increase productivity or just because so many office buildings are empty?

Motivation is political. Reality is that the US economy needs it. Cities are dying for a number of reasons, but the main economic issue is the impact on service industries to include restaurants, bars, the local travel industry such as Metro in DC, etc.

Commercial real estate market crumbling, with thought of turning federal leased space into condos or apartments. Who is gong to move to DC.

Can replace DC with any number of city names. Work from home will gradually die, too many people taking advantage of the situation, loss of productivity etc.

To return feds back downtown, all it would take is an executive order from the White House ordering agencies to return to pre-pandemic telework and remote work policies by such and such date with instructions to release their compliance status. That’s it.
Maybe the memorandum from Zients was met more for the wider public and not the government?

Most agencies had pretty generous remote and telework even before the pandemic. Honestly going to pre-pandemic policies would be fine.

I disagree, but my agency put in a pretty draconian new policy pre-pandemic - zero telework for supervisors, because "supervision is an inherently in person responsibility." That sounds laughable 3.5 years later after what we've been through, but if we went back to that, I'd be on the first lateral transfer to a nonsupervisory job I could get. (I have a few such applications in just in case, although I'd rather move up than over.)

Okay. No one is irreplaceable in the office. You'd move to a position that is more suited to you - that's great!
You are irreplaceable though as a spouse, daughter, son, friend, etc. though. But to government, they'll find a person who, chances are, will do as good or better job than you did.

Yes, of course someone would fill my job. But vacancies in my agency and division tend to take 1-2 years to fill, during which time my boss would have to take on my workload (and is already dropping balls due to covering for another vacant position).

I just don't get the idea that turnover is great and has zero cost. Obviously you don't want everyone staying in the same job forever, from an individual or organizational perspective, but losing people much faster than you can replace them DOES harm productivity. Driving up churn without having the capacity to deal with the impact isn't some grand "the market will sort it out" thing, there is no great plan here.

Of course there’s a temporary cost to seasoned people quitting. But the government has been doing this a long time. The plan is in place. You will return to the office. The vast majority will deal with it and make it work. Some will rather quit and if quitting is their choice, so be it. Others will fill their shoes.

Please let us know where we can find people with masters degrees and PhDs in STEM fields, who can pass all the clearances plus haven't smoked any weed in the past 7 years...and would prefer to work in the DC metro rather than work remotely for private industry.

Not everyone is an admin assistant pp, those are the easily replaced feds. And also the ones who are doing more remote work than many of the rest of us.

There will absolutely be a temporary hit. But I think that people vastly exaggerate how many people will actually leave (due to people that don't like the instability/uncertainty of private sector, don't have the motivation for the change, and the finite job market) and how drawn out that attrition will actually be (not everyone is leaving on the same day or same quarter or same year).

I think this amounts to “I’m guessing this won’t be too bad.” But you don’t know how bad. Nobody does. And we can’t quantify what benefits RTO would provide, if any. So why force through a widespread high-impact policy when nobody can produce a reliable cost/benefit analysis? That’s incredibly foolish.

You are correct that I can't give you, nor have I seen anywhere, I highly data-driven analysis for or against.

But that doesn't mean a decision to increase onsite presence is a bad one. Overall reasoned cost benefit analysis is also a thing. I didn't see any highly data-driven reports when agencies started telework policies before the pandemic either. Should they not have done that?

It can reasonably be believed that adjusting the balance of onsite work would, or even could, create positive benefits for the overall economy and long term health of federal organizations. It can reasonably be believed that the hit of attrition is manageable in the long run and would be spread out over time (and that attrition itself coming with some silver linings.)

I think a lot of the objections here are that we're hearing stuff like "it can reasonably be believed..." in the absence of ANY cost benefit analysis. We can reasonably believe a lot of things. In April all the agencies were asked for data. And yet the actual RTO policies don't indicate any has has been collected or used.

I'm not even arguing that the government shouldn't bring people into the office at all. I'm just frustrated at the idea that we have to accept that someone has done enough analysis to show that the benefits will be greater than the costs and we can therefore trust the impacts won't be bad for where WE work (because nobody works for the whole government, we work in specific places doing specific things that aren't interchangeable).
Nobody has! If they had it would be published and shouted from the rooftops in this administration that loves words like "data driven"! Just admit it!

I did admit it. In my first sentence.

I simply disagree with you that it is required. Again, did you see any such analysis years ago when agencies began instituting telework policies? Do you really expect it when any new personnel policy is rolled out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the motivation? To increase productivity or just because so many office buildings are empty?

Motivation is political. Reality is that the US economy needs it. Cities are dying for a number of reasons, but the main economic issue is the impact on service industries to include restaurants, bars, the local travel industry such as Metro in DC, etc.

Commercial real estate market crumbling, with thought of turning federal leased space into condos or apartments. Who is gong to move to DC.

Can replace DC with any number of city names. Work from home will gradually die, too many people taking advantage of the situation, loss of productivity etc.

To return feds back downtown, all it would take is an executive order from the White House ordering agencies to return to pre-pandemic telework and remote work policies by such and such date with instructions to release their compliance status. That’s it.
Maybe the memorandum from Zients was met more for the wider public and not the government?

Most agencies had pretty generous remote and telework even before the pandemic. Honestly going to pre-pandemic policies would be fine.

I disagree, but my agency put in a pretty draconian new policy pre-pandemic - zero telework for supervisors, because "supervision is an inherently in person responsibility." That sounds laughable 3.5 years later after what we've been through, but if we went back to that, I'd be on the first lateral transfer to a nonsupervisory job I could get. (I have a few such applications in just in case, although I'd rather move up than over.)

Okay. No one is irreplaceable in the office. You'd move to a position that is more suited to you - that's great!
You are irreplaceable though as a spouse, daughter, son, friend, etc. though. But to government, they'll find a person who, chances are, will do as good or better job than you did.

Yes, of course someone would fill my job. But vacancies in my agency and division tend to take 1-2 years to fill, during which time my boss would have to take on my workload (and is already dropping balls due to covering for another vacant position).

I just don't get the idea that turnover is great and has zero cost. Obviously you don't want everyone staying in the same job forever, from an individual or organizational perspective, but losing people much faster than you can replace them DOES harm productivity. Driving up churn without having the capacity to deal with the impact isn't some grand "the market will sort it out" thing, there is no great plan here.

Of course there’s a temporary cost to seasoned people quitting. But the government has been doing this a long time. The plan is in place. You will return to the office. The vast majority will deal with it and make it work. Some will rather quit and if quitting is their choice, so be it. Others will fill their shoes.

Please let us know where we can find people with masters degrees and PhDs in STEM fields, who can pass all the clearances plus haven't smoked any weed in the past 7 years...and would prefer to work in the DC metro rather than work remotely for private industry.

Not everyone is an admin assistant pp, those are the easily replaced feds. And also the ones who are doing more remote work than many of the rest of us.

There will absolutely be a temporary hit. But I think that people vastly exaggerate how many people will actually leave (due to people that don't like the instability/uncertainty of private sector, don't have the motivation for the change, and the finite job market) and how drawn out that attrition will actually be (not everyone is leaving on the same day or same quarter or same year).

I think this amounts to “I’m guessing this won’t be too bad.” But you don’t know how bad. Nobody does. And we can’t quantify what benefits RTO would provide, if any. So why force through a widespread high-impact policy when nobody can produce a reliable cost/benefit analysis? That’s incredibly foolish.

You are correct that I can't give you, nor have I seen anywhere, I highly data-driven analysis for or against.

But that doesn't mean a decision to increase onsite presence is a bad one. Overall reasoned cost benefit analysis is also a thing. I didn't see any highly data-driven reports when agencies started telework policies before the pandemic either. Should they not have done that?

It can reasonably be believed that adjusting the balance of onsite work would, or even could, create positive benefits for the overall economy and long term health of federal organizations. It can reasonably be believed that the hit of attrition is manageable in the long run and would be spread out over time (and that attrition itself coming with some silver linings.)

I think a lot of the objections here are that we're hearing stuff like "it can reasonably be believed..." in the absence of ANY cost benefit analysis. We can reasonably believe a lot of things. In April all the agencies were asked for data. And yet the actual RTO policies don't indicate any has has been collected or used.

I'm not even arguing that the government shouldn't bring people into the office at all. I'm just frustrated at the idea that we have to accept that someone has done enough analysis to show that the benefits will be greater than the costs and we can therefore trust the impacts won't be bad for where WE work (because nobody works for the whole government, we work in specific places doing specific things that aren't interchangeable).
Nobody has! If they had it would be published and shouted from the rooftops in this administration that loves words like "data driven"! Just admit it!

Since when that's a requirement to RTO? Soft factors can't be measured. You don't like it? Go find another job. This endless whining is painful.

[Anonymous]

If you’re going to tell people that policy is changing, they are going to call you out on your assumptions/rationale. Can’t be avoided, but leadership can do what it likes. Intelligent employees are already figuring out what management values and are making plans to leave or deal.

[Anonymous]

Typically government agencies DO engage in some kind of policy analysis before changing things with regard to personnel. Because they have to make budget justifications to Congress. Anyway, looks like this fall is going to be interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you’re going to tell people that policy is changing, they are going to call you out on your assumptions/rationale. Can’t be avoided, but leadership can do what it likes. Intelligent employees are already figuring out what management values and are making plans to leave or deal.

PP who has been generally defending that there are some reasons that support increased onsite presence and that deep data-driven analysis is not required.

I also agree with every word of the above post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re going to tell people that policy is changing, they are going to call you out on your assumptions/rationale. Can’t be avoided, but leadership can do what it likes. Intelligent employees are already figuring out what management values and are making plans to leave or deal.

PP who has been generally defending that there are some reasons that support increased onsite presence and that deep data-driven analysis is not required.

I also agree with every word of the above post.

Glad we got that straight. My belief is that RTO is not a good idea, and is just kicking the can down the road by punishing a small group of people who are vocal and influential. But again, leadership will do what it wants. No one needs to listen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Typically government agencies DO engage in some kind of policy analysis before changing things with regard to personnel. Because they have to make budget justifications to Congress. Anyway, looks like this fall is going to be interesting.

What you so ignorantly find “interesting” is cause for grave anxiety for the rest of us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are RTO 6 days PP and I will be taking my flex hrs very liberally in order to still be around after school. What our leadership doesn’t understand is that WFH allowed us to stretch our productivity even further but providing flexibility. I could be at home to take my kids to practice, start dinner, etc. and still be online to finish up emails, assignments or whatever. Now if I have to maintain rigid hours in the office I won’t be opening a laptop after I get home unless my flexibility stays in place. Take away the flexibility and productivity will suffer.

Some of this flexibility is the problem too. Most meetings are from 2-5pm and people have their calendars blocked off. We work a lot with California so morning meetings won't work.

Yes! 2-5 pm is still the workday, but half the people make it siesta time. This is what’s killing WFH - people aren’t available!

This. This is what ended it at my non-profit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Typically government agencies DO engage in some kind of policy analysis before changing things with regard to personnel. Because they have to make budget justifications to Congress. Anyway, looks like this fall is going to be interesting.

What you so ignorantly find “interesting” is cause for grave anxiety for the rest of us.

I’m in the same boat. I’m just putting my life jacket on. You should do the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are RTO 6 days PP and I will be taking my flex hrs very liberally in order to still be around after school. What our leadership doesn’t understand is that WFH allowed us to stretch our productivity even further but providing flexibility. I could be at home to take my kids to practice, start dinner, etc. and still be online to finish up emails, assignments or whatever. Now if I have to maintain rigid hours in the office I won’t be opening a laptop after I get home unless my flexibility stays in place. Take away the flexibility and productivity will suffer.

Some of this flexibility is the problem too. Most meetings are from 2-5pm and people have their calendars blocked off. We work a lot with California so morning meetings won't work.

Yes! 2-5 pm is still the workday, but half the people make it siesta time. This is what’s killing WFH - people aren’t available!

This. This is what ended it at my non-profit.

This must be workplace/workforce dependent because I haven’t noticed a change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are RTO 6 days PP and I will be taking my flex hrs very liberally in order to still be around after school. What our leadership doesn’t understand is that WFH allowed us to stretch our productivity even further but providing flexibility. I could be at home to take my kids to practice, start dinner, etc. and still be online to finish up emails, assignments or whatever. Now if I have to maintain rigid hours in the office I won’t be opening a laptop after I get home unless my flexibility stays in place. Take away the flexibility and productivity will suffer.

Some of this flexibility is the problem too. Most meetings are from 2-5pm and people have their calendars blocked off. We work a lot with California so morning meetings won't work.

Yes! 2-5 pm is still the workday, but half the people make it siesta time. This is what’s killing WFH - people aren’t available!

A coworker and I recently discussed the converse of this point. Both of us regularly field questions/requests that come in from the west coast or AK/HI between 5:30 and 7 pm DC time.
-When we are WFH, we will just jump back on the computer and respond (these are things that aren't hugely time-consuming, but require more than just email access to handle).
-When we are in the office, those questions come in during our commuting time. And when we get home, we're focused on home stuff, plus it's a pain to pull out the laptop and wait the 10 minutes for it to boot up and let us actually respond. So we respond the next day. Which is within the limits of what is expected of us, but certainly less convenient for our colleagues out west.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are RTO 6 days PP and I will be taking my flex hrs very liberally in order to still be around after school. What our leadership doesn’t understand is that WFH allowed us to stretch our productivity even further but providing flexibility. I could be at home to take my kids to practice, start dinner, etc. and still be online to finish up emails, assignments or whatever. Now if I have to maintain rigid hours in the office I won’t be opening a laptop after I get home unless my flexibility stays in place. Take away the flexibility and productivity will suffer.

Some of this flexibility is the problem too. Most meetings are from 2-5pm and people have their calendars blocked off. We work a lot with California so morning meetings won't work.

Yes! 2-5 pm is still the workday, but half the people make it siesta time. This is what’s killing WFH - people aren’t available!

A coworker and I recently discussed the converse of this point. Both of us regularly field questions/requests that come in from the west coast or AK/HI between 5:30 and 7 pm DC time.
-When we are WFH, we will just jump back on the computer and respond (these are things that aren't hugely time-consuming, but require more than just email access to handle).
-When we are in the office, those questions come in during our commuting time. And when we get home, we're focused on home stuff, plus it's a pain to pull out the laptop and wait the 10 minutes for it to boot up and let us actually respond. So we respond the next day. Which is within the limits of what is expected of us, but certainly less convenient for our colleagues out west.

Sort of similar to this, my office has "core hours" but a lot of different schedules, ranging from 6:30-3 to 9-6. We don't all have to work the exact same hours and I appreciate that. It's expanded possible meeting hours since pre-covid since a lot of people who wouldn't have been in the office early or late in the day are willing to be more flexible. Keeping that availability without WFH would be LESS flexible than pre-covid and force everyone into rush hour traffic at precisely the same time. Yikes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re going to tell people that policy is changing, they are going to call you out on your assumptions/rationale. Can’t be avoided, but leadership can do what it likes. Intelligent employees are already figuring out what management values and are making plans to leave or deal.

PP who has been generally defending that there are some reasons that support increased onsite presence and that deep data-driven analysis is not required.

I also agree with every word of the above post.

Glad we got that straight. My belief is that RTO is not a good idea, and is just kicking the can down the road by punishing a small group of people who are vocal and influential. But again, leadership will do what it wants. No one needs to listen.

You don’t have to listen, you just need to show up.