Biden wants RTO

[Anonymous]

Axios has an article about how Biden wants federal agencies to now actively require in person work.

The SEC won’t be impacted by this right since we have a 3 year union agreement to only go in 2x per PP?

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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

Both in addition to optics beyond DC given how the private sector has shifted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Axios has an article about how Biden wants federal agencies to now actively require in person work.

The SEC won’t be impacted by this right since we have a 3 year union agreement to only go in 2x per PP?

bargaining unit members won't be affected. they can always change the terms on the supervisors.

[Anonymous]

This won’t directly impact WFH for SEC right?

[Anonymous]

Sorry now I see response above. Thanks! Phew.

[Anonymous]

I guess GAO shouldn’t have given up our leased space. Nowhere to go. Oh well…

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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!

[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!

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.

[Anonymous]

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

re-election. wants to tell the voters: "i put those federal workers who are paid with your tax dollars BACK IN THEIR OFFICE BOXES!" woo! so now vote for me, ok?!

[Anonymous]

I love WFH more than anyone, but there’s no question that RTO is much better for the local economy. Lunches, metro rides, parking fees, dry cleaners, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love WFH more than anyone, but there’s no question that RTO is much better for the local economy. Lunches, metro rides, parking fees, dry cleaners, etc.

like the middle class isnt taxed enough and now we have to prop up the local economy with our dry cleaning so we can sit in cubicle farms eating sad desk salads?

its the worst argument. makes no sense.

at least say one needs RTO for mentorship...

[Anonymous]

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!

That's fine by me.

[Anonymous]

I love WFH more than anyone, but there’s no question that RTO is much better for the local economy. Lunches, metro rides, parking fees, dry cleaners, etc.

I'll take metro, but won't do any of those other things (dry cleaning - my office is business casual, I wear Boden, which is machine wash; I bring lunch, I don't drive or buy coffee).