Biden wants RTO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Managers - you cannot reason with most of these people, they want to be obstinate and unreasonable. Our only hope is an EO or law that forces people back to their offices again. Three years of conversations and listening have been fruitless and they are more intransigent. Stop engaging with these folks, there is a reason none of them have been promoted into management.

Oh goodness. Spoken like a true manager.

[Anonymous]

RTO is BS. I say that as at work we were talking about improving morale.

Now we work from home Tuesday’s and Thursday’s and Friday is unofficially Jeans and Sneakers and long lunch and leave at 3-4pm

The people with no child care, near retirement, long commutes, people with second jobs, lazy people want more WFH to improve morale.

How does that accomplish anything?

The people who work wanted better training, free lunch, better promotion opportunities, greater access sr. Mgt, more meaningful work.

I mean next week Monday a Holiday, Tuesday WFH, Wed in office, Thursday WFH and Friday jeans and sneakers leave early. So more off is better?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Managers - you cannot reason with most of these people, they want to be obstinate and unreasonable. Our only hope is an EO or law that forces people back to their offices again. Three years of conversations and listening have been fruitless and they are more intransigent. Stop engaging with these folks, there is a reason none of them have been promoted into management.

That sounds terrible. It may be more beneficial to you if you consider DCUM as an unfiltered input from your staff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:RTO is BS. I say that as at work we were talking about improving morale.

Now we work from home Tuesday’s and Thursday’s and Friday is unofficially Jeans and Sneakers and long lunch and leave at 3-4pm

The people with no child care, near retirement, long commutes, people with second jobs, lazy people want more WFH to improve morale.

How does that accomplish anything?

The people who work wanted better training, free lunch, better promotion opportunities, greater access sr. Mgt, more meaningful work.

I mean next week Monday a Holiday, Tuesday WFH, Wed in office, Thursday WFH and Friday jeans and sneakers leave early. So more off is better?

Working from home or wearing jeans doesn't mean you're getting a day off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RTO is BS. I say that as at work we were talking about improving morale.

Now we work from home Tuesday’s and Thursday’s and Friday is unofficially Jeans and Sneakers and long lunch and leave at 3-4pm

The people with no child care, near retirement, long commutes, people with second jobs, lazy people want more WFH to improve morale.

How does that accomplish anything?

The people who work wanted better training, free lunch, better promotion opportunities, greater access sr. Mgt, more meaningful work.

I mean next week Monday a Holiday, Tuesday WFH, Wed in office, Thursday WFH and Friday jeans and sneakers leave early. So more off is better?

Working from home or wearing jeans doesn't mean you're getting a day off.

In fantasy land. Ok so it has been proven WFH do 18 percent less work. They on average work 6 hours a day. And no commute.

So it is sleep in, get kids in bus, check email at 8-9 while sipping coffee, off to gym, come back, move mouse around, off to supermarket or Starbucks or lunch with GFs, move mouse around, kids off bus, make snacks, check email. Around 8pm one last check email to to make it look like you work 12 hours a day.

Or worse my friends boss has two part time jobs, single mom with kids. Her calendar is booked 6-7 hours a day with her other jobs and kids stuff. She works tops 1-3 hours a week.

WFH is vacation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RTO is BS. I say that as at work we were talking about improving morale.

Now we work from home Tuesday’s and Thursday’s and Friday is unofficially Jeans and Sneakers and long lunch and leave at 3-4pm

The people with no child care, near retirement, long commutes, people with second jobs, lazy people want more WFH to improve morale.

How does that accomplish anything?

The people who work wanted better training, free lunch, better promotion opportunities, greater access sr. Mgt, more meaningful work.

I mean next week Monday a Holiday, Tuesday WFH, Wed in office, Thursday WFH and Friday jeans and sneakers leave early. So more off is better?

Working from home or wearing jeans doesn't mean you're getting a day off.

In fantasy land. Ok so it has been proven WFH do 18 percent less work. They on average work 6 hours a day. And no commute.

So it is sleep in, get kids in bus, check email at 8-9 while sipping coffee, off to gym, come back, move mouse around, off to supermarket or Starbucks or lunch with GFs, move mouse around, kids off bus, make snacks, check email. Around 8pm one last check email to to make it look like you work 12 hours a day.

Or worse my friends boss has two part time jobs, single mom with kids. Her calendar is booked 6-7 hours a day with her other jobs and kids stuff. She works tops 1-3 hours a week.

WFH is vacation

Yeah sure, broken record.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RTO is BS. I say that as at work we were talking about improving morale.

Now we work from home Tuesday’s and Thursday’s and Friday is unofficially Jeans and Sneakers and long lunch and leave at 3-4pm

The people with no child care, near retirement, long commutes, people with second jobs, lazy people want more WFH to improve morale.

How does that accomplish anything?

The people who work wanted better training, free lunch, better promotion opportunities, greater access sr. Mgt, more meaningful work.

I mean next week Monday a Holiday, Tuesday WFH, Wed in office, Thursday WFH and Friday jeans and sneakers leave early. So more off is better?

Working from home or wearing jeans doesn't mean you're getting a day off.

In fantasy land. Ok so it has been proven WFH do 18 percent less work. They on average work 6 hours a day. And no commute.

So it is sleep in, get kids in bus, check email at 8-9 while sipping coffee, off to gym, come back, move mouse around, off to supermarket or Starbucks or lunch with GFs, move mouse around, kids off bus, make snacks, check email. Around 8pm one last check email to to make it look like you work 12 hours a day.

Or worse my friends boss has two part time jobs, single mom with kids. Her calendar is booked 6-7 hours a day with her other jobs and kids stuff. She works tops 1-3 hours a week.

WFH is vacation

Hi J1, J2, J3 guy! Haven't seen you around in a while.

[Anonymous]

I worked in an open office before COVID. I got used to working with people around me making calls. I don’t get why so many people are complaining about having to work in an open office / hot desk. It’s not that hard to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:During the pandemic all these downtown businesses got lavish bailouts like PPP, etc. And now years later they still want even more subsidies? The world has moved on and nobody with a computer needs to commute anymore. Time for these laggards to adjust, or else we should also bring back the horse and carriage industry - fair is fair.

Let me try this..

"During the pandemic these downtown workers got extreme flexibilities to stay at home and even got checks in the mail from the government with no strings attached. And now years later they still want these benefits? The world has moved on and there is no need to stay separated at home anymore. Time for people to adjust, or else we should all keep movie theaters and restaurants and churches closed- fair is fair."

Here, lets try this:

Workers in the US and around the world have effectively shown that they can successfully work from home. It isn't employees responsibility to support failing businesses who refuse to change their business model to reflect the changes. Likewise, some people have immune compromised family members and forcing them back into the office, can greatly impact that family members health. If an employee is under preforming, they should be terminated.

NP. I disagree with your premise. WFH 100% was an extreme struggle in the beginning, then we limped along and eventually got better at it. But then as time wore on, it got harder again. New employees came on and basically crashed and burned. They had no contacts, couldn't reach people, couldn't get their work done and didn't integrate well. People just don't network well remotely. Almost 4 years later, about 30% of our office is new hires since 2020. We don't have adequate fed collaboration tools. And the ones we do have? They're FOIAable. Who wants new reporters reading every chat they wrote to coworkers?

Fed managers also have pretty much no tools to get their employees to get their work done remotely. I did put people on PIPs but it was a full time job. Whereas in person PIPs are much easier to manage. Fed managers can't see if their employees are working. We often have long term deliverables. Bob says he's working SO hard (and even shows a few docs/pages complete)! But then completely drops the ball and you don't find out until certain drafts are due.

So to say that feds should RTO, it's not the same as private sector RTO. Private sector can fire very easily.

np, I see what you are saying and i don't disagree with some of it but... training new staff is your job, not mine. why should i spend two hours every day just because you didn't plan your job correctly? Your entire second paragraph is, again, your job too. The fact you are unable to handle your staff, shouldn't be my problem. you need to move on from "i have to SEE you to MANAGE you" approach. Those days are done and gone.

+1 to the part about the second paragraph. The PP sounds like a terrible manager. Seriously it's not that hard to set deliverables and deadlines and in person or remote shouldn't make a difference. If performance isn't up to par PIP and then terminate them. I also don't believe that these underperformed will all of a sudden become acceptable performers in the office. It's been my experience that good workers do good work wherever they decide to work.

I'm an excellent manager actually. Some differences: in office, employees stopped by and asked me more questions. When they got stuck they just asked. Remotely, they just sit on it and don't ask questions. I've even made myself available daily for "office hours" and they are afraid to ask. Our jobs are difficult and very technical. For my newest hire, I have a weekly meeting just with her, but it's still not enough. She lets things sit until our weekly meeting (there are team meetings as well, this one meeting is just us).

I'm not asking to see them to manage them. It's more the other way around. They can't work effectively unless they learn teamwork. And the way federal offices are set up (and our lack of collaboration tools), teamwork remotely isn't easy. As a manager I'm there to help them achieve their tasks and provide expert advice.

The guy that I fired was actually a good performer in office, but during the pandemic he just stopped doing work at all. I think he just couldn't focus at home.

I personally do a great job remotely, but I'm at a high enough level that I don't need any more networking. I know how to get my job done. Not all feds are at that level or have been in their jobs long enough. The feds who are at my level though, aren't sharing their expertise or knowledge.

If people aren't getting their work done (even if it is because they aren't asking questions) you revoke their telework for performance-based reasons. That's literally your job as a manager to manage people. That said, I don't really believe that someone that is too lazy or stupid to call or email their questions is going to be successful in an in-office setting.

Regarding the 2nd person people should have a choice to come in if they want. People shouldn't be forced to use their home space for work if they don't want to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:During the pandemic all these downtown businesses got lavish bailouts like PPP, etc. And now years later they still want even more subsidies? The world has moved on and nobody with a computer needs to commute anymore. Time for these laggards to adjust, or else we should also bring back the horse and carriage industry - fair is fair.

Let me try this..

"During the pandemic these downtown workers got extreme flexibilities to stay at home and even got checks in the mail from the government with no strings attached. And now years later they still want these benefits? The world has moved on and there is no need to stay separated at home anymore. Time for people to adjust, or else we should all keep movie theaters and restaurants and churches closed- fair is fair."

Here, lets try this:

Workers in the US and around the world have effectively shown that they can successfully work from home. It isn't employees responsibility to support failing businesses who refuse to change their business model to reflect the changes. Likewise, some people have immune compromised family members and forcing them back into the office, can greatly impact that family members health. If an employee is under preforming, they should be terminated.

NP. I disagree with your premise. WFH 100% was an extreme struggle in the beginning, then we limped along and eventually got better at it. But then as time wore on, it got harder again. New employees came on and basically crashed and burned. They had no contacts, couldn't reach people, couldn't get their work done and didn't integrate well. People just don't network well remotely. Almost 4 years later, about 30% of our office is new hires since 2020. We don't have adequate fed collaboration tools. And the ones we do have? They're FOIAable. Who wants new reporters reading every chat they wrote to coworkers?

Fed managers also have pretty much no tools to get their employees to get their work done remotely. I did put people on PIPs but it was a full time job. Whereas in person PIPs are much easier to manage. Fed managers can't see if their employees are working. We often have long term deliverables. Bob says he's working SO hard (and even shows a few docs/pages complete)! But then completely drops the ball and you don't find out until certain drafts are due.

So to say that feds should RTO, it's not the same as private sector RTO. Private sector can fire very easily.

np, I see what you are saying and i don't disagree with some of it but... training new staff is your job, not mine. why should i spend two hours every day just because you didn't plan your job correctly? Your entire second paragraph is, again, your job too. The fact you are unable to handle your staff, shouldn't be my problem. you need to move on from "i have to SEE you to MANAGE you" approach. Those days are done and gone.

+1 to the part about the second paragraph. The PP sounds like a terrible manager. Seriously it's not that hard to set deliverables and deadlines and in person or remote shouldn't make a difference. If performance isn't up to par PIP and then terminate them. I also don't believe that these underperformed will all of a sudden become acceptable performers in the office. It's been my experience that good workers do good work wherever they decide to work.

I'm an excellent manager actually. Some differences: in office, employees stopped by and asked me more questions. When they got stuck they just asked. Remotely, they just sit on it and don't ask questions. I've even made myself available daily for "office hours" and they are afraid to ask. Our jobs are difficult and very technical. For my newest hire, I have a weekly meeting just with her, but it's still not enough. She lets things sit until our weekly meeting (there are team meetings as well, this one meeting is just us).

I'm not asking to see them to manage them. It's more the other way around. They can't work effectively unless they learn teamwork. And the way federal offices are set up (and our lack of collaboration tools), teamwork remotely isn't easy. As a manager I'm there to help them achieve their tasks and provide expert advice.

The guy that I fired was actually a good performer in office, but during the pandemic he just stopped doing work at all. I think he just couldn't focus at home.

I personally do a great job remotely, but I'm at a high enough level that I don't need any more networking. I know how to get my job done. Not all feds are at that level or have been in their jobs long enough. The feds who are at my level though, aren't sharing their expertise or knowledge.

If people aren't getting their work done (even if it is because they aren't asking questions) you revoke their telework for performance-based reasons. That's literally your job as a manager to manage people. That said, I don't really believe that someone that is too lazy or stupid to call or email their questions is going to be successful in an in-office setting.

Regarding the 2nd person people should have a choice to come in if they want. People shouldn't be forced to use their home space for work if they don't want to.

They see their job as delegating not managing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I worked in an open office before COVID. I got used to working with people around me making calls. I don’t get why so many people are complaining about having to work in an open office / hot desk. It’s not that hard to do.

Putting aside the remote work issue open floorplans suck and everyone hates them. There are tons of threads on here where people say they hate open floor plan and for good reason.

[Anonymous]

Pls tell Biden my German shepherd needs me to WFH. I’m more productive and protected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RTO is BS. I say that as at work we were talking about improving morale.

Now we work from home Tuesday’s and Thursday’s and Friday is unofficially Jeans and Sneakers and long lunch and leave at 3-4pm

The people with no child care, near retirement, long commutes, people with second jobs, lazy people want more WFH to improve morale.

How does that accomplish anything?

The people who work wanted better training, free lunch, better promotion opportunities, greater access sr. Mgt, more meaningful work.

I mean next week Monday a Holiday, Tuesday WFH, Wed in office, Thursday WFH and Friday jeans and sneakers leave early. So more off is better?

Working from home or wearing jeans doesn't mean you're getting a day off.

In fantasy land. Ok so it has been proven WFH do 18 percent less work. They on average work 6 hours a day. And no commute.

So it is sleep in, get kids in bus, check email at 8-9 while sipping coffee, off to gym, come back, move mouse around, off to supermarket or Starbucks or lunch with GFs, move mouse around, kids off bus, make snacks, check email. Around 8pm one last check email to to make it look like you work 12 hours a day.

Or worse my friends boss has two part time jobs, single mom with kids. Her calendar is booked 6-7 hours a day with her other jobs and kids stuff. She works tops 1-3 hours a week.

WFH is vacation

Its more like
work 6-7 (1h)
kid wakes at 7, help them with dress/teeth/dressing, walk them to school
back to work 830-200 (5.5h)
walk and pickup kid 2-3
3-430 work (1.5h)

I am available and logged in for 8 hours. I meet my deliverables and start working before most, available during core hours, and work into normal afternoon hours. My lunch is 2-3.

My DH works in DC and has an hour drive to/from. He leaves at 530 to get to work at 6 and is back at 330/4. So if I did not work from home, I would not be getting in until 9 or later since my commute is also 45-60minutes and I cant drop my kid off before 8am. I don't get paid enough for an au pair or nanny and I am not sure what the point of a "family friendly" workplace is that pays less than market rate because they are "family friendly" if my kids have to be raised by someone else/all care outsourced/act like I dont have a family.

WFH allows me to give the best of what's available to everyone from everyone who needs me. My job doesnt miss out on productivity/engagement and I dont miss out on time with my kid.

6-7am I catch up with whatever happened after 430. 830-2 I do my main workload. 3-430 is remainders and stragglers. I am available for meetings outside of these times with notice and no one has issues scheduling meetings with me.

I do grocery pickup only, make Nespresso each morning, and have a home gym so I am not at starbucks or spincycle or the grocery store. That 2-3 off time includes prepping a post-school snack.

Ive got the best of both worlds right now and that means I am committed to my job and company and also loyal. They want me to travel, great. They need a meeting at 530 for a west coast program, sure thing. I need to cover and double my workload while my supervisor is traveling or on a 2 week vacation, can do boss. If I am commuting 2 hours per day and dont see my family, you would get half of me because the other half is dreaming of WAH/a new job/ etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RTO is BS. I say that as at work we were talking about improving morale.

Now we work from home Tuesday’s and Thursday’s and Friday is unofficially Jeans and Sneakers and long lunch and leave at 3-4pm

The people with no child care, near retirement, long commutes, people with second jobs, lazy people want more WFH to improve morale.

How does that accomplish anything?

The people who work wanted better training, free lunch, better promotion opportunities, greater access sr. Mgt, more meaningful work.

I mean next week Monday a Holiday, Tuesday WFH, Wed in office, Thursday WFH and Friday jeans and sneakers leave early. So more off is better?

Working from home or wearing jeans doesn't mean you're getting a day off.

In fantasy land. Ok so it has been proven WFH do 18 percent less work. They on average work 6 hours a day. And no commute.

So it is sleep in, get kids in bus, check email at 8-9 while sipping coffee, off to gym, come back, move mouse around, off to supermarket or Starbucks or lunch with GFs, move mouse around, kids off bus, make snacks, check email. Around 8pm one last check email to to make it look like you work 12 hours a day.

Or worse my friends boss has two part time jobs, single mom with kids. Her calendar is booked 6-7 hours a day with her other jobs and kids stuff. She works tops 1-3 hours a week.

WFH is vacation

RTO schedule
Arrive 9 am. Clock in. Walk to the deli to grab breakfast. Eat breakfast at desk while checking email.

10 am catch up with the early arrivers on the office gossip. Make the rounds to each office. Talk about last night's games and reality shows.

11 am coffee break.

11:30,, answer some emails, personal and work. Schedule your appointments. Browse Washington Post and NYT.

12:30 lunch. Run errands. Stretch it to 90 minutes cause you couldn't find parking. Pick up takeout.

2 PM lunch at desk.

2:30 emails.

3PM call Dh or DW, make sure kids are home safe. Pay online bills, take care of other personal stuff.

3:30 last rounds. Go office to office to catch up on gossip.

4:30 last check of emails. Return business calls late on the day hoping to just leave a VM and punt to tomorrow.

Leave 5 PM on the dot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RTO is BS. I say that as at work we were talking about improving morale.

Now we work from home Tuesday’s and Thursday’s and Friday is unofficially Jeans and Sneakers and long lunch and leave at 3-4pm

The people with no child care, near retirement, long commutes, people with second jobs, lazy people want more WFH to improve morale.

How does that accomplish anything?

The people who work wanted better training, free lunch, better promotion opportunities, greater access sr. Mgt, more meaningful work.

I mean next week Monday a Holiday, Tuesday WFH, Wed in office, Thursday WFH and Friday jeans and sneakers leave early. So more off is better?

Working from home or wearing jeans doesn't mean you're getting a day off.

In fantasy land. Ok so it has been proven WFH do 18 percent less work. They on average work 6 hours a day. And no commute.

So it is sleep in, get kids in bus, check email at 8-9 while sipping coffee, off to gym, come back, move mouse around, off to supermarket or Starbucks or lunch with GFs, move mouse around, kids off bus, make snacks, check email. Around 8pm one last check email to to make it look like you work 12 hours a day.

Or worse my friends boss has two part time jobs, single mom with kids. Her calendar is booked 6-7 hours a day with her other jobs and kids stuff. She works tops 1-3 hours a week.

WFH is vacation

RTO schedule
Arrive 9 am. Clock in. Walk to the deli to grab breakfast. Eat breakfast at desk while checking email.

10 am catch up with the early arrivers on the office gossip. Make the rounds to each office. Talk about last night's games and reality shows.

11 am coffee break.

11:30,, answer some emails, personal and work. Schedule your appointments. Browse Washington Post and NYT.

12:30 lunch. Run errands. Stretch it to 90 minutes cause you couldn't find parking. Pick up takeout.

2 PM lunch at desk.

2:30 emails.

3PM call Dh or DW, make sure kids are home safe. Pay online bills, take care of other personal stuff.

3:30 last rounds. Go office to office to catch up on gossip.

4:30 last check of emails. Return business calls late on the day hoping to just leave a VM and punt to tomorrow.

Leave 5 PM on the dot.

This sounds like my old office mate. We worked on the same project and he never produced anything until 430. Nothing would be updated on the website, etc. Like clockwork I knew it was time to go home once his name started popping up on notifications. He did do lots of fantasy sports stuff though....