Federal Reserve RTO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is depressing. I used to work for the Fed, and I thought the staff was better than this. The answer to RTO is to form a union or strategically use leave to cover it? Thank goodness the Chair is more dedicated to the mission than those in it for an easy paycheck. Really, really disappointing.

Wow. Newsflash - you can be a union supporter AND support “the missiom.” There is a reason every single other financial agency has a union and it’s not that Fed workers are somehow more dedicated to the “mission.” Unless your view is that the “mission” means employees shouldn’t care about the terms and conditions of their employment.

I don’t understand why any of them have a union. As a PP said, unions are typically found where workers are abused and cannot effectively negotiate for themselves. I wouldn’t characterize $300k, a pension, a 401k, and lots of vacation and sick time for 40 hours of work in an individual office with a door as being abused. Also, the Fed has been VERY generous with WFH, including massive tolerance for parents with young children at home, during the pandemic. Your work conditions and pay are beyond compare for what you do.

They have a union to establish the terms and conditions of employment in a way that uses their collective influence and does not rest on the arbitrary whims of a manager. Not too hard to understand! Unions also protect against retaliation and unfair discipline - very important to maintain examiner integrity.

You’ve defined what a union does, but not why the Fed needs one. Based on the previous post, I don’t understand how a union could improve your life, except full-time telework/remote for everyone.

The Fed needs a union because Fed employees are unhappy with the terms & conditions of their employment and want to bargain collectively to obtain a legally enforceable contract to improve the terms & conditions of employment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many large and admired private organizations (Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.) are now cutting jobs because they overhired during the pandemic. Yet, they expect to do just as well or better in the future. These same companies are also requiring more people to return to the office. One issue they cite is the decline in innovation. What makes you think that the Fed - a government bureaucracy - is immune to the same issues and remedies?

Because the Fed should be more concerned with hiring talent with the appropriate experience than forcing them to go into an office to innovate. The Fed isn’t google.

If you don’t think the Fed needs to innovate, the Fed should fire you. Let’s see, in the past few years there’s been crypto/digital coins, climate, fintech, financial stability, payment processing, LIBOR/SOFR to name a few issues that have required new or significantly revised study, policy, and supervisory changes.

That’s not innovation. It’s reacting and responding to innovation.

It’s innovation in research, policy, and supervisory practice. You seem to have a very narrow view of innovation. Regardless what you call it, such initiatives require a lot of time and coordination from a lot of individuals, which is better done at the office.

No it’s not better done at the office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is depressing. I used to work for the Fed, and I thought the staff was better than this. The answer to RTO is to form a union or strategically use leave to cover it? Thank goodness the Chair is more dedicated to the mission than those in it for an easy paycheck. Really, really disappointing.

Wow. Newsflash - you can be a union supporter AND support “the missiom.” There is a reason every single other financial agency has a union and it’s not that Fed workers are somehow more dedicated to the “mission.” Unless your view is that the “mission” means employees shouldn’t care about the terms and conditions of their employment.

I don’t understand why any of them have a union. As a PP said, unions are typically found where workers are abused and cannot effectively negotiate for themselves. I wouldn’t characterize $300k, a pension, a 401k, and lots of vacation and sick time for 40 hours of work in an individual office with a door as being abused. Also, the Fed has been VERY generous with WFH, including massive tolerance for parents with young children at home, during the pandemic. Your work conditions and pay are beyond compare for what you do.

They have a union to establish the terms and conditions of employment in a way that uses their collective influence and does not rest on the arbitrary whims of a manager. Not too hard to understand! Unions also protect against retaliation and unfair discipline - very important to maintain examiner integrity.

(Also - who is getting 300k?)

I have a couple of very close friends at the Fed, and we are very open about discussing compensation, and while they have tons of experience, they're not making anything close to 300K even with the sweet bonus. It's funny that figure keeps getting tossed around like everyone at the Fed is making that much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many large and admired private organizations (Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.) are now cutting jobs because they overhired during the pandemic. Yet, they expect to do just as well or better in the future. These same companies are also requiring more people to return to the office. One issue they cite is the decline in innovation. What makes you think that the Fed - a government bureaucracy - is immune to the same issues and remedies?

Because the Fed should be more concerned with hiring talent with the appropriate experience than forcing them to go into an office to innovate. The Fed isn’t google.

The Fed cannot compete on private sector salaries, so it MUST compete on other terms & conditions, like WFH. There are actual scholarly articles written about how the financial markets cannot be well regulated unless financial regulators can attract and retain the best staff, given ALL the money on the other side. It’s not optional - the Fed cannot treat its employees as disposible.

How did the Fed compete before WFH? Aren’t the agency’s work/life balance, pension, flex scheduling, lifetime healthcare, and generous leave sufficient differentiators. Why is WFH now the must-have difference?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is depressing. I used to work for the Fed, and I thought the staff was better than this. The answer to RTO is to form a union or strategically use leave to cover it? Thank goodness the Chair is more dedicated to the mission than those in it for an easy paycheck. Really, really disappointing.

Wow. Newsflash - you can be a union supporter AND support “the missiom.” There is a reason every single other financial agency has a union and it’s not that Fed workers are somehow more dedicated to the “mission.” Unless your view is that the “mission” means employees shouldn’t care about the terms and conditions of their employment.

I don’t understand why any of them have a union. As a PP said, unions are typically found where workers are abused and cannot effectively negotiate for themselves. I wouldn’t characterize $300k, a pension, a 401k, and lots of vacation and sick time for 40 hours of work in an individual office with a door as being abused. Also, the Fed has been VERY generous with WFH, including massive tolerance for parents with young children at home, during the pandemic. Your work conditions and pay are beyond compare for what you do.

They have a union to establish the terms and conditions of employment in a way that uses their collective influence and does not rest on the arbitrary whims of a manager. Not too hard to understand! Unions also protect against retaliation and unfair discipline - very important to maintain examiner integrity.

(Also - who is getting 300k?)

I have a couple of very close friends at the Fed, and we are very open about discussing compensation, and while they have tons of experience, they're not making anything close to 300K even with the sweet bonus. It's funny that figure keeps getting tossed around like everyone at the Fed is making that much.

OP is clearly a Fed attorney. Experienced, non-officer attorneys make $300k with salary and bonus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many large and admired private organizations (Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.) are now cutting jobs because they overhired during the pandemic. Yet, they expect to do just as well or better in the future. These same companies are also requiring more people to return to the office. One issue they cite is the decline in innovation. What makes you think that the Fed - a government bureaucracy - is immune to the same issues and remedies?

Because the Fed should be more concerned with hiring talent with the appropriate experience than forcing them to go into an office to innovate. The Fed isn’t google.

The Fed cannot compete on private sector salaries, so it MUST compete on other terms & conditions, like WFH. There are actual scholarly articles written about how the financial markets cannot be well regulated unless financial regulators can attract and retain the best staff, given ALL the money on the other side. It’s not optional - the Fed cannot treat its employees as disposible.

How did the Fed compete before WFH? Aren’t the agency’s work/life balance, pension, flex scheduling, lifetime healthcare, and generous leave sufficient differentiators. Why is WFH now the must-have difference?

It doesn’t matter about pre-covid. Now we know what a huge benefit WFH is, have designed lives around it, and don’t want to go back. The pandemic was proof that we can be as or more productive at home. Cannot put that genie back into the bottle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many large and admired private organizations (Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.) are now cutting jobs because they overhired during the pandemic. Yet, they expect to do just as well or better in the future. These same companies are also requiring more people to return to the office. One issue they cite is the decline in innovation. What makes you think that the Fed - a government bureaucracy - is immune to the same issues and remedies?

Because the Fed should be more concerned with hiring talent with the appropriate experience than forcing them to go into an office to innovate. The Fed isn’t google.

The Fed cannot compete on private sector salaries, so it MUST compete on other terms & conditions, like WFH. There are actual scholarly articles written about how the financial markets cannot be well regulated unless financial regulators can attract and retain the best staff, given ALL the money on the other side. It’s not optional - the Fed cannot treat its employees as disposible.

How did the Fed compete before WFH? Aren’t the agency’s work/life balance, pension, flex scheduling, lifetime healthcare, and generous leave sufficient differentiators. Why is WFH now the must-have difference?

Pre-Covid the Fed offered WFH to be able to hire experts in other parts of the country. The new policy is more restrictive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many large and admired private organizations (Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.) are now cutting jobs because they overhired during the pandemic. Yet, they expect to do just as well or better in the future. These same companies are also requiring more people to return to the office. One issue they cite is the decline in innovation. What makes you think that the Fed - a government bureaucracy - is immune to the same issues and remedies?

Because the Fed should be more concerned with hiring talent with the appropriate experience than forcing them to go into an office to innovate. The Fed isn’t google.

The Fed cannot compete on private sector salaries, so it MUST compete on other terms & conditions, like WFH. There are actual scholarly articles written about how the financial markets cannot be well regulated unless financial regulators can attract and retain the best staff, given ALL the money on the other side. It’s not optional - the Fed cannot treat its employees as disposible.

How did the Fed compete before WFH? Aren’t the agency’s work/life balance, pension, flex scheduling, lifetime healthcare, and generous leave sufficient differentiators. Why is WFH now the must-have difference?

Now you’re changing your argument. WFH is no longer about competing for workers, it’s about your personal comfort. I believe that.

It doesn’t matter about pre-covid. Now we know what a huge benefit WFH is, have designed lives around it, and don’t want to go back. The pandemic was proof that we can be as or more productive at home. Cannot put that genie back into the bottle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many large and admired private organizations (Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.) are now cutting jobs because they overhired during the pandemic. Yet, they expect to do just as well or better in the future. These same companies are also requiring more people to return to the office. One issue they cite is the decline in innovation. What makes you think that the Fed - a government bureaucracy - is immune to the same issues and remedies?

Because the Fed should be more concerned with hiring talent with the appropriate experience than forcing them to go into an office to innovate. The Fed isn’t google.

The Fed cannot compete on private sector salaries, so it MUST compete on other terms & conditions, like WFH. There are actual scholarly articles written about how the financial markets cannot be well regulated unless financial regulators can attract and retain the best staff, given ALL the money on the other side. It’s not optional - the Fed cannot treat its employees as disposible.

How did the Fed compete before WFH? Aren’t the agency’s work/life balance, pension, flex scheduling, lifetime healthcare, and generous leave sufficient differentiators. Why is WFH now the must-have difference?

It doesn’t matter about pre-covid. Now we know what a huge benefit WFH is, have designed lives around it, and don’t want to go back. The pandemic was proof that we can be as or more productive at home. Cannot put that genie back into the bottle.

Now you’re changing your argument. WFH is no longer about competing for workers, it’s about your personal comfort. I believe that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many large and admired private organizations (Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.) are now cutting jobs because they overhired during the pandemic. Yet, they expect to do just as well or better in the future. These same companies are also requiring more people to return to the office. One issue they cite is the decline in innovation. What makes you think that the Fed - a government bureaucracy - is immune to the same issues and remedies?

Because the Fed should be more concerned with hiring talent with the appropriate experience than forcing them to go into an office to innovate. The Fed isn’t google.

The Fed cannot compete on private sector salaries, so it MUST compete on other terms & conditions, like WFH. There are actual scholarly articles written about how the financial markets cannot be well regulated unless financial regulators can attract and retain the best staff, given ALL the money on the other side. It’s not optional - the Fed cannot treat its employees as disposible.

How did the Fed compete before WFH? Aren’t the agency’s work/life balance, pension, flex scheduling, lifetime healthcare, and generous leave sufficient differentiators. Why is WFH now the must-have difference?

It doesn’t matter about pre-covid. Now we know what a huge benefit WFH is, have designed lives around it, and don’t want to go back. The pandemic was proof that we can be as or more productive at home. Cannot put that genie back into the bottle.

Looking back it’s crazy I went into the office 5 days a week to hold conference calls with organizations in other parts of the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many large and admired private organizations (Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.) are now cutting jobs because they overhired during the pandemic. Yet, they expect to do just as well or better in the future. These same companies are also requiring more people to return to the office. One issue they cite is the decline in innovation. What makes you think that the Fed - a government bureaucracy - is immune to the same issues and remedies?

Because the Fed should be more concerned with hiring talent with the appropriate experience than forcing them to go into an office to innovate. The Fed isn’t google.

The Fed cannot compete on private sector salaries, so it MUST compete on other terms & conditions, like WFH. There are actual scholarly articles written about how the financial markets cannot be well regulated unless financial regulators can attract and retain the best staff, given ALL the money on the other side. It’s not optional - the Fed cannot treat its employees as disposible.

How did the Fed compete before WFH? Aren’t the agency’s work/life balance, pension, flex scheduling, lifetime healthcare, and generous leave sufficient differentiators. Why is WFH now the must-have difference?

Pre-Covid the Fed offered WFH to be able to hire experts in other parts of the country. The new policy is more restrictive.

It doesn’t matter. Every expert for every Board project doesn’t need to be employed by the Board. That’s why it’s called a System. Most major initiatives at the Fed involve RB personnel. Alternatively, the Fed could do as you suggest, but geo pay should apply and regular, enforced office visits should too. Someone based in flyover country shouldn’t receive a DC salary. Part of the DC salary is to afford DC real estate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many large and admired private organizations (Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.) are now cutting jobs because they overhired during the pandemic. Yet, they expect to do just as well or better in the future. These same companies are also requiring more people to return to the office. One issue they cite is the decline in innovation. What makes you think that the Fed - a government bureaucracy - is immune to the same issues and remedies?

Because the Fed should be more concerned with hiring talent with the appropriate experience than forcing them to go into an office to innovate. The Fed isn’t google.

The Fed cannot compete on private sector salaries, so it MUST compete on other terms & conditions, like WFH. There are actual scholarly articles written about how the financial markets cannot be well regulated unless financial regulators can attract and retain the best staff, given ALL the money on the other side. It’s not optional - the Fed cannot treat its employees as disposible.

How did the Fed compete before WFH? Aren’t the agency’s work/life balance, pension, flex scheduling, lifetime healthcare, and generous leave sufficient differentiators. Why is WFH now the must-have difference?

Pre-Covid the Fed offered WFH to be able to hire experts in other parts of the country. The new policy is more restrictive.

It doesn’t matter. Every expert for every Board project doesn’t need to be employed by the Board. That’s why it’s called a System. Most major initiatives at the Fed involve RB personnel. Alternatively, the Fed could do as you suggest, but geo pay should apply and regular, enforced office visits should too. Someone based in flyover country shouldn’t receive a DC salary. Part of the DC salary is to afford DC real estate.

Now we know why you hate WFH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many large and admired private organizations (Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.) are now cutting jobs because they overhired during the pandemic. Yet, they expect to do just as well or better in the future. These same companies are also requiring more people to return to the office. One issue they cite is the decline in innovation. What makes you think that the Fed - a government bureaucracy - is immune to the same issues and remedies?

Because the Fed should be more concerned with hiring talent with the appropriate experience than forcing them to go into an office to innovate. The Fed isn’t google.

The Fed cannot compete on private sector salaries, so it MUST compete on other terms & conditions, like WFH. There are actual scholarly articles written about how the financial markets cannot be well regulated unless financial regulators can attract and retain the best staff, given ALL the money on the other side. It’s not optional - the Fed cannot treat its employees as disposible.

How did the Fed compete before WFH? Aren’t the agency’s work/life balance, pension, flex scheduling, lifetime healthcare, and generous leave sufficient differentiators. Why is WFH now the must-have difference?

It doesn’t matter about pre-covid. Now we know what a huge benefit WFH is, have designed lives around it, and don’t want to go back. The pandemic was proof that we can be as or more productive at home. Cannot put that genie back into the bottle.

Now you’re changing your argument. WFH is no longer about competing for workers, it’s about your personal comfort. I believe that.

that’s the thing about collective bargaining: it’s about everyone, not just one person. And no, deriding a fundamental condition of employment as “personal comfort” doesn’t work. you could say the same thing about salary, vacation …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many large and admired private organizations (Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.) are now cutting jobs because they overhired during the pandemic. Yet, they expect to do just as well or better in the future. These same companies are also requiring more people to return to the office. One issue they cite is the decline in innovation. What makes you think that the Fed - a government bureaucracy - is immune to the same issues and remedies?

Because the Fed should be more concerned with hiring talent with the appropriate experience than forcing them to go into an office to innovate. The Fed isn’t google.

The Fed cannot compete on private sector salaries, so it MUST compete on other terms & conditions, like WFH. There are actual scholarly articles written about how the financial markets cannot be well regulated unless financial regulators can attract and retain the best staff, given ALL the money on the other side. It’s not optional - the Fed cannot treat its employees as disposible.

How did the Fed compete before WFH? Aren’t the agency’s work/life balance, pension, flex scheduling, lifetime healthcare, and generous leave sufficient differentiators. Why is WFH now the must-have difference?

Pre-Covid the Fed offered WFH to be able to hire experts in other parts of the country. The new policy is more restrictive.

It doesn’t matter. Every expert for every Board project doesn’t need to be employed by the Board. That’s why it’s called a System. Most major initiatives at the Fed involve RB personnel. Alternatively, the Fed could do as you suggest, but geo pay should apply and regular, enforced office visits should too. Someone based in flyover country shouldn’t receive a DC salary. Part of the DC salary is to afford DC real estate.

The Board WFH policy shouldn’t be based off of your emotions about WFH and that you’re angry you had to buy overpriced real estate here.

It should be based on what works for the organization and helps retain and promote the best staff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many large and admired private organizations (Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.) are now cutting jobs because they overhired during the pandemic. Yet, they expect to do just as well or better in the future. These same companies are also requiring more people to return to the office. One issue they cite is the decline in innovation. What makes you think that the Fed - a government bureaucracy - is immune to the same issues and remedies?

Because the Fed should be more concerned with hiring talent with the appropriate experience than forcing them to go into an office to innovate. The Fed isn’t google.

The Fed cannot compete on private sector salaries, so it MUST compete on other terms & conditions, like WFH. There are actual scholarly articles written about how the financial markets cannot be well regulated unless financial regulators can attract and retain the best staff, given ALL the money on the other side. It’s not optional - the Fed cannot treat its employees as disposible.

How did the Fed compete before WFH? Aren’t the agency’s work/life balance, pension, flex scheduling, lifetime healthcare, and generous leave sufficient differentiators. Why is WFH now the must-have difference?

Pre-Covid the Fed offered WFH to be able to hire experts in other parts of the country. The new policy is more restrictive.

It doesn’t matter. Every expert for every Board project doesn’t need to be employed by the Board. That’s why it’s called a System. Most major initiatives at the Fed involve RB personnel. Alternatively, the Fed could do as you suggest, but geo pay should apply and regular, enforced office visits should too. Someone based in flyover country shouldn’t receive a DC salary. Part of the DC salary is to afford DC real estate.

The Board WFH policy shouldn’t be based off of your emotions about WFH and that you’re angry you had to buy overpriced real estate here.

It should be based on what works for the organization and helps retain and promote the best staff.

My statement is not emotional (nice try). If cost differentials in real estate are not the primary driver of differences in COL - and thus geo pay - what is? What I’m talking about is economic fairness. Will that be part of your unionizing manifesto?

As for including the best staff on projects, you haven’t addressed the fact that the overwhelming number of most large Board projects include lots of RB staff. The Board has never employed all the “best” experts of the System.