Questions about DOGE and RTO

[Anonymous]

I’m already back 3 days and were able to flex hours. I’ll go back five if I can flex my hours especially in the evenings. None of this 8-6hr nonsense and we should be able to leave and continue TW from home-the rigidity of 8hrs at a desk is no longer how the world operates. These people are insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fully remote should be eliminated except some special cases, like if the job has quota.

Is fully remote a huge thing? Maybe I'm just not well connected bc I don't understand where this omg feds NEVER go to the office, they're sitting home for 4+ years even comes from. Most people I know at various agencies go in 2-6 times per pay period. So 1-3 times/week. And at my agency people do it - it isn't mgmt looking the other way so people not coming in.

No, it's already special cases and quota jobs. Fully remote exists but is not the norm.

There are some people fully remote in every agency. Other employees do not like it because why someone has the special treatment? You also never see them. Most of the remote employees are not special or in demand. These positions should be eliminited.

We have hired people who are fully remote (like live in other parts of the country). Maybe 10 people in my office are fully remote. This is different than someone teleworking a few days a week but lives near the office. I don't see why we should eliminate the fully remote - we've hired some good people that way.

We've been much more successful in recruiting since we went remote. We were able to hire attorneys who didn't want to uproot their families or had a spouse's job.

Then these attorneys should not be hired. Enough supply of attorneys in DC want to work for fed government. Most remote employees got hired through connections, not merit.

what difference does it make that they hire remote? Its actually saving the government money as the remote workers don't get DC locality pay. what is your issue with it?

[Anonymous]

I feel like people should stop posting information about all of this. Let Vivek figure out all of these pesky laws and regulations on his own together with his stable of other geniuses working 80 hours a week for free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fully remote should be eliminated except some special cases, like if the job has quota.

Is fully remote a huge thing? Maybe I'm just not well connected bc I don't understand where this omg feds NEVER go to the office, they're sitting home for 4+ years even comes from. Most people I know at various agencies go in 2-6 times per pay period. So 1-3 times/week. And at my agency people do it - it isn't mgmt looking the other way so people not coming in.

No, it's already special cases and quota jobs. Fully remote exists but is not the norm.

There are some people fully remote in every agency. Other employees do not like it because why someone has the special treatment? You also never see them. Most of the remote employees are not special or in demand. These positions should be eliminited.

We have hired people who are fully remote (like live in other parts of the country). Maybe 10 people in my office are fully remote. This is different than someone teleworking a few days a week but lives near the office. I don't see why we should eliminate the fully remote - we've hired some good people that way.

We've been much more successful in recruiting since we went remote. We were able to hire attorneys who didn't want to uproot their families or had a spouse's job.

Then these attorneys should not be hired. Enough supply of attorneys in DC want to work for fed government. Most remote employees got hired through connections, not merit.

It’s much harder to pull off nepo behavior in the government than in the private sector. There are a lot of strict rules about who can cannot be hired as well as preference for Vets.

Exactly. So eliminating fully remote in agencies that do not have quota requirement (e.g USPTO has quota requirment) is the first step to reduce neop hiring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel like people should stop posting information about all of this. Let Vivek figure out all of these pesky laws and regulations on his own together with his stable of other geniuses working 80 hours a week for free.

agree, but I enjoy calling them names.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fully remote should be eliminated except some special cases, like if the job has quota.

Is fully remote a huge thing? Maybe I'm just not well connected bc I don't understand where this omg feds NEVER go to the office, they're sitting home for 4+ years even comes from. Most people I know at various agencies go in 2-6 times per pay period. So 1-3 times/week. And at my agency people do it - it isn't mgmt looking the other way so people not coming in.

No, it's already special cases and quota jobs. Fully remote exists but is not the norm.

There are some people fully remote in every agency. Other employees do not like it because why someone has the special treatment? You also never see them. Most of the remote employees are not special or in demand. These positions should be eliminited.

We have hired people who are fully remote (like live in other parts of the country). Maybe 10 people in my office are fully remote. This is different than someone teleworking a few days a week but lives near the office. I don't see why we should eliminate the fully remote - we've hired some good people that way.

We've been much more successful in recruiting since we went remote. We were able to hire attorneys who didn't want to uproot their families or had a spouse's job.

Then these attorneys should not be hired. Enough supply of attorneys in DC want to work for fed government. Most remote employees got hired through connections, not merit.

what difference does it make that they hire remote? Its actually saving the government money as the remote workers don't get DC locality pay. what is your issue with it?

If you work in West Virginia, of course you should not get DC locality pay. Why this is an argument? The issue is supervisors do not allow everyone asking for fully remote to work fully remote, only their connections or favorites. That's the unfair part. If most people work in the role are not allowed fully remote, this requirement should be apply to everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fully remote should be eliminated except some special cases, like if the job has quota.

Is fully remote a huge thing? Maybe I'm just not well connected bc I don't understand where this omg feds NEVER go to the office, they're sitting home for 4+ years even comes from. Most people I know at various agencies go in 2-6 times per pay period. So 1-3 times/week. And at my agency people do it - it isn't mgmt looking the other way so people not coming in.

No, it's already special cases and quota jobs. Fully remote exists but is not the norm.

There are some people fully remote in every agency. Other employees do not like it because why someone has the special treatment? You also never see them. Most of the remote employees are not special or in demand. These positions should be eliminited.

We have hired people who are fully remote (like live in other parts of the country). Maybe 10 people in my office are fully remote. This is different than someone teleworking a few days a week but lives near the office. I don't see why we should eliminate the fully remote - we've hired some good people that way.

We've been much more successful in recruiting since we went remote. We were able to hire attorneys who didn't want to uproot their families or had a spouse's job.

Then these attorneys should not be hired. Enough supply of attorneys in DC want to work for fed government. Most remote employees got hired through connections, not merit.

what difference does it make that they hire remote? Its actually saving the government money as the remote workers don't get DC locality pay. what is your issue with it?

If you work in West Virginia, of course you should not get DC locality pay. Why this is an argument? The issue is supervisors do not allow everyone asking for fully remote to work fully remote, only their connections or favorites. That's the unfair part. If most people work in the role are not allowed fully remote, this requirement should be apply to everyone.

Ah so you have a bone to pick. I never said anyone should get DC locality pay if they aren't in DC. Obviously. I was trying to say that hiring remote workers is saving money. Which should appeal to Trump -- if they actually use logic....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fully remote should be eliminated except some special cases, like if the job has quota.

Is fully remote a huge thing? Maybe I'm just not well connected bc I don't understand where this omg feds NEVER go to the office, they're sitting home for 4+ years even comes from. Most people I know at various agencies go in 2-6 times per pay period. So 1-3 times/week. And at my agency people do it - it isn't mgmt looking the other way so people not coming in.

No, it's already special cases and quota jobs. Fully remote exists but is not the norm.

There are some people fully remote in every agency. Other employees do not like it because why someone has the special treatment? You also never see them. Most of the remote employees are not special or in demand. These positions should be eliminited.

We have hired people who are fully remote (like live in other parts of the country). Maybe 10 people in my office are fully remote. This is different than someone teleworking a few days a week but lives near the office. I don't see why we should eliminate the fully remote - we've hired some good people that way.

We've been much more successful in recruiting since we went remote. We were able to hire attorneys who didn't want to uproot their families or had a spouse's job.

Then these attorneys should not be hired. Enough supply of attorneys in DC want to work for fed government. Most remote employees got hired through connections, not merit.

what difference does it make that they hire remote? Its actually saving the government money as the remote workers don't get DC locality pay. what is your issue with it?

If you work in West Virginia, of course you should not get DC locality pay. Why this is an argument? The issue is supervisors do not allow everyone asking for fully remote to work fully remote, only their connections or favorites. That's the unfair part. If most people work in the role are not allowed fully remote, this requirement should be apply to everyone.

Ah so you have a bone to pick. I never said anyone should get DC locality pay if they aren't in DC. Obviously. I was trying to say that hiring remote workers is saving money. Which should appeal to Trump -- if they actually use logic....

Then your logic supports moving agencies to outside of DC.

[Anonymous]

THIS IS ALL A DISTRACTION. On the list of important priorities, RTO (and most of the entire DOGE schtick), is maybe number 56.

Social security is going bankrupt, debt is exploding, imminent war with Russia and maybe China, military hallowed out, immigration, bird flu etc etc.

There’s a REASON why Trump didn’t do anything with feds in first term — He only has so much time, capacity, and political capital.

Anyone who asks for a meeting with Trump to chat about their plans to bring GS 13 Debbie back into the office won’t make it very far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fully remote should be eliminated except some special cases, like if the job has quota.

Is fully remote a huge thing? Maybe I'm just not well connected bc I don't understand where this omg feds NEVER go to the office, they're sitting home for 4+ years even comes from. Most people I know at various agencies go in 2-6 times per pay period. So 1-3 times/week. And at my agency people do it - it isn't mgmt looking the other way so people not coming in.

No, it's already special cases and quota jobs. Fully remote exists but is not the norm.

There are some people fully remote in every agency. Other employees do not like it because why someone has the special treatment? You also never see them. Most of the remote employees are not special or in demand. These positions should be eliminited.

We have hired people who are fully remote (like live in other parts of the country). Maybe 10 people in my office are fully remote. This is different than someone teleworking a few days a week but lives near the office. I don't see why we should eliminate the fully remote - we've hired some good people that way.

We've been much more successful in recruiting since we went remote. We were able to hire attorneys who didn't want to uproot their families or had a spouse's job.

Then these attorneys should not be hired. Enough supply of attorneys in DC want to work for fed government. Most remote employees got hired through connections, not merit.

what difference does it make that they hire remote? Its actually saving the government money as the remote workers don't get DC locality pay. what is your issue with it?

If you work in West Virginia, of course you should not get DC locality pay. Why this is an argument? The issue is supervisors do not allow everyone asking for fully remote to work fully remote, only their connections or favorites. That's the unfair part. If most people work in the role are not allowed fully remote, this requirement should be apply to everyone.

Ah so you have a bone to pick. I never said anyone should get DC locality pay if they aren't in DC. Obviously. I was trying to say that hiring remote workers is saving money. Which should appeal to Trump -- if they actually use logic....

Then your logic supports moving agencies to outside of DC.

moving an entire agency would not be cheap to do. And lots of agencies need to be close to DC for their mission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:THIS IS ALL A DISTRACTION. On the list of important priorities, RTO (and most of the entire DOGE schtick), is maybe number 56.

Social security is going bankrupt, debt is exploding, imminent war with Russia and maybe China, military hallowed out, immigration, bird flu etc etc.

There’s a REASON why Trump didn’t do anything with feds in first term — He only has so much time, capacity, and political capital.

Anyone who asks for a meeting with Trump to chat about their plans to bring GS 13 Debbie back into the office won’t make it very far.

good point but this is what his base wants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fully remote should be eliminated except some special cases, like if the job has quota.

Is fully remote a huge thing? Maybe I'm just not well connected bc I don't understand where this omg feds NEVER go to the office, they're sitting home for 4+ years even comes from. Most people I know at various agencies go in 2-6 times per pay period. So 1-3 times/week. And at my agency people do it - it isn't mgmt looking the other way so people not coming in.

No, it's already special cases and quota jobs. Fully remote exists but is not the norm.

There are some people fully remote in every agency. Other employees do not like it because why someone has the special treatment? You also never see them. Most of the remote employees are not special or in demand. These positions should be eliminited.

We have hired people who are fully remote (like live in other parts of the country). Maybe 10 people in my office are fully remote. This is different than someone teleworking a few days a week but lives near the office. I don't see why we should eliminate the fully remote - we've hired some good people that way.

We've been much more successful in recruiting since we went remote. We were able to hire attorneys who didn't want to uproot their families or had a spouse's job.

Then these attorneys should not be hired. Enough supply of attorneys in DC want to work for fed government. Most remote employees got hired through connections, not merit.

what difference does it make that they hire remote? Its actually saving the government money as the remote workers don't get DC locality pay. what is your issue with it?

If you work in West Virginia, of course you should not get DC locality pay. Why this is an argument? The issue is supervisors do not allow everyone asking for fully remote to work fully remote, only their connections or favorites. That's the unfair part. If most people work in the role are not allowed fully remote, this requirement should be apply to everyone.

Ah so you have a bone to pick. I never said anyone should get DC locality pay if they aren't in DC. Obviously. I was trying to say that hiring remote workers is saving money. Which should appeal to Trump -- if they actually use logic....

Then your logic supports moving agencies to outside of DC.

Might work for some agencies. But also realize that the majority of the federal workforce is already outside DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fully remote should be eliminated except some special cases, like if the job has quota.

Is fully remote a huge thing? Maybe I'm just not well connected bc I don't understand where this omg feds NEVER go to the office, they're sitting home for 4+ years even comes from. Most people I know at various agencies go in 2-6 times per pay period. So 1-3 times/week. And at my agency people do it - it isn't mgmt looking the other way so people not coming in.

No, it's already special cases and quota jobs. Fully remote exists but is not the norm.

There are some people fully remote in every agency. Other employees do not like it because why someone has the special treatment? You also never see them. Most of the remote employees are not special or in demand. These positions should be eliminited.

We have hired people who are fully remote (like live in other parts of the country). Maybe 10 people in my office are fully remote. This is different than someone teleworking a few days a week but lives near the office. I don't see why we should eliminate the fully remote - we've hired some good people that way.

We've been much more successful in recruiting since we went remote. We were able to hire attorneys who didn't want to uproot their families or had a spouse's job.

Then these attorneys should not be hired. Enough supply of attorneys in DC want to work for fed government. Most remote employees got hired through connections, not merit.

I thought we were supposed to be draining the swamp and relocating jobs out of DC. Now we want to fire remote workers (who likely have a lower locality pay) so we can hire DC attorneys? C’mon, which is it?

And hiring through connections? Tell me you know nothing about government hiring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fully remote should be eliminated except some special cases, like if the job has quota.

Is fully remote a huge thing? Maybe I'm just not well connected bc I don't understand where this omg feds NEVER go to the office, they're sitting home for 4+ years even comes from. Most people I know at various agencies go in 2-6 times per pay period. So 1-3 times/week. And at my agency people do it - it isn't mgmt looking the other way so people not coming in.

No, it's already special cases and quota jobs. Fully remote exists but is not the norm.

There are some people fully remote in every agency. Other employees do not like it because why someone has the special treatment? You also never see them. Most of the remote employees are not special or in demand. These positions should be eliminited.

We have hired people who are fully remote (like live in other parts of the country). Maybe 10 people in my office are fully remote. This is different than someone teleworking a few days a week but lives near the office. I don't see why we should eliminate the fully remote - we've hired some good people that way.

We've been much more successful in recruiting since we went remote. We were able to hire attorneys who didn't want to uproot their families or had a spouse's job.

Then these attorneys should not be hired. Enough supply of attorneys in DC want to work for fed government. Most remote employees got hired through connections, not merit.

I thought we were supposed to be draining the swamp and relocating jobs out of DC. Now we want to fire remote workers (who likely have a lower locality pay) so we can hire DC attorneys? C’mon, which is it?

And hiring through connections? Tell me you know nothing about government hiring.

To be blunt, also, we don't pay attorneys enough for them to uproot or sacrifice a spouse's job. The flexibility and remote work is how we sell it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RTO will work in one if two ways, depending on your agency:

1. For well respected, relatively noncontroversial independent agencies that get their budget from fees, etc, not much will change. SEC, OCC, FDIC, etc

2. For everyone else (and cfpb), things will be very bad.

You think a bunch of billionaires narcissists think the SEC is a respected, noncontroversial agency? You crazy, girl.

They need SEC to exist. In particular, to provide some clarity on crypto ICO issuances. SEC is critical to the functioning of financial markets. No one is blowing up the SEC; they just want to change the regs and enforcement thresholds.

SEC employee - not under the impression that SEC is respected because it isn't. But I do recognize self interest when I see it. I feel like they'll be mindful of what agencies impact the markets - i.e. where they have a ton of their own money - and which ones do not.


For SEC and I assume other unionized agencies also, isn't the work schedule/RTO in the CBA? Which runs until 2027. Can you just cancel said CBA tomorrow without litigation?

For a lot of the Agencies, there are rules pertaining to how telework determinations are made but there is now "thou shalt grant employees 4 days per pay period" type language. Most agencies would not agree to this because they want to maintain discretion to make tweaks around the margins, deal with poor performers for whom telework is not working, accommodate business needs, etc. CBAs will generally have some sort of out that the Agencies could use.

Just looked at my agency's CBA and it very clearly says 2 days per PP in office, 8 days remote; there are outs in there - business needs, poor performance etc. I assume this will all play out under business needs - now suddenly the govt needs everyone in the office. Fine. But do we think the union won't try to litigate that and say tell us what changed in the business needs?

Does it say 2 days per PP in office to maintain DC locality? That is a fact but it doesn't follow from that that BUEs can telework up to that, necessarily. I think the SEC agreement is that way.

The union would definitely try to litigate but the likelihood of success is up to an arbitrator and that process will take time. In the interim, it is most likely people will lose their existing telework agreements. Depending on the wording of the CBA, it is not that hard to make up a colorable business need for people to be in the office. "The Trump Administration says so" may reach that threshold, depending on what the relevant Agency were to argue.