Do you think DOGE will eliminate remote policy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife and I work for the Federal government. She has WFH from the COVID beginning. Her agency repurposed her office (and several others. an entire floor) during COVID so that she no longer occupies a dedicated office on site. She only returns to the office for extraordinary reasons, once every 6 weeks or so.

No one cares if your wife has a dedicated office if the agency or dept has office space she can be called back to work.

You didn’t read the post, or perhaps you did and lack the intellectual capacity to understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DOGE is just two guys in room. They’re not Congress, an office or anything. Baddies how long til Trump gets sick if musk and moves on to his next shiny object?

I agree. It's just bluster right now.

I don't get this "only two guys" thing. Those two guys have DT's ear... That's the only thing that matters for now.

I also don't get why people seem so confident laws and rules will matter to these folks.

Because there aren't laws and rules that protect remote work. Your agency can change your duty station.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DOGE is just two guys in room. They’re not Congress, an office or anything. Baddies how long til Trump gets sick if musk and moves on to his next shiny object?

I agree. It's just bluster right now.

I don't get this "only two guys" thing. Those two guys have DT's ear... That's the only thing that matters for now.

I also don't get why people seem so confident laws and rules will matter to these folks.

I don't either

[Anonymous]

They are going to try. That's for sure. They are going to try to make everyone's life as miserable as possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i do hope they mandate 5 days per week in office. i have a few people i'd like to get rid of in my office.

Just get rid of them. If you actually cared, you’d go through the steps to document performance issues and terminate them.

If whatever about them you dislike doesn’t rise to that level and you actually can’t fire them, you’re just a nasty excuse for a human being.

Me too. Some of them are just deadweight and federal laws/Union makes it so difficult and time consuming. I am hoping this would help getting rid of some of the non-performers.

Then it seems you aren't wearing your thinking cap. Talented workers who like short commutes will get different/better jobs and leave. Dead weight will come to the office and bother you in person more than they did via phone, like they did in the before days. Remote work allowed for recruiting talent that was otherwise hard to retain in civil service.

None of this matters. Trump et al aren't actually focused on efficiency and quality of work. It will all be shooting from the hip with the only strategy of making sure their personal businesses profit and they can sell to middle America they've stuck it to the feds. There is no actual goal of improving government so what they do is anyone's guess. (Though anyone in the dmv should obviously be ready to commute 5 days.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They are going to try. That's for sure. They are going to try to make everyone's life as miserable as possible.

I think some of it is needed to shake up the tree. Feds have been too comfortable and mediocre for a long time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are going to try. That's for sure. They are going to try to make everyone's life as miserable as possible.

I think some of it is needed to shake up the tree. Feds have been too comfortable and mediocre for a long time.

This.
There is no doubt that there are plenty of dedicated, hardworking, and talented feds. But you're lying to yourself if you think there's not a contingency that's lazy and milking the system. Performance management is difficult at best, so if we can get some of the lazy ones moved on with the threat of RTO and job cuts, then why not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are going to try. That's for sure. They are going to try to make everyone's life as miserable as possible.

I think some of it is needed to shake up the tree. Feds have been too comfortable and mediocre for a long time.

This.
There is no doubt that there are plenty of dedicated, hardworking, and talented feds. But you're lying to yourself if you think there's not a contingency that's lazy and milking the system. Performance management is difficult at best, so if we can get some of the lazy ones moved on with the threat of RTO and job cuts, then why not.

This move would not be targeted at poor performers though. Vivek explicitly said that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are going to try. That's for sure. They are going to try to make everyone's life as miserable as possible.

I think some of it is needed to shake up the tree. Feds have been too comfortable and mediocre for a long time.

This.
There is no doubt that there are plenty of dedicated, hardworking, and talented feds. But you're lying to yourself if you think there's not a contingency that's lazy and milking the system. Performance management is difficult at best, so if we can get some of the lazy ones moved on with the threat of RTO and job cuts, then why not.

This move would not be targeted at poor performers though. Vivek explicitly said that.

Headcount, not the performance, is the play of the game

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are going to try. That's for sure. They are going to try to make everyone's life as miserable as possible.

I think some of it is needed to shake up the tree. Feds have been too comfortable and mediocre for a long time.

This.
There is no doubt that there are plenty of dedicated, hardworking, and talented feds. But you're lying to yourself if you think there's not a contingency that's lazy and milking the system. Performance management is difficult at best, so if we can get some of the lazy ones moved on with the threat of RTO and job cuts, then why not.

This move would not be targeted at poor performers though. Vivek explicitly said that.

How will Vivek be evaluating Fed performance? Appraisals? Comical..

[Anonymous]

A couple of things it may be worth getting straight:

1. DOGE won't "do" anything. At best, it will make recommendations to the Trump Administration. It will be the Trump Administration via OPM/OMB/GAO and appointed agency heads that make the change.
2. Of course it is impossible to make every single fed report to a physical location overnight. There is nuance and complication. OPM/GAO exist to work through those kinds of complications.
3. Any Fed with an assigned office space can expect to be reporting most if not every day per week come March at the latest.
4. Feds in different situations will be relatively safe for several months at least. Some will never return, others will after office lease, office reconfiguration, etc.
5. Those who have been fully remote since before the pandemic are the most safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are going to try. That's for sure. They are going to try to make everyone's life as miserable as possible.

I think some of it is needed to shake up the tree. Feds have been too comfortable and mediocre for a long time.

What in the world makes you think it’s the mediocre ones who will move on or be shaken up? The best performers and most capable people will go find other jobs - either ones with more flexibility or that pay more. So demanding 5 day rto will mean the mediocre feds are the ones who stick around

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i do hope they mandate 5 days per week in office. i have a few people i'd like to get rid of in my office.

Just get rid of them. If you actually cared, you’d go through the steps to document performance issues and terminate them.

If whatever about them you dislike doesn’t rise to that level and you actually can’t fire them, you’re just a nasty excuse for a human being.

Me too. Some of them are just deadweight and federal laws/Union makes it so difficult and time consuming. I am hoping this would help getting rid of some of the non-performers.

Just do your job and fire them. You are the problem here.

lol, you can't fire them silly. they are protected.

This. I have email chains and other paper trails to get rid of someone. You know what they did, move them to a different department so they could spend their last few years until retirement checking emails.

Exactly. And when it comes to old workers, the cost and time involved of firing someone exceedss the cost of just allowing them to read the Post all day until retirement.

So yes, it is possible to fire someone, but it isn't the most cost-effective option.

They should really make it much easier to fire people older than 50. That's when productivity, skills, and intellect seem to nose-dive. Or at least make it much easier to demote them two grades.

And yet at my DoD we are constantly prevailing before MSPB, EEOC and even District Court for properly terminating people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife and I work for the Federal government. She has WFH from the COVID beginning. Her agency repurposed her office (and several others. an entire floor) during COVID so that she no longer occupies a dedicated office on site. She only returns to the office for extraordinary reasons, once every 6 weeks or so.

How is this in any way responsive?

Because remote policy cannot be eliminated if no office exists to which the employee can return.

GSA has surplus space in the region that can be used. The government is already paying for the longterm lease space, so they may as well utilize it. Easterly Government Properties use a 20-year lease for government space. That’s a lot of space not being used but taxpayers pay for it.

[Anonymous]

My guess is yes.

This will likely be a good thing for many government employees. The government is where careers go to die. The private sector is superior and offers better opportunities. Benefits are often better too.

Many people will freak out and a few years later look back and be thankful they got the push they needed.