Does anyone thinking about leaving fed job (or taking a break) if forced to RTO 5 days a week?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is a common set-up: two parents out of the house 10 hours a day, scrambling to provide care for their own children. We make it work because we have to.

And what benefit is there to society in making more people have to deal with this?

So your question (why should I have to suffer like you, essentially) comes across as a bit… privileged to those of us who do essential in-person jobs.

Nice try. Answer the question. What benefit is there to society in making other people’s lives worse?

You mean: What if we are all as self-serving as you?

Who is going to teach your children? Who is going to provide after-school activities and childcare for you? Who is going to be at the urgent care when you or your child get sick?

See, it’s really tiresome for those of us who work for the betterment of society (which often has to be done in person) to hear the woe-is-me from somebody who may have to experience a bit of what we do. It’s hard to feel sympathy when your argument is “well, you’re suffering, but thankfully I don’t have to!”

No one is proposing to make YOUR life worse, while you are rejoicing in making our lives worse, and potentially hurts families and children the most. What kind of poor upbringing have you had?

I’m not rejoicing. Why would I bother to do that?

Just don’t “woe-is-me” about it. Consider your audience. When you have service workers who drive 45 minutes to their jobs (like me and many others), it’s really tiresome to hear people complain about RTO.

Want an example? Just look at your post. It’ll hurt YOUR family and children “the most.” Um… my long hours don’t affect MY family and children? I guess not as much as your RTO will hurt yours, huh?

So, what kind of poor upbringing have YOU had?

You have the option of not coming to DCUM and not clicking on threads. I also don't see a whole lot of moaning and wailing. I see people being pissed that their working conditions are being altered for no good reason, that they are being demeaned just to further political divide, and trying to figure out how they make the change in conditions doable. I see other threads about Amazon RTO where people are grappling with the same life upheavals generated by RTO.

If you merely comment on challenges, I get it. But there are comments on this thread that are actually insulting to those of us who work in person.

I like my job enough that I accept the fact I can’t WFH. But it is challenging to juggle childcare costs, commutes, etc. To read others on this thread who believe they are above the challenges the rest of us face? That they somehow deserve better? That’s hard to take.

Wow you are weirdly sensitive to this.

None of us think we are “above” the challenges. We just aren’t happy about suddenly dealing with those challenges for no real reason beyond appeasing a group of billionaires.

If you chose a job that is not amenable to telework, then you presumably knew that going in. And you hopefully know it’s a matter of logistics that certain jobs cannot be done remotely while others can be. Along the way, you (hopefully) weighed the childcare and commute challenges against the income you receive, the other career opportunities you may have given up, how it fits in with your spouse’s job, where you bought a home, etc.

People in telework jobs made similar life assessments, and many of us gave up more pay specifically for the telework flexibility.

I’m not mad that some people who work in-person (such a healthcare professionals) made different choices. Many may make more money than I do as a non-supervisor level GS scale worker bee. Or they get to work shift schedules to manage childcare while I have to deal with core hours, etc. And I can understand how they would be upset if suddenly their work conditions were changed so that it made their lives much more difficult solely because of a rich person’s political whims.

I truly don’t understand why you think people who planned their lives around accepting a telework amenable job being upset about RTO is any sort of reflection on you and your career choices.

[Anonymous]

I think what the anti fed people have to understand is that also people were not just given the option to go remote or telework, it was actively encouraged and we hired people completely remotely. We had to hire completely remotely to get these hires. We desperately need these people, we had a huge spike in work.

So if my office has been hiring and pushing telework and remote work for over a decade, hiring people remotely, and depending on it to get our numbers under control, cutting it will result in disaster.

[Anonymous]

I will be willing to RTO but I will not work a minute early or a minute later than scheduled if I do. And, no laptops will be taken home at night or for snow days.

If they want to go back to 1990, then we go back to 1990.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think what the anti fed people have to understand is that also people were not just given the option to go remote or telework, it was actively encouraged and we hired people completely remotely. We had to hire completely remotely to get these hires. We desperately need these people, we had a huge spike in work.

So if my office has been hiring and pushing telework and remote work for over a decade, hiring people remotely, and depending on it to get our numbers under control, cutting it will result in disaster.

They also need to understand that RTO makes it HARDER to do our jobs in some cases. If you have a role that requires regular and immediate communication with people across the United States and its territories, then being forced to commute inserts two blocks of time into your day when you are not immediately available to those in other time zones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think what the anti fed people have to understand is that also people were not just given the option to go remote or telework, it was actively encouraged and we hired people completely remotely. We had to hire completely remotely to get these hires. We desperately need these people, we had a huge spike in work.

So if my office has been hiring and pushing telework and remote work for over a decade, hiring people remotely, and depending on it to get our numbers under control, cutting it will result in disaster.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What did anti-RTO people do before the pandemic?

I only took jobs within areas where I could handle the commute. But I'm in a fully remote job now, and the location where we would RTO isn't a location where I ever would have accepted a job.

Also, I worked my 8 hours and I went home. I work a lot more and my career has grown, and I'm not giving that up.

It’s not your call. Why not find another job if they force you to? The system will continue to move with or without any of us.

It actually will be hurt if there are significant numbers of quits. I don't think that will happen, but federal employees by and large do things that are Congressionally mandated. Often they are congressionally mandated programs serving citizens, who will no longer be served.

Yes, that maybe but the system will still move forward. Do you really think the new team cares about that? It’s all about evening news and headcount.

do they care if their constituents are hurt? I realize that the administration does not, but I have to believe that even R house members care about reelection.

You’re kidding, right?

No. House R's already are negotiating on cutting various social spending programs, because they come from poor districts that benefit from those programs. I realize you've moved to nihilism, so maybe just get off the internet for a while.

What? Your response makes no sense whatsoever. Take your own advice and go touch some grass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is a common set-up: two parents out of the house 10 hours a day, scrambling to provide care for their own children. We make it work because we have to.

And what benefit is there to society in making more people have to deal with this?

So your question (why should I have to suffer like you, essentially) comes across as a bit… privileged to those of us who do essential in-person jobs.

Nice try. Answer the question. What benefit is there to society in making other people’s lives worse?

You mean: What if we are all as self-serving as you?

Who is going to teach your children? Who is going to provide after-school activities and childcare for you? Who is going to be at the urgent care when you or your child get sick?

See, it’s really tiresome for those of us who work for the betterment of society (which often has to be done in person) to hear the woe-is-me from somebody who may have to experience a bit of what we do. It’s hard to feel sympathy when your argument is “well, you’re suffering, but thankfully I don’t have to!”

Nailed it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll go back. I'll be much more of a clock watcher, though.

However, we are 50% in the office, as we don't have space for everyone. Where will they put us?

We have had dozens of posts of “but no space” — they don’t care. You need to badge in and find a corner of floor. They do not care about productivity, enough bathrooms, HVAC, comfort or anything. They want you in and miserable so you will quit.

So stop with that line of concern.

We need to hook our computers up to the LAN to work, so no individual workstation with LAN cable = no work.

If your agency requires you to be on a LAN a work I highly doubt they would even permit WFH. A LAN is hard-wired for a reason. There's no way they would permit WI-FI and VPN if they require a closed system like this, so WFH would be off limits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is a common set-up: two parents out of the house 10 hours a day, scrambling to provide care for their own children. We make it work because we have to.

And what benefit is there to society in making more people have to deal with this?

So your question (why should I have to suffer like you, essentially) comes across as a bit… privileged to those of us who do essential in-person jobs.

Nice try. Answer the question. What benefit is there to society in making other people’s lives worse?

You mean: What if we are all as self-serving as you?

Who is going to teach your children? Who is going to provide after-school activities and childcare for you? Who is going to be at the urgent care when you or your child get sick?

See, it’s really tiresome for those of us who work for the betterment of society (which often has to be done in person) to hear the woe-is-me from somebody who may have to experience a bit of what we do. It’s hard to feel sympathy when your argument is “well, you’re suffering, but thankfully I don’t have to!”

No one is proposing to make YOUR life worse, while you are rejoicing in making our lives worse, and potentially hurts families and children the most. What kind of poor upbringing have you had?

I’m not rejoicing. Why would I bother to do that?

Just don’t “woe-is-me” about it. Consider your audience. When you have service workers who drive 45 minutes to their jobs (like me and many others), it’s really tiresome to hear people complain about RTO.

Want an example? Just look at your post. It’ll hurt YOUR family and children “the most.” Um… my long hours don’t affect MY family and children? I guess not as much as your RTO will hurt yours, huh?

So, what kind of poor upbringing have YOU had?

You.arent.our.audience.

This is a thread specially about fed employees and RTO. Why are you joining in our conversations and then telling us we need tailor the discussion of this topic to your feelings?

No one asked you to be here.

What a stupid thing to say. It’s a public discussion board. No OP or commenter sets what a thread is “specifically about” or needs to “ask (anyone) to be here.” If the responses bother you, feel free to stop reading them. DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will be willing to RTO but I will not work a minute early or a minute later than scheduled if I do. And, no laptops will be taken home at night or for snow days.

If they want to go back to 1990, then we go back to 1990.

Your tantrum is noted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will be willing to RTO but I will not work a minute early or a minute later than scheduled if I do. And, no laptops will be taken home at night or for snow days.

If they want to go back to 1990, then we go back to 1990.

You tell 'em Mister! That will teach them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is a common set-up: two parents out of the house 10 hours a day, scrambling to provide care for their own children. We make it work because we have to.

And what benefit is there to society in making more people have to deal with this?

So your question (why should I have to suffer like you, essentially) comes across as a bit… privileged to those of us who do essential in-person jobs.

Nice try. Answer the question. What benefit is there to society in making other people’s lives worse?

You mean: What if we are all as self-serving as you?

Who is going to teach your children? Who is going to provide after-school activities and childcare for you? Who is going to be at the urgent care when you or your child get sick?

See, it’s really tiresome for those of us who work for the betterment of society (which often has to be done in person) to hear the woe-is-me from somebody who may have to experience a bit of what we do. It’s hard to feel sympathy when your argument is “well, you’re suffering, but thankfully I don’t have to!”

Nailed it.

Exactly - so self serving!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is a common set-up: two parents out of the house 10 hours a day, scrambling to provide care for their own children. We make it work because we have to.

And what benefit is there to society in making more people have to deal with this?

So your question (why should I have to suffer like you, essentially) comes across as a bit… privileged to those of us who do essential in-person jobs.

Nice try. Answer the question. What benefit is there to society in making other people’s lives worse?

You mean: What if we are all as self-serving as you?

Who is going to teach your children? Who is going to provide after-school activities and childcare for you? Who is going to be at the urgent care when you or your child get sick?

See, it’s really tiresome for those of us who work for the betterment of society (which often has to be done in person) to hear the woe-is-me from somebody who may have to experience a bit of what we do. It’s hard to feel sympathy when your argument is “well, you’re suffering, but thankfully I don’t have to!”

Nailed it.

Exactly - so self serving!

DP. This thread about what feds will do if faced with a big change in remote policy. It's bizarre to come in here and try to refocus the discussion around your resentment towards them. Go start your own thread about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is a common set-up: two parents out of the house 10 hours a day, scrambling to provide care for their own children. We make it work because we have to.

And what benefit is there to society in making more people have to deal with this?

So your question (why should I have to suffer like you, essentially) comes across as a bit… privileged to those of us who do essential in-person jobs.

Nice try. Answer the question. What benefit is there to society in making other people’s lives worse?

You mean: What if we are all as self-serving as you?

Who is going to teach your children? Who is going to provide after-school activities and childcare for you? Who is going to be at the urgent care when you or your child get sick?

See, it’s really tiresome for those of us who work for the betterment of society (which often has to be done in person) to hear the woe-is-me from somebody who may have to experience a bit of what we do. It’s hard to feel sympathy when your argument is “well, you’re suffering, but thankfully I don’t have to!”

Nailed it.

Exactly - so self serving!

Are you enjoying talking to yourself? How about answering the question you keep ignoring. What benefit is there to society in this? It should be simple to explain. Why can’t you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is a common set-up: two parents out of the house 10 hours a day, scrambling to provide care for their own children. We make it work because we have to.

And what benefit is there to society in making more people have to deal with this?

So your question (why should I have to suffer like you, essentially) comes across as a bit… privileged to those of us who do essential in-person jobs.

Nice try. Answer the question. What benefit is there to society in making other people’s lives worse?

You mean: What if we are all as self-serving as you?

Who is going to teach your children? Who is going to provide after-school activities and childcare for you? Who is going to be at the urgent care when you or your child get sick?

See, it’s really tiresome for those of us who work for the betterment of society (which often has to be done in person) to hear the woe-is-me from somebody who may have to experience a bit of what we do. It’s hard to feel sympathy when your argument is “well, you’re suffering, but thankfully I don’t have to!”

Nailed it.

Many of us working for the government are also working for the betterment of society. I work on matters that directly matter to people across this country on an individual level.

I completely understand that in the new world of a lot of remote work, some jobs like nursing and teaching aren’t amenable to it. Personally, I think those jobs should be more well compensated, both because they always should have been given their importance to society, and because there needs to be a way to make them attractive since they can’t be done remotely.

But that has no bearing on my job, on the other hand, which involves emails and calls all day with people on different physical locations, with only some overlap with people who are at my office in DC. So, yes, in an era of Zoom and Teams it seems quite silly to pollute the environment, add my car to the traffic, cost me 2000$ a year to park and take 2 hours of my day just to sit in an office and do the same emails and Teams calls 5x a week (I do go in 2x a week and I’m fine with that for office morale, getting to know people…it’s more about creating some relationships than anything work related. If anything, I just make your commute harder by adding to the traffic.