What is going to happen to the RTO?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have heard that some agencies are going back to pre COVID policies.

Which agencies? Which policies?

FDA. Its in the news.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have heard that some agencies are going back to pre COVID policies.

Which agencies? Which policies?

FDA. Its in the news.

Unfortunately it’s only certain groups. Another great way to boost morale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://apnews.com/article/fda-remote-work-telework-f7b6036c62f44359b5d04fafb9eb5fec

Kinda surprised folks went public w this after expressly being told not to. Pretty sure if they reverse course at this stage they will rapidly lose folks.

This is the way it should be. If employees have proven themselves to be trustworthy and hardworking, let them work remotely.

That’s not what’s happening. They’re doing this because if they lose more staff in specific divisions, it will trigger a massive funding cut that will fully shutdown the FDA. They need a carrot to keep the reviewers they have left. They let the wrong people take early retirement and buyouts, and they scared off more with their mean spirited layoffs.

Too bad Sara Brenner spent all her time jogging and dancing around her office instead of pushing back on DOGE when she was in charge. She could have prevented this. Now Makary has to kowtow in front of the Secretary and the White House to get an RTO exemption. It’s a good thing he’s so short. He’s already closer to the ground.

Any date when this might also extend to DOJ and we can WFH again?

This whole idea of people just coming to the office every single day is ridiculous and unworkable long term:

I think DOJ may experience a world of pain before RTO comes back. It’s been eerily quiet since the reorg memo came out.

I would think DOJ would be among the last to come back in any meaningful way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your "job" can be done at home, then it will likely be put on the chopping block and outsourced or eliminated.

Technology has defeated those jobs.

Eh. Everyone I know with professional jobs in the private sector can do their job at home a day or two a week. If being able to use a computer and email in your home office is the line then no job should be safe.

Those jobs will be replaced. Really it will return to physical labor jobs being the only secure ones, talking more complicated physical labor jobs, not robotic factory assembly line ones that robots can do.

It's so weird that you cling to a narrative that is both false and grim. A happy fantasy I would understand, but trying to push an idea that is bad for everyone and also demonstrably untrue is really odd.
I would love to know what you did for a living before you retired.

You're delusional. If AI can replace nurses, doctors, and lawyers, what makes you think your precious white collar job won't fall victim to AI? Even IT professionals are losing jobs to AI.

AI cannot replace nurses, doctors, and lawyers.

DP but sure it can, and already is in the stages of doing so.

Of those, nurses would be the least likely to be replaced, as they are doing physical labor that cannot be done by a computer, or even robotics at this point in time.

Doctors can easily be replaced by machines/booths that a patient is hooked up to, scanned, and a full physical exam performed on in just minutes, much better than a whole team of doctors could do in weeks. Virtual diagnosing is already common among the profession, and just the start of that trend.

Lawyer are the MOST susceptible to being replaced by AI of the ones you list, as AI can peruse millions of court cases in microseconds and counter argue a point, bring up an objection, and cite previous law in seconds. Something not even hundreds of human lawyers working for months on a case could do.

It is amazing how people don't realize all this. Mostly it is just fear and depression of uncertainty in their field of work.

Google, Amazon, Microsoft, etc. are not spending billions of dollars on AI tech just for kids to play with online, it will replace human workers in every area possible.

And this will be a good thing overall.

Just how people decried the use of tractors and machinery replacing slaves and workers, AI will replace humans in many fields of work.

I think this would be a good thing if normal people could reap the benefits with having easier and/or shortened workdays, but literally all the benefits will go to the large corporations. It’s not like the average American is suddenly going to have a good paying job with fewer hours. No, it will be fewer Americans with 40+ hour/week jobs to oversee the robots while the masses are unemployed and the birth rate continues to drop.

Not to mention it’s depressing to think about living on a world where we interact with robots for everything. While I wouldn’t mind a doctor who can use AI to research my medical conditions, I don’t want to be completely treated by a machine. I don’t even like the self checkout line at the grocery store. What a stupid world where we make ourselves functionally obsolete.

It's hard to say what direction it will take, perhaps multiple ones.

The cold hard facts though are that AI and robotics will revolutionize the workforce as much if not more than the mechanization of society when coal/gas came about and the Industrial Revolution prior to it.

I find it amusing how many on this site, and this very thread, seem to be in denial about the changes that are already happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your "job" can be done at home, then it will likely be put on the chopping block and outsourced or eliminated.

Technology has defeated those jobs.

Eh. Everyone I know with professional jobs in the private sector can do their job at home a day or two a week. If being able to use a computer and email in your home office is the line then no job should be safe.

Those jobs will be replaced. Really it will return to physical labor jobs being the only secure ones, talking more complicated physical labor jobs, not robotic factory assembly line ones that robots can do.

It's so weird that you cling to a narrative that is both false and grim. A happy fantasy I would understand, but trying to push an idea that is bad for everyone and also demonstrably untrue is really odd.
I would love to know what you did for a living before you retired.

You're delusional. If AI can replace nurses, doctors, and lawyers, what makes you think your precious white collar job won't fall victim to AI? Even IT professionals are losing jobs to AI.

AI cannot replace nurses, doctors, and lawyers.

DP but sure it can, and already is in the stages of doing so.

Of those, nurses would be the least likely to be replaced, as they are doing physical labor that cannot be done by a computer, or even robotics at this point in time.

Doctors can easily be replaced by machines/booths that a patient is hooked up to, scanned, and a full physical exam performed on in just minutes, much better than a whole team of doctors could do in weeks. Virtual diagnosing is already common among the profession, and just the start of that trend.

Lawyer are the MOST susceptible to being replaced by AI of the ones you list, as AI can peruse millions of court cases in microseconds and counter argue a point, bring up an objection, and cite previous law in seconds. Something not even hundreds of human lawyers working for months on a case could do.

It is amazing how people don't realize all this. Mostly it is just fear and depression of uncertainty in their field of work.

Google, Amazon, Microsoft, etc. are not spending billions of dollars on AI tech just for kids to play with online, it will replace human workers in every area possible.

And this will be a good thing overall.

Just how people decried the use of tractors and machinery replacing slaves and workers, AI will replace humans in many fields of work.

I think this would be a good thing if normal people could reap the benefits with having easier and/or shortened workdays, but literally all the benefits will go to the large corporations. It’s not like the average American is suddenly going to have a good paying job with fewer hours. No, it will be fewer Americans with 40+ hour/week jobs to oversee the robots while the masses are unemployed and the birth rate continues to drop.

Not to mention it’s depressing to think about living on a world where we interact with robots for everything. While I wouldn’t mind a doctor who can use AI to research my medical conditions, I don’t want to be completely treated by a machine. I don’t even like the self checkout line at the grocery store. What a stupid world where we make ourselves functionally obsolete.

It's hard to say what direction it will take, perhaps multiple ones.

The cold hard facts though are that AI and robotics will revolutionize the workforce as much if not more than the mechanization of society when coal/gas came about and the Industrial Revolution prior to it.

I find it amusing how many on this site, and this very thread, seem to be in denial about the changes that are already happening.

On one hand I get this, on the other hand I can’t even effectively communicate with AI when I call a 1-800 number. I have to yell REPRESENTATIVE and they can never understand who to route me to. If AI is ready to take over the workforce, why can’t it handle something so simple?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your "job" can be done at home, then it will likely be put on the chopping block and outsourced or eliminated.

Technology has defeated those jobs.

Eh. Everyone I know with professional jobs in the private sector can do their job at home a day or two a week. If being able to use a computer and email in your home office is the line then no job should be safe.

Those jobs will be replaced. Really it will return to physical labor jobs being the only secure ones, talking more complicated physical labor jobs, not robotic factory assembly line ones that robots can do.

It's so weird that you cling to a narrative that is both false and grim. A happy fantasy I would understand, but trying to push an idea that is bad for everyone and also demonstrably untrue is really odd.
I would love to know what you did for a living before you retired.

You're delusional. If AI can replace nurses, doctors, and lawyers, what makes you think your precious white collar job won't fall victim to AI? Even IT professionals are losing jobs to AI.

AI cannot replace nurses, doctors, and lawyers.

DP but sure it can, and already is in the stages of doing so.

Of those, nurses would be the least likely to be replaced, as they are doing physical labor that cannot be done by a computer, or even robotics at this point in time.

Doctors can easily be replaced by machines/booths that a patient is hooked up to, scanned, and a full physical exam performed on in just minutes, much better than a whole team of doctors could do in weeks. Virtual diagnosing is already common among the profession, and just the start of that trend.

Lawyer are the MOST susceptible to being replaced by AI of the ones you list, as AI can peruse millions of court cases in microseconds and counter argue a point, bring up an objection, and cite previous law in seconds. Something not even hundreds of human lawyers working for months on a case could do.

It is amazing how people don't realize all this. Mostly it is just fear and depression of uncertainty in their field of work.

Google, Amazon, Microsoft, etc. are not spending billions of dollars on AI tech just for kids to play with online, it will replace human workers in every area possible.

And this will be a good thing overall.

Just how people decried the use of tractors and machinery replacing slaves and workers, AI will replace humans in many fields of work.

I think this would be a good thing if normal people could reap the benefits with having easier and/or shortened workdays, but literally all the benefits will go to the large corporations. It’s not like the average American is suddenly going to have a good paying job with fewer hours. No, it will be fewer Americans with 40+ hour/week jobs to oversee the robots while the masses are unemployed and the birth rate continues to drop.

Not to mention it’s depressing to think about living on a world where we interact with robots for everything. While I wouldn’t mind a doctor who can use AI to research my medical conditions, I don’t want to be completely treated by a machine. I don’t even like the self checkout line at the grocery store. What a stupid world where we make ourselves functionally obsolete.

It's hard to say what direction it will take, perhaps multiple ones.

The cold hard facts though are that AI and robotics will revolutionize the workforce as much if not more than the mechanization of society when coal/gas came about and the Industrial Revolution prior to it.

I find it amusing how many on this site, and this very thread, seem to be in denial about the changes that are already happening.

AI is both bad as in poor quality and bad as in immoral. The only reason we'll see mass adoption is because so many fools willfully misunderstand how it does and doesn't work.

So yes it will likely change everything, but only because people are stupid, not because it's better or cheaper. It performs worse than humans, uses more energy, and cannot function without "free" stolen data that would be cost-prohibitive to pay for as required by law.

You think the rich will have AI doctors? No, that will be for the poors and they won't care how many die of obvious misdiagnosis by AI. The rich will get human service just like they get live people on the phone now, not the chat bots everyone hates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The cold hard facts though are that AI and robotics will revolutionize the workforce as much if not more than the mechanization of society when coal/gas came about and the Industrial Revolution prior to it.

Someone so smug should learn the difference between facts and opinions before spouting off online.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://apnews.com/article/fda-remote-work-telework-f7b6036c62f44359b5d04fafb9eb5fec

Kinda surprised folks went public w this after expressly being told not to. Pretty sure if they reverse course at this stage they will rapidly lose folks.

This is the way it should be. If employees have proven themselves to be trustworthy and hardworking, let them work remotely.

That’s not what’s happening. They’re doing this because if they lose more staff in specific divisions, it will trigger a massive funding cut that will fully shutdown the FDA. They need a carrot to keep the reviewers they have left. They let the wrong people take early retirement and buyouts, and they scared off more with their mean spirited layoffs.

Too bad Sara Brenner spent all her time jogging and dancing around her office instead of pushing back on DOGE when she was in charge. She could have prevented this. Now Makary has to kowtow in front of the Secretary and the White House to get an RTO exemption. It’s a good thing he’s so short. He’s already closer to the ground.

Reviewers were excluded from the early buyouts (at least VSIP and VERA, they were eligible for the fork).

I know at least one person whose role was technically “medical officer” who took the VERA. Pretty sure reviewers were eligible for VERA but not VSIP. I don’t know any reviewers who tried to take the fork, and we haven’t been offered it again yet.

also, lol at PP’s comments re Brenner dancing around the office. God, she annoyed me so much! Her coming into the OND all hands meeting via zoom was the most tone deaf thing ever (2-3 weeks after all senior/supervisory staff was supposed to have ceased all telework)

Wasn’t a fan of Makary’s initial speech either. Teleworking two days a week makes me quitting less likely in the immediate term, but things would have to get a whole lot better for me to want to stay beyond that.

This. She sucked. Preoccupied with her appearance and no leadership ability. I don’t understand how she got to her current position, she is not even exceptionally well trained from before fda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your "job" can be done at home, then it will likely be put on the chopping block and outsourced or eliminated.

Technology has defeated those jobs.

Or transferred to a location or city you don't want to move to.

Where you can do it has nothing to do with what type of work it is—the first jobs to be done be robots were manufacturing jobs and those definitely can’t be done from home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://apnews.com/article/fda-remote-work-telework-f7b6036c62f44359b5d04fafb9eb5fec

Kinda surprised folks went public w this after expressly being told not to. Pretty sure if they reverse course at this stage they will rapidly lose folks.

This is the way it should be. If employees have proven themselves to be trustworthy and hardworking, let them work remotely.

That’s not what’s happening. They’re doing this because if they lose more staff in specific divisions, it will trigger a massive funding cut that will fully shutdown the FDA. They need a carrot to keep the reviewers they have left. They let the wrong people take early retirement and buyouts, and they scared off more with their mean spirited layoffs.

Too bad Sara Brenner spent all her time jogging and dancing around her office instead of pushing back on DOGE when she was in charge. She could have prevented this. Now Makary has to kowtow in front of the Secretary and the White House to get an RTO exemption. It’s a good thing he’s so short. He’s already closer to the ground.

Reviewers were excluded from the early buyouts (at least VSIP and VERA, they were eligible for the fork).

I know at least one person whose role was technically “medical officer” who took the VERA. Pretty sure reviewers were eligible for VERA but not VSIP. I don’t know any reviewers who tried to take the fork, and we haven’t been offered it again yet.

also, lol at PP’s comments re Brenner dancing around the office. God, she annoyed me so much! Her coming into the OND all hands meeting via zoom was the most tone deaf thing ever (2-3 weeks after all senior/supervisory staff was supposed to have ceased all telework)

Wasn’t a fan of Makary’s initial speech either. Teleworking two days a week makes me quitting less likely in the immediate term, but things would have to get a whole lot better for me to want to stay beyond that.

This. She sucked. Preoccupied with her appearance and no leadership ability. I don’t understand how she got to her current position, she is not even exceptionally well trained from before fda.

There aren’t many MAGA at FDA so she didn’t have much competition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://apnews.com/article/fda-remote-work-telework-f7b6036c62f44359b5d04fafb9eb5fec

Kinda surprised folks went public w this after expressly being told not to. Pretty sure if they reverse course at this stage they will rapidly lose folks.

This is the way it should be. If employees have proven themselves to be trustworthy and hardworking, let them work remotely.

That’s not what’s happening. They’re doing this because if they lose more staff in specific divisions, it will trigger a massive funding cut that will fully shutdown the FDA. They need a carrot to keep the reviewers they have left. They let the wrong people take early retirement and buyouts, and they scared off more with their mean spirited layoffs.

Too bad Sara Brenner spent all her time jogging and dancing around her office instead of pushing back on DOGE when she was in charge. She could have prevented this. Now Makary has to kowtow in front of the Secretary and the White House to get an RTO exemption. It’s a good thing he’s so short. He’s already closer to the ground.

Reviewers were excluded from the early buyouts (at least VSIP and VERA, they were eligible for the fork).

I know at least one person whose role was technically “medical officer” who took the VERA. Pretty sure reviewers were eligible for VERA but not VSIP. I don’t know any reviewers who tried to take the fork, and we haven’t been offered it again yet.

also, lol at PP’s comments re Brenner dancing around the office. God, she annoyed me so much! Her coming into the OND all hands meeting via zoom was the most tone deaf thing ever (2-3 weeks after all senior/supervisory staff was supposed to have ceased all telework)

Wasn’t a fan of Makary’s initial speech either. Teleworking two days a week makes me quitting less likely in the immediate term, but things would have to get a whole lot better for me to want to stay beyond that.

This. She sucked. Preoccupied with her appearance and no leadership ability. I don’t understand how she got to her current position, she is not even exceptionally well trained from before fda.

Unfortunately she is still the PDC. She is not going away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your "job" can be done at home, then it will likely be put on the chopping block and outsourced or eliminated.

Technology has defeated those jobs.

Or transferred to a location or city you don't want to move to.

Where you can do it has nothing to do with what type of work it is—the first jobs to be done be robots were manufacturing jobs and those definitely can’t be done from home.

I would love for the "scientists will work in sneaker factories" tariff people to get in touch with the "AI will replace doctors" people and straighten out their story. The whole thing lacks narrative cohesion, needs a good editor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your "job" can be done at home, then it will likely be put on the chopping block and outsourced or eliminated.

Technology has defeated those jobs.

Eh. Everyone I know with professional jobs in the private sector can do their job at home a day or two a week. If being able to use a computer and email in your home office is the line then no job should be safe.

Those jobs will be replaced. Really it will return to physical labor jobs being the only secure ones, talking more complicated physical labor jobs, not robotic factory assembly line ones that robots can do.

It's so weird that you cling to a narrative that is both false and grim. A happy fantasy I would understand, but trying to push an idea that is bad for everyone and also demonstrably untrue is really odd.
I would love to know what you did for a living before you retired.

You're delusional. If AI can replace nurses, doctors, and lawyers, what makes you think your precious white collar job won't fall victim to AI? Even IT professionals are losing jobs to AI.

AI cannot replace nurses, doctors, and lawyers.

DP but sure it can, and already is in the stages of doing so.

Of those, nurses would be the least likely to be replaced, as they are doing physical labor that cannot be done by a computer, or even robotics at this point in time.

Doctors can easily be replaced by machines/booths that a patient is hooked up to, scanned, and a full physical exam performed on in just minutes, much better than a whole team of doctors could do in weeks. Virtual diagnosing is already common among the profession, and just the start of that trend.

Lawyer are the MOST susceptible to being replaced by AI of the ones you list, as AI can peruse millions of court cases in microseconds and counter argue a point, bring up an objection, and cite previous law in seconds. Something not even hundreds of human lawyers working for months on a case could do.

It is amazing how people don't realize all this. Mostly it is just fear and depression of uncertainty in their field of work.

Google, Amazon, Microsoft, etc. are not spending billions of dollars on AI tech just for kids to play with online, it will replace human workers in every area possible.

And this will be a good thing overall.

Just how people decried the use of tractors and machinery replacing slaves and workers, AI will replace humans in many fields of work.

I think this would be a good thing if normal people could reap the benefits with having easier and/or shortened workdays, but literally all the benefits will go to the large corporations. It’s not like the average American is suddenly going to have a good paying job with fewer hours. No, it will be fewer Americans with 40+ hour/week jobs to oversee the robots while the masses are unemployed and the birth rate continues to drop.

Not to mention it’s depressing to think about living on a world where we interact with robots for everything. While I wouldn’t mind a doctor who can use AI to research my medical conditions, I don’t want to be completely treated by a machine. I don’t even like the self checkout line at the grocery store. What a stupid world where we make ourselves functionally obsolete.

It's hard to say what direction it will take, perhaps multiple ones.

The cold hard facts though are that AI and robotics will revolutionize the workforce as much if not more than the mechanization of society when coal/gas came about and the Industrial Revolution prior to it.

I find it amusing how many on this site, and this very thread, seem to be in denial about the changes that are already happening.

On one hand I get this, on the other hand I can’t even effectively communicate with AI when I call a 1-800 number. I have to yell REPRESENTATIVE and they can never understand who to route me to. If AI is ready to take over the workforce, why can’t it handle something so simple?

I do not know the answer to your question, but this week I was on the phone with a human software support technician who said something like "let me know if you don't understand anything I say due to my accent." I have no idea what country she was in, but I thought it was a very professional way to handle what can be an awkward situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your "job" can be done at home, then it will likely be put on the chopping block and outsourced or eliminated.

Technology has defeated those jobs.

Eh. Everyone I know with professional jobs in the private sector can do their job at home a day or two a week. If being able to use a computer and email in your home office is the line then no job should be safe.

Those jobs will be replaced. Really it will return to physical labor jobs being the only secure ones, talking more complicated physical labor jobs, not robotic factory assembly line ones that robots can do.

It's so weird that you cling to a narrative that is both false and grim. A happy fantasy I would understand, but trying to push an idea that is bad for everyone and also demonstrably untrue is really odd.
I would love to know what you did for a living before you retired.

You're delusional. If AI can replace nurses, doctors, and lawyers, what makes you think your precious white collar job won't fall victim to AI? Even IT professionals are losing jobs to AI.

AI cannot replace nurses, doctors, and lawyers.

DP but sure it can, and already is in the stages of doing so.

Of those, nurses would be the least likely to be replaced, as they are doing physical labor that cannot be done by a computer, or even robotics at this point in time.

Doctors can easily be replaced by machines/booths that a patient is hooked up to, scanned, and a full physical exam performed on in just minutes, much better than a whole team of doctors could do in weeks. Virtual diagnosing is already common among the profession, and just the start of that trend.

Lawyer are the MOST susceptible to being replaced by AI of the ones you list, as AI can peruse millions of court cases in microseconds and counter argue a point, bring up an objection, and cite previous law in seconds. Something not even hundreds of human lawyers working for months on a case could do.

It is amazing how people don't realize all this. Mostly it is just fear and depression of uncertainty in their field of work.

Google, Amazon, Microsoft, etc. are not spending billions of dollars on AI tech just for kids to play with online, it will replace human workers in every area possible.

And this will be a good thing overall.

Just how people decried the use of tractors and machinery replacing slaves and workers, AI will replace humans in many fields of work.

I think this would be a good thing if normal people could reap the benefits with having easier and/or shortened workdays, but literally all the benefits will go to the large corporations. It’s not like the average American is suddenly going to have a good paying job with fewer hours. No, it will be fewer Americans with 40+ hour/week jobs to oversee the robots while the masses are unemployed and the birth rate continues to drop.

Not to mention it’s depressing to think about living on a world where we interact with robots for everything. While I wouldn’t mind a doctor who can use AI to research my medical conditions, I don’t want to be completely treated by a machine. I don’t even like the self checkout line at the grocery store. What a stupid world where we make ourselves functionally obsolete.

It's hard to say what direction it will take, perhaps multiple ones.

The cold hard facts though are that AI and robotics will revolutionize the workforce as much if not more than the mechanization of society when coal/gas came about and the Industrial Revolution prior to it.

I find it amusing how many on this site, and this very thread, seem to be in denial about the changes that are already happening.

Well most of us here do knowledge work, and AI cannot actually think. Maybe it will replace the very bottom rungs of work like legal document review.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://apnews.com/article/fda-remote-work-telework-f7b6036c62f44359b5d04fafb9eb5fec

Kinda surprised folks went public w this after expressly being told not to. Pretty sure if they reverse course at this stage they will rapidly lose folks.

This is the way it should be. If employees have proven themselves to be trustworthy and hardworking, let them work remotely.

That’s not what’s happening. They’re doing this because if they lose more staff in specific divisions, it will trigger a massive funding cut that will fully shutdown the FDA. They need a carrot to keep the reviewers they have left. They let the wrong people take early retirement and buyouts, and they scared off more with their mean spirited layoffs.

Too bad Sara Brenner spent all her time jogging and dancing around her office instead of pushing back on DOGE when she was in charge. She could have prevented this. Now Makary has to kowtow in front of the Secretary and the White House to get an RTO exemption. It’s a good thing he’s so short. He’s already closer to the ground.

Reviewers were excluded from the early buyouts (at least VSIP and VERA, they were eligible for the fork).

I know at least one person whose role was technically “medical officer” who took the VERA. Pretty sure reviewers were eligible for VERA but not VSIP. I don’t know any reviewers who tried to take the fork, and we haven’t been offered it again yet.

also, lol at PP’s comments re Brenner dancing around the office. God, she annoyed me so much! Her coming into the OND all hands meeting via zoom was the most tone deaf thing ever (2-3 weeks after all senior/supervisory staff was supposed to have ceased all telework)

Wasn’t a fan of Makary’s initial speech either. Teleworking two days a week makes me quitting less likely in the immediate term, but things would have to get a whole lot better for me to want to stay beyond that.

This. She sucked. Preoccupied with her appearance and no leadership ability. I don’t understand how she got to her current position, she is not even exceptionally well trained from before fda.

There aren’t many MAGA at FDA so she didn’t have much competition.

Yeah, they picked her because she’d been at the White House OSTP during the last Trump administration. That was her main qualification.