Best Financial Regulators for Work Life Balance

[Anonymous]

Any agencies/offices that are known to promote work life balance? Which offices are not known for work life balance?

[Anonymous]

You actually think this is a useful question? These agencies have thousands of employees performing tons of different functions. If an economist in a research division at FDIC says that work-life balance sucks, but then someone who responds to consumer complaints at CFPB tells you their work-life balance is awesome, and then someone else at FDIC who is an attorney in supervision says their work-life is also awesome, will that be useful to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You actually think this is a useful question? These agencies have thousands of employees performing tons of different functions. If an economist in a research division at FDIC says that work-life balance sucks, but then someone who responds to consumer complaints at CFPB tells you their work-life balance is awesome, and then someone else at FDIC who is an attorney in supervision says their work-life is also awesome, will that be useful to you?

Not OP, but I half agree with you, but also don't see why the snarky tone is necessary.

I agree that there are going to be big difference in units/sections within an agency, based on type of work and manager. BUT, there are ways to measure whether an entire agency is comparably better to another agency in terms of culture/morale/work-life balance. The Partnership for Public Service does it every year.

https://bestplacestowork.org/agencies-compare/?codes=TRAJ,FD00,SE00,FRFT,CU00,FY00

[Anonymous]

Sections with high visibility, front-line responsibilities, or unique agency ownership will likely be a lot of work. Examples at the Fed include monetary affairs, financial stability, and large bank supervision

Sections that don’t have those characteristics are more chill. For example, consumer (DCCA) at the Fed. The CFPB is the frontline consumer regulator, sets the policy agenda, litigates the high-profile cases, etc. The Fed’s consumer division spends most of its supervisory effort on smaller banks and has no real, independent policy initiative. There’s a lot of idle hands there, but they’d never admit it. Ask an attorney there to do anything, and they’ve practiced the art of “no.” The only one who can move the ball is the oversight Governor, who has made a difference. In the past five years, there’s been a number of senior directors pushed out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You actually think this is a useful question? These agencies have thousands of employees performing tons of different functions. If an economist in a research division at FDIC says that work-life balance sucks, but then someone who responds to consumer complaints at CFPB tells you their work-life balance is awesome, and then someone else at FDIC who is an attorney in supervision says their work-life is also awesome, will that be useful to you?

Not OP, but I half agree with you, but also don't see why the snarky tone is necessary.

I agree that there are going to be big difference in units/sections within an agency, based on type of work and manager. BUT, there are ways to measure whether an entire agency is comparably better to another agency in terms of culture/morale/work-life balance. The Partnership for Public Service does it every year.

https://bestplacestowork.org/agencies-compare/?codes=TRAJ,FD00,SE00,FRFT,CU00,FY00

It’s ironic that one of the lowest scores for these agencies is PAY!!! Of course, everyone on this thread knows that FinReg agencies get a lot more pay than average government workers, and there are multiple DCUM threads of attorneys trying to find ways into these “poor paying” gigs.

Some employees of these agencies might respond that their pay has to be higher to match market alternatives. Yet, these same employees don’t want those alternatives! When one adds the pension, lifetime subsidized medical insurance, and work-life balance (hours actually worked), FinReg salaries look even better.

Basically, these employees are very entitled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You actually think this is a useful question? These agencies have thousands of employees performing tons of different functions. If an economist in a research division at FDIC says that work-life balance sucks, but then someone who responds to consumer complaints at CFPB tells you their work-life balance is awesome, and then someone else at FDIC who is an attorney in supervision says their work-life is also awesome, will that be useful to you?

Not OP, but I half agree with you, but also don't see why the snarky tone is necessary.

I agree that there are going to be big difference in units/sections within an agency, based on type of work and manager. BUT, there are ways to measure whether an entire agency is comparably better to another agency in terms of culture/morale/work-life balance. The Partnership for Public Service does it every year.

https://bestplacestowork.org/agencies-compare/?codes=TRAJ,FD00,SE00,FRFT,CU00,FY00

It’s ironic that one of the lowest scores for these agencies is PAY!!! Of course, everyone on this thread knows that FinReg agencies get a lot more pay than average government workers, and there are multiple DCUM threads of attorneys trying to find ways into these “poor paying” gigs.

Some employees of these agencies might respond that their pay has to be higher to match market alternatives. Yet, these same employees don’t want those alternatives! When one adds the pension, lifetime subsidized medical insurance, and work-life balance (hours actually worked), FinReg salaries look even better.

Basically, these employees are very entitled.

Two things:
1. Pay will be ranked lowest for every agency anywhere in the federal government (and likely private sector). The finreg scores are in line with every other federal agency. No difference.
2. Finregs talk more about their pay because it is negotiable. At other agencies, employees know that their management can't affect pay so they don't worry about it. At the finregs, there is a real possibility of an increase, so it is an area of contention.

Let's not make this a thread about the compensation at finregs. We have enough of those.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You actually think this is a useful question? These agencies have thousands of employees performing tons of different functions. If an economist in a research division at FDIC says that work-life balance sucks, but then someone who responds to consumer complaints at CFPB tells you their work-life balance is awesome, and then someone else at FDIC who is an attorney in supervision says their work-life is also awesome, will that be useful to you?

Not OP, but I half agree with you, but also don't see why the snarky tone is necessary.

I agree that there are going to be big difference in units/sections within an agency, based on type of work and manager. BUT, there are ways to measure whether an entire agency is comparably better to another agency in terms of culture/morale/work-life balance. The Partnership for Public Service does it every year.

https://bestplacestowork.org/agencies-compare/?codes=TRAJ,FD00,SE00,FRFT,CU00,FY00

It’s ironic that one of the lowest scores for these agencies is PAY!!! Of course, everyone on this thread knows that FinReg agencies get a lot more pay than average government workers, and there are multiple DCUM threads of attorneys trying to find ways into these “poor paying” gigs.

Some employees of these agencies might respond that their pay has to be higher to match market alternatives. Yet, these same employees don’t want those alternatives! When one adds the pension, lifetime subsidized medical insurance, and work-life balance (hours actually worked), FinReg salaries look even better.

Basically, these employees are very entitled.

Two things:
1. Pay will be ranked lowest for every agency anywhere in the federal government (and likely private sector). The finreg scores are in line with every other federal agency. No difference.
2. Finregs talk more about their pay because it is negotiable. At other agencies, employees know that their management can't affect pay so they don't worry about it. At the finregs, there is a real possibility of an increase, so it is an area of contention.

Let's not make this a thread about the compensation at finregs. We have enough of those.

But you’ve missed the point of the previous post. It’s not that all government workers complain about pay, it’s that those who are paid the most want still more.

And, the pay differential between agencies is not about qualifications. An attorney at a typical agency makes half that of their counterpart at a FinReg agency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You actually think this is a useful question? These agencies have thousands of employees performing tons of different functions. If an economist in a research division at FDIC says that work-life balance sucks, but then someone who responds to consumer complaints at CFPB tells you their work-life balance is awesome, and then someone else at FDIC who is an attorney in supervision says their work-life is also awesome, will that be useful to you?

Not OP, but I half agree with you, but also don't see why the snarky tone is necessary.

I agree that there are going to be big difference in units/sections within an agency, based on type of work and manager. BUT, there are ways to measure whether an entire agency is comparably better to another agency in terms of culture/morale/work-life balance. The Partnership for Public Service does it every year.

https://bestplacestowork.org/agencies-compare/?codes=TRAJ,FD00,SE00,FRFT,CU00,FY00

It’s ironic that one of the lowest scores for these agencies is PAY!!! Of course, everyone on this thread knows that FinReg agencies get a lot more pay than average government workers, and there are multiple DCUM threads of attorneys trying to find ways into these “poor paying” gigs.

Some employees of these agencies might respond that their pay has to be higher to match market alternatives. Yet, these same employees don’t want those alternatives! When one adds the pension, lifetime subsidized medical insurance, and work-life balance (hours actually worked), FinReg salaries look even better.

Basically, these employees are very entitled.

Two things:
1. Pay will be ranked lowest for every agency anywhere in the federal government (and likely private sector). The finreg scores are in line with every other federal agency. No difference.
2. Finregs talk more about their pay because it is negotiable. At other agencies, employees know that their management can't affect pay so they don't worry about it. At the finregs, there is a real possibility of an increase, so it is an area of contention.

Let's not make this a thread about the compensation at finregs. We have enough of those.

But you’ve missed the point of the previous post. It’s not that all government workers complain about pay, it’s that those who are paid the most want still more.

And, the pay differential between agencies is not about qualifications. An attorney at a typical agency makes half that of their counterpart at a FinReg agency.

Seems like you've missed the point of the last sentence of the PP.

[Anonymous]

Ask a useless question, get useless responses. A thread about work-life balance devolves into a pay discussion that has already been beaten to death on this board.

[Anonymous]

There are two different things that often get blended into "work life balance".

One is the amount of chaos, dysfunction, and inefficiency you will endure when you are working.
The other is how many hours of your life you will actually spend working and/or ruminating about work.

If you're good about compartmentalizing, the former is better than the latter for work-life balance. You'll find that at the SEC, NCUA, OCCand FHFA- broadly speaking.
Some places you'll work a ton, but it isn't too chaotic. You'll find that, broadly speaking, at the FDIC and FTC.

Some places, unfortunately, will be both. You'll find that at the Fed and CFPB.

The OCC is hard to nail down. Currently chaotic and dysfunctional with a ton of work depending on your unit. But overall and in the long term it is the best of all worlds in terms of stability and work/life balance.

[Anonymous]

How in the world will you be able to chose between these highly sought after agencies?? Most people accept which one they get an offer.

[Anonymous]

If you work on interagency policymaking, the Fed typically “has the pen” so you’ll do A LOT more work there relative to your counterparts at the FDIC and OCC. That said, teams are a lot smaller at the FDIC and OCC, so they have to wear more hats. M

In my experience, people at the Fed work longer hours for less money. They don’t have a union and it shows.

[Anonymous]

Worked at the FDIC in a unit with little work life balance and low morale. Mostly the result of very poor immediate manager as well as the team who enabled said manager. Poor employees who did little were not only tolerated, but coddled. Good workers got the short end of the stick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Worked at the FDIC in a unit with little work life balance and low morale. Mostly the result of very poor immediate manager as well as the team who enabled said manager. Poor employees who did little were not only tolerated, but coddled. Good workers got the short end of the stick.

Welcome to the federal government and most large corporations. 10% of employees do 80% of the work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You actually think this is a useful question? These agencies have thousands of employees performing tons of different functions. If an economist in a research division at FDIC says that work-life balance sucks, but then someone who responds to consumer complaints at CFPB tells you their work-life balance is awesome, and then someone else at FDIC who is an attorney in supervision says their work-life is also awesome, will that be useful to you?

Not OP, but I half agree with you, but also don't see why the snarky tone is necessary.

I agree that there are going to be big difference in units/sections within an agency, based on type of work and manager. BUT, there are ways to measure whether an entire agency is comparably better to another agency in terms of culture/morale/work-life balance. The Partnership for Public Service does it every year.

https://bestplacestowork.org/agencies-compare/?codes=TRAJ,FD00,SE00,FRFT,CU00,FY00

It’s ironic that one of the lowest scores for these agencies is PAY!!! Of course, everyone on this thread knows that FinReg agencies get a lot more pay than average government workers, and there are multiple DCUM threads of attorneys trying to find ways into these “poor paying” gigs.

Some employees of these agencies might respond that their pay has to be higher to match market alternatives. Yet, these same employees don’t want those alternatives! When one adds the pension, lifetime subsidized medical insurance, and work-life balance (hours actually worked), FinReg salaries look even better.

Basically, these employees are very entitled.

Two things:
1. Pay will be ranked lowest for every agency anywhere in the federal government (and likely private sector). The finreg scores are in line with every other federal agency. No difference.
2. Finregs talk more about their pay because it is negotiable. At other agencies, employees know that their management can't affect pay so they don't worry about it. At the finregs, there is a real possibility of an increase, so it is an area of contention.

Let's not make this a thread about the compensation at finregs. We have enough of those.

But you’ve missed the point of the previous post. It’s not that all government workers complain about pay, it’s that those who are paid the most want still more.

And, the pay differential between agencies is not about qualifications. An attorney at a typical agency makes half that of their counterpart at a FinReg agency.

At most agencies and certainly at main justice, an experience attorney will be making $150+, so financial regulators aren't making double. The financial regulators have more exit options than the average agency attorney, especially because there are so few of them.