Why are people on DCUM so much more concerned about RTO than about the EO calling for eliminating jobs?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| I think it's bizarre that people are so focused on the commute but not the potential job loss. Maybe one feels very real but the other feels like it's going to happen to someone else? |
Anonymous
| From the hiring freeze EO: Within 90 days of the date of this memorandum, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in consultation with the Director of OPM and the Administrator of the United States DOGE Service (USDS), shall submit a plan to reduce the size of the Federal Government’s workforce through efficiency improvements and attrition. Upon issuance of the OMB plan, this memorandum shall expire for all executive departments and agencies, with the exception of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). This memorandum shall remain in effect for the IRS until the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Director of OMB and the Administrator of USDS, determines that it is in the national interest to lift the freeze. |
Anonymous
| Does this apply to independent agencies? |
Anonymous
| USDS - is that even a thing? |
Anonymous
There’s already a lawsuit |
Anonymous
|
USDS is already a thing--the US Digital Service
https://www.usds.gov they mostly work on improving federal websites |
Anonymous
The EO references this - the United States DOGE Service (USDS), |
Anonymous
Yes, very strange |
Anonymous
There are plenty of feds who go to the office, but the hand-wringing of some of these posters is wild |
Anonymous
|
Because it takes a long time to lay off government workers, or move an agency, or whatever means they will take to fire people. RTO can happen more quickly and may be applied across the board (although that will also take time and have obstacles).
I would expect RTO before I expect mass firings. |
Anonymous
I know. I was just pointing out that it's stupid for them to be using an acronym that is already an existing federal government service. For something, that legally, isn't a government service. |
Anonymous
| Attrition based reductions are nothing new. Been happening for decades. They’re offering early retirements, people will leave, they won’t fill the empty positions. More people will leave because of burnout. Mission accomplished. |
Anonymous
Also, this EO specifically talks about attrition. You put in a hiring freeze, end remote work, and force full-time in-office and you won't have to lay anyone off, you'll hit whatever goal they come up with without doing anything hard. |
Anonymous
Exactly. Most people who are worried about RTO are not likely to be on the cutting block. |
Anonymous
|
Reducing the workforce by attrition is not a surprise, and will last only 4 years. Frankly in my cabinet level department the retirements started in November.
I’m not sure what kind of “efficiency improvements” they’re going to come up with, but honestly I’m sort of surprised they have 90 days to make a plan for it. Im also surprised at the wording of the RTW EO. I’m fully remote and my duty station is my home address. I’m within 50 miles so expect to be coming back to the office at some point, but there is plenty if wiggle room in the drafting. As expected, this EO seems more for show than anything else. It’s all pretty awful but I’m not actually worried about losing my job. For me personally I’m worried about my job being miserable and demoralizing for the next four years, and spending more time commuting and less time with my kids, and whether our plans for handling all the logistics of me going back to the office will work as well as we hope. Im much more worried about the other stuff but this is the wrong forum for that. |