Federal Reserve RTO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many large and admired private organizations (Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.) are now cutting jobs because they overhired during the pandemic. Yet, they expect to do just as well or better in the future. These same companies are also requiring more people to return to the office. One issue they cite is the decline in innovation. What makes you think that the Fed - a government bureaucracy - is immune to the same issues and remedies?

Because the Fed should be more concerned with hiring talent with the appropriate experience than forcing them to go into an office to innovate. The Fed isn’t google.

The Fed cannot compete on private sector salaries, so it MUST compete on other terms & conditions, like WFH. There are actual scholarly articles written about how the financial markets cannot be well regulated unless financial regulators can attract and retain the best staff, given ALL the money on the other side. It’s not optional - the Fed cannot treat its employees as disposible.

How did the Fed compete before WFH? Aren’t the agency’s work/life balance, pension, flex scheduling, lifetime healthcare, and generous leave sufficient differentiators. Why is WFH now the must-have difference?

Pre-Covid the Fed offered WFH to be able to hire experts in other parts of the country. The new policy is more restrictive.

It doesn’t matter. Every expert for every Board project doesn’t need to be employed by the Board. That’s why it’s called a System. Most major initiatives at the Fed involve RB personnel. Alternatively, the Fed could do as you suggest, but geo pay should apply and regular, enforced office visits should too. Someone based in flyover country shouldn’t receive a DC salary. Part of the DC salary is to afford DC real estate.

The Board WFH policy shouldn’t be based off of your emotions about WFH and that you’re angry you had to buy overpriced real estate here.

It should be based on what works for the organization and helps retain and promote the best staff.

My statement is not emotional (nice try). If cost differentials in real estate are not the primary driver of differences in COL - and thus geo pay - what is? What I’m talking about is economic fairness. Will that be part of your unionizing manifesto?

As for including the best staff on projects, you haven’t addressed the fact that the overwhelming number of most large Board projects include lots of RB staff. The Board has never employed all the “best” experts of the System.

Oh wow. The geo pay scales are based on market wages. Not COL! Of course COL is related. How do you not know this?

[Anonymous]

NP. Looks like this whole thread comes down to DC-based Fed staff wanting to take a DC-based salary and move to a lower COL area. And, when they do so, they want no requirement to return to the office - ever. All of that has been wrapped in notions of unionizing, caring for all employees, retaining employees, hiring the best employees, etc. However, all these issues have been rendered false flags by other posters. Hope the Chair keeps his policy. He’s doing the right thing for the institution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many large and admired private organizations (Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.) are now cutting jobs because they overhired during the pandemic. Yet, they expect to do just as well or better in the future. These same companies are also requiring more people to return to the office. One issue they cite is the decline in innovation. What makes you think that the Fed - a government bureaucracy - is immune to the same issues and remedies?

Because the Fed should be more concerned with hiring talent with the appropriate experience than forcing them to go into an office to innovate. The Fed isn’t google.

The Fed cannot compete on private sector salaries, so it MUST compete on other terms & conditions, like WFH. There are actual scholarly articles written about how the financial markets cannot be well regulated unless financial regulators can attract and retain the best staff, given ALL the money on the other side. It’s not optional - the Fed cannot treat its employees as disposible.

How did the Fed compete before WFH? Aren’t the agency’s work/life balance, pension, flex scheduling, lifetime healthcare, and generous leave sufficient differentiators. Why is WFH now the must-have difference?

Pre-Covid the Fed offered WFH to be able to hire experts in other parts of the country. The new policy is more restrictive.

It doesn’t matter. Every expert for every Board project doesn’t need to be employed by the Board. That’s why it’s called a System. Most major initiatives at the Fed involve RB personnel. Alternatively, the Fed could do as you suggest, but geo pay should apply and regular, enforced office visits should too. Someone based in flyover country shouldn’t receive a DC salary. Part of the DC salary is to afford DC real estate.

The Board WFH policy shouldn’t be based off of your emotions about WFH and that you’re angry you had to buy overpriced real estate here.

It should be based on what works for the organization and helps retain and promote the best staff.

My statement is not emotional (nice try). If cost differentials in real estate are not the primary driver of differences in COL - and thus geo pay - what is? What I’m talking about is economic fairness. Will that be part of your unionizing manifesto?

As for including the best staff on projects, you haven’t addressed the fact that the overwhelming number of most large Board projects include lots of RB staff. The Board has never employed all the “best” experts of the System.

Oh wow. The geo pay scales are based on market wages. Not COL! Of course COL is related. How do you not know this?

How do you not understand that market wages are mostly impacted by COL, assuming similar tasks and skills? If that wasn’t true, why don’t the RBs pay Board rates for similar tasks and skills?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many large and admired private organizations (Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.) are now cutting jobs because they overhired during the pandemic. Yet, they expect to do just as well or better in the future. These same companies are also requiring more people to return to the office. One issue they cite is the decline in innovation. What makes you think that the Fed - a government bureaucracy - is immune to the same issues and remedies?

Because the Fed should be more concerned with hiring talent with the appropriate experience than forcing them to go into an office to innovate. The Fed isn’t google.

The Fed cannot compete on private sector salaries, so it MUST compete on other terms & conditions, like WFH. There are actual scholarly articles written about how the financial markets cannot be well regulated unless financial regulators can attract and retain the best staff, given ALL the money on the other side. It’s not optional - the Fed cannot treat its employees as disposible.

How did the Fed compete before WFH? Aren’t the agency’s work/life balance, pension, flex scheduling, lifetime healthcare, and generous leave sufficient differentiators. Why is WFH now the must-have difference?

Pre-Covid the Fed offered WFH to be able to hire experts in other parts of the country. The new policy is more restrictive.

It doesn’t matter. Every expert for every Board project doesn’t need to be employed by the Board. That’s why it’s called a System. Most major initiatives at the Fed involve RB personnel. Alternatively, the Fed could do as you suggest, but geo pay should apply and regular, enforced office visits should too. Someone based in flyover country shouldn’t receive a DC salary. Part of the DC salary is to afford DC real estate.

The Board WFH policy shouldn’t be based off of your emotions about WFH and that you’re angry you had to buy overpriced real estate here.

It should be based on what works for the organization and helps retain and promote the best staff.

And you think WFH won’t help with recruitment and retention?

The fact is, people are emotional about WFH now - but it’s the people who think you have to be in the office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many large and admired private organizations (Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.) are now cutting jobs because they overhired during the pandemic. Yet, they expect to do just as well or better in the future. These same companies are also requiring more people to return to the office. One issue they cite is the decline in innovation. What makes you think that the Fed - a government bureaucracy - is immune to the same issues and remedies?

Because the Fed should be more concerned with hiring talent with the appropriate experience than forcing them to go into an office to innovate. The Fed isn’t google.

The Fed cannot compete on private sector salaries, so it MUST compete on other terms & conditions, like WFH. There are actual scholarly articles written about how the financial markets cannot be well regulated unless financial regulators can attract and retain the best staff, given ALL the money on the other side. It’s not optional - the Fed cannot treat its employees as disposible.

How did the Fed compete before WFH? Aren’t the agency’s work/life balance, pension, flex scheduling, lifetime healthcare, and generous leave sufficient differentiators. Why is WFH now the must-have difference?

Pre-Covid the Fed offered WFH to be able to hire experts in other parts of the country. The new policy is more restrictive.

It doesn’t matter. Every expert for every Board project doesn’t need to be employed by the Board. That’s why it’s called a System. Most major initiatives at the Fed involve RB personnel. Alternatively, the Fed could do as you suggest, but geo pay should apply and regular, enforced office visits should too. Someone based in flyover country shouldn’t receive a DC salary. Part of the DC salary is to afford DC real estate.

The Board WFH policy shouldn’t be based off of your emotions about WFH and that you’re angry you had to buy overpriced real estate here.

It should be based on what works for the organization and helps retain and promote the best staff.

And you think WFH won’t help with recruitment and retention?

The fact is, people are emotional about WFH now - but it’s the people who think you have to be in the office.

You need to look in the mirror. Calm down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. Looks like this whole thread comes down to DC-based Fed staff wanting to take a DC-based salary and move to a lower COL area. And, when they do so, they want no requirement to return to the office - ever. All of that has been wrapped in notions of unionizing, caring for all employees, retaining employees, hiring the best employees, etc. However, all these issues have been rendered false flags by other posters. Hope the Chair keeps his policy. He’s doing the right thing for the institution.

Look, you’re wrong. Not sure why it’s so hard to understand that WFH is a major benefit, and therefore the Fed will have to bargain around it, either collectively with a union, or individually as they lose qualified candidates to agencies with more WFH or private sector where they are adequately compensated for being in-office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. Looks like this whole thread comes down to DC-based Fed staff wanting to take a DC-based salary and move to a lower COL area. And, when they do so, they want no requirement to return to the office - ever. All of that has been wrapped in notions of unionizing, caring for all employees, retaining employees, hiring the best employees, etc. However, all these issues have been rendered false flags by other posters. Hope the Chair keeps his policy. He’s doing the right thing for the institution.

Bingo! Finally someone with some common sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many large and admired private organizations (Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.) are now cutting jobs because they overhired during the pandemic. Yet, they expect to do just as well or better in the future. These same companies are also requiring more people to return to the office. One issue they cite is the decline in innovation. What makes you think that the Fed - a government bureaucracy - is immune to the same issues and remedies?

Because the Fed should be more concerned with hiring talent with the appropriate experience than forcing them to go into an office to innovate. The Fed isn’t google.

The Fed cannot compete on private sector salaries, so it MUST compete on other terms & conditions, like WFH. There are actual scholarly articles written about how the financial markets cannot be well regulated unless financial regulators can attract and retain the best staff, given ALL the money on the other side. It’s not optional - the Fed cannot treat its employees as disposible.

How did the Fed compete before WFH? Aren’t the agency’s work/life balance, pension, flex scheduling, lifetime healthcare, and generous leave sufficient differentiators. Why is WFH now the must-have difference?

Pre-Covid the Fed offered WFH to be able to hire experts in other parts of the country. The new policy is more restrictive.

It doesn’t matter. Every expert for every Board project doesn’t need to be employed by the Board. That’s why it’s called a System. Most major initiatives at the Fed involve RB personnel. Alternatively, the Fed could do as you suggest, but geo pay should apply and regular, enforced office visits should too. Someone based in flyover country shouldn’t receive a DC salary. Part of the DC salary is to afford DC real estate.

The Board WFH policy shouldn’t be based off of your emotions about WFH and that you’re angry you had to buy overpriced real estate here.

It should be based on what works for the organization and helps retain and promote the best staff.

And you think WFH won’t help with recruitment and retention?

The fact is, people are emotional about WFH now - but it’s the people who think you have to be in the office.

You need to look in the mirror. Calm down.

“calm down about losing a major workplace benefit.” sounds like a great way to discourage union organizing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Looks like this whole thread comes down to DC-based Fed staff wanting to take a DC-based salary and move to a lower COL area. And, when they do so, they want no requirement to return to the office - ever. All of that has been wrapped in notions of unionizing, caring for all employees, retaining employees, hiring the best employees, etc. However, all these issues have been rendered false flags by other posters. Hope the Chair keeps his policy. He’s doing the right thing for the institution.

Bingo! Finally someone with some common sense.

It’s kinda hilarious how people who probably style themselves as quantitatively sophisticated don’t get the fundamental principal here: WFH is a benefit workers want. Employers are going to have to bargain around that fact. You can’t pretend WFH is impossible or bad. We all just did it for two years, successfully. You might as well try to argue that Fed employees just need to suck up pay decreases because the demand for pay is a “false flag.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Looks like this whole thread comes down to DC-based Fed staff wanting to take a DC-based salary and move to a lower COL area. And, when they do so, they want no requirement to return to the office - ever. All of that has been wrapped in notions of unionizing, caring for all employees, retaining employees, hiring the best employees, etc. However, all these issues have been rendered false flags by other posters. Hope the Chair keeps his policy. He’s doing the right thing for the institution.

Look, you’re wrong. Not sure why it’s so hard to understand that WFH is a major benefit, and therefore the Fed will have to bargain around it, either collectively with a union, or individually as they lose qualified candidates to agencies with more WFH or private sector where they are adequately compensated for being in-office.

I don’t know what division you’re in, but you act like your hair is on fire. Stop.

Go look at the Fed job board. Filter by division. Compare the number of open spots to the total employed by the division. When you do so you’ll find that the Board is not desperate for staff. There is no staff emergency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. Looks like this whole thread comes down to DC-based Fed staff wanting to take a DC-based salary and move to a lower COL area. And, when they do so, they want no requirement to return to the office - ever. All of that has been wrapped in notions of unionizing, caring for all employees, retaining employees, hiring the best employees, etc. However, all these issues have been rendered false flags by other posters. Hope the Chair keeps his policy. He’s doing the right thing for the institution.

Will you feel differently if current real estate trends continue? What about someone moving to Miami or even Tampa?

Is your concern limited to when staff move to lower COL places? Or do you think all staff should reside in DC no matter what? Should the governors all be forced to reside in DC? Or does the policy only apply to staff?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many large and admired private organizations (Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.) are now cutting jobs because they overhired during the pandemic. Yet, they expect to do just as well or better in the future. These same companies are also requiring more people to return to the office. One issue they cite is the decline in innovation. What makes you think that the Fed - a government bureaucracy - is immune to the same issues and remedies?

Because the Fed should be more concerned with hiring talent with the appropriate experience than forcing them to go into an office to innovate. The Fed isn’t google.

The Fed cannot compete on private sector salaries, so it MUST compete on other terms & conditions, like WFH. There are actual scholarly articles written about how the financial markets cannot be well regulated unless financial regulators can attract and retain the best staff, given ALL the money on the other side. It’s not optional - the Fed cannot treat its employees as disposible.

How did the Fed compete before WFH? Aren’t the agency’s work/life balance, pension, flex scheduling, lifetime healthcare, and generous leave sufficient differentiators. Why is WFH now the must-have difference?

Pre-Covid the Fed offered WFH to be able to hire experts in other parts of the country. The new policy is more restrictive.

It doesn’t matter. Every expert for every Board project doesn’t need to be employed by the Board. That’s why it’s called a System. Most major initiatives at the Fed involve RB personnel. Alternatively, the Fed could do as you suggest, but geo pay should apply and regular, enforced office visits should too. Someone based in flyover country shouldn’t receive a DC salary. Part of the DC salary is to afford DC real estate.

The Board WFH policy shouldn’t be based off of your emotions about WFH and that you’re angry you had to buy overpriced real estate here.

It should be based on what works for the organization and helps retain and promote the best staff.

My statement is not emotional (nice try). If cost differentials in real estate are not the primary driver of differences in COL - and thus geo pay - what is? What I’m talking about is economic fairness. Will that be part of your unionizing manifesto?

As for including the best staff on projects, you haven’t addressed the fact that the overwhelming number of most large Board projects include lots of RB staff. The Board has never employed all the “best” experts of the System.

Oh wow. The geo pay scales are based on market wages. Not COL! Of course COL is related. How do you not know this?

How do you not understand that market wages are mostly impacted by COL, assuming similar tasks and skills? If that wasn’t true, why don’t the RBs pay Board rates for similar tasks and skills?

Go do some research on the government payscale. It might surprise you. Some areas of the country pay much higher wages in comparison to the COL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Looks like this whole thread comes down to DC-based Fed staff wanting to take a DC-based salary and move to a lower COL area. And, when they do so, they want no requirement to return to the office - ever. All of that has been wrapped in notions of unionizing, caring for all employees, retaining employees, hiring the best employees, etc. However, all these issues have been rendered false flags by other posters. Hope the Chair keeps his policy. He’s doing the right thing for the institution.

Bingo! Finally someone with some common sense.

It’s kinda hilarious how people who probably style themselves as quantitatively sophisticated don’t get the fundamental principal here: WFH is a benefit workers want. Employers are going to have to bargain around that fact. You can’t pretend WFH is impossible or bad. We all just did it for two years, successfully. You might as well try to argue that Fed employees just need to suck up pay decreases because the demand for pay is a “false flag.”

Re-read what you wrote: WFH is a benefit workers want. Stop there. Now, review all your other arguments. They are false. They are mentioned as conceptual support, but there is no data to back them up and there are strong conceptual counter arguments. They are - as you said - emotional. The reality is, you like WFH and you want to keep it. You’re mad that your employer - who otherwise treats you handsomely - wants to take it away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. Looks like this whole thread comes down to DC-based Fed staff wanting to take a DC-based salary and move to a lower COL area. And, when they do so, they want no requirement to return to the office - ever. All of that has been wrapped in notions of unionizing, caring for all employees, retaining employees, hiring the best employees, etc. However, all these issues have been rendered false flags by other posters. Hope the Chair keeps his policy. He’s doing the right thing for the institution.

You sound like the perfect government worker. You’ll go to the office 5 days but accomplish very little.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Looks like this whole thread comes down to DC-based Fed staff wanting to take a DC-based salary and move to a lower COL area. And, when they do so, they want no requirement to return to the office - ever. All of that has been wrapped in notions of unionizing, caring for all employees, retaining employees, hiring the best employees, etc. However, all these issues have been rendered false flags by other posters. Hope the Chair keeps his policy. He’s doing the right thing for the institution.

You sound like the perfect government worker. You’ll go to the office 5 days but accomplish very little.

So you’re out of arguments and all that’s left is name calling?