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: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.

House R's do not want to end those social spending programs. They are objecting to cutting them. Ergo, they appear to vaguely care about reelection and their constituents.

[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.

The PP is really only nailing some bitter resentment of other people's different work circumstances from her own. Many of us personally can't understand the level of vehemence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In the office, there is no wifi. There is only a LAN connection. And yet I telework 50% of the time. So, your supposition is incorrect. Don't ask me why this is the way it is. I don't know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In the office, there is no wifi. There is only a LAN connection. And yet I telework 50% of the time. So, your supposition is incorrect. Don't ask me why this is the way it is. I don't know.

Same, don’t work on anything particularly sensitive. We need docking stations for our laptops in office, there’s no wifi,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In the office, there is no wifi. There is only a LAN connection. And yet I telework 50% of the time. So, your supposition is incorrect. Don't ask me why this is the way it is. I don't know.

Same at my agency. VPN is supposed to secure things.

[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?

they will double you up

That is false.

There aren’t enough docking stations or computers.

[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?

Did you care about the rest of society before this impacted you?

Answer the question first. What is the benefit of this?

NP. There is no benefit. RTO is a step backwards for society. They just like to crap on women who will be disproportionately affected by childcare conflicts and forced to resign.

Why are women watching their kids when they are supposed to be working. You do see you actually answered the question "what is the benefit" - the company actually gets a full time employee back for the full time they have been paying people who were not actually working. THATS the benefit. The companies have caught on to your BS and now you are mad. Get over it.

Let me spell this out for you, peabrain.

I WFH 9am-3pm. The school bus picks up at 820 and drops off at 350. I can easily complete work without any issues.

Now add in a commute. I have to leave around 745 to make it to the office by 9. I do the exact same work, leave at 3, and get home a little after 4. Do you now see the problem i now have with early elementary kids? And you're telling me I need to pay for before AND after care for 30 min of coverage on both ends with a part time gs9 job? GTFO moron.

So you work part time hours? 30 hours/ week? Not full time, correct?

Does your official position description state that you are part time?

[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?

Did you care about the rest of society before this impacted you?

Answer the question first. What is the benefit of this?

NP. There is no benefit. RTO is a step backwards for society. They just like to crap on women who will be disproportionately affected by childcare conflicts and forced to resign.

Why are women watching their kids when they are supposed to be working. You do see you actually answered the question "what is the benefit" - the company actually gets a full time employee back for the full time they have been paying people who were not actually working. THATS the benefit. The companies have caught on to your BS and now you are mad. Get over it.

Let me spell this out for you, peabrain.

I WFH 9am-3pm. The school bus picks up at 820 and drops off at 350. I can easily complete work without any issues.

Now add in a commute. I have to leave around 745 to make it to the office by 9. I do the exact same work, leave at 3, and get home a little after 4. Do you now see the problem i now have with early elementary kids? And you're telling me I need to pay for before AND after care for 30 min of coverage on both ends with a part time gs9 job? GTFO moron.

So you work part time hours? 30 hours/ week? Not full time, correct?

Does your official position description state that you are part time?

They said "part time gs9 job".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Love all the armchair experts who think they know how government IT works. Yes, my job is unclass and we have to plug into the wall jack at the office, there is only one jack per room and no wifi. It even goes beyond that, if I plug my laptop into an office that isn't mine (like a borrowed office) it doesn't work.
I WFH 4 days a week and have since 2018. If anything, the computer works better on my home wifi.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Love all the armchair experts who think they know how government IT works. Yes, my job is unclass and we have to plug into the wall jack at the office, there is only one jack per room and no wifi. It even goes beyond that, if I plug my laptop into an office that isn't mine (like a borrowed office) it doesn't work.
I WFH 4 days a week and have since 2018. If anything, the computer works better on my home wifi.

I think we're (actual IT experts) more astonished that you don't know how government IT works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Love all the armchair experts who think they know how government IT works. Yes, my job is unclass and we have to plug into the wall jack at the office, there is only one jack per room and no wifi. It even goes beyond that, if I plug my laptop into an office that isn't mine (like a borrowed office) it doesn't work.
I WFH 4 days a week and have since 2018. If anything, the computer works better on my home wifi.

I think we're (actual IT experts) more astonished that you don't know how government IT works.

Sorry what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In the office, there is no wifi. There is only a LAN connection. And yet I telework 50% of the time. So, your supposition is incorrect. Don't ask me why this is the way it is. I don't know.

We do have a public wifi in my office but we're not supposed to work on it, and it's very slow.if you do try to use it on a personal device.

[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.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

If no one sets what a thread is about then why are the sub forums and thread subjects?

Sure, of course someone could come on this thread and post their grandmother’s cookie recipe and no one can stop them. But it’s not relevant and adds nothing to the forum.

OP posed a question *to fed employees* and by and large fed employees have answered. Obviously non-feds can chime in too, but getting all huffy that in our discussion of gov telework we didn’t “think about our audience” (which apparently we were supposed to predict includes non-government employees who work in an office) is narcissism at its finest. Why would a bunch of fed employees in a jobs forum discussing fed employment changes need to tailor our language to not upset some random poster (whose job is totally unknown and unrelated to this thread)?

I’m a government attorney. If I wander into a thread started by big law attorneys discussing compensation changes at their firms, then start posting there that they need to consider me in their discussion that would be absolutely unhinged. There is something profoundly wrong with the PP’s mental state if they presume they are the target audience we all need to be catering our online speech to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.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

If no one sets what a thread is about then why are the sub forums and thread subjects?

Sure, of course someone could come on this thread and post their grandmother’s cookie recipe and no one can stop them. But it’s not relevant and adds nothing to the forum.

OP posed a question *to fed employees* and by and large fed employees have answered. Obviously non-feds can chime in too, but getting all huffy that in our discussion of gov telework we didn’t “think about our audience” (which apparently we were supposed to predict includes non-government employees who work in an office) is narcissism at its finest. Why would a bunch of fed employees in a jobs forum discussing fed employment changes need to tailor our language to not upset some random poster (whose job is totally unknown and unrelated to this thread)?

I’m a government attorney. If I wander into a thread started by big law attorneys discussing compensation changes at their firms, then start posting there that they need to consider me in their discussion that would be absolutely unhinged. There is something profoundly wrong with the PP’s mental state if they presume they are the target audience we all need to be catering our online speech to.

Nailed it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.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

If no one sets what a thread is about then why are the sub forums and thread subjects?

Sure, of course someone could come on this thread and post their grandmother’s cookie recipe and no one can stop them. But it’s not relevant and adds nothing to the forum.

OP posed a question *to fed employees* and by and large fed employees have answered. Obviously non-feds can chime in too, but getting all huffy that in our discussion of gov telework we didn’t “think about our audience” (which apparently we were supposed to predict includes non-government employees who work in an office) is narcissism at its finest. Why would a bunch of fed employees in a jobs forum discussing fed employment changes need to tailor our language to not upset some random poster (whose job is totally unknown and unrelated to this thread)?

I’m a government attorney. If I wander into a thread started by big law attorneys discussing compensation changes at their firms, then start posting there that they need to consider me in their discussion that would be absolutely unhinged. There is something profoundly wrong with the PP’s mental state if they presume they are the target audience we all need to be catering our online speech to.

Nailed it!

Wow someone making sense on DCUM? You must have the wrong place