Biden wants RTO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the federal government should have different tiers of GS employees: (1) those who want remote work and are happy doing worker-bee jobs that don’t require building relationships with leadership or taking on meaningful management responsibilities, and which have limited promotion potential; and (2) people who are serious about moving up in the agency and who take on leadership-track positions that require in-person work.

The fact is that relationships matter, and you can’t build them the same way over Teams or through virtual happy hours. If I’m looking to promote someone to handle serious matters that involve conversations with political leadership, sensitive topics, etc., I’m not going to entrust that to someone who refuses to get out of their jammies.

I think a lot of people would agree with this. A lot of the problem now is jealousy. In office people are picking up a lot of slack and being paid the same.

I think remote work should not have any locality pay. I think that would be very fair.

What slack? Less distractions at home than at work with everyone acting like a country club social thing , 2 hours lunches, doing everything but work

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish remote people realized that the onus is on them to reach out, make contacts and figure things out. It is harder than being in the office, sorry.

It's discrimination to only communicate with in person it's called location bias

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I trained, mentored, and built lifelong relationships with new employees during the pandemic and I don’t understand the dinosaurs who can’t imagine how this could be possible. It takes a more deliberate effort but losing a commute is worth it.

I find this surprising and not at all my experience. It’s not helpful to call everyone a dinosaur who disagrees with you, but my years of work experience has taught me not to call other people names.

I came to DC just over 20 years ago and quickly made a group of work friends in my office who were about my age. We had lunch together most days, did a lot of fun things together on the weekends, and have kept in touch as we’ve moved around in our careers. One of these work friends introduced me to my spouse years later, many have helped me with job promotions throughout the years and I’ve helped them.

Maybe all of that will happen to the next generation with just the same frequency over teams or zoom. I’m skeptical but I also understand that commutes are inconvenient so maybe people are just willing to sacrifice the opportunity for a lot of personal connections these days. Looking back a couple of decades these connections have been invaluable to me and I’m glad I made a lot of real friends in my first several years at work.

Different poster, but I can tell you that remote works had improved my relationships with individuals in my own community—my neighbors, my kids teacher and coaches, local organizations I can now spend time volunteering with, and my friends that I have time for now that I’m not grinding into DC every day. These relationships were suffering before. Nothing has been lost, it’s just different and in many cases preferable.

DP. You say “it’s just different,” but it’s not. You can’t equate good work relationships and good community and friend relationships. Your employer wants the focus on work. You may want the focus to be on other relationships, but that’s not what your employer is paying you for. You’re comparing apples and oranges.

It's like prison, if you are forced to basically live at work to get things done by participating in all the social non work stuff and having to work late when there are no distractions you build relationships at work while your home life suffers. Then the favoritism and affairs come in that scew things influenced by non work output. Wfh is pure work performance which is the most level equitable way to run a business or agency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I trained, mentored, and built lifelong relationships with new employees during the pandemic and I don’t understand the dinosaurs who can’t imagine how this could be possible. It takes a more deliberate effort but losing a commute is worth it.

I find this surprising and not at all my experience. It’s not helpful to call everyone a dinosaur who disagrees with you, but my years of work experience has taught me not to call other people names.

I came to DC just over 20 years ago and quickly made a group of work friends in my office who were about my age. We had lunch together most days, did a lot of fun things together on the weekends, and have kept in touch as we’ve moved around in our careers. One of these work friends introduced me to my spouse years later, many have helped me with job promotions throughout the years and I’ve helped them.

Maybe all of that will happen to the next generation with just the same frequency over teams or zoom. I’m skeptical but I also understand that commutes are inconvenient so maybe people are just willing to sacrifice the opportunity for a lot of personal connections these days. Looking back a couple of decades these connections have been invaluable to me and I’m glad I made a lot of real friends in my first several years at work.

Different poster, but I can tell you that remote works had improved my relationships with individuals in my own community—my neighbors, my kids teacher and coaches, local organizations I can now spend time volunteering with, and my friends that I have time for now that I’m not grinding into DC every day. These relationships were suffering before. Nothing has been lost, it’s just different and in many cases preferable.

DP. You say “it’s just different,” but it’s not. You can’t equate good work relationships and good community and friend relationships. Your employer wants the focus on work. You may want the focus to be on other relationships, but that’s not what your employer is paying you for. You’re comparing apples and oranges.

It's like prison, if you are forced to basically live at work to get things done by participating in all the social non work stuff and having to work late when there are no distractions you build relationships at work while your home life suffers. Then the favoritism and affairs come in that scew things influenced by non work output. Wfh is pure work performance which is the most level equitable way to run a business or agency.

The negative side of in person relationships is favoritism or affairs, the positive side is friendship, camaraderie, and positive group morale. I’m sorry if you’ve never had a positive in person work culture, I had a couple of decades in my office with no affairs to show for it. What we have now is not pure work performance, it seems like minimal output and effort from a lot of people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish remote people realized that the onus is on them to reach out, make contacts and figure things out. It is harder than being in the office, sorry.

It's discrimination to only communicate with in person it's called location bias

It’s not discrimination. In my office we hold a lot of in person trainings, social events, and group activities. If you prefer not to join that’s on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish remote people realized that the onus is on them to reach out, make contacts and figure things out. It is harder than being in the office, sorry.

It's discrimination to only communicate with in person it's called location bias

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish remote people realized that the onus is on them to reach out, make contacts and figure things out. It is harder than being in the office, sorry.

It's discrimination to only communicate with in person it's called location bias

It’s not discrimination. In my office we hold a lot of in person trainings, social events, and group activities. If you prefer not to join that’s on you.

And that's fine. That stuff should be optional with the exception of necessary training. But don't bother me about not going bowling with the group if I'm turning in exceptional work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should make a new version of The Office which is The Entirely Virtual Office where none of the fun or interesting things that happened on that show ever happen. The couple who would have married only send each other zoom messages and never meet, and people are just doing all of their goofing off from home alone. Young people are so sad.

Hahaha. Way to miss the point.

Young people have full lives outside of work, I’m sorry you have so many regrets and only lived a half life before technology came along to makes things a little easier for people. No one wants to go back to the dark ages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish remote people realized that the onus is on them to reach out, make contacts and figure things out. It is harder than being in the office, sorry.

It's discrimination to only communicate with in person it's called location bias

It’s not discrimination. In my office we hold a lot of in person trainings, social events, and group activities. If you prefer not to join that’s on you.

And that's fine. That stuff should be optional with the exception of necessary training. But don't bother me about not going bowling with the group if I'm turning in exceptional work.

The issue is really that you can perform exceptionally but never get promoted because you didn’t go bowling and charm the decision makers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish remote people realized that the onus is on them to reach out, make contacts and figure things out. It is harder than being in the office, sorry.

It's discrimination to only communicate with in person it's called location bias

It’s not discrimination. In my office we hold a lot of in person trainings, social events, and group activities. If you prefer not to join that’s on you.

And that's fine. That stuff should be optional with the exception of necessary training. But don't bother me about not going bowling with the group if I'm turning in exceptional work.

The issue is really that you can perform exceptionally but never get promoted because you didn’t go bowling and charm the decision makers.

PP that sucks and is unfair but work life balance is more important to me. I think quality of work is more important than socializing for many / most jobs (excluding rain maker type jobs). But then I am not a business owner so I'm not in charge of those decisions so whatever. All I want is the option to work remotely and not have to schmooze at these events in exchange for a fair wage. I could be making way more in the private sector if I were willing to work long hours in person with lots of travel and social events.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should make a new version of The Office which is The Entirely Virtual Office where none of the fun or interesting things that happened on that show ever happen. The couple who would have married only send each other zoom messages and never meet, and people are just doing all of their goofing off from home alone. Young people are so sad.

Hahaha. Way to miss the point.

Young people have full lives outside of work, I’m sorry you have so many regrets and only lived a half life before technology came along to makes things a little easier for people. No one wants to go back to the dark ages.

Have you seen any of the surgeon general’s warnings on an epidemic of loneliness and the number of young people with no close friends? I have zero regrets about having a very full social life as a young person with work friends, extended family, and close school and community connections. I worry that the next generation will have none of these benefits and not know what they’re missing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I trained, mentored, and built lifelong relationships with new employees during the pandemic and I don’t understand the dinosaurs who can’t imagine how this could be possible. It takes a more deliberate effort but losing a commute is worth it.

I find this surprising and not at all my experience. It’s not helpful to call everyone a dinosaur who disagrees with you, but my years of work experience has taught me not to call other people names.

I came to DC just over 20 years ago and quickly made a group of work friends in my office who were about my age. We had lunch together most days, did a lot of fun things together on the weekends, and have kept in touch as we’ve moved around in our careers. One of these work friends introduced me to my spouse years later, many have helped me with job promotions throughout the years and I’ve helped them.

Maybe all of that will happen to the next generation with just the same frequency over teams or zoom. I’m skeptical but I also understand that commutes are inconvenient so maybe people are just willing to sacrifice the opportunity for a lot of personal connections these days. Looking back a couple of decades these connections have been invaluable to me and I’m glad I made a lot of real friends in my first several years at work.

Different poster, but I can tell you that remote works had improved my relationships with individuals in my own community—my neighbors, my kids teacher and coaches, local organizations I can now spend time volunteering with, and my friends that I have time for now that I’m not grinding into DC every day. These relationships were suffering before. Nothing has been lost, it’s just different and in many cases preferable.

DP. You say “it’s just different,” but it’s not. You can’t equate good work relationships and good community and friend relationships. Your employer wants the focus on work. You may want the focus to be on other relationships, but that’s not what your employer is paying you for. You’re comparing apples and oranges.

It's like prison, if you are forced to basically live at work to get things done by participating in all the social non work stuff and having to work late when there are no distractions you build relationships at work while your home life suffers. Then the favoritism and affairs come in that scew things influenced by non work output. Wfh is pure work performance which is the most level equitable way to run a business or agency.

The negative side of in person relationships is favoritism or affairs, the positive side is friendship, camaraderie, and positive group morale. I’m sorry if you’ve never had a positive in person work culture, I had a couple of decades in my office with no affairs to show for it. What we have now is not pure work performance, it seems like minimal output and effort from a lot of people.

I don't know why it seems like that to you, but WFH is demonstrably more productive across white collar fields. People work more minutes and their output per minute is higher because there are fewer distractions. More deliverables, more meetings, and shorter timelines, and all of it more measurable.

I would understand of you had some other objection, like being constantly available or having someone monitor you via tech. But minimal output is not it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should make a new version of The Office which is The Entirely Virtual Office where none of the fun or interesting things that happened on that show ever happen. The couple who would have married only send each other zoom messages and never meet, and people are just doing all of their goofing off from home alone. Young people are so sad.

You know Dunder Mifflin was a terrible place to work, right? That was the whole point of the show. Working there was a stupid waste of time for all the characters, when it wasn't outright harassment.

I think there is an epidemic of media illiteracy, not of loneliness. All these people thinking Michael Scott or Star Wars stormtroopers or Miranda from Devil Wears Prada (ref: another thread) are people to emulate. Completely missed the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I trained, mentored, and built lifelong relationships with new employees during the pandemic and I don’t understand the dinosaurs who can’t imagine how this could be possible. It takes a more deliberate effort but losing a commute is worth it.

I find this surprising and not at all my experience. It’s not helpful to call everyone a dinosaur who disagrees with you, but my years of work experience has taught me not to call other people names.

I came to DC just over 20 years ago and quickly made a group of work friends in my office who were about my age. We had lunch together most days, did a lot of fun things together on the weekends, and have kept in touch as we’ve moved around in our careers. One of these work friends introduced me to my spouse years later, many have helped me with job promotions throughout the years and I’ve helped them.

Maybe all of that will happen to the next generation with just the same frequency over teams or zoom. I’m skeptical but I also understand that commutes are inconvenient so maybe people are just willing to sacrifice the opportunity for a lot of personal connections these days. Looking back a couple of decades these connections have been invaluable to me and I’m glad I made a lot of real friends in my first several years at work.

Different poster, but I can tell you that remote works had improved my relationships with individuals in my own community—my neighbors, my kids teacher and coaches, local organizations I can now spend time volunteering with, and my friends that I have time for now that I’m not grinding into DC every day. These relationships were suffering before. Nothing has been lost, it’s just different and in many cases preferable.

DP. You say “it’s just different,” but it’s not. You can’t equate good work relationships and good community and friend relationships. Your employer wants the focus on work. You may want the focus to be on other relationships, but that’s not what your employer is paying you for. You’re comparing apples and oranges.

It's like prison, if you are forced to basically live at work to get things done by participating in all the social non work stuff and having to work late when there are no distractions you build relationships at work while your home life suffers. Then the favoritism and affairs come in that scew things influenced by non work output. Wfh is pure work performance which is the most level equitable way to run a business or agency.

The negative side of in person relationships is favoritism or affairs, the positive side is friendship, camaraderie, and positive group morale. I’m sorry if you’ve never had a positive in person work culture, I had a couple of decades in my office with no affairs to show for it. What we have now is not pure work performance, it seems like minimal output and effort from a lot of people.

I don't know why it seems like that to you, but WFH is demonstrably more productive across white collar fields. People work more minutes and their output per minute is higher because there are fewer distractions. More deliverables, more meetings, and shorter timelines, and all of it more measurable.

I would understand of you had some other objection, like being constantly available or having someone monitor you via tech. But minimal output is not it.

I’m sure that some people work more minutes, but it also seems like a lot take advantage and work less. Harder to track if someone is working or out shopping when you never see them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I trained, mentored, and built lifelong relationships with new employees during the pandemic and I don’t understand the dinosaurs who can’t imagine how this could be possible. It takes a more deliberate effort but losing a commute is worth it.

I find this surprising and not at all my experience. It’s not helpful to call everyone a dinosaur who disagrees with you, but my years of work experience has taught me not to call other people names.

I came to DC just over 20 years ago and quickly made a group of work friends in my office who were about my age. We had lunch together most days, did a lot of fun things together on the weekends, and have kept in touch as we’ve moved around in our careers. One of these work friends introduced me to my spouse years later, many have helped me with job promotions throughout the years and I’ve helped them.

Maybe all of that will happen to the next generation with just the same frequency over teams or zoom. I’m skeptical but I also understand that commutes are inconvenient so maybe people are just willing to sacrifice the opportunity for a lot of personal connections these days. Looking back a couple of decades these connections have been invaluable to me and I’m glad I made a lot of real friends in my first several years at work.

Different poster, but I can tell you that remote works had improved my relationships with individuals in my own community—my neighbors, my kids teacher and coaches, local organizations I can now spend time volunteering with, and my friends that I have time for now that I’m not grinding into DC every day. These relationships were suffering before. Nothing has been lost, it’s just different and in many cases preferable.

DP. You say “it’s just different,” but it’s not. You can’t equate good work relationships and good community and friend relationships. Your employer wants the focus on work. You may want the focus to be on other relationships, but that’s not what your employer is paying you for. You’re comparing apples and oranges.

It's like prison, if you are forced to basically live at work to get things done by participating in all the social non work stuff and having to work late when there are no distractions you build relationships at work while your home life suffers. Then the favoritism and affairs come in that scew things influenced by non work output. Wfh is pure work performance which is the most level equitable way to run a business or agency.

The negative side of in person relationships is favoritism or affairs, the positive side is friendship, camaraderie, and positive group morale. I’m sorry if you’ve never had a positive in person work culture, I had a couple of decades in my office with no affairs to show for it. What we have now is not pure work performance, it seems like minimal output and effort from a lot of people.

I don't know why it seems like that to you, but WFH is demonstrably more productive across white collar fields. People work more minutes and their output per minute is higher because there are fewer distractions. More deliverables, more meetings, and shorter timelines, and all of it more measurable.

I would understand of you had some other objection, like being constantly available or having someone monitor you via tech. But minimal output is not it.

I’m sure that some people work more minutes, but it also seems like a lot take advantage and work less. Harder to track if someone is working or out shopping when you never see them.

I do agree the people that go shopping other than on their lunch hour are scummy. I have also seen that in office where people claim to go a meeting in another building and take a ridiculously long time to get back.

Skype/Teams turn yellow when away from the computer more than 5 minutes. And my boss tends to ignore away/busy lights and message me anyway (via the computer, we don't have a phone app) which is fine because I'm usually reading printed materials or on the phone if I show away. It can definitely be tracked if the boss cares.