Federal Reserve RTO

[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.

So they’re not allowed to want that? Ok

[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.

So they’re not allowed to want that? Ok

Sure, they’re allowed to want it, but the Chair would be a fool to grant it. This entire argument rests on what SOME employees WANT for themselves. Despite all the arguments, none of them are good institutional arguments. The Fed already has a differentiated pay and benefits package relative to industry. The Board does not need to, and never has, employed all the System’s best experts. The Fed needs to innovate and keep staff engaged, which is best done with some in-person work. The Fed’s telework policy will remain competitive with most other employers. The Fed should not overpay people by letting them take a DC salary to a LCOL area. The list goes on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not the PP you're responding to. But, a big part of this issue is they are taking it away while giving zero justification for it. I'm guessing it's because they can't give a good reason for it.

That's why people are mad. That's why more people will leave. That's why retention and hiring are going to be more of a problem than they currently are. It's also why more will work to rule. Why go out of your way to give away your time when your work is so clearly not valued by those who make the decisions without concern or care for you?

So, who is the burden of proof on when management is taking a valued benefit away that has worked for years? The Fed is treating people like children rather than experienced professionals with impressive degrees who have other options. It's not going to be good for the "mission." But those making the decisions don't care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not the PP you're responding to. But, a big part of this issue is they are taking it away while giving zero justification for it. I'm guessing it's because they can't give a good reason for it.

That's why people are mad. That's why more people will leave. That's why retention and hiring are going to be more of a problem than they currently are. It's also why more will work to rule. Why go out of your way to give away your time when your work is so clearly not valued by those who make the decisions without concern or care for you?

So, who is the burden of proof on when management is taking a valued benefit away that has worked for years? The Fed is treating people like children rather than experienced professionals with impressive degrees who have other options. It's not going to be good for the "mission." But those making the decisions don't care.

Nice to hear a new voice. It’s too bad that management is not justifying itself, but it may be that they’re tired of the endless haggling. What do you think about some of the earlier posts that suggest there are few institutional reasons to allow remote or full-time telework? I find the notions of innovation and engagement compelling reasons for SOME in-office work.

[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.

So they’re not allowed to want that? Ok

Sure, they’re allowed to want it, but the Chair would be a fool to grant it. This entire argument rests on what SOME employees WANT for themselves. Despite all the arguments, none of them are good institutional arguments. The Fed already has a differentiated pay and benefits package relative to industry. The Board does not need to, and never has, employed all the System’s best experts. The Fed needs to innovate and keep staff engaged, which is best done with some in-person work. The Fed’s telework policy will remain competitive with most other employers. The Fed should not overpay people by letting them take a DC salary to a LCOL area. The list goes on.

Every post of yours references people leaving DC for a LCOL area with their Board salary. Are you jealous or something? It seems strange to focus so much on this. It’s the main reason you give for why the Board shouldn’t allow more telework.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So they’re not allowed to want that? Ok

Sure, they’re allowed to want it, but the Chair would be a fool to grant it. This entire argument rests on what SOME employees WANT for themselves. Despite all the arguments, none of them are good institutional arguments. The Fed already has a differentiated pay and benefits package relative to industry. The Board does not need to, and never has, employed all the System’s best experts. The Fed needs to innovate and keep staff engaged, which is best done with some in-person work. The Fed’s telework policy will remain competitive with most other employers. The Fed should not overpay people by letting them take a DC salary to a LCOL area. The list goes on.

Every post of yours references people leaving DC for a LCOL area with their Board salary. Are you jealous or something? It seems strange to focus so much on this. It’s the main reason you give for why the Board shouldn’t allow more telework.

Jealous? No. Try ethics. It’s not fair to those in DC. You should ask yourself why you are so keen on the idea. Because it’s a windfall that keeps giving every year. Are you greedy? Lack of geo pay is not a reason to deny telework, but remote work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What is “false” about WFH? Also it doesn’t matter that it is “emotional.” Pay is emotional too. Do you think the Chair can also just dock pay because it’s just something workers “like”? If anything WFH is a more quantifiable benefit than most. It saves people 1-2 hrs/day.

[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.

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?

I mean, you’re not making any cogent arguments, so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not the PP you're responding to. But, a big part of this issue is they are taking it away while giving zero justification for it. I'm guessing it's because they can't give a good reason for it.

That's why people are mad. That's why more people will leave. That's why retention and hiring are going to be more of a problem than they currently are. It's also why more will work to rule. Why go out of your way to give away your time when your work is so clearly not valued by those who make the decisions without concern or care for you?

So, who is the burden of proof on when management is taking a valued benefit away that has worked for years? The Fed is treating people like children rather than experienced professionals with impressive degrees who have other options. It's not going to be good for the "mission." But those making the decisions don't care.

Exactly. I’m at a different agency and people feel betrayed and pissed about loss of WFH. There has been zero cogent rationale given. I think most agree that one day/week is reasonable. But even on days we all come in, my work is mainly on Teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not the PP you're responding to. But, a big part of this issue is they are taking it away while giving zero justification for it. I'm guessing it's because they can't give a good reason for it.

That's why people are mad. That's why more people will leave. That's why retention and hiring are going to be more of a problem than they currently are. It's also why more will work to rule. Why go out of your way to give away your time when your work is so clearly not valued by those who make the decisions without concern or care for you?

So, who is the burden of proof on when management is taking a valued benefit away that has worked for years? The Fed is treating people like children rather than experienced professionals with impressive degrees who have other options. It's not going to be good for the "mission." But those making the decisions don't care.

Nice to hear a new voice. It’s too bad that management is not justifying itself, but it may be that they’re tired of the endless haggling. What do you think about some of the earlier posts that suggest there are few institutional reasons to allow remote or full-time telework? I find the notions of innovation and engagement compelling reasons for SOME in-office work.

DP. I think you are a manager with no idea how “innovation” happens and no clue how disengaged your employees will get when you arbitrarily take away 1-2 hrs of their day. But sure, I will go to my office, sit around, take teams calls, and wait for the Innovation to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So they’re not allowed to want that? Ok

Sure, they’re allowed to want it, but the Chair would be a fool to grant it. This entire argument rests on what SOME employees WANT for themselves. Despite all the arguments, none of them are good institutional arguments. The Fed already has a differentiated pay and benefits package relative to industry. The Board does not need to, and never has, employed all the System’s best experts. The Fed needs to innovate and keep staff engaged, which is best done with some in-person work. The Fed’s telework policy will remain competitive with most other employers. The Fed should not overpay people by letting them take a DC salary to a LCOL area. The list goes on.

Every post of yours references people leaving DC for a LCOL area with their Board salary. Are you jealous or something? It seems strange to focus so much on this. It’s the main reason you give for why the Board shouldn’t allow more telework.

Jealous? No. Try ethics. It’s not fair to those in DC. You should ask yourself why you are so keen on the idea. Because it’s a windfall that keeps giving every year. Are you greedy? Lack of geo pay is not a reason to deny telework, but remote work.

It’s perfectly possible for the Fed to design locality pay for different geographic areas. A union would really help in doing this in a fair way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So they’re not allowed to want that? Ok

Sure, they’re allowed to want it, but the Chair would be a fool to grant it. This entire argument rests on what SOME employees WANT for themselves. Despite all the arguments, none of them are good institutional arguments. The Fed already has a differentiated pay and benefits package relative to industry. The Board does not need to, and never has, employed all the System’s best experts. The Fed needs to innovate and keep staff engaged, which is best done with some in-person work. The Fed’s telework policy will remain competitive with most other employers. The Fed should not overpay people by letting them take a DC salary to a LCOL area. The list goes on.

Every post of yours references people leaving DC for a LCOL area with their Board salary. Are you jealous or something? It seems strange to focus so much on this. It’s the main reason you give for why the Board shouldn’t allow more telework.

Jealous? No. Try ethics. It’s not fair to those in DC. You should ask yourself why you are so keen on the idea. Because it’s a windfall that keeps giving every year. Are you greedy? Lack of geo pay is not a reason to deny telework, but remote work.

It’s perfectly possible for the Fed to design locality pay for different geographic areas. A union would really help in doing this in a fair way.

Establishing geo pay would be a good thing, if the Board thought they needed it. If there is a need, we don’t need a union to determine it. Geo pay has been a standard for most of the government for years. Again, the Board should not try to employ every System expert. Also, the Board should not approve remote without ironclad agreements for in-office time. Innovation and engagement require some in-office time.

[Anonymous]

Also, the Board should not approve remote without ironclad agreements for in-office time. Innovation and engagement require some in-office time.

This sentiment is repeated like a mantra by opponents of telework, and I don't get it. To quote an earlier poster:

If you don’t think the Fed needs to innovate, the Fed should fire you. Let’s see, in the past few years there’s been crypto/digital coins, climate, fintech, financial stability, payment processing, LIBOR/SOFR to name a few issues that have required new or significantly revised study, policy, and supervisory changes.

Exactly, and the Board "innovated" on all of these things in the past few years in a mostly all-telework posture. Teams and SharePoint are great, as it turns out. How does going back in person fix something that isn't broken?

The old status quo was working in office and the burden was on telework proponents to explain what was better about telework. But now the status quo is telework, and there hasn't been a solid argument for what was broken about that. It worked and continues to work, and provides real benefits.

As for "engagement" the evidence is mixed at best. Hardly a slam dunk case there.https://www.meritalk.com/articles/telework-led-to-more-employee-engagement-and-digital-savviness-experts-say/

Is this all about worrying that coworkers won't have to be locked into DC real estate and might get some kind of financial comparative advantage over you? It's not a zero sum world, though. Their gain is not your loss. This is petty.

The fear of unions is really noticeable too. Their proponents must be on to something. Hit dogs will holler.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So they’re not allowed to want that? Ok

Sure, they’re allowed to want it, but the Chair would be a fool to grant it. This entire argument rests on what SOME employees WANT for themselves. Despite all the arguments, none of them are good institutional arguments. The Fed already has a differentiated pay and benefits package relative to industry. The Board does not need to, and never has, employed all the System’s best experts. The Fed needs to innovate and keep staff engaged, which is best done with some in-person work. The Fed’s telework policy will remain competitive with most other employers. The Fed should not overpay people by letting them take a DC salary to a LCOL area. The list goes on.

Every post of yours references people leaving DC for a LCOL area with their Board salary. Are you jealous or something? It seems strange to focus so much on this. It’s the main reason you give for why the Board shouldn’t allow more telework.

Jealous? No. Try ethics. It’s not fair to those in DC. You should ask yourself why you are so keen on the idea. Because it’s a windfall that keeps giving every year. Are you greedy? Lack of geo pay is not a reason to deny telework, but remote work.

It’s perfectly possible for the Fed to design locality pay for different geographic areas. A union would really help in doing this in a fair way.

Establishing geo pay would be a good thing, if the Board thought they needed it. If there is a need, we don’t need a union to determine it. Geo pay has been a standard for most of the government for years. Again, the Board should not try to employ every System expert. Also, the Board should not approve remote without ironclad agreements for in-office time. Innovation and engagement require some in-office time.

will you please STFU about “innovation.”

and it doesn’t matter what you think. if the Fed employees unionize, the Board has to bargain.

[Anonymous]

I really hope we get a union because I want to leave DC and take my job with me. I love WFH because it lets me spend more time with my kids and get a jump on dinner. With this arrangement, I can imagine being with the Fed for a very long time. I just hope they don’t require too many (ideally any) trips back to the office.