Jeff Zients throws a hissy fit in a memo about RTO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.axios.com/2024/01/19/zients-biden-cabinet-return-to-office

he’s tantruming and feet stomping again

- being aggressive

- mad that feds aren’t back at desks

- wants personally tracked butts in seats

No one likes you except for bibi, Jeff!

Jeff Zients is the White House Chief of Staff, it is his job to direct federal agencies in these types of administrative matters. I don’t agree with his directions, but he’s not tantruming, foot stomping, or being aggressive. He’s doing his job. This weird listed response is childish.

Zients is in no one’s food chain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Hill has a nice summary of OPM's report on the productivity and retention gains under expanded telework: https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/4405350-telework-is-actually-rescuing-the-federal-workforce-its-abolition-wont-be-pretty/

I understand the optics of the RTO push, but it seems pointless to me. You could put every Fed in person 5 days/week and it wouldn't make R-leaning voters vote for Biden. So we're going to give up massive gains in productivity, polution reduction, facility cost reduction, and employment rates of women and disabled people, for ... what, exactly?

“Telework also has a positive effect on productivity and performance. Over 84 percent of employees and managers alike believe that telework improves the quality of work and customer satisfaction. This consensus underscores the fact that telework, far from being a compromise, offers an enhancement to the traditional work model, fostering an environment where employees can thrive and deliver their best.”

Any productivity/quality stats more robust than this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is Biden's Chief of Staff. He is carrying out the President's direction here. Sure, he likely had a lot of flexibility in exactly what was said. But people who write him off as "a choad" should realize that this is not some random person ranting. This is direction from the White House.

(Taking no stance whatsoever on the debate over WFH/hybrid/onsite.)

He’s a choad just like ALL former management-consultant/private equity dems pretending to be progressives. Especially the ones who went along with shut-downs and closed schools and covid paranoia when it was politically expedient. Whoops, actions have consequences.

To be clear, and this feels weird to have to type- don't care whether or not he is "a choad." My point is that the message can't be dismissed based on the messenger. It came from the White House and the President. (And even if you may not like the president in the white house, this is a lot more than some random person's rantings.)

The same White House that was happy to collude with AFT to keep schools closed and played covid for electoral advantage, meaning I had to dutifully work my butt off at home for the feds while my kid fell apart socially and academically? And now it’s “Oh, being in person is essential for the team”?

No thanks. They are ALL choads. It’d choads all the way down.

OK, so this is a different thing. You disagree with the whole administration and all of their policies. That is fine. Choosing to hurl insults is also, I guess, fine. But it misses the whole point that the WH is not some random blogger, celebrity, or tycoon spouting off. It is actually meaningful in what happens.

Naw. I think the Trump presidency proved we can pick and choose which White House directives we want to follow. It’s not like it has real authority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.axios.com/2024/01/19/zients-biden-cabinet-return-to-office

he’s tantruming and feet stomping again

- being aggressive

- mad that feds aren’t back at desks

- wants personally tracked butts in seats

No one likes you except for bibi, Jeff!

Jeff Zients is the White House Chief of Staff, it is his job to direct federal agencies in these types of administrative matters. I don’t agree with his directions, but he’s not tantruming, foot stomping, or being aggressive. He’s doing his job. This weird listed response is childish.

Not really. Agencies are fully capable of handling their own administrative matters. It reminds me of an old story of James Baker (I think) when he refused to implement drug testing of Treasury employees during the Reagan administration. His response was “My employees have better things to do than piss in a cup.”

First, I can't find any evidence that the Treasury Secretary said that.
Second, the union for Treasury absolutely did object to the drug testing. And they failed. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/685/1346/1882156/

OPM exists for a reason. Agencies are required to comply with all sorts of administrative rules. This is one of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is Biden's Chief of Staff. He is carrying out the President's direction here. Sure, he likely had a lot of flexibility in exactly what was said. But people who write him off as "a choad" should realize that this is not some random person ranting. This is direction from the White House.

(Taking no stance whatsoever on the debate over WFH/hybrid/onsite.)

He’s a choad just like ALL former management-consultant/private equity dems pretending to be progressives. Especially the ones who went along with shut-downs and closed schools and covid paranoia when it was politically expedient. Whoops, actions have consequences.

To be clear, and this feels weird to have to type- don't care whether or not he is "a choad." My point is that the message can't be dismissed based on the messenger. It came from the White House and the President. (And even if you may not like the president in the white house, this is a lot more than some random person's rantings.)

The same White House that was happy to collude with AFT to keep schools closed and played covid for electoral advantage, meaning I had to dutifully work my butt off at home for the feds while my kid fell apart socially and academically? And now it’s “Oh, being in person is essential for the team”?

No thanks. They are ALL choads. It’d choads all the way down.

OK, so this is a different thing. You disagree with the whole administration and all of their policies. That is fine. Choosing to hurl insults is also, I guess, fine. But it misses the whole point that the WH is not some random blogger, celebrity, or tycoon spouting off. It is actually meaningful in what happens.

Naw. I think the Trump presidency proved we can pick and choose which White House directives we want to follow. It’s not like it has real authority.

Can you please explain what you mean by this. As far as I can tell you are asserting that nobody--including the entire executive branch-- needs to follow White House direction....ever?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.axios.com/2024/01/19/zients-biden-cabinet-return-to-office

he’s tantruming and feet stomping again

- being aggressive

- mad that feds aren’t back at desks

- wants personally tracked butts in seats

No one likes you except for bibi, Jeff!

Jeff Zients is the White House Chief of Staff, it is his job to direct federal agencies in these types of administrative matters. I don’t agree with his directions, but he’s not tantruming, foot stomping, or being aggressive. He’s doing his job. This weird listed response is childish.

Not really. Agencies are fully capable of handling their own administrative matters. It reminds me of an old story of James Baker (I think) when he refused to implement drug testing of Treasury employees during the Reagan administration. His response was “My employees have better things to do than piss in a cup.”

Agree. If I was a Senate confirmed Cabinet Secretary and I got an email like that “I expect you to personally monitor…” I’d ignore it at best

So you think that the people that are fireable at will by the president should ignore the direction of the president's chief of staff if they don't like them? Does this apply to everything the WH sayas, or just RTO issues?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.axios.com/2024/01/19/zients-biden-cabinet-return-to-office

he’s tantruming and feet stomping again

- being aggressive

- mad that feds aren’t back at desks

- wants personally tracked butts in seats

No one likes you except for bibi, Jeff!

Jeff Zients is the White House Chief of Staff, it is his job to direct federal agencies in these types of administrative matters. I don’t agree with his directions, but he’s not tantruming, foot stomping, or being aggressive. He’s doing his job. This weird listed response is childish.

Not really. Agencies are fully capable of handling their own administrative matters. It reminds me of an old story of James Baker (I think) when he refused to implement drug testing of Treasury employees during the Reagan administration. His response was “My employees have better things to do than piss in a cup.”

First, I can't find any evidence that the Treasury Secretary said that.
Second, the union for Treasury absolutely did object to the drug testing. And they failed. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/685/1346/1882156/

OPM exists for a reason. Agencies are required to comply with all sorts of administrative rules. This is one of them.

It’s a story people who worked for him used to tell. I used to work there.

If you actually read the decision at the link you shared, you would have seen that the EO left the decisions to put in drug testing and for which employees to agency heads. And that only Transportation had implemented a drug testing program by 1988, which is part of why the court rejected the motion (ie, it wasn’t actually applying to anyone). In other words, the WH left it to agencies, and agencies weren’t doing it.

Finally, OPM isn’t the WH CoS. In fact, OPM’s principles for the post-pandemic work environment include “empower agency decision-making.” If OPM wants to implement some directive in the future and it has authority to do so, fine. But it hasn’t done that yet, and that doesn’t happen through a nagging WH CoS email.

[Anonymous]

I think the WH will work with Congress to put something on RTO in the omnibus since it’s become such a political issue.

[Anonymous]

Anyone 40+ just has a hard time accepting that they way they have always done things and how they learned to work would have to change with remote work. It’s so so hard for older people to change and learn new things at work. They build up to a point where they fear doing anything new where they might possible not been seen as an expert or make a mistake. And I say this as someone over 50 so I am talking about my own peers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone 40+ just has a hard time accepting that they way they have always done things and how they learned to work would have to change with remote work. It’s so so hard for older people to change and learn new things at work. They build up to a point where they fear doing anything new where they might possible not been seen as an expert or make a mistake. And I say this as someone over 50 so I am talking about my own peers.

Way to generalize. I’m in my late 40s and always worked 5 days a week in the office until the pandemic. Now I work in the office 2-3 days and I appreciate the flexibility. I worry that my colleagues who refuse to return more than 1 day a week are threatening my new flexibility when Congress or others threaten to bring us all back 5 days because we’re in so little now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.axios.com/2024/01/19/zients-biden-cabinet-return-to-office

he’s tantruming and feet stomping again

- being aggressive

- mad that feds aren’t back at desks

- wants personally tracked butts in seats

No one likes you except for bibi, Jeff!

Jeff Zients is the White House Chief of Staff, it is his job to direct federal agencies in these types of administrative matters. I don’t agree with his directions, but he’s not tantruming, foot stomping, or being aggressive. He’s doing his job. This weird listed response is childish.

Not really. Agencies are fully capable of handling their own administrative matters. It reminds me of an old story of James Baker (I think) when he refused to implement drug testing of Treasury employees during the Reagan administration. His response was “My employees have better things to do than piss in a cup.”

First, I can't find any evidence that the Treasury Secretary said that.
Second, the union for Treasury absolutely did object to the drug testing. And they failed. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/685/1346/1882156/

OPM exists for a reason. Agencies are required to comply with all sorts of administrative rules. This is one of them.

It’s a story people who worked for him used to tell. I used to work there.

If you actually read the decision at the link you shared, you would have seen that the EO left the decisions to put in drug testing and for which employees to agency heads. And that only Transportation had implemented a drug testing program by 1988, which is part of why the court rejected the motion (ie, it wasn’t actually applying to anyone). In other words, the WH left it to agencies, and agencies weren’t doing it.

Finally, OPM isn’t the WH CoS. In fact, OPM’s principles for the post-pandemic work environment include “empower agency decision-making.” If OPM wants to implement some directive in the future and it has authority to do so, fine. But it hasn’t done that yet, and that doesn’t happen through a nagging WH CoS email.

Oh good grief! The WH (and any decision-making body) has many levers they can pull when trying to push a policy decision. Often it's preferable to wield influence rather than dictates. The COS sending a message like this is an example of that, and should be interpreted as an indication that the WH might escalate to a stricter OPM policy if agencies don't comply with this non-binding request. When I was a WH staffer, I made recommendations to leverage softer mechanisms like this often. And, FWIW, I'm now in the private sector and my company did the exact same thing (threaten a stricter policy if we couldn't demonstrate more people coming into the office).

FWIW, I think mandatory RTO is silly...especially as so many employers have also given up real estate and moved to hoteling. But it's not like it's unusual to start with a request before moving to a strict policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.axios.com/2024/01/19/zients-biden-cabinet-return-to-office

he’s tantruming and feet stomping again

- being aggressive

- mad that feds aren’t back at desks

- wants personally tracked butts in seats

No one likes you except for bibi, Jeff!

Jeff Zients is the White House Chief of Staff, it is his job to direct federal agencies in these types of administrative matters. I don’t agree with his directions, but he’s not tantruming, foot stomping, or being aggressive. He’s doing his job. This weird listed response is childish.

Not really. Agencies are fully capable of handling their own administrative matters. It reminds me of an old story of James Baker (I think) when he refused to implement drug testing of Treasury employees during the Reagan administration. His response was “My employees have better things to do than piss in a cup.”

Agree. If I was a Senate confirmed Cabinet Secretary and I got an email like that “I expect you to personally monitor…” I’d ignore it at best

So you think that the people that are fireable at will by the president should ignore the direction of the president's chief of staff if they don't like them? Does this apply to everything the WH sayas, or just RTO issues?

Yes I think agency heads should ignore stupid and counter productive micromanagement by the CoS.

Agencies/agency heads are not just the errand boys of the CoS — that is a reason why agency heads are subject to Senate confirmation.

Obviously there is a role for agenda setting by and coordination with the WH but that doesn’t mean Zients should be dictating every aspect of agency work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.axios.com/2024/01/19/zients-biden-cabinet-return-to-office

he’s tantruming and feet stomping again

- being aggressive

- mad that feds aren’t back at desks

- wants personally tracked butts in seats

No one likes you except for bibi, Jeff!

Jeff Zients is the White House Chief of Staff, it is his job to direct federal agencies in these types of administrative matters. I don’t agree with his directions, but he’s not tantruming, foot stomping, or being aggressive. He’s doing his job. This weird listed response is childish.

Not really. Agencies are fully capable of handling their own administrative matters. It reminds me of an old story of James Baker (I think) when he refused to implement drug testing of Treasury employees during the Reagan administration. His response was “My employees have better things to do than piss in a cup.”

Agree. If I was a Senate confirmed Cabinet Secretary and I got an email like that “I expect you to personally monitor…” I’d ignore it at best

So you think that the people that are fireable at will by the president should ignore the direction of the president's chief of staff if they don't like them? Does this apply to everything the WH sayas, or just RTO issues?

Yes I think agency heads should ignore stupid and counter productive micromanagement by the CoS.

Agencies/agency heads are not just the errand boys of the CoS — that is a reason why agency heads are subject to Senate confirmation.

Obviously there is a role for agenda setting by and coordination with the WH but that doesn’t mean Zients should be dictating every aspect of agency work.

Genuine question, if the communication had come from the president himself, or if the CoS had prefaced the email with "after consulting with the president" or "at the direction of the president" would you feel differently?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.axios.com/2024/01/19/zients-biden-cabinet-return-to-office

he’s tantruming and feet stomping again

- being aggressive

- mad that feds aren’t back at desks

- wants personally tracked butts in seats

No one likes you except for bibi, Jeff!

Jeff Zients is the White House Chief of Staff, it is his job to direct federal agencies in these types of administrative matters. I don’t agree with his directions, but he’s not tantruming, foot stomping, or being aggressive. He’s doing his job. This weird listed response is childish.

Not really. Agencies are fully capable of handling their own administrative matters. It reminds me of an old story of James Baker (I think) when he refused to implement drug testing of Treasury employees during the Reagan administration. His response was “My employees have better things to do than piss in a cup.”

Agree. If I was a Senate confirmed Cabinet Secretary and I got an email like that “I expect you to personally monitor…” I’d ignore it at best

So you think that the people that are fireable at will by the president should ignore the direction of the president's chief of staff if they don't like them? Does this apply to everything the WH sayas, or just RTO issues?

Yes I think agency heads should ignore stupid and counter productive micromanagement by the CoS.

Agencies/agency heads are not just the errand boys of the CoS — that is a reason why agency heads are subject to Senate confirmation.

Obviously there is a role for agenda setting by and coordination with the WH but that doesn’t mean Zients should be dictating every aspect of agency work.

This isn’t dictating every aspect of agency work, nor is this stupid and counter productive micromanagement. At my agency our secretary very much wants to increase in person work but the union is putting up a fight. I’m sure she is encouraging Congress and the White House to mandate more time in the office so it looks like her hand has been forced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.axios.com/2024/01/19/zients-biden-cabinet-return-to-office

he’s tantruming and feet stomping again

- being aggressive

- mad that feds aren’t back at desks

- wants personally tracked butts in seats

No one likes you except for bibi, Jeff!

Jeff Zients is the White House Chief of Staff, it is his job to direct federal agencies in these types of administrative matters. I don’t agree with his directions, but he’s not tantruming, foot stomping, or being aggressive. He’s doing his job. This weird listed response is childish.

Not really. Agencies are fully capable of handling their own administrative matters. It reminds me of an old story of James Baker (I think) when he refused to implement drug testing of Treasury employees during the Reagan administration. His response was “My employees have better things to do than piss in a cup.”

First, I can't find any evidence that the Treasury Secretary said that.
Second, the union for Treasury absolutely did object to the drug testing. And they failed. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/685/1346/1882156/

OPM exists for a reason. Agencies are required to comply with all sorts of administrative rules. This is one of them.

It’s a story people who worked for him used to tell. I used to work there.

If you actually read the decision at the link you shared, you would have seen that the EO left the decisions to put in drug testing and for which employees to agency heads. And that only Transportation had implemented a drug testing program by 1988, which is part of why the court rejected the motion (ie, it wasn’t actually applying to anyone). In other words, the WH left it to agencies, and agencies weren’t doing it.

Finally, OPM isn’t the WH CoS. In fact, OPM’s principles for the post-pandemic work environment include “empower agency decision-making.” If OPM wants to implement some directive in the future and it has authority to do so, fine. But it hasn’t done that yet, and that doesn’t happen through a nagging WH CoS email.

Oh good grief! The WH (and any decision-making body) has many levers they can pull when trying to push a policy decision. Often it's preferable to wield influence rather than dictates. The COS sending a message like this is an example of that, and should be interpreted as an indication that the WH might escalate to a stricter OPM policy if agencies don't comply with this non-binding request. When I was a WH staffer, I made recommendations to leverage softer mechanisms like this often. And, FWIW, I'm now in the private sector and my company did the exact same thing (threaten a stricter policy if we couldn't demonstrate more people coming into the office).

FWIW, I think mandatory RTO is silly...especially as so many employers have also given up real estate and moved to hoteling. But it's not like it's unusual to start with a request before moving to a strict policy.

LMAO. Zients already tried “influence” and “requesting” last year and everyone rightly ignored him so now he tries the same thing? LMAO.
I guarantee no one, from and agency head to a GS-7, is taking him seriously wrt RTO.