Do you think DOGE will eliminate remote policy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Per that NYT article on DOGE, Joni Ernst who is working with them is thinking that to save money the government should just allow WFH and to end the government leases. This actually sounds like something that would save the government money while retaining efficiency.

I posted that on one of these threads (could've been in politics forum). I think that we just don't know yet how this will play out. I am fully remote in another state and if I have to come back - it will cost them more to pay my salary at the DC locality. So hopefully they will think through some of these nuances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just focus on senior folks that are barely performing and push them out of the door. They are the most expensive and least productive.

Yes, but they're always quick to scream age discrimination. They know they won't be able to get a different job.

I mean after a while they should be judged on their performance. Every agency has more than 1/3rd folks as seniors that shouldn't be there and it looks like a welfare to me.

You're right, but who are those seniors' bosses? Other old people.

An independent assessment needs to happen and may be at the SESs level they need to see which 14/15s to keep if they are not performing or letting lower level non-performers go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just focus on senior folks that are barely performing and push them out of the door. They are the most expensive and least productive.

Yes, but they're always quick to scream age discrimination. They know they won't be able to get a different job.

I mean after a while they should be judged on their performance. Every agency has more than 1/3rd folks as seniors that shouldn't be there and it looks like a welfare to me.

You're right, but who are those seniors' bosses? Other old people.

An independent assessment needs to happen and may be at the SESs level they need to see which 14/15s to keep if they are not performing or letting lower level non-performers go.

That always results in age discrimination because old white men always protect their own.

Start at the top by age, or at least by pay, and work your way down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just focus on senior folks that are barely performing and push them out of the door. They are the most expensive and least productive.

Yes, but they're always quick to scream age discrimination. They know they won't be able to get a different job.

I mean after a while they should be judged on their performance. Every agency has more than 1/3rd folks as seniors that shouldn't be there and it looks like a welfare to me.

You're right, but who are those seniors' bosses? Other old people.

An independent assessment needs to happen and may be at the SESs level they need to see which 14/15s to keep if they are not performing or letting lower level non-performers go.

That always results in age discrimination because old white men always protect their own.

Start at the top by age, or at least by pay, and work your way down.

This might work. Pick the oldest low performer and show them the door.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were all moved from local remote to telework after the pandemic. It was easy even though we had our home address and not the office. The agency had given up space so the operations team had to figure out they days that different groups could come in. We still have telework with core in office days.

No one knows what will happen, but you should take the time to prepare to be in the office and update your resume. Control what you can and the rest will happen so no point in worrying.

I think this is what the Trump administration doesn't realize. You can't reduce office space to save money and then require people back in 5 days a week. My own company did a similar thing and people have nowhere to sit. I wouldn't worry too much OP. They clearly have no plan other than to make people quit/retire.

Is the plan to ultimately reduce the workforce? That is what friend’s private sector company is doing. They started RTO in October. Not everyone can find a desk. Desks are first come, first serve. Some sit on couches and the equivalent of waiting room chairs to work. It sucks for sales people and others who have to make a lot of phone calls. Monitors and chairs are not all fully functional (eg, she said the monitor might not stay upright and you’d have to lower your seat or slouch to see the screen properly.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just focus on senior folks that are barely performing and push them out of the door. They are the most expensive and least productive.

Yes, but they're always quick to scream age discrimination. They know they won't be able to get a different job.

I mean after a while they should be judged on their performance. Every agency has more than 1/3rd folks as seniors that shouldn't be there and it looks like a welfare to me.

You're right, but who are those seniors' bosses? Other old people.

An independent assessment needs to happen and may be at the SESs level they need to see which 14/15s to keep if they are not performing or letting lower level non-performers go.

I think retirement eligible feds that are underperforming could be given incentives to separate. Would be cheaper than trying to manage them out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just focus on senior folks that are barely performing and push them out of the door. They are the most expensive and least productive.

Yes, but they're always quick to scream age discrimination. They know they won't be able to get a different job.

I mean after a while they should be judged on their performance. Every agency has more than 1/3rd folks as seniors that shouldn't be there and it looks like a welfare to me.

You're right, but who are those seniors' bosses? Other old people.

An independent assessment needs to happen and may be at the SESs level they need to see which 14/15s to keep if they are not performing or letting lower level non-performers go.

Why do you think this assessment is not already happening? We all have annual reviews and there has been a big push for quantified metrics since before covid (even moreso for remote workers). Agencies have limited budgets and incentives to free up money for other things. I've seen several buyouts of near-retirement employees who weren't needed, and two people fired for poor performance.

As usual, people with no experience think they've come up with a new brilliant idea, except agencies are already doing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Per that NYT article on DOGE, Joni Ernst who is working with them is thinking that to save money the government should just allow WFH and to end the government leases. This actually sounds like something that would save the government money while retaining efficiency.

It would save a ton of money. I assume you'd lose locality pay, and if so a lot of us might quit because we are locked into the DC area. But a lot more of us might either live with the cut or move somewhere cheaper.

You'd still have certain jobs that require in-person presence, so some building expenses would persist. The trickier part would be what to do with people who must be in person but only sometimes (like to go to the Hill) - do you pay for their travel, or do you require them to be within x miles and pay locality?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Per that NYT article on DOGE, Joni Ernst who is working with them is thinking that to save money the government should just allow WFH and to end the government leases. This actually sounds like something that would save the government money while retaining efficiency.

It would save a ton of money. I assume you'd lose locality pay, and if so a lot of us might quit because we are locked into the DC area. But a lot more of us might either live with the cut or move somewhere cheaper.

You'd still have certain jobs that require in-person presence, so some building expenses would persist. The trickier part would be what to do with people who must be in person but only sometimes (like to go to the Hill) - do you pay for their travel, or do you require them to be within x miles and pay locality?

I don't really know how locality pay works for full-remote people. Is it based on the location of their home?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Per that NYT article on DOGE, Joni Ernst who is working with them is thinking that to save money the government should just allow WFH and to end the government leases. This actually sounds like something that would save the government money while retaining efficiency.

It would save a ton of money. I assume you'd lose locality pay, and if so a lot of us might quit because we are locked into the DC area. But a lot more of us might either live with the cut or move somewhere cheaper.

You'd still have certain jobs that require in-person presence, so some building expenses would persist. The trickier part would be what to do with people who must be in person but only sometimes (like to go to the Hill) - do you pay for their travel, or do you require them to be within x miles and pay locality?

I don't really know how locality pay works for full-remote people. Is it based on the location of their home?

As a fully remote worker - I can confirm I am paid based on my home address. So I don't get DC locality. The irony is if they make me move to DC they will be paying me more....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were all moved from local remote to telework after the pandemic. It was easy even though we had our home address and not the office. The agency had given up space so the operations team had to figure out they days that different groups could come in. We still have telework with core in office days.

No one knows what will happen, but you should take the time to prepare to be in the office and update your resume. Control what you can and the rest will happen so no point in worrying.

I think this is what the Trump administration doesn't realize. You can't reduce office space to save money and then require people back in 5 days a week. My own company did a similar thing and people have nowhere to sit. I wouldn't worry too much OP. They clearly have no plan other than to make people quit/retire.

Is the plan to ultimately reduce the workforce? That is what friend’s private sector company is doing. They started RTO in October. Not everyone can find a desk. Desks are first come, first serve. Some sit on couches and the equivalent of waiting room chairs to work. It sucks for sales people and others who have to make a lot of phone calls. Monitors and chairs are not all fully functional (eg, she said the monitor might not stay upright and you’d have to lower your seat or slouch to see the screen properly.)

This doesn’t make sense to me at all. Surely what you described will negatively affect earnings. Yes, they will lose workers but it’s a short term financial benefit and they don’t get to choose which workers leave.

It seems like a lot of large companies adopting this model will not do well in the long term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i do hope they mandate 5 days per week in office. i have a few people i'd like to get rid of in my office.

Does it help you to get rid of people you don't "like"?

what if they accept 5 days/week in office but don't leave, while other better performance employees leave for other jobs?

NP. In my office the low performers are the ones against RTO. The high performers will follow the rules.

+1. One of those wants to do medical remote because spouse is having hip surgery. I am like WTF dude? Seriously?? I am not approving that?!?!

I’m a pretty strict manager and I’d approve that for a few weeks. I’ve also approved temporary remote work for other family medical emergencies.

What bugs me are the requests for “vacation remote work”. Renting a beach house and they will definitely still work 40 hours a week remote. And the fed in question has lots of leave- please just use your leave and enjoy your family.

You would? Dude is in the office only 2 days PP. I am thinking he should just use SL instead.

But if they can work from home the other days without needing sick leave, why not let them WFH? It seems like a waste to use sick leave unless you actually need it, like when you have the stomach bug?

When I broke my leg, I was NWB for 4 weeks total, partial weight bearing for a month after that. We have a toddler at home. Diaper changes were practically impossible on crutches. My husband would have had to use up to 16 days of sick leave if you were his boss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just focus on senior folks that are barely performing and push them out of the door. They are the most expensive and least productive.

Yes, but they're always quick to scream age discrimination. They know they won't be able to get a different job.

I mean after a while they should be judged on their performance. Every agency has more than 1/3rd folks as seniors that shouldn't be there and it looks like a welfare to me.

You're right, but who are those seniors' bosses? Other old people.

An independent assessment needs to happen and may be at the SESs level they need to see which 14/15s to keep if they are not performing or letting lower level non-performers go.

That always results in age discrimination because old white men always protect their own.

Start at the top by age, or at least by pay, and work your way down.

This might work. Pick the oldest low performer and show them the door.

hahahaha those lawsuits are going to be amaaaazing

[Anonymous]

They don’t care about efficiency; they just want to stick it to the feds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They don’t care about efficiency; they just want to stick it to the feds.

+1