Federal Reserve RTO

[Anonymous]

I don’t get it. OP says RB jobs are great. Why doesn’t OP just take an RB job and be happy. Sounds like they don’t really believe what they’re saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm really shocked and saddened by the movement to gut DC of DC-based positions. Typically, supporters of unions are strong community activists.

Federal government jobs are the core of DC employment. Yes, DC employment is somewhat diversified, but even many private firms are here because federal government functions are here. Perhaps, OP and their ilk represent a few jobs, but they are setting a dangerous precedent.In fact, they are using the CFPB as precedent for what they want. This is not about a few workers who want to take their goodies and leave DC. It is about a few people who want to start a trend to gut the area of its bedrock employment and economic well-being.

And, remember, a community is about more than home prices, it is also about local governments, schools, and small businesses. It is so highly ironic that both the CFPB and the Fed have a community development mandate, and yet, their staff are leading the charge to gut their own community.

This whole thread seems very employee focused with little concern about the institutions of government and the Metro area. What is a country to do when even its own stewards sit ready to undermine it?

Why does the community have to be DC? Other communities matter too.

Because DC is where the jobs have been, and therefore, much investment has been made on their behalf. Subways, airports, etc. are not transportable. Also, there are large human and physical “networks” that support an industry, which are not easily disassembled and moved elsewhere. If you don’t like DC, why don’t you change jobs and move? Why do you need to take a DC-based job elsewhere? If you went to Broadway and asked to perform your role virtually, they’d laugh at you.

Just because something was a certain way in the past doesn’t mean it must continue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm really shocked and saddened by the movement to gut DC of DC-based positions. Typically, supporters of unions are strong community activists.

Federal government jobs are the core of DC employment. Yes, DC employment is somewhat diversified, but even many private firms are here because federal government functions are here. Perhaps, OP and their ilk represent a few jobs, but they are setting a dangerous precedent.In fact, they are using the CFPB as precedent for what they want. This is not about a few workers who want to take their goodies and leave DC. It is about a few people who want to start a trend to gut the area of its bedrock employment and economic well-being.

And, remember, a community is about more than home prices, it is also about local governments, schools, and small businesses. It is so highly ironic that both the CFPB and the Fed have a community development mandate, and yet, their staff are leading the charge to gut their own community.

This whole thread seems very employee focused with little concern about the institutions of government and the Metro area. What is a country to do when even its own stewards sit ready to undermine it?

Why does the community have to be DC? Other communities matter too.

Because DC is where the jobs have been, and therefore, much investment has been made on their behalf. Subways, airports, etc. are not transportable. Also, there are large human and physical “networks” that support an industry, which are not easily disassembled and moved elsewhere. If you don’t like DC, why don’t you change jobs and move? Why do you need to take a DC-based job elsewhere? If you went to Broadway and asked to perform your role virtually, they’d laugh at you.

Just because something was a certain way in the past doesn’t mean it must continue.

You’re ripping this from context. The reason why things persist is because large investments have been made in them. Also, nothing is broken here. What has changed is your potential to pocket private gain at public expense.

[Anonymous]

Since a lot of arguments have been floated, let’s recap the institutional reasons to not allow remote or full-time local telework, and instead, support hybrid, which was essentially the pre-pandemic standard:

1) Based on the number of job board postings, the Fed does not face a staffing emergency. Plenty of people are willing to accept hybrid to work at the Board.
2) The Board does not need remote or full-time local telework to differentiate itself from the private sector. Differentiators already include work/life balance, a generous, fully-paid pension, generous leave, lifetime healthcare, and more. Also, hybrid is consistent with or more generous than private options or where they’re heading.
3) The Board does not need remote to hire RB experts. There is a longstanding practice that most large System projects include substantial RB resources. The Board has never endeavored, nor should it, to directly employ all the System’s best experts.
4) The Fed should walk its community development talk. Hybrid supports both local communities and downtown DC. Full-time area telework does not support downtown DC. Remote doesn’t support Metro at all. Supporting Metro is important because the area and many private firms have made large investments on behalf of these jobs. Allowing these jobs to flee DC jeopardizes these investments and the surrounding communities.
5) Hybrid also balances institutional and community concerns with those of working families, minority concerns, and the environment. While it may not be a perfect solution, it is balanced.
6) As the world’s leading central bank and leading domestic economic authority, the Board continues to innovate in a rapidly changing world. In that context, innovation efforts in research, policy, and supervisory practices benefit from at least some in-office/person-to-person time with peers and industry players.
7) Hybrid encourages employee engagement, if only by getting people into the office and talking more directly with each other. Full-time telework or remote leads to a check-the-box-and-check-out mentality, which leads many to regard their work as a paycheck only.

I hope your leaders will articulate these reasons to you, as many said their greatest frustration was removal of a WFH benefit without explanation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm really shocked and saddened by the movement to gut DC of DC-based positions. Typically, supporters of unions are strong community activists.

Federal government jobs are the core of DC employment. Yes, DC employment is somewhat diversified, but even many private firms are here because federal government functions are here. Perhaps, OP and their ilk represent a few jobs, but they are setting a dangerous precedent.In fact, they are using the CFPB as precedent for what they want. This is not about a few workers who want to take their goodies and leave DC. It is about a few people who want to start a trend to gut the area of its bedrock employment and economic well-being.

And, remember, a community is about more than home prices, it is also about local governments, schools, and small businesses. It is so highly ironic that both the CFPB and the Fed have a community development mandate, and yet, their staff are leading the charge to gut their own community.

This whole thread seems very employee focused with little concern about the institutions of government and the Metro area. What is a country to do when even its own stewards sit ready to undermine it?

Why does the community have to be DC? Other communities matter too.

Because DC is where the jobs have been, and therefore, much investment has been made on their behalf. Subways, airports, etc. are not transportable. Also, there are large human and physical “networks” that support an industry, which are not easily disassembled and moved elsewhere. If you don’t like DC, why don’t you change jobs and move? Why do you need to take a DC-based job elsewhere? If you went to Broadway and asked to perform your role virtually, they’d laugh at you.

Just because something was a certain way in the past doesn’t mean it must continue.

You’re ripping this from context. The reason why things persist is because large investments have been made in them. Also, nothing is broken here. What has changed is your potential to pocket private gain at public expense.

You’re nuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since a lot of arguments have been floated, let’s recap the institutional reasons to not allow remote or full-time local telework, and instead, support hybrid, which was essentially the pre-pandemic standard:

1) Based on the number of job board postings, the Fed does not face a staffing emergency. Plenty of people are willing to accept hybrid to work at the Board.
2) The Board does not need remote or full-time local telework to differentiate itself from the private sector. Differentiators already include work/life balance, a generous, fully-paid pension, generous leave, lifetime healthcare, and more. Also, hybrid is consistent with or more generous than private options or where they’re heading.
3) The Board does not need remote to hire RB experts. There is a longstanding practice that most large System projects include substantial RB resources. The Board has never endeavored, nor should it, to directly employ all the System’s best experts.
4) The Fed should walk its community development talk. Hybrid supports both local communities and downtown DC. Full-time area telework does not support downtown DC. Remote doesn’t support Metro at all. Supporting Metro is important because the area and many private firms have made large investments on behalf of these jobs. Allowing these jobs to flee DC jeopardizes these investments and the surrounding communities.
5) Hybrid also balances institutional and community concerns with those of working families, minority concerns, and the environment. While it may not be a perfect solution, it is balanced.
6) As the world’s leading central bank and leading domestic economic authority, the Board continues to innovate in a rapidly changing world. In that context, innovation efforts in research, policy, and supervisory practices benefit from at least some in-office/person-to-person time with peers and industry players.
7) Hybrid encourages employee engagement, if only by getting people into the office and talking more directly with each other. Full-time telework or remote leads to a check-the-box-and-check-out mentality, which leads many to regard their work as a paycheck only.

I hope your leaders will articulate these reasons to you, as many said their greatest frustration was removal of a WFH benefit without explanation.

Nope. The check in and out mentality would be the boomer dinosaurs who rarely get any work done but want to spend 5 days a week in the office. You sound like one of them. Just because YOU can’t work effectively from somewhere else doesn’t mean everyone else is like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since a lot of arguments have been floated, let’s recap the institutional reasons to not allow remote or full-time local telework, and instead, support hybrid, which was essentially the pre-pandemic standard:

1) Based on the number of job board postings, the Fed does not face a staffing emergency. Plenty of people are willing to accept hybrid to work at the Board.
2) The Board does not need remote or full-time local telework to differentiate itself from the private sector. Differentiators already include work/life balance, a generous, fully-paid pension, generous leave, lifetime healthcare, and more. Also, hybrid is consistent with or more generous than private options or where they’re heading.
3) The Board does not need remote to hire RB experts. There is a longstanding practice that most large System projects include substantial RB resources. The Board has never endeavored, nor should it, to directly employ all the System’s best experts.
4) The Fed should walk its community development talk. Hybrid supports both local communities and downtown DC. Full-time area telework does not support downtown DC. Remote doesn’t support Metro at all. Supporting Metro is important because the area and many private firms have made large investments on behalf of these jobs. Allowing these jobs to flee DC jeopardizes these investments and the surrounding communities.
5) Hybrid also balances institutional and community concerns with those of working families, minority concerns, and the environment. While it may not be a perfect solution, it is balanced.
6) As the world’s leading central bank and leading domestic economic authority, the Board continues to innovate in a rapidly changing world. In that context, innovation efforts in research, policy, and supervisory practices benefit from at least some in-office/person-to-person time with peers and industry players.
7) Hybrid encourages employee engagement, if only by getting people into the office and talking more directly with each other. Full-time telework or remote leads to a check-the-box-and-check-out mentality, which leads many to regard their work as a paycheck only.

I hope your leaders will articulate these reasons to you, as many said their greatest frustration was removal of a WFH benefit without explanation.

Thank you. Well said. I wish our leaders could have shared such a thoughtful response. I do enjoy WFH, but these are persuasive points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since a lot of arguments have been floated, let’s recap the institutional reasons to not allow remote or full-time local telework, and instead, support hybrid, which was essentially the pre-pandemic standard:

1) Based on the number of job board postings, the Fed does not face a staffing emergency. Plenty of people are willing to accept hybrid to work at the Board.
2) The Board does not need remote or full-time local telework to differentiate itself from the private sector. Differentiators already include work/life balance, a generous, fully-paid pension, generous leave, lifetime healthcare, and more. Also, hybrid is consistent with or more generous than private options or where they’re heading.
3) The Board does not need remote to hire RB experts. There is a longstanding practice that most large System projects include substantial RB resources. The Board has never endeavored, nor should it, to directly employ all the System’s best experts.
4) The Fed should walk its community development talk. Hybrid supports both local communities and downtown DC. Full-time area telework does not support downtown DC. Remote doesn’t support Metro at all. Supporting Metro is important because the area and many private firms have made large investments on behalf of these jobs. Allowing these jobs to flee DC jeopardizes these investments and the surrounding communities.
5) Hybrid also balances institutional and community concerns with those of working families, minority concerns, and the environment. While it may not be a perfect solution, it is balanced.
6) As the world’s leading central bank and leading domestic economic authority, the Board continues to innovate in a rapidly changing world. In that context, innovation efforts in research, policy, and supervisory practices benefit from at least some in-office/person-to-person time with peers and industry players.
7) Hybrid encourages employee engagement, if only by getting people into the office and talking more directly with each other. Full-time telework or remote leads to a check-the-box-and-check-out mentality, which leads many to regard their work as a paycheck only.

I hope your leaders will articulate these reasons to you, as many said their greatest frustration was removal of a WFH benefit without explanation.

A couple thing in response to your thoughtful post.

1. The Board is offering full-time remote work to a small percentage of the workforce. The question is not about remote work, but the minimum requirement for onsite work. They are requiring 50% onsite, which is significantly more than competitors. They currently require roughly 20%. Why the increase? What is the tangible benefit of that additional 30%?
2. The Board absolutely pulls a significant amount of talent from the RBs to be employed at the Board, notwithstanding the partnership that exists on many issues. The combination of the small percentage of fully remote allowed and the increased minimum will limit, and has limited, their ability to do this effectively.
3. The direct competitors for many divisions are the other financial regulators. The Board has historically offered a total benefits package that is slightly better than the rest. This is no longer true.
4. The number of job board postings is not a good indicator of attrition. The live postings represent only a percentage of the unfilled positions. The hiring timeline takes a lot longer and many more positions are unfilled at any given time than are reflected in the postings.
5. The "community development" argument does not track. There is no specific mission to promote development in DC. Communities develop all over the country and DC exurbs.
6. As to the argument for hybrid *in general* I agree. Some onsite presence is a good thing. Again, the question is exactly how much is needed, and when there should be more flexibility for FTR in some roles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm really shocked and saddened by the movement to gut DC of DC-based positions. Typically, supporters of unions are strong community activists.

Federal government jobs are the core of DC employment. Yes, DC employment is somewhat diversified, but even many private firms are here because federal government functions are here. Perhaps, OP and their ilk represent a few jobs, but they are setting a dangerous precedent.In fact, they are using the CFPB as precedent for what they want. This is not about a few workers who want to take their goodies and leave DC. It is about a few people who want to start a trend to gut the area of its bedrock employment and economic well-being.

And, remember, a community is about more than home prices, it is also about local governments, schools, and small businesses. It is so highly ironic that both the CFPB and the Fed have a community development mandate, and yet, their staff are leading the charge to gut their own community.

This whole thread seems very employee focused with little concern about the institutions of government and the Metro area. What is a country to do when even its own stewards sit ready to undermine it?

Why does the community have to be DC? Other communities matter too.

Because DC is where the jobs have been, and therefore, much investment has been made on their behalf. Subways, airports, etc. are not transportable. Also, there are large human and physical “networks” that support an industry, which are not easily disassembled and moved elsewhere. If you don’t like DC, why don’t you change jobs and move? Why do you need to take a DC-based job elsewhere? If you went to Broadway and asked to perform your role virtually, they’d laugh at you.

Because they want to be paid more and live in a lower rent area because somehow they think they’re the only person who can’t afford a mansion. They take into account no impacts from the personal move, raising prices elsewhere or increasing traffic. They don’t care about the impact of the area they leave. They have no concern for organizational effectiveness outside of the immediate team. They don’t notice that federal offices in other states have a lower standard of living, save a handful of places they’re unlikely to choose, and that those employees don’t make a DC salary and never did, so if management even moves them they may have a higher salary than existing employees in those areas, but also they don’t want to actually take the locality pay change. It’s a self serving short term understanding of so many things that leads to this argument.

Personally, I love a hybrid environment.

I think that’s what really constitutes a win-win for everyone. If people are in a couple dats a week there are enough workers to support infrastructure, traffic is decreased, flexibility is increased, and organizational effectiveness remains in tact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since a lot of arguments have been floated, let’s recap the institutional reasons to not allow remote or full-time local telework, and instead, support hybrid, which was essentially the pre-pandemic standard:

1) Based on the number of job board postings, the Fed does not face a staffing emergency. Plenty of people are willing to accept hybrid to work at the Board.
2) The Board does not need remote or full-time local telework to differentiate itself from the private sector. Differentiators already include work/life balance, a generous, fully-paid pension, generous leave, lifetime healthcare, and more. Also, hybrid is consistent with or more generous than private options or where they’re heading.
3) The Board does not need remote to hire RB experts. There is a longstanding practice that most large System projects include substantial RB resources. The Board has never endeavored, nor should it, to directly employ all the System’s best experts.
4) The Fed should walk its community development talk. Hybrid supports both local communities and downtown DC. Full-time area telework does not support downtown DC. Remote doesn’t support Metro at all. Supporting Metro is important because the area and many private firms have made large investments on behalf of these jobs. Allowing these jobs to flee DC jeopardizes these investments and the surrounding communities.
5) Hybrid also balances institutional and community concerns with those of working families, minority concerns, and the environment. While it may not be a perfect solution, it is balanced.
6) As the world’s leading central bank and leading domestic economic authority, the Board continues to innovate in a rapidly changing world. In that context, innovation efforts in research, policy, and supervisory practices benefit from at least some in-office/person-to-person time with peers and industry players.
7) Hybrid encourages employee engagement, if only by getting people into the office and talking more directly with each other. Full-time telework or remote leads to a check-the-box-and-check-out mentality, which leads many to regard their work as a paycheck only.

I hope your leaders will articulate these reasons to you, as many said their greatest frustration was removal of a WFH benefit without explanation.

A couple thing in response to your thoughtful post.

1. The Board is offering full-time remote work to a small percentage of the workforce. The question is not about remote work, but the minimum requirement for onsite work. They are requiring 50% onsite, which is significantly more than competitors. They currently require roughly 20%. Why the increase? What is the tangible benefit of that additional 30%?
2. The Board absolutely pulls a significant amount of talent from the RBs to be employed at the Board, notwithstanding the partnership that exists on many issues. The combination of the small percentage of fully remote allowed and the increased minimum will limit, and has limited, their ability to do this effectively.
3. The direct competitors for many divisions are the other financial regulators. The Board has historically offered a total benefits package that is slightly better than the rest. This is no longer true.
4. The number of job board postings is not a good indicator of attrition. The live postings represent only a percentage of the unfilled positions. The hiring timeline takes a lot longer and many more positions are unfilled at any given time than are reflected in the postings.
5. The "community development" argument does not track. There is no specific mission to promote development in DC. Communities develop all over the country and DC exurbs.
6. As to the argument for hybrid *in general* I agree. Some onsite presence is a good thing. Again, the question is exactly how much is needed, and when there should be more flexibility for FTR in some roles.

The competition will match this all soon enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm really shocked and saddened by the movement to gut DC of DC-based positions. Typically, supporters of unions are strong community activists.

Federal government jobs are the core of DC employment. Yes, DC employment is somewhat diversified, but even many private firms are here because federal government functions are here. Perhaps, OP and their ilk represent a few jobs, but they are setting a dangerous precedent.In fact, they are using the CFPB as precedent for what they want. This is not about a few workers who want to take their goodies and leave DC. It is about a few people who want to start a trend to gut the area of its bedrock employment and economic well-being.

And, remember, a community is about more than home prices, it is also about local governments, schools, and small businesses. It is so highly ironic that both the CFPB and the Fed have a community development mandate, and yet, their staff are leading the charge to gut their own community.

This whole thread seems very employee focused with little concern about the institutions of government and the Metro area. What is a country to do when even its own stewards sit ready to undermine it?

Why does the community have to be DC? Other communities matter too.

Because DC is where the jobs have been, and therefore, much investment has been made on their behalf. Subways, airports, etc. are not transportable. Also, there are large human and physical “networks” that support an industry, which are not easily disassembled and moved elsewhere. If you don’t like DC, why don’t you change jobs and move? Why do you need to take a DC-based job elsewhere? If you went to Broadway and asked to perform your role virtually, they’d laugh at you.

Because they want to be paid more and live in a lower rent area because somehow they think they’re the only person who can’t afford a mansion. They take into account no impacts from the personal move, raising prices elsewhere or increasing traffic. They don’t care about the impact of the area they leave. They have no concern for organizational effectiveness outside of the immediate team. They don’t notice that federal offices in other states have a lower standard of living, save a handful of places they’re unlikely to choose, and that those employees don’t make a DC salary and never did, so if management even moves them they may have a higher salary than existing employees in those areas, but also they don’t want to actually take the locality pay change. It’s a self serving short term understanding of so many things that leads to this argument.

Personally, I love a hybrid environment.

I think that’s what really constitutes a win-win for everyone. If people are in a couple dats a week there are enough workers to support infrastructure, traffic is decreased, flexibility is increased, and organizational effectiveness remains in tact.

Are you referring to staff who move to lower cost of living regions or staff who move to less expensive parts of the DMV?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm really shocked and saddened by the movement to gut DC of DC-based positions. Typically, supporters of unions are strong community activists.

Federal government jobs are the core of DC employment. Yes, DC employment is somewhat diversified, but even many private firms are here because federal government functions are here. Perhaps, OP and their ilk represent a few jobs, but they are setting a dangerous precedent.In fact, they are using the CFPB as precedent for what they want. This is not about a few workers who want to take their goodies and leave DC. It is about a few people who want to start a trend to gut the area of its bedrock employment and economic well-being.

And, remember, a community is about more than home prices, it is also about local governments, schools, and small businesses. It is so highly ironic that both the CFPB and the Fed have a community development mandate, and yet, their staff are leading the charge to gut their own community.

This whole thread seems very employee focused with little concern about the institutions of government and the Metro area. What is a country to do when even its own stewards sit ready to undermine it?

Why does the community have to be DC? Other communities matter too.

Because DC is where the jobs have been, and therefore, much investment has been made on their behalf. Subways, airports, etc. are not transportable. Also, there are large human and physical “networks” that support an industry, which are not easily disassembled and moved elsewhere. If you don’t like DC, why don’t you change jobs and move? Why do you need to take a DC-based job elsewhere? If you went to Broadway and asked to perform your role virtually, they’d laugh at you.

Because they want to be paid more and live in a lower rent area because somehow they think they’re the only person who can’t afford a mansion. They take into account no impacts from the personal move, raising prices elsewhere or increasing traffic. They don’t care about the impact of the area they leave. They have no concern for organizational effectiveness outside of the immediate team. They don’t notice that federal offices in other states have a lower standard of living, save a handful of places they’re unlikely to choose, and that those employees don’t make a DC salary and never did, so if management even moves them they may have a higher salary than existing employees in those areas, but also they don’t want to actually take the locality pay change. It’s a self serving short term understanding of so many things that leads to this argument.

Personally, I love a hybrid environment.

I think that’s what really constitutes a win-win for everyone. If people are in a couple dats a week there are enough workers to support infrastructure, traffic is decreased, flexibility is increased, and organizational effectiveness remains in tact.

This is incredibly bizarre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since a lot of arguments have been floated, let’s recap the institutional reasons to not allow remote or full-time local telework, and instead, support hybrid, which was essentially the pre-pandemic standard:

1) Based on the number of job board postings, the Fed does not face a staffing emergency. Plenty of people are willing to accept hybrid to work at the Board.
2) The Board does not need remote or full-time local telework to differentiate itself from the private sector. Differentiators already include work/life balance, a generous, fully-paid pension, generous leave, lifetime healthcare, and more. Also, hybrid is consistent with or more generous than private options or where they’re heading.
3) The Board does not need remote to hire RB experts. There is a longstanding practice that most large System projects include substantial RB resources. The Board has never endeavored, nor should it, to directly employ all the System’s best experts.
4) The Fed should walk its community development talk. Hybrid supports both local communities and downtown DC. Full-time area telework does not support downtown DC. Remote doesn’t support Metro at all. Supporting Metro is important because the area and many private firms have made large investments on behalf of these jobs. Allowing these jobs to flee DC jeopardizes these investments and the surrounding communities.
5) Hybrid also balances institutional and community concerns with those of working families, minority concerns, and the environment. While it may not be a perfect solution, it is balanced.
6) As the world’s leading central bank and leading domestic economic authority, the Board continues to innovate in a rapidly changing world. In that context, innovation efforts in research, policy, and supervisory practices benefit from at least some in-office/person-to-person time with peers and industry players.
7) Hybrid encourages employee engagement, if only by getting people into the office and talking more directly with each other. Full-time telework or remote leads to a check-the-box-and-check-out mentality, which leads many to regard their work as a paycheck only.

I hope your leaders will articulate these reasons to you, as many said their greatest frustration was removal of a WFH benefit without explanation.

A couple thing in response to your thoughtful post.

1. The Board is offering full-time remote work to a small percentage of the workforce. The question is not about remote work, but the minimum requirement for onsite work. They are requiring 50% onsite, which is significantly more than competitors. They currently require roughly 20%. Why the increase? What is the tangible benefit of that additional 30%?
2. The Board absolutely pulls a significant amount of talent from the RBs to be employed at the Board, notwithstanding the partnership that exists on many issues. The combination of the small percentage of fully remote allowed and the increased minimum will limit, and has limited, their ability to do this effectively.
3. The direct competitors for many divisions are the other financial regulators. The Board has historically offered a total benefits package that is slightly better than the rest. This is no longer true.
4. The number of job board postings is not a good indicator of attrition. The live postings represent only a percentage of the unfilled positions. The hiring timeline takes a lot longer and many more positions are unfilled at any given time than are reflected in the postings.
5. The "community development" argument does not track. There is no specific mission to promote development in DC. Communities develop all over the country and DC exurbs.
6. As to the argument for hybrid *in general* I agree. Some onsite presence is a good thing. Again, the question is exactly how much is needed, and when there should be more flexibility for FTR in some roles.

Thanks for your comments. Here are some of my thoughts:
1.and 2. Remote workers. My experience is that they fall into two camps - 1) goodwill transfers and 2) experts. The first are Board employees who transferred to another part of the country, oftentimes because of a spouse's job, and their manager kept them to help with the transition. These arrangements SHOULD have a limited, unrenewable duration. Why? Because the staff member may not be the best expert AND they create a precedent that other employees want to leverage. This is the birth of the remote option. Other staff start asking, "if A can do it, why not me." What's the incentive to go remote? a) The Board's lack of geo pay; b) the proclivity of these employees to move to a lower COL area; the lack of an in-office requirement or an enforced one. As you say, remote workers are supposed to work in the office 20% of the time, but for many people that is rarely enforced. Finally, to your question: I think the Board's move to 50% in-office time for remote workers reflects several goals: 1) settle notions of in-office time unfairness between remote and DC-based staff; 2) make the option less attractive for DC-based staff; 3) encourage existing remote staff with marginal credentials/contributions to retire, join a RB, quit, or return to DC. As for the real RB experts that the Board wants to hire, they're stuck in the Board's crossfire with those who want to go remote and the need for consistency. If the Board lets them do something different, they're back in the same place as with the goodwill transfers. One option might be to let experts serve some of their in-office time at a RB office.
3.and 4. The Board still has superior benefits, but mostly the fully funded and better pension. As for telework/remote, the agencies shouldn't compete on this. Instead, all the agencies should agree to in-office minimums.If all the agencies had such minimums, it may be easier to recruit and retain staff. Also, I'm no longer on the inside, but it would be helpful to understand where the unfilled positions are coming from - retirements, new positions, inter-agency moves, RBs, private, etc. There may be different responses for each situation.
5. I have to disagree with you on the community issue. Sure, the Fed has no explicit mandate to support DC metro, but as a large employer in the area, and as a potentially precedent setting agency for the federal government (which is obviously much larger), the Fed's telecommute and remote polices are important. In a world where jurisdictions spend millions to attract and retain large employers, I don't understand why the metro area would view federal government jobs any differently.
6. I think a half-time at home/office split is perfect for hybrid. People can quibble with it, but it's a balanced solution. No one can - or should - try to quantify why 2 or 3 days work, but the right balance is definitely more than 1 day and less than 5, and probably 4. Here, I think the collaboration and engagement arguments are strong. It's interesting that when it comes to work, so many people are willing to ignore everything we know about human nature and how people function better with some time together. Post-pandemic, it has become popular to see one's job as just that and even friendships as distinct. To me, that's lunacy. I can't imagine working hard with someone on a major project for months or years and not thinking about them other than "someone I work with."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm really shocked and saddened by the movement to gut DC of DC-based positions. Typically, supporters of unions are strong community activists.

Federal government jobs are the core of DC employment. Yes, DC employment is somewhat diversified, but even many private firms are here because federal government functions are here. Perhaps, OP and their ilk represent a few jobs, but they are setting a dangerous precedent.In fact, they are using the CFPB as precedent for what they want. This is not about a few workers who want to take their goodies and leave DC. It is about a few people who want to start a trend to gut the area of its bedrock employment and economic well-being.

And, remember, a community is about more than home prices, it is also about local governments, schools, and small businesses. It is so highly ironic that both the CFPB and the Fed have a community development mandate, and yet, their staff are leading the charge to gut their own community.

This whole thread seems very employee focused with little concern about the institutions of government and the Metro area. What is a country to do when even its own stewards sit ready to undermine it?

I, a moderate who has voted for both parties, have been shocked to hear my “liberal” friends make jokes about having to go to an office so small businesses owners could stay in business. As if the federal government has no responsibility to care about them.

This is why people are hypocrites. They’re just some NIMBY jerks.

Yeah no, try again. I can support small business in my neighborhood when I WFH. “Maintaing shitty DC lunch counters downtown” is not part of the federal mission. I could equally say that the community minded thing is to reduce pollution by minimizing commutes with WFH. Or that with the additional 2 hr/day, federal workers are now able to contribute to their actual communities through volunteering and being active in schools.

Not the person you responded to, but, again, you're making the case for hybrid - essentially the pre-pandemic standard - not remote. As you say, when time is spent between your local community and downtown, both benefit.

Hybrid, remote, I don’t care. It’s just untenable to think that you can make a major change in working conditions because downtown real estate owners are nervous about vacancies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm really shocked and saddened by the movement to gut DC of DC-based positions. Typically, supporters of unions are strong community activists.

Federal government jobs are the core of DC employment. Yes, DC employment is somewhat diversified, but even many private firms are here because federal government functions are here. Perhaps, OP and their ilk represent a few jobs, but they are setting a dangerous precedent.In fact, they are using the CFPB as precedent for what they want. This is not about a few workers who want to take their goodies and leave DC. It is about a few people who want to start a trend to gut the area of its bedrock employment and economic well-being.

And, remember, a community is about more than home prices, it is also about local governments, schools, and small businesses. It is so highly ironic that both the CFPB and the Fed have a community development mandate, and yet, their staff are leading the charge to gut their own community.

This whole thread seems very employee focused with little concern about the institutions of government and the Metro area. What is a country to do when even its own stewards sit ready to undermine it?

Oh yes I am sure you are a BIG supporter of community development! Give me a break.

Your argument would be stronger if you addressed the concern, not the poster.

I won’t address the concern, because it’s a red herring.