Do you think DOGE will eliminate remote policy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I think the feds will have to go back to the office like most of the working world.

Most Feds are in non-telework positions. Most Feds who telework do so half or less of the time. This isn’t very different from professional and management workers in the private sector.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We aren’t worried about RTO but 8-6 hours is untenable and we accepted lower paying Fed jobs for the 40 hour work week

You accepted a Fed job for the security.

Hours worked are 40 whether your commute is 2 min or 2 hours.
I left the house at 8 to get to Fed job by 9. Left at 5:30, got home 6:30. That's 40 worked hours even if I was out of the house longer.

Okay? We have short commutes because we accepted a smaller house.

What I’m talking about is Musk mandating 10 in-office hours, 8-6. So not only making it LONGER but FIXED hours (before many of my colleagues come in early to leave early for various reasons)

No idea why you had to detail your commute in some pedantic way. I can do math. I was talking about something discussed earlier on this and other threads about the 10 hour work day.

[Anonymous]

I was hired fully remote in another state. I have no clue what this will mean for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My die hard Full Remote WFH forever employee went to NYC this week. Jokingly I said what if Broadway just showed a Zoom version of Play, the restaurant just had you pick up a frozen dinner to heat up at your hotel. At hotel you did on line check in and you had to clean your own toilets and make your own beds.

She was like that is outrageous. Funny how she does not want anyone working from home when it is stuff she wants, but she is not willing to go to work.

You’re unable to see the difference between a service job and a laptop job?

[Anonymous]

No because I don’t think DOGE is a real thing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No because I don’t think DOGE is a real thing

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No because I don’t think DOGE is a real thing

+1

Yeah I’m beginning to think this is a big nothing burger

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was hired fully remote in another state. I have no clue what this will mean for me.

Youll be canned.

[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.

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

Hoping the 76 y/o 15 in my office is given one of these.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was hired fully remote in another state. I have no clue what this will mean for me.

Youll be canned.

No way to know that yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was hired fully remote in another state. I have no clue what this will mean for me.

Youll be canned.

It’s literally cheaper to keep someone fully remote than pay them the DC locality. But I suppose no one is really using logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was hired fully remote in another state. I have no clue what this will mean for me.

Youll be canned.

It’s literally cheaper to keep someone fully remote than pay them the DC locality. But I suppose no one is really using logic.

Presumably a nontrivial share of newly RTO feds would retire/quit. The corresponding cost savings would trump whatever increase from DC locality pay.

[Anonymous]

My spouse is in the military, and when we were most recently overseas I had a particular kind of remote work agreement for military/foreign service spouses. It would be a real shame if they get rid of those, it's already hard to arrange but has become more common in recent years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was hired fully remote in another state. I have no clue what this will mean for me.

Youll be canned.

It’s literally cheaper to keep someone fully remote than pay them the DC locality. But I suppose no one is really using logic.

Presumably a nontrivial share of newly RTO feds would retire/quit. The corresponding cost savings would trump whatever increase from DC locality pay.

Many of them will need to be replaced and the original fed will be collecting a pension.

[Anonymous]

Elon Musk cannot single handedly do anything, and certainly not increase workdays by two hours, nor fire people who refuse to RTO, or eliminate entire federal agencies whose unions will fight this in court.

Can Trump sign an executive order limiting telework/remote work? Yes, but even that will have to be implemented within certain parameters, will be fought in court etc. no one is going to the office full time for ten hours on Jan 21. Get a grip.