Federal Reserve RTO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Totally agree about the community concerns. A prominent example is Metro (the subway). Federal government employees form the core of Metro ridership, which most/all agencies subsidize through employee vouchers. Without federal government employee ridership, Metro will need significant changes. For those who want to learn more, a simple google search on metro and federal government employees provides plenty of data and headlines.

Metro is already back to pre-pandemic levels Tues-Th. Spare me your crocodile tears for “community concerns.” Perhaps to help metro we should get rid of parking and definitely parking subsidies?

+1000. I don't get why DC doesn't impose a heavy commuter tax. So many speeder idiots from VA and MD clog our streets because they're too good to take the bus.

Seriously doubt the Fed manager on here blathering about “DC community and supporting metro” actually takes Metro or bikes. I’m at a different agency and every single manager drives. But sure, I’d like to see him put his money where his mouth is and advocate for getting rid of the parking subsidy/free garages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Other areas of the country, not extended DMV. I’ve always worked with people who live very far away (like North Carolina or New Jersey) and figure out how to be in the office as often as everyone else and I don’t mean those people either.

That’s great. We should all go to the office 5 days a week, shut our office door and do our work. Collaboration and innovation can’t happen unless we are all working from our individual offices with closed doors.

WTF. No one said 5 days a week. I didn’t even work 5 days a week in the office before the pandemic. In any case my argument was regarding locality pay.

The Fed is now proposing 50% in office which is more than most Feds and considerably more than any other FIRREA. Locality pay is a detour and frolic of your own. Locality pays can be established for remote positions, same way they are now in many agencies.

[Anonymous]

OP seems to think they’re responding to one repeat poster. They’re definitely not, as they’re attributing different people’s arguments to the same poster. I know that because I’ve posted several posts, but the response to my post included comments as if if I made other posts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Totally agree about the community concerns. A prominent example is Metro (the subway). Federal government employees form the core of Metro ridership, which most/all agencies subsidize through employee vouchers. Without federal government employee ridership, Metro will need significant changes. For those who want to learn more, a simple google search on metro and federal government employees provides plenty of data and headlines.

Metro is already back to pre-pandemic levels Tues-Th. Spare me your crocodile tears for “community concerns.” Perhaps to help metro we should get rid of parking and definitely parking subsidies?

+1000. I don't get why DC doesn't impose a heavy commuter tax. So many speeder idiots from VA and MD clog our streets because they're too good to take the bus.

Seriously doubt the Fed manager on here blathering about “DC community and supporting metro” actually takes Metro or bikes. I’m at a different agency and every single manager drives. But sure, I’d like to see him put his money where his mouth is and advocate for getting rid of the parking subsidy/free garages.

Who said anything about a male manager?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP and their supporters are making themselves look like goofs. They keep citing their opponents as being 5-day/week bootlickers or managers who want to be fawned over, but no one is making those arguments. It’s beyond me why OP can’t go to work and collaborate like they used to, with open doors and face-to-face meetings. Who said that RTO meant sitting in an office with their door closed and working on Teams. That would be the opitome of someone who can’t pivot, not understanding when to use which tools. If I was OPs manager, I’d have a conversation about their attitude and inflexibility. If that didn’t improve with a verbal, PIP it would be. OP doesn’t want hybrid to work. They’re insufferable and should be terminated. Let’s be honest, the Fed is paying this person a handsome sum to work. If they can’t muster the wherewithal to get into the office and be a cordial colleague 2-3 days a week, they’re not needed. Bad apples spoil the bunch.

Not OP. The point is, even when we go in the office now, everyone else sits in their office and meets on Teams. My manager has made zero effort to have his team meet face-to-face, and even declines in-person meetings with me! It’s a total joke. The only point appears to be my physical presence in the office.

The fact is, your notions of “collaboration” and “innovation” weren’t actually happening pre-pandemic in the way you think. Most of my job was independent knowledge work, with phone discussions, and the substantive issues all hashed out in writing (exchanges of drafts). The in-person meetings we had were totally uneccesary time wasters where nothing got done. Teams has turned phone calls into video calls, which means I see more people’s faces than I used to.

Requiring maybe one day a month, or even a day a week, or an ad-hoc team building meeting, might make sense IF the managers actually ensure their staff meet together. But the Fed RTO is going way beyond that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Totally agree about the community concerns. A prominent example is Metro (the subway). Federal government employees form the core of Metro ridership, which most/all agencies subsidize through employee vouchers. Without federal government employee ridership, Metro will need significant changes. For those who want to learn more, a simple google search on metro and federal government employees provides plenty of data and headlines.

Metro is already back to pre-pandemic levels Tues-Th. Spare me your crocodile tears for “community concerns.” Perhaps to help metro we should get rid of parking and definitely parking subsidies?

+1000. I don't get why DC doesn't impose a heavy commuter tax. So many speeder idiots from VA and MD clog our streets because they're too good to take the bus.

Seriously doubt the Fed manager on here blathering about “DC community and supporting metro” actually takes Metro or bikes. I’m at a different agency and every single manager drives. But sure, I’d like to see him put his money where his mouth is and advocate for getting rid of the parking subsidy/free garages.

Who said anything about a male manager?

oh definitely a manager. I got major mansplaining/debate guy vibes, but could be a woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP and their supporters are making themselves look like goofs. They keep citing their opponents as being 5-day/week bootlickers or managers who want to be fawned over, but no one is making those arguments. It’s beyond me why OP can’t go to work and collaborate like they used to, with open doors and face-to-face meetings. Who said that RTO meant sitting in an office with their door closed and working on Teams. That would be the opitome of someone who can’t pivot, not understanding when to use which tools. If I was OPs manager, I’d have a conversation about their attitude and inflexibility. If that didn’t improve with a verbal, PIP it would be. OP doesn’t want hybrid to work. They’re insufferable and should be terminated. Let’s be honest, the Fed is paying this person a handsome sum to work. If they can’t muster the wherewithal to get into the office and be a cordial colleague 2-3 days a week, they’re not needed. Bad apples spoil the bunch.

Not OP. The point is, even when we go in the office now, everyone else sits in their office and meets on Teams. My manager has made zero effort to have his team meet face-to-face, and even declines in-person meetings with me! It’s a total joke. The only point appears to be my physical presence in the office.

The fact is, your notions of “collaboration” and “innovation” weren’t actually happening pre-pandemic in the way you think. Most of my job was independent knowledge work, with phone discussions, and the substantive issues all hashed out in writing (exchanges of drafts). The in-person meetings we had were totally uneccesary time wasters where nothing got done. Teams has turned phone calls into video calls, which means I see more people’s faces than I used to.

Requiring maybe one day a month, or even a day a week, or an ad-hoc team building meeting, might make sense IF the managers actually ensure their staff meet together. But the Fed RTO is going way beyond that.

also please do put your federal employees on a PIP for discussing the terms & conditions of employment! that will be fun for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Locality pay is not a frolic. At some point, OP divulged that their real goal was to go remote. Currently, the Board does not have locality pay. If OP goes remote without locality pay, that is a personal boon. Also, if OP goes remote, others will want to. Despite what OP says, the community argument is a real and good one.

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?

Other areas of the country, not extended DMV. I’ve always worked with people who live very far away (like North Carolina or New Jersey) and figure out how to be in the office as often as everyone else and I don’t mean those people either.

That’s great. We should all go to the office 5 days a week, shut our office door and do our work. Collaboration and innovation can’t happen unless we are all working from our individual offices with closed doors.

WTF. No one said 5 days a week. I didn’t even work 5 days a week in the office before the pandemic. In any case my argument was regarding locality pay.

The Fed is now proposing 50% in office which is more than most Feds and considerably more than any other FIRREA. Locality pay is a detour and frolic of your own. Locality pays can be established for remote positions, same way they are now in many agencies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Other areas of the country, not extended DMV. I’ve always worked with people who live very far away (like North Carolina or New Jersey) and figure out how to be in the office as often as everyone else and I don’t mean those people either.

That’s great. We should all go to the office 5 days a week, shut our office door and do our work. Collaboration and innovation can’t happen unless we are all working from our individual offices with closed doors.

WTF. No one said 5 days a week. I didn’t even work 5 days a week in the office before the pandemic. In any case my argument was regarding locality pay.

The Fed is now proposing 50% in office which is more than most Feds and considerably more than any other FIRREA. Locality pay is a detour and frolic of your own. Locality pays can be established for remote positions, same way they are now in many agencies.

Locality pay is not a frolic. At some point, OP divulged that their real goal was to go remote. Currently, the Board does not have locality pay. If OP goes remote without locality pay, that is a personal boon. Also, if OP goes remote, others will want to. Despite what OP says, the community argument is a real and good one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP and their supporters are making themselves look like goofs. They keep citing their opponents as being 5-day/week bootlickers or managers who want to be fawned over, but no one is making those arguments. It’s beyond me why OP can’t go to work and collaborate like they used to, with open doors and face-to-face meetings. Who said that RTO meant sitting in an office with their door closed and working on Teams. That would be the opitome of someone who can’t pivot, not understanding when to use which tools. If I was OPs manager, I’d have a conversation about their attitude and inflexibility. If that didn’t improve with a verbal, PIP it would be. OP doesn’t want hybrid to work. They’re insufferable and should be terminated. Let’s be honest, the Fed is paying this person a handsome sum to work. If they can’t muster the wherewithal to get into the office and be a cordial colleague 2-3 days a week, they’re not needed. Bad apples spoil the bunch.

Not OP. The point is, even when we go in the office now, everyone else sits in their office and meets on Teams. My manager has made zero effort to have his team meet face-to-face, and even declines in-person meetings with me! It’s a total joke. The only point appears to be my physical presence in the office.

The fact is, your notions of “collaboration” and “innovation” weren’t actually happening pre-pandemic in the way you think. Most of my job was independent knowledge work, with phone discussions, and the substantive issues all hashed out in writing (exchanges of drafts). The in-person meetings we had were totally uneccesary time wasters where nothing got done. Teams has turned phone calls into video calls, which means I see more people’s faces than I used to.

Requiring maybe one day a month, or even a day a week, or an ad-hoc team building meeting, might make sense IF the managers actually ensure their staff meet together. But the Fed RTO is going way beyond that.

also please do put your federal employees on a PIP for discussing the terms & conditions of employment! that will be fun for you.

You are definitely a lawyer. The answer to everything is to sue, organize, and appeal. Why can’t you just work? A manager addressing your attitude and inability to be flexible by using appropriate work tools for the occasion has nothing to do with the “terms and conditions of employment “ (more lawyer speak).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP and their supporters are making themselves look like goofs. They keep citing their opponents as being 5-day/week bootlickers or managers who want to be fawned over, but no one is making those arguments. It’s beyond me why OP can’t go to work and collaborate like they used to, with open doors and face-to-face meetings. Who said that RTO meant sitting in an office with their door closed and working on Teams. That would be the opitome of someone who can’t pivot, not understanding when to use which tools. If I was OPs manager, I’d have a conversation about their attitude and inflexibility. If that didn’t improve with a verbal, PIP it would be. OP doesn’t want hybrid to work. They’re insufferable and should be terminated. Let’s be honest, the Fed is paying this person a handsome sum to work. If they can’t muster the wherewithal to get into the office and be a cordial colleague 2-3 days a week, they’re not needed. Bad apples spoil the bunch.

Not OP. The point is, even when we go in the office now, everyone else sits in their office and meets on Teams. My manager has made zero effort to have his team meet face-to-face, and even declines in-person meetings with me! It’s a total joke. The only point appears to be my physical presence in the office.

The fact is, your notions of “collaboration” and “innovation” weren’t actually happening pre-pandemic in the way you think. Most of my job was independent knowledge work, with phone discussions, and the substantive issues all hashed out in writing (exchanges of drafts). The in-person meetings we had were totally uneccesary time wasters where nothing got done. Teams has turned phone calls into video calls, which means I see more people’s faces than I used to.

Requiring maybe one day a month, or even a day a week, or an ad-hoc team building meeting, might make sense IF the managers actually ensure their staff meet together. But the Fed RTO is going way beyond that.

Sounds like a bad manager. A lot of the problem is that managers are caught between their team members and senior management. If senior management could articulate their rationale for hybrid and require managers to get onboard (I.e. function like pre-pandemic, which shouldn’t be rocket science), managers could get their employees to engage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Other areas of the country, not extended DMV. I’ve always worked with people who live very far away (like North Carolina or New Jersey) and figure out how to be in the office as often as everyone else and I don’t mean those people either.

That’s great. We should all go to the office 5 days a week, shut our office door and do our work. Collaboration and innovation can’t happen unless we are all working from our individual offices with closed doors.

WTF. No one said 5 days a week. I didn’t even work 5 days a week in the office before the pandemic. In any case my argument was regarding locality pay.

The Fed is now proposing 50% in office which is more than most Feds and considerably more than any other FIRREA. Locality pay is a detour and frolic of your own. Locality pays can be established for remote positions, same way they are now in many agencies.

Locality pay is not a frolic. At some point, OP divulged that their real goal was to go remote. Currently, the Board does not have locality pay. If OP goes remote without locality pay, that is a personal boon. Also, if OP goes remote, others will want to. Despite what OP says, the community argument is a real and good one.

Why are you assuming OP would move to a lower cost of living location? Would you be less angry if he or she relocated to a more expensive location?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP and their supporters are making themselves look like goofs. They keep citing their opponents as being 5-day/week bootlickers or managers who want to be fawned over, but no one is making those arguments. It’s beyond me why OP can’t go to work and collaborate like they used to, with open doors and face-to-face meetings. Who said that RTO meant sitting in an office with their door closed and working on Teams. That would be the opitome of someone who can’t pivot, not understanding when to use which tools. If I was OPs manager, I’d have a conversation about their attitude and inflexibility. If that didn’t improve with a verbal, PIP it would be. OP doesn’t want hybrid to work. They’re insufferable and should be terminated. Let’s be honest, the Fed is paying this person a handsome sum to work. If they can’t muster the wherewithal to get into the office and be a cordial colleague 2-3 days a week, they’re not needed. Bad apples spoil the bunch.

Not OP. The point is, even when we go in the office now, everyone else sits in their office and meets on Teams. My manager has made zero effort to have his team meet face-to-face, and even declines in-person meetings with me! It’s a total joke. The only point appears to be my physical presence in the office.

The fact is, your notions of “collaboration” and “innovation” weren’t actually happening pre-pandemic in the way you think. Most of my job was independent knowledge work, with phone discussions, and the substantive issues all hashed out in writing (exchanges of drafts). The in-person meetings we had were totally uneccesary time wasters where nothing got done. Teams has turned phone calls into video calls, which means I see more people’s faces than I used to.

Requiring maybe one day a month, or even a day a week, or an ad-hoc team building meeting, might make sense IF the managers actually ensure their staff meet together. But the Fed RTO is going way beyond that.

This. I’m being required to spend 5 days a period in the office to shut my door and hold Teams calls with FRBNY employees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP and their supporters are making themselves look like goofs. They keep citing their opponents as being 5-day/week bootlickers or managers who want to be fawned over, but no one is making those arguments. It’s beyond me why OP can’t go to work and collaborate like they used to, with open doors and face-to-face meetings. Who said that RTO meant sitting in an office with their door closed and working on Teams. That would be the opitome of someone who can’t pivot, not understanding when to use which tools. If I was OPs manager, I’d have a conversation about their attitude and inflexibility. If that didn’t improve with a verbal, PIP it would be. OP doesn’t want hybrid to work. They’re insufferable and should be terminated. Let’s be honest, the Fed is paying this person a handsome sum to work. If they can’t muster the wherewithal to get into the office and be a cordial colleague 2-3 days a week, they’re not needed. Bad apples spoil the bunch.

Because for many of us we mostly work with staff not even located in our building. Pre-Covid we held conference calls. Now it’s Teams calls.

If you have even one person on a project or part of a group who is not located in DC then it necessitates a Teams call. If you have a Teams call then this means everyone is going to sit in their office on the Teams call. Even if everyone who is part of a group is located in DC there’s a chance that at least one person is traveling for work and will need to attend the meeting using Teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP and their supporters are making themselves look like goofs. They keep citing their opponents as being 5-day/week bootlickers or managers who want to be fawned over, but no one is making those arguments. It’s beyond me why OP can’t go to work and collaborate like they used to, with open doors and face-to-face meetings. Who said that RTO meant sitting in an office with their door closed and working on Teams. That would be the opitome of someone who can’t pivot, not understanding when to use which tools. If I was OPs manager, I’d have a conversation about their attitude and inflexibility. If that didn’t improve with a verbal, PIP it would be. OP doesn’t want hybrid to work. They’re insufferable and should be terminated. Let’s be honest, the Fed is paying this person a handsome sum to work. If they can’t muster the wherewithal to get into the office and be a cordial colleague 2-3 days a week, they’re not needed. Bad apples spoil the bunch.

Not OP. The point is, even when we go in the office now, everyone else sits in their office and meets on Teams. My manager has made zero effort to have his team meet face-to-face, and even declines in-person meetings with me! It’s a total joke. The only point appears to be my physical presence in the office.

The fact is, your notions of “collaboration” and “innovation” weren’t actually happening pre-pandemic in the way you think. Most of my job was independent knowledge work, with phone discussions, and the substantive issues all hashed out in writing (exchanges of drafts). The in-person meetings we had were totally uneccesary time wasters where nothing got done. Teams has turned phone calls into video calls, which means I see more people’s faces than I used to.

Requiring maybe one day a month, or even a day a week, or an ad-hoc team building meeting, might make sense IF the managers actually ensure their staff meet together. But the Fed RTO is going way beyond that.

This. I’m being required to spend 5 days a period in the office to shut my door and hold Teams calls with FRBNY employees.

If you really want this to be better, why don’t you approach senior/junior management and tell them that if staff are going to be in the office, they need to work together like they’re in the office. Yes, you’re working with FRBNY, which may not lend itself to in-person collaboration, but the office is larger than you. Why don’t you become an agent for a positive change back to hybrid? Remember, you have agency; your manager doesn’t have to tell you each step of how to be a proactive and helpful team member. Heck, your initiative might even be recognized by seniors and you get a promotion. Be positive!