Jeff Zients throws a hissy fit in a memo about RTO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don't work for a company, we are in public service, worker feelings are pretty irrelevant compared to larger public sentiment. We can get with the current WH vision of 50% RTO or hope for political change to a party that is pushing for closer to 100% RTO. Act like an adult and try to think about which makes more sense.

I am of course aware of elected officials asking for RTO for government workers. Can you point to anything to indicate that this is something that the general public cares about? Surveys, polls, etc?

DP. I do not associate myself at all with the tone of the PP. In fact, I firmly do believe that continued extensive WFH is better for work-life balance and retention, and that there is little to no reliable evidence that it impacts productivity.

That being said...

The political reality is that WFH is impacting commercial real estate, which is in turn affecting the financial markets and banking industry, which will eventually impact personal finance. The reality is also that these industries have powerful lobbying arms. Also, it isn't just congress members from a certain party that are calling for RTO. Biden himself called for it in first state of the union, and per this thread, his administration is continuing to push for it, albeit without a ton of success.

And in politics perception is reality. And there are many who are successfully pushing the narrative that federal employees are not working, that taxpayer dollars are wasted on federal employees, and that public services have degraded since WFH. There are many voters who do not have the opportunity to work from home and are resentful.

All of these leads me to conclude that a change in administration will ABSOLUTELY mean an end to anything near current levels of WFH. IF there is no change in administration, there will be less pressure after the election unless and until the financial sector really starts to take a hit. Then pressure will ramp back up. All of this is completely separate from the conversation about the pros/cons of WFH on the actual efficiency and effectiveness of the federal workforce.

Eh, the people who say Feds don't work, have been saying it forever and will continue to say it regardless of RTO. Similarly, CRE was oversaturated before covid and will continue to crash even if every Fed goes to the office. I think you could send every Fed in 6 days a week and not change either of those things, or any voter minds.

I know it won't happen but I would love to see this administration try to boost WFH for everybody, and better pay or other incentives for jobs that must be in person.

So you don't think that a new administration would take the federal workforce back to pre-pandemic levels of remote work, or less?

DP but how is that relevant? Federal agencies/unions shouldn’t agree to reduce productivity by forcing people back to the office because the next administration might want to do that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don't work for a company, we are in public service, worker feelings are pretty irrelevant compared to larger public sentiment. We can get with the current WH vision of 50% RTO or hope for political change to a party that is pushing for closer to 100% RTO. Act like an adult and try to think about which makes more sense.

I am of course aware of elected officials asking for RTO for government workers. Can you point to anything to indicate that this is something that the general public cares about? Surveys, polls, etc?

DP. I do not associate myself at all with the tone of the PP. In fact, I firmly do believe that continued extensive WFH is better for work-life balance and retention, and that there is little to no reliable evidence that it impacts productivity.

That being said...

The political reality is that WFH is impacting commercial real estate, which is in turn affecting the financial markets and banking industry, which will eventually impact personal finance. The reality is also that these industries have powerful lobbying arms. Also, it isn't just congress members from a certain party that are calling for RTO. Biden himself called for it in first state of the union, and per this thread, his administration is continuing to push for it, albeit without a ton of success.

And in politics perception is reality. And there are many who are successfully pushing the narrative that federal employees are not working, that taxpayer dollars are wasted on federal employees, and that public services have degraded since WFH. There are many voters who do not have the opportunity to work from home and are resentful.

All of these leads me to conclude that a change in administration will ABSOLUTELY mean an end to anything near current levels of WFH. IF there is no change in administration, there will be less pressure after the election unless and until the financial sector really starts to take a hit. Then pressure will ramp back up. All of this is completely separate from the conversation about the pros/cons of WFH on the actual efficiency and effectiveness of the federal workforce.

Eh, the people who say Feds don't work, have been saying it forever and will continue to say it regardless of RTO. Similarly, CRE was oversaturated before covid and will continue to crash even if every Fed goes to the office. I think you could send every Fed in 6 days a week and not change either of those things, or any voter minds.

I know it won't happen but I would love to see this administration try to boost WFH for everybody, and better pay or other incentives for jobs that must be in person.

So you don't think that a new administration would take the federal workforce back to pre-pandemic levels of remote work, or less?

DP but how is that relevant? Federal agencies/unions shouldn’t agree to reduce productivity by forcing people back to the office because the next administration might want to do that?

The specific exchange you are responding to is ABOUT whether increased RTO is likely. It is absolutely likely if the administration changes, and ramping up to the election you can expect this administration to ramp up the posturing about it at a minimum, and actually making it happen to some degree.

Again, separate and apart completely from any discussion about productivity and the question of whether it is a good thing v. bad thing. Just whether it is likely...

[Anonymous]

I guess you shifted the discussion to that in your comment but I have no idea why

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess you shifted the discussion to that in your comment but I have no idea why

How is that a "shift" in the discussion? This thread is about policy direction/pressure by this Administration. Talking about why that policy pressure is there and when and how it may change is directly on point. At least as on point as a discussion about productivity studies and whether or not Zients is a good or bad person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Guess he doesn't care about the environmental impact of people community or much else.

Biden administration has been the most environmentally-focused administration maybe ever.

[Anonymous]

We live in the age of advanced technology where remote work allows workers to be very effective and productive. There is also teleconferencing for collaborative meetings which was already being done at the office. A worker can periodically go into the office when deemed necessary. We also live in more stressful times with less quality of life. Going to an office 5 days a week isn’t helping our families the environment nor mental health.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All the lazy feds are shaking in their boots! Can’t wait till you have to go back to the office!! Lol

If you were given a week to find chldcare because you will now be home 2 hours later than you have been for the last 10 years, you might feel some stress. Not because you are lazy but because it s an awful time of year to find childcare. You will not find anything different in your life from some feds being back (while most are still teleworking under long term union contracts)

[Anonymous]

To the nasty laughing person that said “All lazy feds are shaking in their boots….” I worked in the private sector, in-person at the office for the last 35 years, and worked with lazy office workers in the private sector too. You have to look at each individual and the type of job they have. If there are lazy feds in their jobs, then it should be or should have been addressed by their executive boss and department heads NOT by DOGE that has a hidden agenda controlled by billionaires who want to free up government $ for their personal investments and Musk who has federal contracts which is a conflict of interest. These billionaires don’t care about working class and their families. If they cared, they would have only needed to look at departments that may not be functioning properly or jobs no longer needed instead of enforcing RTO because they think this is the reason. Remote and Telework in the private sector has worked effectively and efficiently for years now and government too

[Anonymous]

In addition to my comments about RTO, some jobs such as Human Resources for example really need to work at the office or work in person instead of remotely or telework because they are tasked with hiring, interviewing, and orientations, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In addition to my comments about RTO, some jobs such as Human Resources for example really need to work at the office or work in person instead of remotely or telework because they are tasked with hiring, interviewing, and orientations, etc.

Where do you work? You post an awful lot on this board, so I’m curious.

[Anonymous]

Sad part about this bumped thread is that it might have been better if Biden had forced everyone back in the office with realistic telework (2x week) options. Then the federal workforce wouldn't have had such a target on our backs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sad part about this bumped thread is that it might have been better if Biden had forced everyone back in the office with realistic telework (2x week) options. Then the federal workforce wouldn't have had such a target on our backs.

The target would be there regardless. This is a ploy to justify cutting taxes by making a big show of reducing the federal payroll (which has been flat since the 70s).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sad part about this bumped thread is that it might have been better if Biden had forced everyone back in the office with realistic telework (2x week) options. Then the federal workforce wouldn't have had such a target on our backs.

That is not true. Maybe that would work to appease Congress. The whole EO is Musk’s strategy to drastically reduce the federal work force, a strategy that he already used for the private sector.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In addition to my comments about RTO, some jobs such as Human Resources for example really need to work at the office or work in person instead of remotely or telework because they are tasked with hiring, interviewing, and orientations, etc.

Most of which can be done remotely

[Anonymous]

He drank the kool-aid, apparently