RTO EO is up

[Anonymous]

Wall Street Journal is reporting Trump plans to have GAO sell 2/3s of the government’s office stock. Sell to who I wonder? https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/commercial/the-u-s-government-has-a-landlord-and-trump-isnt-a-fan-872c469e?mod=mhp

But this is about getting people back in the office to make them productive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would anybody work for the federal government? It sincerely seems like the worst place to work. All the turn over, all the changes in policies every 4 years, directives changing with the incoming and outgoing admirations. The brain drain will be swift and real. Then all the republicans can cry about how "nothing is getting done" when they call to get their Medicaid and Social security.

I do a job that only exists in government. If I worked at the state level, I’d just be subject to the whims of the governor or head of my state agency, rather than the president.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not entirely opposed to return to work, but there needs to be some limit on how far you have to travel. Our office moved way out to Maryland, so via public transportation it would take 1.5 to 2 hours to get there.

Why would there be a limit? If private businesses are forcing rto and it came from the government, government employees should rto too. It it a 60-90 minute drive each way for my spouse on a good day. There is no close public transportation so that would be a few hours including an uber or cab.

I don’t have problem with RTO but if you are going to treat me the same as a private business than I want the same level of pay (which is $40k more a year!).

Sure just as soon as we eliminate your pension and superior healthcare benefits. Actually why don’t you just go ahead and take that job for $40,000 more than you make now and call it and even trade?

DP. This is honestly incredibly outdated. The healthcare benefits are really very mediocre. I have a spouse in biglaw, a sibling in tech, and a sibling who is a firefighter and they all have superior health insurance. There are MANY private companies with much better benefits. The pension is also not what it used to be. No way the pension and healthcare benefits are worth an additional $40k over what you would get in the private sector. And this is the same old nonsense how can you compare salary plus benefits of one place to just salary at another?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wall Street Journal is reporting Trump plans to have GAO sell 2/3s of the government’s office stock. Sell to who I wonder? https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/commercial/the-u-s-government-has-a-landlord-and-trump-isnt-a-fan-872c469e?mod=mhp

But this is about getting people back in the office to make them productive.

Wait how do you sell all the office space and then make people come back to the office?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a Trump supporter but enough is enough. Time to get back to the office. Sorry folks.

Are you back in the office? If so, why do you think its ok to post here constantly instead of working?

Everyone is distracted at work. Not just Feds or contractors. Cashiers, restaurants workers, teachers, etc. before remote work, I spent hours surfing at my desk in the office. The guy next to me used to watch Netflix all the time. Grr we tying a cup of coffee took 15 minutes after stopping at each cubicle to chat. So, stop it. No one is constantly working, in the office or not.

You should be fired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wall Street Journal is reporting Trump plans to have GAO sell 2/3s of the government’s office stock. Sell to who I wonder? https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/commercial/the-u-s-government-has-a-landlord-and-trump-isnt-a-fan-872c469e?mod=mhp

But this is about getting people back in the office to make them productive.

Wait how do you sell all the office space and then make people come back to the office?

You rent it back to the government and profit off the taxpayer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are we thinking at SEC?

My view is this EO is cover for the agency heads who want staff back full time - and want to please the WH - to do so. Some obviously really really want to please Trump - see Marco Rubio and make Maga happy. But what about outsiders like Atkins? I mean he's a Trump appointee so I can see wanting to play ball. But he's not looking to run for political office either and may not be interested in engaging in a ongoing fight with the union over every little thing. Are the financial regulators going to run with the "applicable law" part - i.e. we have a CBA in place?

I live close to the office so NBD for me but I def have colleagues who are worried who bought houses as far as Richmond.

The SEC will promulgate a policy with as much wiggle room as the EO. Managerial discretion, exemptions, ad hoc, blah blah blah. I don’t envy managers who will be dealing with this as their full time job now.

But will it try to apply it to bargaining unit employees and rescind the CBA

They'll try but the CBA is a contract - it's not like you can rescind it without litigation which drags it out a number of years.

And in the meantime employees are coming into the office five days per week!

You clearly don’t understand labor law, contracts or injunctions, so please step aside.

You seem awfully confident a judge would issue an injunction.

If they are following the law, they most certainly will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wall Street Journal is reporting Trump plans to have GAO sell 2/3s of the government’s office stock. Sell to who I wonder? https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/commercial/the-u-s-government-has-a-landlord-and-trump-isnt-a-fan-872c469e?mod=mhp

But this is about getting people back in the office to make them productive.

Wait how do you sell all the office space and then make people come back to the office?

You rent it back to the government and profit off the taxpayer.

No, you let them all quit then turn the building into a hotel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wall Street Journal is reporting Trump plans to have GAO sell 2/3s of the government’s office stock. Sell to who I wonder? https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/commercial/the-u-s-government-has-a-landlord-and-trump-isnt-a-fan-872c469e?mod=mhp

But this is about getting people back in the office to make them productive.

Wait how do you sell all the office space and then make people come back to the office?

You rent it back to the government and profit off the taxpayer.

No, you let them all quit then turn the building into a hotel.

Increasing the supply of hotels while decreasing demand (no one to meet with for depositions, rule making, etc). What could go wrong?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wall Street Journal is reporting Trump plans to have GAO sell 2/3s of the government’s office stock. Sell to who I wonder? https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/commercial/the-u-s-government-has-a-landlord-and-trump-isnt-a-fan-872c469e?mod=mhp

But this is about getting people back in the office to make them productive.

The property developers/Bowser want to turn them into residential buildings. Fits in with the "walkable city"/increasing bike usage stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are we thinking at SEC?

My view is this EO is cover for the agency heads who want staff back full time - and want to please the WH - to do so. Some obviously really really want to please Trump - see Marco Rubio and make Maga happy. But what about outsiders like Atkins? I mean he's a Trump appointee so I can see wanting to play ball. But he's not looking to run for political office either and may not be interested in engaging in a ongoing fight with the union over every little thing. Are the financial regulators going to run with the "applicable law" part - i.e. we have a CBA in place?

I live close to the office so NBD for me but I def have colleagues who are worried who bought houses as far as Richmond.

The SEC will promulgate a policy with as much wiggle room as the EO. Managerial discretion, exemptions, ad hoc, blah blah blah. I don’t envy managers who will be dealing with this as their full time job now.

But will it try to apply it to bargaining unit employees and rescind the CBA

They'll try but the CBA is a contract - it's not like you can rescind it without litigation which drags it out a number of years.

And in the meantime employees are coming into the office five days per week!

Not the way that works. The status quo, whatever that is, holds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are we thinking at SEC?

My view is this EO is cover for the agency heads who want staff back full time - and want to please the WH - to do so. Some obviously really really want to please Trump - see Marco Rubio and make Maga happy. But what about outsiders like Atkins? I mean he's a Trump appointee so I can see wanting to play ball. But he's not looking to run for political office either and may not be interested in engaging in a ongoing fight with the union over every little thing. Are the financial regulators going to run with the "applicable law" part - i.e. we have a CBA in place?

I live close to the office so NBD for me but I def have colleagues who are worried who bought houses as far as Richmond.

The SEC will promulgate a policy with as much wiggle room as the EO. Managerial discretion, exemptions, ad hoc, blah blah blah. I don’t envy managers who will be dealing with this as their full time job now.

But will it try to apply it to bargaining unit employees and rescind the CBA

They'll try but the CBA is a contract - it's not like you can rescind it without litigation which drags it out a number of years.

And in the meantime employees are coming into the office five days per week!

You clearly don’t understand labor law, contracts or injunctions, so please step aside.

You seem awfully confident a judge would issue an injunction.

Probably because PP understands the circumstances under which injunctions are issued.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would anybody work for the federal government? It sincerely seems like the worst place to work. All the turn over, all the changes in policies every 4 years, directives changing with the incoming and outgoing admirations. The brain drain will be swift and real. Then all the republicans can cry about how "nothing is getting done" when they call to get their Medicaid and Social security.

All the shutdowns and threats. . .

[Anonymous]

Despite talking about Remote Work Agreements, this EO by its terms only affects teleworkers. Remote Workers' houses are their duty stations; they *do* work there in person. It's teleworkers who don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not entirely opposed to return to work, but there needs to be some limit on how far you have to travel. Our office moved way out to Maryland, so via public transportation it would take 1.5 to 2 hours to get there.

Why would there be a limit? If private businesses are forcing rto and it came from the government, government employees should rto too. It it a 60-90 minute drive each way for my spouse on a good day. There is no close public transportation so that would be a few hours including an uber or cab.

I don’t have problem with RTO but if you are going to treat me the same as a private business than I want the same level of pay (which is $40k more a year!).

Sure just as soon as we eliminate your pension and superior healthcare benefits. Actually why don’t you just go ahead and take that job for $40,000 more than you make now and call it and even trade?

DP. This is honestly incredibly outdated. The healthcare benefits are really very mediocre. I have a spouse in biglaw, a sibling in tech, and a sibling who is a firefighter and they all have superior health insurance. There are MANY private companies with much better benefits. The pension is also not what it used to be. No way the pension and healthcare benefits are worth an additional $40k over what you would get in the private sector. And this is the same old nonsense how can you compare salary plus benefits of one place to just salary at another?

All the fed haters seem to be living in the 1990s.

There is no way I would ever go back to work for the federal government again, pay is 25% lower than private industry and the benefits are now worse.