Federal Reserve RTO

[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.

Talk about straw manning. The Fed can create localities for remote. And of course, we’re talking about telework in DC, not just remote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Well, I believe that federal workers have the right to organize, and that we are protected by federal law against prohibited personnel practices. Otherwise, you are really persuasive when it comes to this discussion about workplace policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

I am the only person not in NY. I’d need to travel to NY to work in-person. My management doesn’t care if I’m in the office. I get the impression that the only people who care are the ones implementing the RTO policies. The new policy is terrible for morale because almost all managers know how well we’ve been working remotely for three years. Now they have to pretend that’s not the case and in-person is necessary.

[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.

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.

If he is bad, then every other manager is bad in the same way. Because they are trying to claim that their is an essential reason to be in person, when our actual work shows that there is not. Proclaiming we need to “collaborate” in the abstract doesn’t change the way we actually do our work (in person or at home).

So yes, I think I agree with you that higher management needs to articulate an actual reason for in-person work. And they have not so far. Until they do that, they can expect very unhappy employees, attrition, and more difficulty recruiting. Not to mention wasting federal $$ on office space.

[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.

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.

How is any of this different from pre-COVID? The main difference seems to be that in-office staff no longer gather in conference rooms for video calls, but stay in their offices. Maybe you can suggest that people stop that. In pre-pandemic days, there used to be a lot of conservation both in the conference room and afterwards, oftentimes spilling back into a staffer’s office. It’s this type of non-scheduled, friendly synchronicity that doesn’t happen in a WFH environment. With WFH, everything must be rigidly scheduled and dropped according to video chat appointments. Frankly, I find that annoying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

If he is bad, then every other manager is bad in the same way. Because they are trying to claim that their is an essential reason to be in person, when our actual work shows that there is not. Proclaiming we need to “collaborate” in the abstract doesn’t change the way we actually do our work (in person or at home).

So yes, I think I agree with you that higher management needs to articulate an actual reason for in-person work. And they have not so far. Until they do that, they can expect very unhappy employees, attrition, and more difficulty recruiting. Not to mention wasting federal $$ on office space.

+1 I need someone to explain to me why I need to drive into work to hold a Webex call with foreign regulators.

[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.

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.

How is any of this different from pre-COVID? The main difference seems to be that in-office staff no longer gather in conference rooms for video calls, but stay in their offices. Maybe you can suggest that people stop that. In pre-pandemic days, there used to be a lot of conservation both in the conference room and afterwards, oftentimes spilling back into a staffer’s office. It’s this type of non-scheduled, friendly synchronicity that doesn’t happen in a WFH environment. With WFH, everything must be rigidly scheduled and dropped according to video chat appointments. Frankly, I find that annoying.

What’s changed is that Covid showed us we can do our jobs perfectly well at home, and that WFH has huge benefits for us. Moreover, during covid we were *ordered* to stay home and complied. To act like WFH is a horrible thing only lazy moms want isn’t going to fly anymore.

It’s easy to pick up the phone and talk to your colleagues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

If he is bad, then every other manager is bad in the same way. Because they are trying to claim that their is an essential reason to be in person, when our actual work shows that there is not. Proclaiming we need to “collaborate” in the abstract doesn’t change the way we actually do our work (in person or at home).

So yes, I think I agree with you that higher management needs to articulate an actual reason for in-person work. And they have not so far. Until they do that, they can expect very unhappy employees, attrition, and more difficulty recruiting. Not to mention wasting federal $$ on office space.

+1 I need someone to explain to me why I need to drive into work to hold a Webex call with foreign regulators.

You’re driving! Clutches chest. Won’t you think about Metro! So anti-community.

[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.

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.

How is any of this different from pre-COVID? The main difference seems to be that in-office staff no longer gather in conference rooms for video calls, but stay in their offices. Maybe you can suggest that people stop that. In pre-pandemic days, there used to be a lot of conservation both in the conference room and afterwards, oftentimes spilling back into a staffer’s office. It’s this type of non-scheduled, friendly synchronicity that doesn’t happen in a WFH environment. With WFH, everything must be rigidly scheduled and dropped according to video chat appointments. Frankly, I find that annoying.

The difference is that we now all have access to technology that allows us to work remotely. Remember when we used conference lines and not Teams?

In my division there has never been much informal discussion before/after meetings, in the hallways etc. We are working on confidential matters and informal chats in front of people uninvolved in an issue are frowned upon.

If you are able to have conversations in the hallway then you’re able to have them via Teams. It sounds like you need to work on your ability to work remotely. You need to evolve. Things change and you can’t expect the workplace to always stay the same. All of this sounds like a you problem.

[Anonymous]

Not a previous poster. Just reading the last two pages, it seems like a pivotal issue is the managers. I agree with a previous poster that managers are stuck between senior management and staff (obviously). Senior managers must think about institutional concerns. Perhaps, that’s why they want hybrid. But, if seniors can’t explain the rationale to managers and get them to take the message to employees, set a good example, and enforce policy, staff will continue to balk because they don’t sense that their manager cares.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

How is any of this different from pre-COVID? The main difference seems to be that in-office staff no longer gather in conference rooms for video calls, but stay in their offices. Maybe you can suggest that people stop that. In pre-pandemic days, there used to be a lot of conservation both in the conference room and afterwards, oftentimes spilling back into a staffer’s office. It’s this type of non-scheduled, friendly synchronicity that doesn’t happen in a WFH environment. With WFH, everything must be rigidly scheduled and dropped according to video chat appointments. Frankly, I find that annoying.

The difference is that we now all have access to technology that allows us to work remotely. Remember when we used conference lines and not Teams?

In my division there has never been much informal discussion before/after meetings, in the hallways etc. We are working on confidential matters and informal chats in front of people uninvolved in an issue are frowned upon.

If you are able to have conversations in the hallway then you’re able to have them via Teams. It sounds like you need to work on your ability to work remotely. You need to evolve. Things change and you can’t expect the workplace to always stay the same. All of this sounds like a you problem.

That’s a good point about Teams. I had blocked out that we didn’t have Teams before. And I know I’m not the only one who feels like I talk to my colleagues much more now with Teams than before. Teams actually facilitates it because it’s so easy to set up a meeting time. I’m a big fan of chat as well. (In fact wish we had a better chat app like Slack.)

Another improvement on Teams is the ability to share documents and discuss in realtime. So much better and more collaborative than one person lecturing or working on hard copies. You can look up and resolve questions in real time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

How is any of this different from pre-COVID? The main difference seems to be that in-office staff no longer gather in conference rooms for video calls, but stay in their offices. Maybe you can suggest that people stop that. In pre-pandemic days, there used to be a lot of conservation both in the conference room and afterwards, oftentimes spilling back into a staffer’s office. It’s this type of non-scheduled, friendly synchronicity that doesn’t happen in a WFH environment. With WFH, everything must be rigidly scheduled and dropped according to video chat appointments. Frankly, I find that annoying.

What’s changed is that Covid showed us we can do our jobs perfectly well at home, and that WFH has huge benefits for us. Moreover, during covid we were *ordered* to stay home and complied. To act like WFH is a horrible thing only lazy moms want isn’t going to fly anymore.

It’s easy to pick up the phone and talk to your colleagues.

My guess is PP isn’t able to do his or her job effectively at home and assumes the rest of us can’t either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

How is any of this different from pre-COVID? The main difference seems to be that in-office staff no longer gather in conference rooms for video calls, but stay in their offices. Maybe you can suggest that people stop that. In pre-pandemic days, there used to be a lot of conservation both in the conference room and afterwards, oftentimes spilling back into a staffer’s office. It’s this type of non-scheduled, friendly synchronicity that doesn’t happen in a WFH environment. With WFH, everything must be rigidly scheduled and dropped according to video chat appointments. Frankly, I find that annoying.

The difference is that we now all have access to technology that allows us to work remotely. Remember when we used conference lines and not Teams?

In my division there has never been much informal discussion before/after meetings, in the hallways etc. We are working on confidential matters and informal chats in front of people uninvolved in an issue are frowned upon.

If you are able to have conversations in the hallway then you’re able to have them via Teams. It sounds like you need to work on your ability to work remotely. You need to evolve. Things change and you can’t expect the workplace to always stay the same. All of this sounds like a you problem.

That’s a good point about Teams. I had blocked out that we didn’t have Teams before. And I know I’m not the only one who feels like I talk to my colleagues much more now with Teams than before. Teams actually facilitates it because it’s so easy to set up a meeting time. I’m a big fan of chat as well. (In fact wish we had a better chat app like Slack.)

Another improvement on Teams is the ability to share documents and discuss in realtime. So much better and more collaborative than one person lecturing or working on hard copies. You can look up and resolve questions in real time.

I speak much more frequently with my colleagues now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

How is any of this different from pre-COVID? The main difference seems to be that in-office staff no longer gather in conference rooms for video calls, but stay in their offices. Maybe you can suggest that people stop that. In pre-pandemic days, there used to be a lot of conservation both in the conference room and afterwards, oftentimes spilling back into a staffer’s office. It’s this type of non-scheduled, friendly synchronicity that doesn’t happen in a WFH environment. With WFH, everything must be rigidly scheduled and dropped according to video chat appointments. Frankly, I find that annoying.

What’s changed is that Covid showed us we can do our jobs perfectly well at home, and that WFH has huge benefits for us. Moreover, during covid we were *ordered* to stay home and complied. To act like WFH is a horrible thing only lazy moms want isn’t going to fly anymore.

It’s easy to pick up the phone and talk to your colleagues.

My guess is PP isn’t able to do his or her job effectively at home and assumes the rest of us can’t either.

My guess is PP is a Fed manager. But to be fair, there are people who do prefer being in the office more. Seems to be mainly people with no or older kids who are not as time-pressured and prefer having their office outside their home. Totally fine choice for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

How is any of this different from pre-COVID? The main difference seems to be that in-office staff no longer gather in conference rooms for video calls, but stay in their offices. Maybe you can suggest that people stop that. In pre-pandemic days, there used to be a lot of conservation both in the conference room and afterwards, oftentimes spilling back into a staffer’s office. It’s this type of non-scheduled, friendly synchronicity that doesn’t happen in a WFH environment. With WFH, everything must be rigidly scheduled and dropped according to video chat appointments. Frankly, I find that annoying.

The difference is that we now all have access to technology that allows us to work remotely. Remember when we used conference lines and not Teams?

In my division there has never been much informal discussion before/after meetings, in the hallways etc. We are working on confidential matters and informal chats in front of people uninvolved in an issue are frowned upon.

If you are able to have conversations in the hallway then you’re able to have them via Teams. It sounds like you need to work on your ability to work remotely. You need to evolve. Things change and you can’t expect the workplace to always stay the same. All of this sounds like a you problem.

That’s a good point about Teams. I had blocked out that we didn’t have Teams before. And I know I’m not the only one who feels like I talk to my colleagues much more now with Teams than before. Teams actually facilitates it because it’s so easy to set up a meeting time. I’m a big fan of chat as well. (In fact wish we had a better chat app like Slack.)

Another improvement on Teams is the ability to share documents and discuss in realtime. So much better and more collaborative than one person lecturing or working on hard copies. You can look up and resolve questions in real time.

I speak much more frequently with my colleagues now.

Exactly. If I have a quick question I see they are available and call. In the office, I wander to their office, hover outside to see if they are busy, awkwardly knock on the door … Most likely I’d just send an email instead if I didn’t have Teams!