Is there anything they can’t ruin?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New job closer to home?

Are you in the job market now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m DoD and I’m not hearing anything about rigid start/end times.

I’m also going to wait this administration out. Only two years until Congress flips.

We are one plane crash away from congress changing well before 2027.

That's ominous!

Do you remember Paul Wellstone?

[Anonymous]

I am so tired of the people talking about what it was like in the late 90s/early 2000s. You could live on one income, you could buy a house inside the beltway for 25% of what it costs now, the list goes on. It's not the same. People had AWS and were teleworking some 20 years ago. It's not the same and stop saying it was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am so tired of the people talking about what it was like in the late 90s/early 2000s. You could live on one income, you could buy a house inside the beltway for 25% of what it costs now, the list goes on. It's not the same. People had AWS and were teleworking some 20 years ago. It's not the same and stop saying it was.

Hahahaha. You could not live on one income in the 2000s.

[Anonymous]

I think the real issue here is that you thought it was remote work and they changed it. I feel bad for you that they switched it. But of all the issues to be upset at this administration about, this one garners the least sympathy from folks (me included). Parts of the private sector have been doing the same back track on remote work as well. I think it is time to find a new job, honestly. One that is closer to your home or another remote option…but know there are risks to the latter.

[Anonymous]

So your job was listed as fully remote when you applied and accepted it?

Its crazy to me that they can just relocate your work location like that. What if you had moved to Idaho, would you be fired?

[Anonymous]

Interesting that a call for 9-5 has so many in a panic when to me it seems like a basic requirement and a very simple way to simplify all the inefficiencies of everyone's tweaked schedules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So your job was listed as fully remote when you applied and accepted it?

Its crazy to me that they can just relocate your work location like that. What if you had moved to Idaho, would you be fired?

You haven’t been following this federal workforce issue at all?
Generally for people hired remotely and living outside the area, they are supposed to be assigned to a federal facility close to their home, if there is one. But then they’re just commuting to sit in a random office and telework.
There’s a chance they could be RIFd if there is no office for them, but so far in my agency they have been allowed to continue teleworking from home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that a call for 9-5 has so many in a panic when to me it seems like a basic requirement and a very simple way to simplify all the inefficiencies of everyone's tweaked schedules.

I have school aged kids and the only way I can work at all is to stagger my schedule with my spouse between drop offs and pick up. One of us works an earlier schedule and the other works later. Get a clue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that a call for 9-5 has so many in a panic when to me it seems like a basic requirement and a very simple way to simplify all the inefficiencies of everyone's tweaked schedules.

Yes because having everyone in big groups waiting at the turnstile and elevators is super efficient. Having the IT system stressed due to everyone logging on at the same time is super efficient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get it. This was what it was like when I had my kids in the late 2000s.

As someone who worked in the late 2000s, we were doing schedule shifts back then to avoid rushes at building entrances.

Sounds like they're just trying to get people to quit.

+1
Also had kids late 2000s. Spent lots of $ on before and aftercare for all of the elementary years, which most of my coworkers haven’t done due to flexible schedules. Also no maternity leave. So there were differences- we didn’t have a set start and end time, and agree that sucks and is punitive- but other things sucked working full time with kids.

But yes I agree a defined start and end time is bad for all of us. I might have to look into other transportation options if we go that way.

I have been in the labor market for 35 years and staggered work start times and AWS has been a major thing for that entire period. There are very few jobs where having everyone in the office at exactly the same hours is beneficial. This is all idiocy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am so tired of the people talking about what it was like in the late 90s/early 2000s. You could live on one income, you could buy a house inside the beltway for 25% of what it costs now, the list goes on. It's not the same. People had AWS and were teleworking some 20 years ago. It's not the same and stop saying it was.

I agree with your larger point but you’re wrong about home values. We bought our house in bethesda in 2011 and the increase in its home value is actually much less than the increase in stock market over that same period and is basically just about level with inflation. We bought our starter house in PG for 335 in 2003–Zillow estimate for that house today is 619 which is just barely over the inflation value of money (582).

But the posters saying everyone worked 9-5 with no compressed work schedule in early 2000s—I don’t know if that was ever true. Maybe in the 1950s?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that a call for 9-5 has so many in a panic when to me it seems like a basic requirement and a very simple way to simplify all the inefficiencies of everyone's tweaked schedules.

We had AWS in the Reagan Administration. Flexible schedules benefit the employee and the employer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So your job was listed as fully remote when you applied and accepted it?

Its crazy to me that they can just relocate your work location like that. What if you had moved to Idaho, would you be fired?

100 percent of the remote people I know were hired remote. Remote work benefits the employee and the government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So your job was listed as fully remote when you applied and accepted it?

Its crazy to me that they can just relocate your work location like that. What if you had moved to Idaho, would you be fired?

Hired fully remote last year. Turned down a remote non-government job. Got assigned to an office that never even came up as an option when I was hired. And yes, I'm leaving now, which I'm lucky enough to have the ability to do, but this in no way serves our mission.