Federal Reserve RTO

[Anonymous]

What scandals at the RBs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What scandals at the RBs?

Master accounts, Chinese national employees taking data, refusal to provide Congress with documents requested, involvement with state level politics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What scandals at the RBs?

Master accounts, Chinese national employees taking data, refusal to provide Congress with documents requested, involvement with state level politics.

Last summer, both the WSJ and the WP ran articles on how China created a network of Fed employees to undermine the System.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What scandals at the RBs?

Master accounts, Chinese national employees taking data, refusal to provide Congress with documents requested, involvement with state level politics.

Last summer, both the WSJ and the WP ran articles on how China created a network of Fed employees to undermine the System.

All of the incidents mentioned were in the press because various members of Congress discussed them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What scandals at the RBs?

Master accounts, Chinese national employees taking data, refusal to provide Congress with documents requested, involvement with state level politics.

Last summer, both the WSJ and the WP ran articles on how China created a network of Fed employees to undermine the System.

The RTO policy is certainly helping!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What scandals at the RBs?

Master accounts, Chinese national employees taking data, refusal to provide Congress with documents requested, involvement with state level politics.

Last summer, both the WSJ and the WP ran articles on how China created a network of Fed employees to undermine the System.

The RTO policy is certainly helping!

To be clear, this was entirely at Reserve Banks, where security clearances are not nearly as robust as the federal clearances Board employees are subject to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What scandals at the RBs?

Master accounts, Chinese national employees taking data, refusal to provide Congress with documents requested, involvement with state level politics.

Last summer, both the WSJ and the WP ran articles on how China created a network of Fed employees to undermine the System.

The RTO policy is certainly helping!

To be clear, this was entirely at Reserve Banks, where security clearances are not nearly as robust as the federal clearances Board employees are subject to.

Not exactly true.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-md/pr/former-employee-federal-reserve-board-pleads-guilty-theft-government-property

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What scandals at the RBs?

Master accounts, Chinese national employees taking data, refusal to provide Congress with documents requested, involvement with state level politics.

Last summer, both the WSJ and the WP ran articles on how China created a network of Fed employees to undermine the System.

The RTO policy is certainly helping!

To be clear, this was entirely at Reserve Banks, where security clearances are not nearly as robust as the federal clearances Board employees are subject to.

Not exactly true.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-md/pr/former-employee-federal-reserve-board-pleads-guilty-theft-government-property

This incident was unconnected to the Chinese network.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What scandals at the RBs?

Master accounts, Chinese national employees taking data, refusal to provide Congress with documents requested, involvement with state level politics.

What a joke. https://www.cato.org/blog/china-threat-fed-critique-portman-report

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it the banking agency employees always complain the most on this forum?

Ha! They're into money (greedy)!They are best compensated federal employees with the best benefits. They'll say it's because their private employment opportunities are better, thus the agencies must compete. However, the reality is that most people who work for these agencies, particularly the lifers, have no desire to live in NYC or work the hours of private bankers. Yet, the argument is persuasive to outsiders.

You’re clueless. They would likely be attorneys. Not bankers. There is likely not a single board employee qualified to become even a corporate banker.

Fine. Let’s talk attorneys. There are very few attorneys at the Fed who want to be in private practice. Most of them fled private practice for the agency. This job board is replete with threads about private practice attorneys who want an agency job. The only Fed attorneys who might consider a private role are in Board Legal. However, the division-based attorneys are typically moms dialing it in.

Division-based attorneys? Attorneys are only in Board Legal and DCCA. S&R attorneys moved to Legal years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the Fed goes fully remote, can you base yourself overseas? Would you have to work US east coast hours?

And yes, you typically need to align with the hours of your office.

The Fed is relatively flexible in that overseas telework is possible. (For ex, AFAIK the PTO does not allow at all.)
The typical Fed rules for overseas (or even non-DC) telework are (1) yes, you work east coast hours (2) you are responsible for internet/etc setup at the remote location (3) you need approval to take your fed equipment to the location. Some countries are fine and others are not.

But in any case, throughout the whole RTO process, communications have consistently noted that long-term full remote would not be likely for most employees.

--long time Fed person, not involved in the RTO planning

Isn’t this only offered if your spouse is deployed?

I should clarify that comments above were for temporary/ short term telework ( for example, working while visiting overseas family), though of course some people spent long stretches overseas. Policy going forward is TBD as far as I know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it the banking agency employees always complain the most on this forum?

Ha! They're into money (greedy)!They are best compensated federal employees with the best benefits. They'll say it's because their private employment opportunities are better, thus the agencies must compete. However, the reality is that most people who work for these agencies, particularly the lifers, have no desire to live in NYC or work the hours of private bankers. Yet, the argument is persuasive to outsiders.

You’re clueless. They would likely be attorneys. Not bankers. There is likely not a single board employee qualified to become even a corporate banker.

Fine. Let’s talk attorneys. There are very few attorneys at the Fed who want to be in private practice. Most of them fled private practice for the agency. This job board is replete with threads about private practice attorneys who want an agency job. The only Fed attorneys who might consider a private role are in Board Legal. However, the division-based attorneys are typically moms dialing it in.

Division-based attorneys? Attorneys are only in Board Legal and DCCA. S&R attorneys moved to Legal years ago.

Interesting. Are DCCA attorneys largely moms dialing it in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it the banking agency employees always complain the most on this forum?

Ha! They're into money (greedy)!They are best compensated federal employees with the best benefits. They'll say it's because their private employment opportunities are better, thus the agencies must compete. However, the reality is that most people who work for these agencies, particularly the lifers, have no desire to live in NYC or work the hours of private bankers. Yet, the argument is persuasive to outsiders.

You’re clueless. They would likely be attorneys. Not bankers. There is likely not a single board employee qualified to become even a corporate banker.

Fine. Let’s talk attorneys. There are very few attorneys at the Fed who want to be in private practice. Most of them fled private practice for the agency. This job board is replete with threads about private practice attorneys who want an agency job. The only Fed attorneys who might consider a private role are in Board Legal. However, the division-based attorneys are typically moms dialing it in.

Division-based attorneys? Attorneys are only in Board Legal and DCCA. S&R attorneys moved to Legal years ago.

There are lawyers in S&R, but that is just their educational background. They work in non-attorney positions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it the banking agency employees always complain the most on this forum?

Ha! They're into money (greedy)!They are best compensated federal employees with the best benefits. They'll say it's because their private employment opportunities are better, thus the agencies must compete. However, the reality is that most people who work for these agencies, particularly the lifers, have no desire to live in NYC or work the hours of private bankers. Yet, the argument is persuasive to outsiders.

You’re clueless. They would likely be attorneys. Not bankers. There is likely not a single board employee qualified to become even a corporate banker.

Fine. Let’s talk attorneys. There are very few attorneys at the Fed who want to be in private practice. Most of them fled private practice for the agency. This job board is replete with threads about private practice attorneys who want an agency job. The only Fed attorneys who might consider a private role are in Board Legal. However, the division-based attorneys are typically moms dialing it in.

Division-based attorneys? Attorneys are only in Board Legal and DCCA. S&R attorneys moved to Legal years ago.

Interesting. Are DCCA attorneys largely moms dialing it in?

What does a DCCA attorney do? I thought the Fed’s consumer work, including the regulatory stuff, was transferred to the CFPB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it the banking agency employees always complain the most on this forum?

Ha! They're into money (greedy)!They are best compensated federal employees with the best benefits. They'll say it's because their private employment opportunities are better, thus the agencies must compete. However, the reality is that most people who work for these agencies, particularly the lifers, have no desire to live in NYC or work the hours of private bankers. Yet, the argument is persuasive to outsiders.

You’re clueless. They would likely be attorneys. Not bankers. There is likely not a single board employee qualified to become even a corporate banker.

Fine. Let’s talk attorneys. There are very few attorneys at the Fed who want to be in private practice. Most of them fled private practice for the agency. This job board is replete with threads about private practice attorneys who want an agency job. The only Fed attorneys who might consider a private role are in Board Legal. However, the division-based attorneys are typically moms dialing it in.

Division-based attorneys? Attorneys are only in Board Legal and DCCA. S&R attorneys moved to Legal years ago.

Interesting. Are DCCA attorneys largely moms dialing it in?

What does a DCCA attorney do? I thought the Fed’s consumer work, including the regulatory stuff, was transferred to the CFPB.

Consumer supervisory work was only transferred for the large banks. Community banks stayed with the prudential regulators.