Do you think DOGE will eliminate remote policy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those of you saying your depth has reduced office space—-what does this mean? Has the building been sold to a developer and your area is now a condo?

SSA is Baltimore based. DC based was in two leased buildings. The leases had already run and gone to year long extensions pre-COVID, but we can’t get and keep an actual Commissioner, so no decisions were made (we were along in CBA negations to go from 60 to 80% telework). Then COVID and we all went 100% telework. They let both leases go in 2021-2022. There is now a small presence in downtown DC. Very small. NBU goes in 1-2 times a week. There is no room for more. Not hundreds of employees once a week, lets alone daily. Most federal space is leased, not owned by GSA. Since our space is no longer leased, it has to go through procurement. They had been in procurement to move from the space we had for THREE YEARS when COVID hit ,while doing one year extensions try to find appropriate space.

Federal leasing on the scale that gets people who were always 60% telework back in 100% takes forever and has to follow a federal procurement policy and look at things like proximity to where workers live and public transport. That’s the law. It’s a wee bit harder than— hey— there is an empty building go there.

And here is who everyone but true destroyer the government does not want to quit— people who understand and can implement SSA Regs. Which are COMPLICATED. You and your 40:credits? Maybe not. But for every normal situation, there is a MQGE + green card holder became citizen who was employed for a while by a small business that went into bankruptcy and didn’t comply with FICA. Because mostly I untangle and write justifications for very complicated, odd income stream, weird retirement situations and get people their benefits.

To do this technical, specialized legal stuff. When I start, 4-5 hours can pass, and I haven’t moved or noticed the time (which I need to stop doing, because it’s killing my body as I get older). I always thought 1 day in office a PP would be perfect for face to face meetings and training. The rest of the time? I’m ADHD. I was never able to do my technical writing in the office. It’s too complex and has too many distractions. So I did 90% of my work in the 60% telework part of my week. Now, I do significantly more in 5 days at home. I also work longer hours, because stopping something complex before it’s done is annoying. And I have extra time because no commute. I it in for credit. But I usually end up going over the 24 hours I can bank pretty fast, and taxpayers get free work.

I have zero public contact. And I have a meeting with my PL every other week and my manager once a month, plus a branch meeting once a month. Those would be nice in person. Training should be in person some. Training via Teams makes me want to poke my eye out. Everything else? Going in just slows me down.

OK, I know everyone thinks they are special and important, but the PP apparently believes that interpreting SSA regulations is so complicated (sorry, COMPLICATED) and difficult that only a very few people can do it, and if she leaves federal employment that skill will be lost forever. Dozens, maybe even scores of people each year will not get their benefits! Come on. They'll just hire some (other) moderately intelligent TTT law school graduate, train him or her for 3 weeks, and the benefits office will keep on chugging along. And that's if PP can even find another job, with her highly specialized skill set which has virtually no applilcation (and especially no lucrative application) in the private sector.

DP. LOL. I have worked for SSA for 20 years. I am still learning new things every single day. This is not an exageration. Go on, do the work with a 3 week training. My popcorn is ready.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

BUT I’ll be beyond pissed if my coworkers who came up with b.s. medical accommodations to remain fully remote are allowed to continue fill time remote. We have people who have claimed anxiety, sleep apnea, all kinds of nonsense and been approved.

Do you know for a fact that is what they have claimed? Or are your assertions based on rumor or assumptions?

I have a serious medical condition (non-psychological) that has supported my reasonable accommodation. I have not yet chosen to broadcast it to my coworkers. It is not at all obvious when you see me on the screen (or even in person).

Because of those who assume that a disability must be obvious to be legitimate, if we have full RTO I will have to either be very open about my health or allow others to presume that I made up a BS diagnosis.

Oh these people have broadcast it loudly.

Ok. That's different. And makes life harder for those of us who have legitimate, private reasons for RAs. Similar to people faking food allergies to get a restaurant to customize their order or declaring emotional support animals to get their dog into the restaurant with them.

[Anonymous]

My DOJ component is at 3 days a week in office. I believe there’s lots of agencies and components that are mostly remote and are truly low hanging fruit to bring back to office if the DOGE clowns want to pull up an org chart and see what can be shown to their Twitter mob that “they’re doing something”. You would need to go case by case in my component (or, floor by floor) to see who can be brought back. We don’t have space for 5 days a week for everybody.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those of you saying your depth has reduced office space—-what does this mean? Has the building been sold to a developer and your area is now a condo?

SSA is Baltimore based. DC based was in two leased buildings. The leases had already run and gone to year long extensions pre-COVID, but we can’t get and keep an actual Commissioner, so no decisions were made (we were along in CBA negations to go from 60 to 80% telework). Then COVID and we all went 100% telework. They let both leases go in 2021-2022. There is now a small presence in downtown DC. Very small. NBU goes in 1-2 times a week. There is no room for more. Not hundreds of employees once a week, lets alone daily. Most federal space is leased, not owned by GSA. Since our space is no longer leased, it has to go through procurement. They had been in procurement to move from the space we had for THREE YEARS when COVID hit ,while doing one year extensions try to find appropriate space.

Federal leasing on the scale that gets people who were always 60% telework back in 100% takes forever and has to follow a federal procurement policy and look at things like proximity to where workers live and public transport. That’s the law. It’s a wee bit harder than— hey— there is an empty building go there.

And here is who everyone but true destroyer the government does not want to quit— people who understand and can implement SSA Regs. Which are COMPLICATED. You and your 40:credits? Maybe not. But for every normal situation, there is a MQGE + green card holder became citizen who was employed for a while by a small business that went into bankruptcy and didn’t comply with FICA. Because mostly I untangle and write justifications for very complicated, odd income stream, weird retirement situations and get people their benefits.

To do this technical, specialized legal stuff. When I start, 4-5 hours can pass, and I haven’t moved or noticed the time (which I need to stop doing, because it’s killing my body as I get older). I always thought 1 day in office a PP would be perfect for face to face meetings and training. The rest of the time? I’m ADHD. I was never able to do my technical writing in the office. It’s too complex and has too many distractions. So I did 90% of my work in the 60% telework part of my week. Now, I do significantly more in 5 days at home. I also work longer hours, because stopping something complex before it’s done is annoying. And I have extra time because no commute. I it in for credit. But I usually end up going over the 24 hours I can bank pretty fast, and taxpayers get free work.

I have zero public contact. And I have a meeting with my PL every other week and my manager once a month, plus a branch meeting once a month. Those would be nice in person. Training should be in person some. Training via Teams makes me want to poke my eye out. Everything else? Going in just slows me down.

OK, I know everyone thinks they are special and important, but the PP apparently believes that interpreting SSA regulations is so complicated (sorry, COMPLICATED) and difficult that only a very few people can do it, and if she leaves federal employment that skill will be lost forever. Dozens, maybe even scores of people each year will not get their benefits! Come on. They'll just hire some (other) moderately intelligent TTT law school graduate, train him or her for 3 weeks, and the benefits office will keep on chugging along. And that's if PP can even find another job, with her highly specialized skill set which has virtually no applilcation (and especially no lucrative application) in the private sector.

DP. LOL. I have worked for SSA for 20 years. I am still learning new things every single day. This is not an exageration. Go on, do the work with a 3 week training. My popcorn is ready.

Same for me at IRS...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had an interesting discussion with my manager about this. Their theory is that DOGE wants to look at full office buildings. If an office building looks full-ish, they aren’t going to pull up an org chart and realize that only 20% of people are in at any given time because our agency gave up 80+% of our space in the last three years. Trump is flash over substance. If it looks good, it is good. If it looks empty, that’s an issue. And Elmo, who is at best a contractor, really doesn’t have the ability to figure out how many of 2.1 millions Feds in 50 states and overseas are in chairs in offices on a given day.

Liking my odds since our space that’s after we let a lot go is left is full with just managers coming in 2 days a week and our CBA is fantastic towards telework and goes into 2029.

I don't know if this was intentional or an autocorrect, but I love it either way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What I don't see mentioned enough is the effect on existing biglaw lawyers if the market were suddenly flooded with experienced lawyers who think $200k is a sweet salary. Even if those ex-fed lawyers ultimately are fired in a few years (and certainly never make partner) I think there would be a big temptation for firms to unload their more expensive associates and junior partners in favor of cheaper options in the short term. Somebody with 20+ years practicing can definitely do an associate's job, even in an unfamiliar area, and a smart firm would offer a lifestyle billing requirement in exchange for "low" salaries. It could potentially remake the DC law market.

lol anyone who actually worked in biglaw knows how dumb this sounds. Firms aren’t to replace their associates and junior partners with feds accustomed to completely different work/life balance. If there is a mass exodus of fed attorneys at most it will drive down salaries of biglaw staff attorneys and doc reviewers.

Don't be a jerk PP, it is a fair question. If you have somehting helpful to contribute, do that. Otherwise save the snark.

Objectively, however, snarky PP is correct. Biglaw doesn't work this way, for any number of reasons/biases. However, there could be a world where more of this happens if the currrent crop of junior associates in biglaw screw themselves out of a job. Law firms don't like older people as associates, but they might be swayed if those older people are willing to grind out a life rather than ask for a million dispensations like the current junior associate geneation does.

Do current feds really want to work 80 hours a week to “out grind” current associates? I don’t think so. If it’s just working a few more hours a week, or coming into the office, the fed job is still way more family friendly than Big Law.

To me, Big law is the only thing that makes sense. I’m a fed lawyer who started applying for in-house roles, and keep declining further interviews because of their compensation packages for corporate attorneys - far more work for less than what I get paid now!

Back to big law would mean more work for more pay, assuming Law Firms have a need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What I don't see mentioned enough is the effect on existing biglaw lawyers if the market were suddenly flooded with experienced lawyers who think $200k is a sweet salary. Even if those ex-fed lawyers ultimately are fired in a few years (and certainly never make partner) I think there would be a big temptation for firms to unload their more expensive associates and junior partners in favor of cheaper options in the short term. Somebody with 20+ years practicing can definitely do an associate's job, even in an unfamiliar area, and a smart firm would offer a lifestyle billing requirement in exchange for "low" salaries. It could potentially remake the DC law market.

lol anyone who actually worked in biglaw knows how dumb this sounds. Firms aren’t to replace their associates and junior partners with feds accustomed to completely different work/life balance. If there is a mass exodus of fed attorneys at most it will drive down salaries of biglaw staff attorneys and doc reviewers.

Don't be a jerk PP, it is a fair question. If you have somehting helpful to contribute, do that. Otherwise save the snark.

Objectively, however, snarky PP is correct. Biglaw doesn't work this way, for any number of reasons/biases. However, there could be a world where more of this happens if the currrent crop of junior associates in biglaw screw themselves out of a job. Law firms don't like older people as associates, but they might be swayed if those older people are willing to grind out a life rather than ask for a million dispensations like the current junior associate geneation does.

Do current feds really want to work 80 hours a week to “out grind” current associates? I don’t think so. If it’s just working a few more hours a week, or coming into the office, the fed job is still way more family friendly than Big Law.

To me, Big law is the only thing that makes sense. I’m a fed lawyer who started applying for in-house roles, and keep declining further interviews because of their compensation packages for corporate attorneys - far more work for less than what I get paid now!

Back to big law would mean more work for more pay, assuming Law Firms have a need.

This is what I’m finding in my search, too. I’ve got two biglaw offers but don’t want to go back, ugh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What I don't see mentioned enough is the effect on existing biglaw lawyers if the market were suddenly flooded with experienced lawyers who think $200k is a sweet salary. Even if those ex-fed lawyers ultimately are fired in a few years (and certainly never make partner) I think there would be a big temptation for firms to unload their more expensive associates and junior partners in favor of cheaper options in the short term. Somebody with 20+ years practicing can definitely do an associate's job, even in an unfamiliar area, and a smart firm would offer a lifestyle billing requirement in exchange for "low" salaries. It could potentially remake the DC law market.

lol anyone who actually worked in biglaw knows how dumb this sounds. Firms aren’t to replace their associates and junior partners with feds accustomed to completely different work/life balance. If there is a mass exodus of fed attorneys at most it will drive down salaries of biglaw staff attorneys and doc reviewers.

Don't be a jerk PP, it is a fair question. If you have somehting helpful to contribute, do that. Otherwise save the snark.

Objectively, however, snarky PP is correct. Biglaw doesn't work this way, for any number of reasons/biases. However, there could be a world where more of this happens if the currrent crop of junior associates in biglaw screw themselves out of a job. Law firms don't like older people as associates, but they might be swayed if those older people are willing to grind out a life rather than ask for a million dispensations like the current junior associate geneation does.

Do current feds really want to work 80 hours a week to “out grind” current associates? I don’t think so. If it’s just working a few more hours a week, or coming into the office, the fed job is still way more family friendly than Big Law.

To me, Big law is the only thing that makes sense. I’m a fed lawyer who started applying for in-house roles, and keep declining further interviews because of their compensation packages for corporate attorneys - far more work for less than what I get paid now!

Back to big law would mean more work for more pay, assuming Law Firms have a need.

Interesting most of the in house positions i see posted in my practice area have a comp range of $200-$300 which seems about right for proportionally more work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back to the original question. I’m working with the Trump transition team at my agency and they have asked for telework and remote work agreements as well as lists and counts of employees with either arrangement. They are absolutely going to be targeting this in some way.

What agency?

Lists? What are they planning to do with lists of employees? Sounds like the McCarthy era.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back to the original question. I’m working with the Trump transition team at my agency and they have asked for telework and remote work agreements as well as lists and counts of employees with either arrangement. They are absolutely going to be targeting this in some way.

What agency?

Lists? What are they planning to do with lists of employees? Sounds like the McCarthy era.

Lists are what happens when you elect authoritarians like Trump along with oligarchs like Musk. The people voted for this crap

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What I don't see mentioned enough is the effect on existing biglaw lawyers if the market were suddenly flooded with experienced lawyers who think $200k is a sweet salary. Even if those ex-fed lawyers ultimately are fired in a few years (and certainly never make partner) I think there would be a big temptation for firms to unload their more expensive associates and junior partners in favor of cheaper options in the short term. Somebody with 20+ years practicing can definitely do an associate's job, even in an unfamiliar area, and a smart firm would offer a lifestyle billing requirement in exchange for "low" salaries. It could potentially remake the DC law market.

lol anyone who actually worked in biglaw knows how dumb this sounds. Firms aren’t to replace their associates and junior partners with feds accustomed to completely different work/life balance. If there is a mass exodus of fed attorneys at most it will drive down salaries of biglaw staff attorneys and doc reviewers.

Don't be a jerk PP, it is a fair question. If you have somehting helpful to contribute, do that. Otherwise save the snark.

Objectively, however, snarky PP is correct. Biglaw doesn't work this way, for any number of reasons/biases. However, there could be a world where more of this happens if the currrent crop of junior associates in biglaw screw themselves out of a job. Law firms don't like older people as associates, but they might be swayed if those older people are willing to grind out a life rather than ask for a million dispensations like the current junior associate geneation does.

Do current feds really want to work 80 hours a week to “out grind” current associates? I don’t think so. If it’s just working a few more hours a week, or coming into the office, the fed job is still way more family friendly than Big Law.

To me, Big law is the only thing that makes sense. I’m a fed lawyer who started applying for in-house roles, and keep declining further interviews because of their compensation packages for corporate attorneys - far more work for less than what I get paid now!

Back to big law would mean more work for more pay, assuming Law Firms have a need.

Interesting most of the in house positions i see posted in my practice area have a comp range of $200-$300 which seems about right for proportionally more work.

Many SEC attorneys get paid in the higher end of that range.

[Anonymous]

The hiring freeze will prevent or slow RTO. Agencies will be desperate to retain the staff they have as retirements naturally occur during a hiring freeze.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The hiring freeze will prevent or slow RTO. Agencies will be desperate to retain the staff they have as retirements naturally occur during a hiring freeze.

This assumes that the new admin cares if the work gets done. They don’t. That’s the point. Things start to fall apart and then. They can say, look govt is so dysfunctional.

Maybe for high administration priority projects, it will be as you say.

[Anonymous]

I am a federal contractor who was told I need to come in five days a week, despite the fact that our govt client is in three days week at best. I just submitted my resignation.

[Anonymous]

Hope so. Most gov workers are overpaid for their actual work. Add in their benefits, and it’s almost fraudulent.