Biden wants RTO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Biden admin just keeps pissing the wrong people off and it's going to back fire royally. They keep pushing they will see what's going to happen next election.

+100 THIS!

This idiocy was floated in another thread on this topic. It's as silly now as it was then.

I’m not sure I’d want to f-around with the Virginia vote.

Precisely which Republican candidate will be better for federal workers (i) on WFH issues, and (ii) generally speaking than Biden?

For this 52-year period, the federal workforce has had higher pay raises during a Republican administration. Here is how it breaks out.

The average pay raise per year: 3.71%
Under Republicans: 4.05%
Under Democrats: 3.65%

https://www.fedsmith.com/2021/01/10/50-years-federal-pay-democrats-v-republicans/

Yeah, because Rs screw up the economy so that Ds have to clean up a recession. That always comes with lower inflation.

I agree with you that Rs are awful, but no one has pointed to anything where the R presidential candidates said they would force federal employees back to the office. If Biden makes me spend 15 hours per week commuting just to please his rich donors, he is not getting my vote. I have no clue why anyone would support a candidate who gives such a strong middle finger to you. We don't know if a R would be better, but based on what Biden is advocating, it won't be any worse. So I'll take my chances.

I agree. The heck with all those women who may lose the right to choose. And I don't really care if corporate taxers are lowered to nothing. If I have ot do the commute I signed on for pre-pandemic, it'll turn me into a Trump voter. MAGA!!

So you can be mostly a one issue voter, butt someone who disagrees with you can't? Yeah, ok.

First,if you need a laundry list of other ways a Republican President would be terrible, there's really no hope for you. Second, I identified two major issues. Third, being a one issue voter is pretty silly in any circumstance, but it's just absurd when the issue is, "I am being required to do something, once again, hat I did for years before the pandemic."

NP. Oh, stop gaslighting. It is perfectly reasonable to vote against the president who causes a sharp decrease in your standard of living and personal happiness. Your entitlement is off the charts. Democrats aren’t owed the votes of fed workers.

I’m private sector with a competitive skill set (constantly recruited) and work hybrid. I like hybrid. But if I was made to go in every day, my resignation would happen the next day, as I am not worried about my ability to get a job. I don’t see why feds should not be expected to have the same freedom of choice, perhaps more because they make so much less for a similar skill set.

Of course the PP is going to vote against the president who makes her life much worse. Who wouldn’t?

I’m really amused by the feds who think their life would be better under a republican president, or that a R president and congress would t call them back to the office. Guess the stereotype about feds being not so bright has more truth to it than I realized.

You sound very dim.

There are plenty of feds who quite reasonably think their lives would be better under Republicans, and they have the work experience to prove it. You are just stupidly partisan and so don’t understand this.

DP. I know plenty of Feds who are republicans, but they’re not exactly WFH proponents (they want to know why everyone isnt back like them). Just seems very strange to state you’re a single issue voter for this based on wishful thinking that a republican WH will give you more WFH than a Dem. Even if they promised it on the campaign trail (doubtful) I wouldnt trust them on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Biden admin just keeps pissing the wrong people off and it's going to back fire royally. They keep pushing they will see what's going to happen next election.

+100 THIS!

This idiocy was floated in another thread on this topic. It's as silly now as it was then.

I’m not sure I’d want to f-around with the Virginia vote.

Precisely which Republican candidate will be better for federal workers (i) on WFH issues, and (ii) generally speaking than Biden?

For this 52-year period, the federal workforce has had higher pay raises during a Republican administration. Here is how it breaks out.

The average pay raise per year: 3.71%
Under Republicans: 4.05%
Under Democrats: 3.65%

https://www.fedsmith.com/2021/01/10/50-years-federal-pay-democrats-v-republicans/

Yeah, because Rs screw up the economy so that Ds have to clean up a recession. That always comes with lower inflation.

I agree with you that Rs are awful, but no one has pointed to anything where the R presidential candidates said they would force federal employees back to the office. If Biden makes me spend 15 hours per week commuting just to please his rich donors, he is not getting my vote. I have no clue why anyone would support a candidate who gives such a strong middle finger to you. We don't know if a R would be better, but based on what Biden is advocating, it won't be any worse. So I'll take my chances.

I agree. The heck with all those women who may lose the right to choose. And I don't really care if corporate taxers are lowered to nothing. If I have ot do the commute I signed on for pre-pandemic, it'll turn me into a Trump voter. MAGA!!

So you can be mostly a one issue voter, butt someone who disagrees with you can't? Yeah, ok.

First,if you need a laundry list of other ways a Republican President would be terrible, there's really no hope for you. Second, I identified two major issues. Third, being a one issue voter is pretty silly in any circumstance, but it's just absurd when the issue is, "I am being required to do something, once again, hat I did for years before the pandemic."

NP. Oh, stop gaslighting. It is perfectly reasonable to vote against the president who causes a sharp decrease in your standard of living and personal happiness. Your entitlement is off the charts. Democrats aren’t owed the votes of fed workers.

I’m private sector with a competitive skill set (constantly recruited) and work hybrid. I like hybrid. But if I was made to go in every day, my resignation would happen the next day, as I am not worried about my ability to get a job. I don’t see why feds should not be expected to have the same freedom of choice, perhaps more because they make so much less for a similar skill set.

Of course the PP is going to vote against the president who makes her life much worse. Who wouldn’t?

I’m really amused by the feds who think their life would be better under a republican president, or that a R president and congress would t call them back to the office. Guess the stereotype about feds being not so bright has more truth to it than I realized.

You sound very dim.

There are plenty of feds who quite reasonably think their lives would be better under Republicans, and they have the work experience to prove it. You are just stupidly partisan and so don’t understand this.

Vote how you like. I’m from a pretty red state and family/friends back home regularly disparage government employees and aren’t shy about it. This area is a bubble from the real world.

That just shows they are ignorant about what government employees actually do, just like many people on this board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can folks clarify whether the guidance is to RTO full time or just more?

I’m a State Department employee presently working in-person 16 hours per week. Will the likely expectation be for me to work in-person something more like 24 hours per week (I.e., 60 percent), or to return to in-person almost full time?

FYI that I’m on annual leave right now so not receiving any guidance from my management or agency.

The reality is that it will be "just more" and not full-time RTO.

This is the beginning of the process to re-open discussion on the portion of the collective bargaining agreements to get people in the office with more frequency (to the extent that your approved home location is located near an office for your agency). My guess is that they will want 90%+ of federal employees reporting to an office 3 days per week.

Lots of agencies have consolidated leases and building footprints. For many agencies, they would no longer be able to host all employees 5 days per week. This is why I think it won't be a 5 days per week RTO - it's basically now impossible to implement with people who have permanent remote agreements and lack of desk space for everyone.

The one element that is still up in the air is how to handle people who still work on high level matters for federal HQ, but do so remotely from a place where no agency office is within 100 miles. Sure, they can adjust locality pay to match up. But clearly it will be impossible for them to report to an office 3 days/week and I can't see how the federal government can force them to move after it approved a new duty station. Those people will likely have a benefit others will never have again, but at the same time I doubt they will see career advancement.

Maybe I am not understanding how you are using the phrase reopening with respect to CBAs but unless it is up for renewal I don't see what the grounds would be for re-opening an existing CBA prior to its term just because the politicians don't like TW anymore. That's part of the point of CBAs is to have certainty regarding its provisions so they don't just change on a whim.

Most CBAs allow management or the union to initiate “midterm bargaining” or “midterm negotiations” on working conditions, as necessary.

You can look at all the CBAs here:
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/labor-relations/collective-bargaining-agreements/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Biden admin just keeps pissing the wrong people off and it's going to back fire royally. They keep pushing they will see what's going to happen next election.

+100 THIS!

This idiocy was floated in another thread on this topic. It's as silly now as it was then.

I’m not sure I’d want to f-around with the Virginia vote.

Precisely which Republican candidate will be better for federal workers (i) on WFH issues, and (ii) generally speaking than Biden?

For this 52-year period, the federal workforce has had higher pay raises during a Republican administration. Here is how it breaks out.

The average pay raise per year: 3.71%
Under Republicans: 4.05%
Under Democrats: 3.65%

https://www.fedsmith.com/2021/01/10/50-years-federal-pay-democrats-v-republicans/

Yeah, because Rs screw up the economy so that Ds have to clean up a recession. That always comes with lower inflation.

I agree with you that Rs are awful, but no one has pointed to anything where the R presidential candidates said they would force federal employees back to the office. If Biden makes me spend 15 hours per week commuting just to please his rich donors, he is not getting my vote. I have no clue why anyone would support a candidate who gives such a strong middle finger to you. We don't know if a R would be better, but based on what Biden is advocating, it won't be any worse. So I'll take my chances.

I agree. The heck with all those women who may lose the right to choose. And I don't really care if corporate taxers are lowered to nothing. If I have ot do the commute I signed on for pre-pandemic, it'll turn me into a Trump voter. MAGA!!

So you can be mostly a one issue voter, butt someone who disagrees with you can't? Yeah, ok.

First,if you need a laundry list of other ways a Republican President would be terrible, there's really no hope for you. Second, I identified two major issues. Third, being a one issue voter is pretty silly in any circumstance, but it's just absurd when the issue is, "I am being required to do something, once again, hat I did for years before the pandemic."

NP. Oh, stop gaslighting. It is perfectly reasonable to vote against the president who causes a sharp decrease in your standard of living and personal happiness. Your entitlement is off the charts. Democrats aren’t owed the votes of fed workers.

I’m private sector with a competitive skill set (constantly recruited) and work hybrid. I like hybrid. But if I was made to go in every day, my resignation would happen the next day, as I am not worried about my ability to get a job. I don’t see why feds should not be expected to have the same freedom of choice, perhaps more because they make so much less for a similar skill set.

Of course the PP is going to vote against the president who makes her life much worse. Who wouldn’t?

You are truly stupid. Just beyond help. Republicans hate federal employees. They are the ones that passed the Show Up Act. One of their main presidential candidates wants to eliminate huge swaths of the federal workforce. They want to stop step increases and cut benefits. It is perfectly fine to be disappointed that the current White House is pushing for RTO, but implying that the other side would be better for feds is straight up insane. They’ve told you what they think.

https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2023/06/conservatives-end-annual-across-board-pay-raises-feds-and-cut-benefits/387596/

DP. I think many voters, feeling the pinch at home, and then confronted with arbitrary cuts to their pay (which RTO is) will lose enthusiasm. I know it’s affecting me. I won’t vote R, but I’m not exactly writing postcards or donating money. Virginia is a swing state. Screwing around here is not a good idea.

[Anonymous]

By the way, anti-gov troll—I’ve been working since 6. You still sitting in your car?

[Anonymous]

They will not force all feds back in the office a certain number of days per week.

I teleworked 3 days/week pre Covid. I don’t think my agency will suddenly force us back in the office more than we were in the office before. There isn’t space or adequate parking and we aren’t near metro.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They will not force all feds back in the office a certain number of days per week.

I teleworked 3 days/week pre Covid. I don’t think my agency will suddenly force us back in the office more than we were in the office before. There isn’t space or adequate parking and we aren’t near metro.

This was a very generous accommodation. None of the FinReg agencies were offering this pre-COVID.

My prediction is mandatory 3 days/week in office if you live within driving distance of an agency office. They will need to handle special cases on a one-off basis - eg, people who have remote work agreement far from an agency office, individuals with disabilities/health issues, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They will not force all feds back in the office a certain number of days per week.

I teleworked 3 days/week pre Covid. I don’t think my agency will suddenly force us back in the office more than we were in the office before. There isn’t space or adequate parking and we aren’t near metro.

This was a very generous accommodation. None of the FinReg agencies were offering this pre-COVID.

My prediction is mandatory 3 days/week in office if you live within driving distance of an agency office. They will need to handle special cases on a one-off basis - eg, people who have remote work agreement far from an agency office, individuals with disabilities/health issues, etc.

DP. That is what we had before—three years ago. That isn’t reasonable at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Biden admin just keeps pissing the wrong people off and it's going to back fire royally. They keep pushing they will see what's going to happen next election.

+100 THIS!

This idiocy was floated in another thread on this topic. It's as silly now as it was then.

I’m not sure I’d want to f-around with the Virginia vote.

Precisely which Republican candidate will be better for federal workers (i) on WFH issues, and (ii) generally speaking than Biden?

For this 52-year period, the federal workforce has had higher pay raises during a Republican administration. Here is how it breaks out.

The average pay raise per year: 3.71%
Under Republicans: 4.05%
Under Democrats: 3.65%

https://www.fedsmith.com/2021/01/10/50-years-federal-pay-democrats-v-republicans/

Yeah, because Rs screw up the economy so that Ds have to clean up a recession. That always comes with lower inflation.

I agree with you that Rs are awful, but no one has pointed to anything where the R presidential candidates said they would force federal employees back to the office. If Biden makes me spend 15 hours per week commuting just to please his rich donors, he is not getting my vote. I have no clue why anyone would support a candidate who gives such a strong middle finger to you. We don't know if a R would be better, but based on what Biden is advocating, it won't be any worse. So I'll take my chances.

I agree. The heck with all those women who may lose the right to choose. And I don't really care if corporate taxers are lowered to nothing. If I have ot do the commute I signed on for pre-pandemic, it'll turn me into a Trump voter. MAGA!!

So you can be mostly a one issue voter, butt someone who disagrees with you can't? Yeah, ok.

First,if you need a laundry list of other ways a Republican President would be terrible, there's really no hope for you. Second, I identified two major issues. Third, being a one issue voter is pretty silly in any circumstance, but it's just absurd when the issue is, "I am being required to do something, once again, hat I did for years before the pandemic."

NP. Oh, stop gaslighting. It is perfectly reasonable to vote against the president who causes a sharp decrease in your standard of living and personal happiness. Your entitlement is off the charts. Democrats aren’t owed the votes of fed workers.

I’m private sector with a competitive skill set (constantly recruited) and work hybrid. I like hybrid. But if I was made to go in every day, my resignation would happen the next day, as I am not worried about my ability to get a job. I don’t see why feds should not be expected to have the same freedom of choice, perhaps more because they make so much less for a similar skill set.

Of course the PP is going to vote against the president who makes her life much worse. Who wouldn’t?

I’m really amused by the feds who think their life would be better under a republican president, or that a R president and congress would t call them back to the office. Guess the stereotype about feds being not so bright has more truth to it than I realized.

You sound very dim.

There are plenty of feds who quite reasonably think their lives would be better under Republicans, and they have the work experience to prove it. You are just stupidly partisan and so don’t understand this.

Vote how you like. I’m from a pretty red state and family/friends back home regularly disparage government employees and aren’t shy about it. This area is a bubble from the real world.

That just shows they are ignorant about what government employees actually do, just like many people on this board.

NP and some government employees work hard 40 hours a work. But many do not. I know government employees who take two hour lunches on WFH, have one meet a day then hang out when they work from home, even one who basically only has enough work to work one week every month. And some have hundreds of hours of leave they can take. And these are all mid-late 30s. Sorry it isn’t just a stereotype.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Biden admin just keeps pissing the wrong people off and it's going to back fire royally. They keep pushing they will see what's going to happen next election.

+100 THIS!

This idiocy was floated in another thread on this topic. It's as silly now as it was then.

I’m not sure I’d want to f-around with the Virginia vote.

Precisely which Republican candidate will be better for federal workers (i) on WFH issues, and (ii) generally speaking than Biden?

For this 52-year period, the federal workforce has had higher pay raises during a Republican administration. Here is how it breaks out.

The average pay raise per year: 3.71%
Under Republicans: 4.05%
Under Democrats: 3.65%

https://www.fedsmith.com/2021/01/10/50-years-federal-pay-democrats-v-republicans/

Yeah, because Rs screw up the economy so that Ds have to clean up a recession. That always comes with lower inflation.

I agree with you that Rs are awful, but no one has pointed to anything where the R presidential candidates said they would force federal employees back to the office. If Biden makes me spend 15 hours per week commuting just to please his rich donors, he is not getting my vote. I have no clue why anyone would support a candidate who gives such a strong middle finger to you. We don't know if a R would be better, but based on what Biden is advocating, it won't be any worse. So I'll take my chances.

I agree. The heck with all those women who may lose the right to choose. And I don't really care if corporate taxers are lowered to nothing. If I have ot do the commute I signed on for pre-pandemic, it'll turn me into a Trump voter. MAGA!!

So you can be mostly a one issue voter, butt someone who disagrees with you can't? Yeah, ok.

First,if you need a laundry list of other ways a Republican President would be terrible, there's really no hope for you. Second, I identified two major issues. Third, being a one issue voter is pretty silly in any circumstance, but it's just absurd when the issue is, "I am being required to do something, once again, hat I did for years before the pandemic."

NP. Oh, stop gaslighting. It is perfectly reasonable to vote against the president who causes a sharp decrease in your standard of living and personal happiness. Your entitlement is off the charts. Democrats aren’t owed the votes of fed workers.

I’m private sector with a competitive skill set (constantly recruited) and work hybrid. I like hybrid. But if I was made to go in every day, my resignation would happen the next day, as I am not worried about my ability to get a job. I don’t see why feds should not be expected to have the same freedom of choice, perhaps more because they make so much less for a similar skill set.

Of course the PP is going to vote against the president who makes her life much worse. Who wouldn’t?

I’m really amused by the feds who think their life would be better under a republican president, or that a R president and congress would t call them back to the office. Guess the stereotype about feds being not so bright has more truth to it than I realized.

You sound very dim.

There are plenty of feds who quite reasonably think their lives would be better under Republicans, and they have the work experience to prove it. You are just stupidly partisan and so don’t understand this.

Vote how you like. I’m from a pretty red state and family/friends back home regularly disparage government employees and aren’t shy about it. This area is a bubble from the real world.

That just shows they are ignorant about what government employees actually do, just like many people on this board.

NP and some government employees work hard 40 hours a work. But many do not. I know government employees who take two hour lunches on WFH, have one meet a day then hang out when they work from home, even one who basically only has enough work to work one week every month. And some have hundreds of hours of leave they can take. And these are all mid-late 30s. Sorry it isn’t just a stereotype.

This is a stereotype. No one actually knows where these “slacker jobs” are. Those who are actually feds and know feds know we work 8.5 hours a day. And yes, work through lunch so we’re really working 45 hours a week. Not knowing that shows you’re not a fed and if you’re friends are slackers, well, that reflects on you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Biden admin just keeps pissing the wrong people off and it's going to back fire royally. They keep pushing they will see what's going to happen next election.

+100 THIS!

This idiocy was floated in another thread on this topic. It's as silly now as it was then.

I’m not sure I’d want to f-around with the Virginia vote.

Precisely which Republican candidate will be better for federal workers (i) on WFH issues, and (ii) generally speaking than Biden?

For this 52-year period, the federal workforce has had higher pay raises during a Republican administration. Here is how it breaks out.

The average pay raise per year: 3.71%
Under Republicans: 4.05%
Under Democrats: 3.65%

https://www.fedsmith.com/2021/01/10/50-years-federal-pay-democrats-v-republicans/

Yeah, because Rs screw up the economy so that Ds have to clean up a recession. That always comes with lower inflation.

I agree with you that Rs are awful, but no one has pointed to anything where the R presidential candidates said they would force federal employees back to the office. If Biden makes me spend 15 hours per week commuting just to please his rich donors, he is not getting my vote. I have no clue why anyone would support a candidate who gives such a strong middle finger to you. We don't know if a R would be better, but based on what Biden is advocating, it won't be any worse. So I'll take my chances.

I agree. The heck with all those women who may lose the right to choose. And I don't really care if corporate taxers are lowered to nothing. If I have ot do the commute I signed on for pre-pandemic, it'll turn me into a Trump voter. MAGA!!

So you can be mostly a one issue voter, butt someone who disagrees with you can't? Yeah, ok.

First,if you need a laundry list of other ways a Republican President would be terrible, there's really no hope for you. Second, I identified two major issues. Third, being a one issue voter is pretty silly in any circumstance, but it's just absurd when the issue is, "I am being required to do something, once again, hat I did for years before the pandemic."

NP. Oh, stop gaslighting. It is perfectly reasonable to vote against the president who causes a sharp decrease in your standard of living and personal happiness. Your entitlement is off the charts. Democrats aren’t owed the votes of fed workers.

I’m private sector with a competitive skill set (constantly recruited) and work hybrid. I like hybrid. But if I was made to go in every day, my resignation would happen the next day, as I am not worried about my ability to get a job. I don’t see why feds should not be expected to have the same freedom of choice, perhaps more because they make so much less for a similar skill set.

Of course the PP is going to vote against the president who makes her life much worse. Who wouldn’t?

I’m really amused by the feds who think their life would be better under a republican president, or that a R president and congress would t call them back to the office. Guess the stereotype about feds being not so bright has more truth to it than I realized.

You sound very dim.

There are plenty of feds who quite reasonably think their lives would be better under Republicans, and they have the work experience to prove it. You are just stupidly partisan and so don’t understand this.

Vote how you like. I’m from a pretty red state and family/friends back home regularly disparage government employees and aren’t shy about it. This area is a bubble from the real world.

I’m also from a red state where most people hate on feds, and they don’t care about RTO in DC. They like the idea of not wasting money on expensive leases. This is common sense. They also like sticking it to the feds in that teleworkers now have to pay the internet bill, the electricity, office supplies. Ultimately this saves tax payer money, and the red staters I know know this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They will not force all feds back in the office a certain number of days per week.

I teleworked 3 days/week pre Covid. I don’t think my agency will suddenly force us back in the office more than we were in the office before. There isn’t space or adequate parking and we aren’t near metro.

This was a very generous accommodation. None of the FinReg agencies were offering this pre-COVID.

My prediction is mandatory 3 days/week in office if you live within driving distance of an agency office. They will need to handle special cases on a one-off basis - eg, people who have remote work agreement far from an agency office, individuals with disabilities/health issues, etc.

It wasn’t a special accommodation for me. The whole agency had generous telework bc of the location/lack of parking. An additional garage was supposed to be built but Congress cut the funding for it so this was the solution. Now most people are remote or only go in once or twice a week.

[Anonymous]

We were only in 1 day aweek before Covid and just started a 2 year trial of 100% work from home. There is almost no office space. Is there a budget for ptsb again? I am not expecting anything to change in September. My coworkers are far flung. I am just as connected from home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The SEC better not expect us in the office more. We'll just go to private sector then.

All financial services firms are back in office at least 3 days a week

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SEC better not expect us in the office more. We'll just go to private sector then.

All financial services firms are back in office at least 3 days a week

and get compensated accordingly.