RTO EO is up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Got an email from our leadership this morning that they aren’t changing any policies on telework. We’ve been 4 days per pay period. Heard from a colleague that OGC told them the CBA trumps the EO. They also got beat up last budget cycle over lease costs and they don’t want to go ask for more money for enough office space for everyone to be in office full time.

which agency?

[Anonymous]

I think this will accelerate RTO in private sector. Several BigLaw firms are requiring 4-5 days in office and the trend will likely grow.

[Anonymous]

So this likely kills part time work. Who is going to commute 2-3 hours roundtrip in order to work 4-6 hours, and only have a part time prorated salary to show for it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So this likely kills part time work. Who is going to commute 2-3 hours roundtrip in order to work 4-6 hours, and only have a part time prorated salary to show for it?

Is the number of part time workers already exceedingly small?
I agree it makes no sense, unless you work 2 or 3 full days each week to total 80.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So this likely kills part time work. Who is going to commute 2-3 hours roundtrip in order to work 4-6 hours, and only have a part time prorated salary to show for it?

Is the number of part time workers already exceedingly small?
I agree it makes no sense, unless you work 2 or 3 full days each week to total 80.

It just means that people won't choose to go PT, but will instead quit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So this likely kills part time work. Who is going to commute 2-3 hours roundtrip in order to work 4-6 hours, and only have a part time prorated salary to show for it?

Is the number of part time workers already exceedingly small?
I agree it makes no sense, unless you work 2 or 3 full days each week to total 80.

It just means that people won't choose to go PT, but will instead quit.

That was always very hard in our agency as it was generally a full time person who asked to go part time. That reduced FTE numbers and made it hard to justify additional hiring, so managers usually do not approve it. It is so rare to be part time, IMO. I would love it myself but have not been able to make it work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So this likely kills part time work. Who is going to commute 2-3 hours roundtrip in order to work 4-6 hours, and only have a part time prorated salary to show for it?

Is the number of part time workers already exceedingly small?
I agree it makes no sense, unless you work 2 or 3 full days each week to total 80.

It just means that people won't choose to go PT, but will instead quit.

That was always very hard in our agency as it was generally a full time person who asked to go part time. That reduced FTE numbers and made it hard to justify additional hiring, so managers usually do not approve it. It is so rare to be part time, IMO. I would love it myself but have not been able to make it work.

My entire office of like 100 people is part time (minus management). Apparently they wanted to rapidly hire a lot of people and that was determined to be the best way to do it. I am DC based but a significant number are on RWA's. I guess they will basically gut our office which is beyond stupid because we get so much done and save the department so much money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the Trump administration's position is that people who are not committed to their jobs need to start looking. They use willingness to be in person as a measure of that. It's an imperfect measure, to be sure, but there aren't a lot of good measures to be had. Performance reviews are not reliable and also there isn't anything the administration can do to fix that. But they can try to get people back in the offices.

They also want to revitalize the business districts that relied on people coming to work. Good or bad, we will all be better off for thriving brick and mortar businesses and less Chinese Amazon products.

I don't think it's a bad thing to shake this up. Change is hard. We may need to move to a smaller place to make it work. I don't know, but I try to understand the motivations for things and believe there is some good here.

One of the local news stations ran a segment yesterday on Mayor Bowser. She was strongly pushing feds returning to work. The segment said she has been begging the Biden admin to enforce return to the office, and she actually flew down to Marlago to convince Trump to do this.

The reasons cited were revitalizing/saving the business downtown, and as a means to conbat the surging crime in DC over the past 4 years.

This return to work is not solely a trump thing.

It is actually a bipartisan measure between far right trump and far left mayor bowser.

Mayor Bowser is not far left.

She is compared to most of the country even if she is not by DC standards.

And actually, trump is not far right. Based on the election results, he is right around center based on where the country sits right now.

He won a gerrymandered electoral college. Not the popular vote. And less than half the voters went with him. So no he doesn’t rep where the country is.

Please tell me you’re not a federal employee? On the other hand, maybe I shouldn’t be surprised that a Fed would know so little about how the government works. We aren’t sending our best and brightest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Got an email from our leadership this morning that they aren’t changing any policies on telework. We’ve been 4 days per pay period. Heard from a colleague that OGC told them the CBA trumps the EO. They also got beat up last budget cycle over lease costs and they don’t want to go ask for more money for enough office space for everyone to be in office full time.

which agency?

Poster is referring to SEC. But fake news.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Got an email from our leadership this morning that they aren’t changing any policies on telework. We’ve been 4 days per pay period. Heard from a colleague that OGC told them the CBA trumps the EO. They also got beat up last budget cycle over lease costs and they don’t want to go ask for more money for enough office space for everyone to be in office full time.

which agency?

Poster is referring to SEC. But fake news.

don't think so, SEC is not 4 days / PP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the Trump administration's position is that people who are not committed to their jobs need to start looking. They use willingness to be in person as a measure of that. It's an imperfect measure, to be sure, but there aren't a lot of good measures to be had. Performance reviews are not reliable and also there isn't anything the administration can do to fix that. But they can try to get people back in the offices.

They also want to revitalize the business districts that relied on people coming to work. Good or bad, we will all be better off for thriving brick and mortar businesses and less Chinese Amazon products.

I don't think it's a bad thing to shake this up. Change is hard. We may need to move to a smaller place to make it work. I don't know, but I try to understand the motivations for things and believe there is some good here.

One of the local news stations ran a segment yesterday on Mayor Bowser. She was strongly pushing feds returning to work. The segment said she has been begging the Biden admin to enforce return to the office, and she actually flew down to Marlago to convince Trump to do this.

The reasons cited were revitalizing/saving the business downtown, and as a means to conbat the surging crime in DC over the past 4 years.

This return to work is not solely a trump thing.

It is actually a bipartisan measure between far right trump and far left mayor bowser.

It's a bipartisan thing to fill the pockets of their rich property owning friends. If I go back, there will not be a dime spent in DC, I promise you that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the Trump administration's position is that people who are not committed to their jobs need to start looking. They use willingness to be in person as a measure of that. It's an imperfect measure, to be sure, but there aren't a lot of good measures to be had. Performance reviews are not reliable and also there isn't anything the administration can do to fix that. But they can try to get people back in the offices.

They also want to revitalize the business districts that relied on people coming to work. Good or bad, we will all be better off for thriving brick and mortar businesses and less Chinese Amazon products.

I don't think it's a bad thing to shake this up. Change is hard. We may need to move to a smaller place to make it work. I don't know, but I try to understand the motivations for things and believe there is some good here.

One of the local news stations ran a segment yesterday on Mayor Bowser. She was strongly pushing feds returning to work. The segment said she has been begging the Biden admin to enforce return to the office, and she actually flew down to Marlago to convince Trump to do this.

The reasons cited were revitalizing/saving the business downtown, and as a means to conbat the surging crime in DC over the past 4 years.

This return to work is not solely a trump thing.

It is actually a bipartisan measure between far right trump and far left mayor bowser.

It's a bipartisan thing to fill the pockets of their rich property owning friends. If I go back, there will not be a dime spent in DC, I promise you that.

I don’t think that’s fair. For right or wrong, many small to medium businesses were encouraged to put in businesses to support in office workers. Not just in DC but all over the country. These aren’t just rich property owning friends of Mayor Bowser. These are people who make less than the federal workers. Now they’re gone and crime is up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the Trump administration's position is that people who are not committed to their jobs need to start looking. They use willingness to be in person as a measure of that. It's an imperfect measure, to be sure, but there aren't a lot of good measures to be had. Performance reviews are not reliable and also there isn't anything the administration can do to fix that. But they can try to get people back in the offices.

They also want to revitalize the business districts that relied on people coming to work. Good or bad, we will all be better off for thriving brick and mortar businesses and less Chinese Amazon products.

I don't think it's a bad thing to shake this up. Change is hard. We may need to move to a smaller place to make it work. I don't know, but I try to understand the motivations for things and believe there is some good here.

One of the local news stations ran a segment yesterday on Mayor Bowser. She was strongly pushing feds returning to work. The segment said she has been begging the Biden admin to enforce return to the office, and she actually flew down to Marlago to convince Trump to do this.

The reasons cited were revitalizing/saving the business downtown, and as a means to conbat the surging crime in DC over the past 4 years.

This return to work is not solely a trump thing.

It is actually a bipartisan measure between far right trump and far left mayor bowser.

It's a bipartisan thing to fill the pockets of their rich property owning friends. If I go back, there will not be a dime spent in DC, I promise you that.

I don’t think that’s fair. For right or wrong, many small to medium businesses were encouraged to put in businesses to support in office workers. Not just in DC but all over the country. These aren’t just rich property owning friends of Mayor Bowser. These are people who make less than the federal workers. Now they’re gone and crime is up.

Trump is trying to sell the downtown buildings for pennies on the dollar. It is not going to help those small businesses.

[Anonymous]

Is anyone else surprised that their agency hasn’t addressed the EOs? First the return to work one, but also the DEI. We also had several others specific just to our agency directing us to do things. It’s been two days and we haven’t had anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone else surprised that their agency hasn’t addressed the EOs? First the return to work one, but also the DEI. We also had several others specific just to our agency directing us to do things. It’s been two days and we haven’t had anything.

We haven't heard anything, I'm just going to keep doing my job.