RTO and No Childcare.

[Anonymous]

What about working fathers?

Weird thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is 28 pages, and AFAICT not a single pro-RTO person has explained why it is better or necessary to have people commute to an office 5d/week where they will be on virtual calls at least half the time.

I don't know anyone who has no childcare and WFH. That's a strawman. But if you WFH, it's much easier to find and afford childcare since you don't have to account for commuting time.

This is the issue. FT RTO is being proposed solely to punish federal workers, for no other reason. And if you think that private sector employers won't see that they can also use this tactic with impunity (rather than layoffs with severance), you are an idiot.

Because you aren’t due an explanation. It’s happening. Get ready.

Yeah. All the "but, but, but, but WHHHYYYYY?" people are driving me nuts. Why? Because it's happening that's why. Can we please focus on the reality already? It's time. I'm a Democrat, I voted for Harris, and I'm going back to the office whether I like it or not. Start communicating with your leadership ways in which you could participate to make this work for your agency and for your family. Nothing will be gained here by digging in and throwing a tantrum over why.

Not a current fed, but you realize that this is much easier to do if the reason for FT RTO is clear? Otherwise, it's hard to talk about how to make things work for the agency, if the policy is just arbitrary.

DP, sorry the why just isn’t important (particularly because it is arbitrary) and in all honesty the answer coming from your supervisor is going to be something like this is the mandate we have been given, my hands are tied. I don’t know that talking with current leadership/management does much at this point (since the details like how many days in actuality will be in the office, is ad hoc telework allowed in certain circumstances, is flex time acceptable, etc. haven’t been fleshed out) but I would start developing a plan for RTO that works for you that you can discuss with management when the time comes. I find you do better when you come to management with a plan rather than letting them pick one for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why stop at 8-6? Why not 6 am to 8 pm, if he really wants to force attrition? Why not eliminate hvac and desks? Why not just make everyone work outside on the sidewalk?

Oh yeah — federal labor laws! I forgot about those! Darn! Is it possible that Vivek can’t do whatever he wants? I wonder….

I mean, gee. Why not make them work outside and crack whips if they don’t do what Vivek wants? Sounds amazing.

More boys blathering on TV and in op Eds. Little playground bullies.

[Anonymous]

My office just extended our telework MOU for another 3 years.

I personally could RTO and make it work. But my office would be screwed. We have people who live in other states and we physically don't have enough office space for everyone who's just local by several orders of magnitude. It would be a disaster. You should care that the service we provide would be severely compromised. And we're also fee funded meaning we'd basically be failing to give people something they paid for. I'd really rather not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are a lot of women employed FT in professional careers really saying they have no childcare? That's not what I've seen on DCUM. People are often talking about the extra time for commuting and difference of being out of the house. So like a 10yp may come home from school and not have childcare from 4-5pm because they can entertain themselves while parent works. But the parent may not want them actually alone in the house. It's a childcare gap. Same with the mornings before school opens - I would need beforecare to RTO and it might not be available this school year (already full). Or preschool may close at 5pm but with commute I'd get home later than that, etc.

WFH necessitates childcare if you have a real job but can be for fewer hours, or you cover the occasional days off and breaks without always taking PTO etc

Off the top of my head I can think of four teachers and one non-profit employee who ended up staying at home specifically because the cost of childcare was greater than their salaries. The one at the non-profit was priced out after her second kid, the teachers all stopped after their first.

[Anonymous]

^three of them have advanced degrees. All went to great schools

[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:Are a lot of women employed FT in professional careers really saying they have no childcare? That's not what I've seen on DCUM. People are often talking about the extra time for commuting and difference of being out of the house. So like a 10yp may come home from school and not have childcare from 4-5pm because they can entertain themselves while parent works. But the parent may not want them actually alone in the house. It's a childcare gap. Same with the mornings before school opens - I would need beforecare to RTO and it might not be available this school year (already full). Or preschool may close at 5pm but with commute I'd get home later than that, etc.

WFH necessitates childcare if you have a real job but can be for fewer hours, or you cover the occasional days off and breaks without always taking PTO etc

OP here - I consider a childcare gap a lack of childcare. Before or after school care programs are not going to quickly sprout up.

+1
And even if kids can entertain themselves a bit or parents find programs, the kids can't magically transport themselves and they can't drive yet. So parents (all parents, dads too) need that flexibility after school. Strict RTO mean that these good employees will no longer be bending backwards to check mails and handle things after business hours.

I think you’re ranting about things you have no idea about. Kids can’t transport themselves? The aftercare programs all have buses and vans that pick up at our school. Parents don’t need to drive their kids to ballet or karate or gymnastics.

I'm so glad your data point of one is universal.

What school doesn't have that? Give us an example.

Our public elementary in DCPS definitely does want have transportation to activities.

Elementary school kids don’t need to be bused to activities. aftercare is fine.

It is fine. But it’s not great.

Being able to come right home from school to play with neighborhood friends, go to an extracurricular that they’re interested in, or even just have some free play is better. I know being out of the house 45-50 hours/week (i.e. 8-5:30/6) is tiring for many adults, I wouldn’t choose this for a young elementary kid. It is fine if it is what you have to do, but let’s not act like this is more ideal than kids getting to play soccer, learn an instrument, take tutoring classes, go to scouts meetings, etc. and having a family meal together.

if that’s your ideal AND you want both parents to work FT, you need a better plan than assuming that covid-era telework (for positions that are not actually fully remote) will last forever.

I have some millennial coworkers who had kids and bought houses way out in the burbs during covid. I feel for them but truly, they shouldn’t have counted on max telework lasting indefinitely. I also have a GenX coworker who relocated across the country during covid - at least she fully knows she’ll be terminated when they eventually catch up to her.

Please explain why they need to return to the office.

See, here’s the problem. You think you are due an explanation. You are not due an explanation. People who accepted in office jobs are now going back to in office jobs. Don’t like it? Bye.

But is this true? Because it seems like a lot of people accepted jobs with telework even prior to COVID and/or signed remote work agreements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked around 8:15 am to 630 pm for 30 years. It is not a long day.

I was taking 704 am in every day and catching the last express train at 649pm.


Guess what had dinner with my family at 7pm, helped get kids ready for bed, had time with wife from 830 pm to around 1030 pm, got up and helped kids get ready for bus.

First 15 minutes or so at work had my coffee, bagel, read the news online. Took an hour lunch every day or ran errands at lunch that hour.

I never worked weekends, had holidays. Not exactly the end of the world. If anything I miss it.

Good grief. Read the room. I'm guessing your wife SAH and cooked and cleaned in heels and pearls. You probably bought a house for practically nothing and now it's worth over a million $. It's 2024. For most people, two incomes are needed to survive now. We can't buy homes. We're limiting children to two maybe one because it's too expensive to have any more. The cost of college is ASTRONOMICAL. Give me a HUGE effin break.

Believe it or not even in 2024 if one spouse devotes effort to work they usually more than dual income and with no childcare costs. Pretty easy to make 350K to 450K if one spouse works. And saving for a house is WAY WAY easier today than ever. The stock market is up like 100 percent in last four years and RSUs and grants are way up. Even CDs and money markets are way up.

And people way richer. Kids are starting at 120K fresh out of school. My daughter who is 24 her friend makes 100K and she four girls share a three bedroom, larger room split by two girls. They have a household income of 400K at 24.

I'm sorry are you just making up sh$ to stir? We are talking fed RTO. So your magical 300-400k income is a pipe dream.

A two fed family can make $300-400K a year. But, usually with 10+ years of service.

Even in the private market though its very hard for a single income to make that much. They are dreaming.

This is all about local businesses, tax breaks/incentives for building owners, etc. It makes zero sense. Both feds and private are RTO. My husband is RTO after working from home long before covid. It sucks between the extra costs and they don't even have desks for everyone. He keeps a camping chair in the car.

That is janky as hell. What a clown show.

[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:Are a lot of women employed FT in professional careers really saying they have no childcare? That's not what I've seen on DCUM. People are often talking about the extra time for commuting and difference of being out of the house. So like a 10yp may come home from school and not have childcare from 4-5pm because they can entertain themselves while parent works. But the parent may not want them actually alone in the house. It's a childcare gap. Same with the mornings before school opens - I would need beforecare to RTO and it might not be available this school year (already full). Or preschool may close at 5pm but with commute I'd get home later than that, etc.

WFH necessitates childcare if you have a real job but can be for fewer hours, or you cover the occasional days off and breaks without always taking PTO etc

OP here - I consider a childcare gap a lack of childcare. Before or after school care programs are not going to quickly sprout up.

+1
And even if kids can entertain themselves a bit or parents find programs, the kids can't magically transport themselves and they can't drive yet. So parents (all parents, dads too) need that flexibility after school. Strict RTO mean that these good employees will no longer be bending backwards to check mails and handle things after business hours.

I think you’re ranting about things you have no idea about. Kids can’t transport themselves? The aftercare programs all have buses and vans that pick up at our school. Parents don’t need to drive their kids to ballet or karate or gymnastics.

I'm so glad your data point of one is universal.

What school doesn't have that? Give us an example.

Our public elementary in DCPS definitely does want have transportation to activities.

Elementary school kids don’t need to be bused to activities. aftercare is fine.

It is fine. But it’s not great.

Being able to come right home from school to play with neighborhood friends, go to an extracurricular that they’re interested in, or even just have some free play is better. I know being out of the house 45-50 hours/week (i.e. 8-5:30/6) is tiring for many adults, I wouldn’t choose this for a young elementary kid. It is fine if it is what you have to do, but let’s not act like this is more ideal than kids getting to play soccer, learn an instrument, take tutoring classes, go to scouts meetings, etc. and having a family meal together.

if that’s your ideal AND you want both parents to work FT, you need a better plan than assuming that covid-era telework (for positions that are not actually fully remote) will last forever.

I have some millennial coworkers who had kids and bought houses way out in the burbs during covid. I feel for them but truly, they shouldn’t have counted on max telework lasting indefinitely. I also have a GenX coworker who relocated across the country during covid - at least she fully knows she’ll be terminated when they eventually catch up to her.

Please explain why they need to return to the office.

See, here’s the problem. You think you are due an explanation. You are not due an explanation. People who accepted in office jobs are now going back to in office jobs. Don’t like it? Bye.

But is this true? Because it seems like a lot of people accepted jobs with telework even prior to COVID and/or signed remote work agreements.

Every telework or remote work agreement is accompanied by a caveat that says it could be rescinded at any time for any reason.

[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:Are a lot of women employed FT in professional careers really saying they have no childcare? That's not what I've seen on DCUM. People are often talking about the extra time for commuting and difference of being out of the house. So like a 10yp may come home from school and not have childcare from 4-5pm because they can entertain themselves while parent works. But the parent may not want them actually alone in the house. It's a childcare gap. Same with the mornings before school opens - I would need beforecare to RTO and it might not be available this school year (already full). Or preschool may close at 5pm but with commute I'd get home later than that, etc.

WFH necessitates childcare if you have a real job but can be for fewer hours, or you cover the occasional days off and breaks without always taking PTO etc

OP here - I consider a childcare gap a lack of childcare. Before or after school care programs are not going to quickly sprout up.

+1
And even if kids can entertain themselves a bit or parents find programs, the kids can't magically transport themselves and they can't drive yet. So parents (all parents, dads too) need that flexibility after school. Strict RTO mean that these good employees will no longer be bending backwards to check mails and handle things after business hours.

I think you’re ranting about things you have no idea about. Kids can’t transport themselves? The aftercare programs all have buses and vans that pick up at our school. Parents don’t need to drive their kids to ballet or karate or gymnastics.

I'm so glad your data point of one is universal.

What school doesn't have that? Give us an example.

Our public elementary in DCPS definitely does want have transportation to activities.

Elementary school kids don’t need to be bused to activities. aftercare is fine.

It is fine. But it’s not great.

Being able to come right home from school to play with neighborhood friends, go to an extracurricular that they’re interested in, or even just have some free play is better. I know being out of the house 45-50 hours/week (i.e. 8-5:30/6) is tiring for many adults, I wouldn’t choose this for a young elementary kid. It is fine if it is what you have to do, but let’s not act like this is more ideal than kids getting to play soccer, learn an instrument, take tutoring classes, go to scouts meetings, etc. and having a family meal together.

if that’s your ideal AND you want both parents to work FT, you need a better plan than assuming that covid-era telework (for positions that are not actually fully remote) will last forever.

I have some millennial coworkers who had kids and bought houses way out in the burbs during covid. I feel for them but truly, they shouldn’t have counted on max telework lasting indefinitely. I also have a GenX coworker who relocated across the country during covid - at least she fully knows she’ll be terminated when they eventually catch up to her.

Please explain why they need to return to the office.

See, here’s the problem. You think you are due an explanation. You are not due an explanation. People who accepted in office jobs are now going back to in office jobs. Don’t like it? Bye.

But is this true? Because it seems like a lot of people accepted jobs with telework even prior to COVID and/or signed remote work agreements.

Every telework or remote work agreement is accompanied by a caveat that says it could be rescinded at any time for any reason.

+1 You can always find another job.

[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:Are a lot of women employed FT in professional careers really saying they have no childcare? That's not what I've seen on DCUM. People are often talking about the extra time for commuting and difference of being out of the house. So like a 10yp may come home from school and not have childcare from 4-5pm because they can entertain themselves while parent works. But the parent may not want them actually alone in the house. It's a childcare gap. Same with the mornings before school opens - I would need beforecare to RTO and it might not be available this school year (already full). Or preschool may close at 5pm but with commute I'd get home later than that, etc.

WFH necessitates childcare if you have a real job but can be for fewer hours, or you cover the occasional days off and breaks without always taking PTO etc

OP here - I consider a childcare gap a lack of childcare. Before or after school care programs are not going to quickly sprout up.

+1
And even if kids can entertain themselves a bit or parents find programs, the kids can't magically transport themselves and they can't drive yet. So parents (all parents, dads too) need that flexibility after school. Strict RTO mean that these good employees will no longer be bending backwards to check mails and handle things after business hours.

I think you’re ranting about things you have no idea about. Kids can’t transport themselves? The aftercare programs all have buses and vans that pick up at our school. Parents don’t need to drive their kids to ballet or karate or gymnastics.

I'm so glad your data point of one is universal.

What school doesn't have that? Give us an example.

Our public elementary in DCPS definitely does want have transportation to activities.

Elementary school kids don’t need to be bused to activities. aftercare is fine.

It is fine. But it’s not great.

Being able to come right home from school to play with neighborhood friends, go to an extracurricular that they’re interested in, or even just have some free play is better. I know being out of the house 45-50 hours/week (i.e. 8-5:30/6) is tiring for many adults, I wouldn’t choose this for a young elementary kid. It is fine if it is what you have to do, but let’s not act like this is more ideal than kids getting to play soccer, learn an instrument, take tutoring classes, go to scouts meetings, etc. and having a family meal together.

if that’s your ideal AND you want both parents to work FT, you need a better plan than assuming that covid-era telework (for positions that are not actually fully remote) will last forever.

I have some millennial coworkers who had kids and bought houses way out in the burbs during covid. I feel for them but truly, they shouldn’t have counted on max telework lasting indefinitely. I also have a GenX coworker who relocated across the country during covid - at least she fully knows she’ll be terminated when they eventually catch up to her.

Please explain why they need to return to the office.

See, here’s the problem. You think you are due an explanation. You are not due an explanation. People who accepted in office jobs are now going back to in office jobs. Don’t like it? Bye.

But is this true? Because it seems like a lot of people accepted jobs with telework even prior to COVID and/or signed remote work agreements.

Every telework or remote work agreement is accompanied by a caveat that says it could be rescinded at any time for any reason.

This is not strictly true, I just went through my own telework agreement and it does not contain that statement. They also have a MOU with the union.

If they can give me a decent desk space, I can do my job. But if I'm stuck with just a small laptop screen (I have to compare documents back and forth a lot and have dual monitors, which I had before I went home), it's going to slow me down significantly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is 28 pages, and AFAICT not a single pro-RTO person has explained why it is better or necessary to have people commute to an office 5d/week where they will be on virtual calls at least half the time.

I don't know anyone who has no childcare and WFH. That's a strawman. But if you WFH, it's much easier to find and afford childcare since you don't have to account for commuting time.

This is the issue. FT RTO is being proposed solely to punish federal workers, for no other reason. And if you think that private sector employers won't see that they can also use this tactic with impunity (rather than layoffs with severance), you are an idiot.

Lots of people have made arguments, you just disagree with them. That’s fine, but don’t pretend the arguments done exist. I will try to briefly summarize, not to argue big just to clarify: Many federal employees wouldn’t spend half their day on Teams if everyone was in person. They would be interacting with their colleagues and there is arguably some benefit to in person interaction. Also, downtown DC would benefit from a returning federal employee customer base. Finally, there is some benefit to federal managers and leaders who often find it easier to manage in person.

Again, you don’t have to agree with any of these arguments. But don’t pretend that everyone who disagrees with you is entirely mean-spirited or everyone who doesn’t adopt your views an idiot.

I wouldn't call someone an idiot but they are surely misguided. My managers live in NY and Austin. Senior staff live in DC. Junior staff are new remote hires. They'll never be in person in the DMV. Yes, I'd be on teams. I manage contracts ... none of them are in house. My office is in a no mans land where literally one pot belly benefits and it's super gross. (Aside, it's not our job to revitalize DC. Boomers need to adapt and find new ways.)

These arguments are just tired ones that fail to acknowledge reality.

I have childcare 8-5. When commuting I need childcare 7-6:30. When not commuting 8-5. It's not the money. It's the time with my family that counts and I am not interested in rigid thinkers taking it away because they are stuck on how things used to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is 28 pages, and AFAICT not a single pro-RTO person has explained why it is better or necessary to have people commute to an office 5d/week where they will be on virtual calls at least half the time.

I don't know anyone who has no childcare and WFH. That's a strawman. But if you WFH, it's much easier to find and afford childcare since you don't have to account for commuting time.

This is the issue. FT RTO is being proposed solely to punish federal workers, for no other reason. And if you think that private sector employers won't see that they can also use this tactic with impunity (rather than layoffs with severance), you are an idiot.

Lots of people have made arguments, you just disagree with them. That’s fine, but don’t pretend the arguments done exist. I will try to briefly summarize, not to argue big just to clarify: Many federal employees wouldn’t spend half their day on Teams if everyone was in person. They would be interacting with their colleagues and there is arguably some benefit to in person interaction. Also, downtown DC would benefit from a returning federal employee customer base. Finally, there is some benefit to federal managers and leaders who often find it easier to manage in person.

Again, you don’t have to agree with any of these arguments. But don’t pretend that everyone who disagrees with you is entirely mean-spirited or everyone who doesn’t adopt your views an idiot.

I wouldn't call someone an idiot but they are surely misguided. My managers live in NY and Austin. Senior staff live in DC. Junior staff are new remote hires. They'll never be in person in the DMV. Yes, I'd be on teams. I manage contracts ... none of them are in house. My office is in a no mans land where literally one pot belly benefits and it's super gross. (Aside, it's not our job to revitalize DC. Boomers need to adapt and find new ways.)

These arguments are just tired ones that fail to acknowledge reality.

I have childcare 8-5. When commuting I need childcare 7-6:30. When not commuting 8-5. It's not the money. It's the time with my family that counts and I am not interested in rigid thinkers taking it away because they are stuck on how things used to be.

If it's not the money, why don't you live closer to work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is 28 pages, and AFAICT not a single pro-RTO person has explained why it is better or necessary to have people commute to an office 5d/week where they will be on virtual calls at least half the time.

I don't know anyone who has no childcare and WFH. That's a strawman. But if you WFH, it's much easier to find and afford childcare since you don't have to account for commuting time.

This is the issue. FT RTO is being proposed solely to punish federal workers, for no other reason. And if you think that private sector employers won't see that they can also use this tactic with impunity (rather than layoffs with severance), you are an idiot.

Lots of people have made arguments, you just disagree with them. That’s fine, but don’t pretend the arguments done exist. I will try to briefly summarize, not to argue big just to clarify: Many federal employees wouldn’t spend half their day on Teams if everyone was in person. They would be interacting with their colleagues and there is arguably some benefit to in person interaction. Also, downtown DC would benefit from a returning federal employee customer base. Finally, there is some benefit to federal managers and leaders who often find it easier to manage in person.

Again, you don’t have to agree with any of these arguments. But don’t pretend that everyone who disagrees with you is entirely mean-spirited or everyone who doesn’t adopt your views an idiot.

I wouldn't call someone an idiot but they are surely misguided. My managers live in NY and Austin. Senior staff live in DC. Junior staff are new remote hires. They'll never be in person in the DMV. Yes, I'd be on teams. I manage contracts ... none of them are in house. My office is in a no mans land where literally one pot belly benefits and it's super gross. (Aside, it's not our job to revitalize DC. Boomers need to adapt and find new ways.)

These arguments are just tired ones that fail to acknowledge reality.

I have childcare 8-5. When commuting I need childcare 7-6:30. When not commuting 8-5. It's not the money. It's the time with my family that counts and I am not interested in rigid thinkers taking it away because they are stuck on how things used to be.

If it's not the money, why don't you live closer to work?

Not PP - actually OP - but I live 12 miles from my work. We live 6 miles from my spouse’s work. Reality is having to go into the office adds 35 minutes to work and 45 minutes home. No public transport, but would not take it anyway because need to pick-up our kids. I definitely see that hour + as time away from our kids. On telework days, our kids take the bus home. I start at 7 and end at 3:30. They arrive home on the bus at 3. I also usually do an hour or so of work in the evenings to catch other time zones.

[Anonymous]

I have been trying to get full-time aftercare since the beginning of the school year. Right now the best I can do is take time out of my workday to transport my kid from school to aftercare then unfinished work and then get him. It’s ridiculous. I know America doesn’t care about families at all, but if you are going to push two parent working household, there needs to be some sort of childcare solution. I shouldn’t have to hire an employee for just my family to take my kid to aftercare, or to be aftercare