What is your federal agency telling you re: RTO? (No other rants/comments!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NASA- RTO Monday, January 27th

Memo came out late Friday evening

That's crazy they're not giving you guys any notice. I always thought NASA was one of the happier agencies to work for.

Their FEVs scores will be in the toilet this year. Along with everyone else.

Is anything even remotely tied to their FEV scores? Bonuses? Their ratings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For supervisors, how are you handling discussions around this with your employees? I find it challenging to balance toeing the company line for risk of being fired with being sympathetic to how disruptive this will be to people’s lives (though I feel some of the DCUM responses are a bit entitled also)

My employees know that I like flexible workplace policies—I don’t plan to sugarcoat anything for them. This is what it is. Show up or it’s your job, same as for me. We are all adults and can make our own choices.

This. There is nothing more I can tell them so leave your sob stories at home. You only have two options, come in quit or retire.

There's a ton of unknowns still, even with some directive to come in 5 days/week. Those unknowns may be things that provide more flexibility to staff with different circumstances. You could say that those are still things that could be eventually available.

But you sound like a bad boss.

My agency already said they will allow situational telework. I'm wondering if they eventually include ad hoc in that... probably not, but it could be very helpful for many.

There's also flex schedules, even ones that require coming to the office 5x/week, that could help people with childcare pickup/dropoff hours. Or even just allowing accruing credit hours one day and taking those credit hours the next (ie., no formal agreement for flextime). There are still options that fit within a 40-hour-in-office requirement, but allow some flexibility.

Yes. This. The problem is that the EO said full time at your duty station but I do think some agencies will still allow people to flex around so long as you’re present during core hours every day and with that I have zero problems. It’s basically what I already do three days a week.

but full time = 40 hours/week. I would definitely be 40 hours at my duty station if I did (say) 9/7/9/7/8.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For supervisors, how are you handling discussions around this with your employees? I find it challenging to balance toeing the company line for risk of being fired with being sympathetic to how disruptive this will be to people’s lives (though I feel some of the DCUM responses are a bit entitled also)

My employees know that I like flexible workplace policies—I don’t plan to sugarcoat anything for them. This is what it is. Show up or it’s your job, same as for me. We are all adults and can make our own choices.

This. There is nothing more I can tell them so leave your sob stories at home. You only have two options, come in quit or retire.

There's a ton of unknowns still, even with some directive to come in 5 days/week. Those unknowns may be things that provide more flexibility to staff with different circumstances. You could say that those are still things that could be eventually available.

But you sound like a bad boss.

My agency already said they will allow situational telework. I'm wondering if they eventually include ad hoc in that... probably not, but it could be very helpful for many.

There's also flex schedules, even ones that require coming to the office 5x/week, that could help people with childcare pickup/dropoff hours. Or even just allowing accruing credit hours one day and taking those credit hours the next (ie., no formal agreement for flextime). There are still options that fit within a 40-hour-in-office requirement, but allow some flexibility.

Yes. This. The problem is that the EO said full time at your duty station but I do think some agencies will still allow people to flex around so long as you’re present during core hours every day and with that I have zero problems. It’s basically what I already do three days a week.

but full time = 40 hours/week. I would definitely be 40 hours at my duty station if I did (say) 9/7/9/7/8.

I think you forgot about the mandatory unpaid lunch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For supervisors, how are you handling discussions around this with your employees? I find it challenging to balance toeing the company line for risk of being fired with being sympathetic to how disruptive this will be to people’s lives (though I feel some of the DCUM responses are a bit entitled also)

My employees know that I like flexible workplace policies—I don’t plan to sugarcoat anything for them. This is what it is. Show up or it’s your job, same as for me. We are all adults and can make our own choices.

This. There is nothing more I can tell them so leave your sob stories at home. You only have two options, come in quit or retire.

There's a ton of unknowns still, even with some directive to come in 5 days/week. Those unknowns may be things that provide more flexibility to staff with different circumstances. You could say that those are still things that could be eventually available.

But you sound like a bad boss.

My agency already said they will allow situational telework. I'm wondering if they eventually include ad hoc in that... probably not, but it could be very helpful for many.

There's also flex schedules, even ones that require coming to the office 5x/week, that could help people with childcare pickup/dropoff hours. Or even just allowing accruing credit hours one day and taking those credit hours the next (ie., no formal agreement for flextime). There are still options that fit within a 40-hour-in-office requirement, but allow some flexibility.

Yes. This. The problem is that the EO said full time at your duty station but I do think some agencies will still allow people to flex around so long as you’re present during core hours every day and with that I have zero problems. It’s basically what I already do three days a week.

but full time = 40 hours/week. I would definitely be 40 hours at my duty station if I did (say) 9/7/9/7/8.

I think you forgot about the mandatory unpaid lunch.

LOL. You're right, my mandatory unpaid lunch would make that all be 42.5 hours in office, so 9.5/7.5/9.5/7.5/8.5. Wouldn't want to let down the taxpayers!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For supervisors, how are you handling discussions around this with your employees? I find it challenging to balance toeing the company line for risk of being fired with being sympathetic to how disruptive this will be to people’s lives (though I feel some of the DCUM responses are a bit entitled also)

I'm a supervisor and I honestly don't care.

Take the deal and come to work or quit. I'm sick and tired of the entitlement from other federal workers. Democracy goes both ways. We all sat through years of DEI training and the other craziness during the Biden years that a lot of us disagreed with. I remember sitting in training and having some GS14 patronize us and tell us if we disagreed with DEI then we were racist. Hope she likes unemployment and all the other people who joined in enjoy their commutes.

"Elections have consequences" - Barrack Hussein Obama

I don't have any idea why anyone would find you racist at all. You seem like a peach.

What did I say that was racist?

And I hate to break it to you, but I'm a minority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's BS that people who have been working remotely for 10+ years are now just expected to uproot their lives over night. It's down right cruel and stressful. Gives no thought to people's actual lives. Removing flexibility in the workplace for remote work is absolutely going to cost productivity when people aren't able to use the perfectly good work stations in their homes, and instead have to take time off.

Be grateful that you have a job perhaps?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's BS that people who have been working remotely for 10+ years are now just expected to uproot their lives over night. It's down right cruel and stressful. Gives no thought to people's actual lives. Removing flexibility in the workplace for remote work is absolutely going to cost productivity when people aren't able to use the perfectly good work stations in their homes, and instead have to take time off.

Be grateful that you have a job perhaps?

why not both? You can be grateful for a job but also stressed about working conditions changing, particularly for the explicit purpose of 'traumatizing' you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For supervisors, how are you handling discussions around this with your employees? I find it challenging to balance toeing the company line for risk of being fired with being sympathetic to how disruptive this will be to people’s lives (though I feel some of the DCUM responses are a bit entitled also)

I'm a supervisor and I honestly don't care.

Take the deal and come to work or quit. I'm sick and tired of the entitlement from other federal workers. Democracy goes both ways. We all sat through years of DEI training and the other craziness during the Biden years that a lot of us disagreed with. I remember sitting in training and having some GS14 patronize us and tell us if we disagreed with DEI then we were racist. Hope she likes unemployment and all the other people who joined in enjoy their commutes.

"Elections have consequences" - Barrack Hussein Obama

Where do you work that had mandatory dei training? Me thinks you’re just making up crap.

I'm not the PP but where I was working all managers were signed up for a Cornell University course, and we had to select 3-4 modules to specialize in. There were many lectures, quizzes, class assignments, and a final assignment. It was all graded and it took me around 25 hours to complete. I'm sure it cost the taxpayers millions, and it benefited me not at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For supervisors, how are you handling discussions around this with your employees? I find it challenging to balance toeing the company line for risk of being fired with being sympathetic to how disruptive this will be to people’s lives (though I feel some of the DCUM responses are a bit entitled also)

I'm a supervisor and I honestly don't care.

Take the deal and come to work or quit. I'm sick and tired of the entitlement from other federal workers. Democracy goes both ways. We all sat through years of DEI training and the other craziness during the Biden years that a lot of us disagreed with. I remember sitting in training and having some GS14 patronize us and tell us if we disagreed with DEI then we were racist. Hope she likes unemployment and all the other people who joined in enjoy their commutes.

"Elections have consequences" - Barrack Hussein Obama

Where do you work that had mandatory dei training? Me thinks you’re just making up crap.

I'm not the PP but where I was working all managers were signed up for a Cornell University course, and we had to select 3-4 modules to specialize in. There were many lectures, quizzes, class assignments, and a final assignment. It was all graded and it took me around 25 hours to complete. I'm sure it cost the taxpayers millions, and it benefited me not at all.

That’s not DEI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's BS that people who have been working remotely for 10+ years are now just expected to uproot their lives over night. It's down right cruel and stressful. Gives no thought to people's actual lives. Removing flexibility in the workplace for remote work is absolutely going to cost productivity when people aren't able to use the perfectly good work stations in their homes, and instead have to take time off.

Be grateful that you have a job perhaps?

why not both? You can be grateful for a job but also stressed about working conditions changing, particularly for the explicit purpose of 'traumatizing' you.

Also, I might not have a job for long. Part of what's stressful about this is that it's so clear the intent is to get rid of people, and this is likely just the first part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NASA- RTO Monday, January 27th

Memo came out late Friday evening

That's crazy they're not giving you guys any notice. I always thought NASA was one of the happier agencies to work for.

Their FEVs scores will be in the toilet this year. Along with everyone else.

Is anything even remotely tied to their FEV scores? Bonuses? Their ratings?

agency heads care about FEVs scores, definitely. But a Trump appointee sociopath may see a low FEVs score as a good thing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's BS that people who have been working remotely for 10+ years are now just expected to uproot their lives over night. It's down right cruel and stressful. Gives no thought to people's actual lives. Removing flexibility in the workplace for remote work is absolutely going to cost productivity when people aren't able to use the perfectly good work stations in their homes, and instead have to take time off.

Be grateful that you have a job perhaps?

why not both? You can be grateful for a job but also stressed about working conditions changing, particularly for the explicit purpose of 'traumatizing' you.

Also, I might not have a job for long. Part of what's stressful about this is that it's so clear the intent is to get rid of people, and this is likely just the first part.

This. I'm more worried about suddenly being laid off with maybe 30 days or less of advanced notice. Yeah, it would probably be illegal and can joing a lawsuit, and hopefully I'd get severance but who knows what bs they are going to pull next.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For supervisors, how are you handling discussions around this with your employees? I find it challenging to balance toeing the company line for risk of being fired with being sympathetic to how disruptive this will be to people’s lives (though I feel some of the DCUM responses are a bit entitled also)

My employees know that I like flexible workplace policies—I don’t plan to sugarcoat anything for them. This is what it is. Show up or it’s your job, same as for me. We are all adults and can make our own choices.

This. There is nothing more I can tell them so leave your sob stories at home. You only have two options, come in quit or retire.

There's a ton of unknowns still, even with some directive to come in 5 days/week. Those unknowns may be things that provide more flexibility to staff with different circumstances. You could say that those are still things that could be eventually available.

But you sound like a bad boss.

My boss is even worse “Mr. DJT”. Anyhow, what are or will be the unknowns? Those who don’t wish to come in don’t have legitimate excuses I’m sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For supervisors, how are you handling discussions around this with your employees? I find it challenging to balance toeing the company line for risk of being fired with being sympathetic to how disruptive this will be to people’s lives (though I feel some of the DCUM responses are a bit entitled also)

My employees know that I like flexible workplace policies—I don’t plan to sugarcoat anything for them. This is what it is. Show up or it’s your job, same as for me. We are all adults and can make our own choices.

This. There is nothing more I can tell them so leave your sob stories at home. You only have two options, come in quit or retire.

Wouldn't that be 3 options?

LOL. Math is always problematic.

Well I consider quitting and retiring one of the same in this instance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For supervisors, how are you handling discussions around this with your employees? I find it challenging to balance toeing the company line for risk of being fired with being sympathetic to how disruptive this will be to people’s lives (though I feel some of the DCUM responses are a bit entitled also)

My employees know that I like flexible workplace policies—I don’t plan to sugarcoat anything for them. This is what it is. Show up or it’s your job, same as for me. We are all adults and can make our own choices.

This. There is nothing more I can tell them so leave your sob stories at home. You only have two options, come in quit or retire.

There's a ton of unknowns still, even with some directive to come in 5 days/week. Those unknowns may be things that provide more flexibility to staff with different circumstances. You could say that those are still things that could be eventually available.

But you sound like a bad boss.

My agency already said they will allow situational telework. I'm wondering if they eventually include ad hoc in that... probably not, but it could be very helpful for many.

There's also flex schedules, even ones that require coming to the office 5x/week, that could help people with childcare pickup/dropoff hours. Or even just allowing accruing credit hours one day and taking those credit hours the next (ie., no formal agreement for flextime). There are still options that fit within a 40-hour-in-office requirement, but allow some flexibility.

Yes. This. The problem is that the EO said full time at your duty station but I do think some agencies will still allow people to flex around so long as you’re present during core hours every day and with that I have zero problems. It’s basically what I already do three days a week.

but full time = 40 hours/week. I would definitely be 40 hours at my duty station if I did (say) 9/7/9/7/8.

I think you forgot about the mandatory unpaid lunch.

LOL. You're right, my mandatory unpaid lunch would make that all be 42.5 hours in office, so 9.5/7.5/9.5/7.5/8.5. Wouldn't want to let down the taxpayers!

You’ve got a good point. I might do something like that bc there are going to be some days I need to leave early ha but I’m worried if my time sheet doesn’t reflect 8.5hrs each day evenly, I could be tapped and then terminated. I do have maxiflex though and this technically is allowed-question is will maxiflex exist in this new regime or will OPM get rid of it?