Federal Reserve RTO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The pandemic is over. Before the pandemic people were going to the office 5 days without complaining. It worked. We will slowly go back to it.

Oh good you’re here.

aka tell us all you're a dinosaur running the talented younger employees out of the building without...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The pandemic is over. Before the pandemic people were going to the office 5 days without complaining. It worked. We will slowly go back to it.

None of the above is true.
First of all, people absolutely complained.
They made telework arrangements pre covid.
Commuting did not in fact work for a lot of people.
And IMO 5 days a week in person is not coming back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most long-term staff at the Fed are there for the mission, lifestyle, and benefits. The pension is only transferable to the CFPB, but those jobs are possibilities for only a small percentage of Fed staff. The reality is that long-term employees are going nowhere (except retirement), despite their gripes.

But this is not what the attrition stats show! Very large numbers of staff have left and are leaving. The FRB is hemorrhaging staff especially younger more talented people.

A lot of people don’t want to work their entire careers there anyway. The pension doesn’t necessarily make up for what you can earn in the private sector. If you’re lazy and untalented then yes you need the pension and should stay there your entire career.

Young, smart staff with few years of service have oftentimes left the Fed. They’re leaving for better earning opportunities, not for better telework. In fact, the better paying jobs require more office time - ask JPM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most long-term staff at the Fed are there for the mission, lifestyle, and benefits. The pension is only transferable to the CFPB, but those jobs are possibilities for only a small percentage of Fed staff. The reality is that long-term employees are going nowhere (except retirement), despite their gripes.

You forgot about the 12 reserve banks where a lot of staff have been going recently. The fact you even mention the CFPB shows how completely out of touch you are with what’s going on.

You were the one who introduced the CFPB. You said the Fed should have a union like them.

As for staff going to RBs, I know a few who went because they wanted fully remote accommodations, but the Board said no. Look, the Board has way better pay, benefits, and opportunities than the RBs. People are not leaving in large numbers for RBs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most long-term staff at the Fed are there for the mission, lifestyle, and benefits. The pension is only transferable to the CFPB, but those jobs are possibilities for only a small percentage of Fed staff. The reality is that long-term employees are going nowhere (except retirement), despite their gripes.

You forgot about the 12 reserve banks where a lot of staff have been going recently. The fact you even mention the CFPB shows how completely out of touch you are with what’s going on.

You were the one who introduced the CFPB. You said the Fed should have a union like them.

As for staff going to RBs, I know a few who went because they wanted fully remote accommodations, but the Board said no. Look, the Board has way better pay, benefits, and opportunities than the RBs. People are not leaving in large numbers for RBs.

This isn’t true. Yes many have left for RBs. Of course many to banks too. Every single person who left has left for a better opportunity than the board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most long-term staff at the Fed are there for the mission, lifestyle, and benefits. The pension is only transferable to the CFPB, but those jobs are possibilities for only a small percentage of Fed staff. The reality is that long-term employees are going nowhere (except retirement), despite their gripes.

But this is not what the attrition stats show! Very large numbers of staff have left and are leaving. The FRB is hemorrhaging staff especially younger more talented people.

A lot of people don’t want to work their entire careers there anyway. The pension doesn’t necessarily make up for what you can earn in the private sector. If you’re lazy and untalented then yes you need the pension and should stay there your entire career.

Young, smart staff with few years of service have oftentimes left the Fed. They’re leaving for better earning opportunities, not for better telework. In fact, the better paying jobs require more office time - ask JPM.

Yes but if you have to work just as many hours and in office as the private sector then why stay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most long-term staff at the Fed are there for the mission, lifestyle, and benefits. The pension is only transferable to the CFPB, but those jobs are possibilities for only a small percentage of Fed staff. The reality is that long-term employees are going nowhere (except retirement), despite their gripes.

But this is not what the attrition stats show! Very large numbers of staff have left and are leaving. The FRB is hemorrhaging staff especially younger more talented people.

A lot of people don’t want to work their entire careers there anyway. The pension doesn’t necessarily make up for what you can earn in the private sector. If you’re lazy and untalented then yes you need the pension and should stay there your entire career.

Young, smart staff with few years of service have oftentimes left the Fed. They’re leaving for better earning opportunities, not for better telework. In fact, the better paying jobs require more office time - ask JPM.

Yes but if you have to work just as many hours and in office as the private sector then why stay?

But but but the mission! And the pizza parties! We're a family here!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most long-term staff at the Fed are there for the mission, lifestyle, and benefits. The pension is only transferable to the CFPB, but those jobs are possibilities for only a small percentage of Fed staff. The reality is that long-term employees are going nowhere (except retirement), despite their gripes.

But this is not what the attrition stats show! Very large numbers of staff have left and are leaving. The FRB is hemorrhaging staff especially younger more talented people.

A lot of people don’t want to work their entire careers there anyway. The pension doesn’t necessarily make up for what you can earn in the private sector. If you’re lazy and untalented then yes you need the pension and should stay there your entire career.

Young, smart staff with few years of service have oftentimes left the Fed. They’re leaving for better earning opportunities, not for better telework. In fact, the better paying jobs require more office time - ask JPM.

Yes but if you have to work just as many hours and in office as the private sector then why stay?

Hours at the Fed haven’t changed since pre-COVID. If you thought your hours were fine pre-COVID (and they were; few non-officer Feds work more than 40 hours), they’re no worse now, and maybe better. So, you’re not being overworked at the Fed compared to your private counterparts. As for telework, many Fed staff worked 3 DOW in office pre-COVID. The upcoming requirements are largely a return to that standard. Essentially, if you liked the work/life balance at the Fed pre-COVID, nothing will have changed post-implementation of the upcoming RTO. What you’re really saying is that CFPB staff got a crazy-good remote /WFH policy post-COVID, and you want it too. The outlier here is the CFPB, not the Fed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most long-term staff at the Fed are there for the mission, lifestyle, and benefits. The pension is only transferable to the CFPB, but those jobs are possibilities for only a small percentage of Fed staff. The reality is that long-term employees are going nowhere (except retirement), despite their gripes.

But this is not what the attrition stats show! Very large numbers of staff have left and are leaving. The FRB is hemorrhaging staff especially younger more talented people.

A lot of people don’t want to work their entire careers there anyway. The pension doesn’t necessarily make up for what you can earn in the private sector. If you’re lazy and untalented then yes you need the pension and should stay there your entire career.

Young, smart staff with few years of service have oftentimes left the Fed. They’re leaving for better earning opportunities, not for better telework. In fact, the better paying jobs require more office time - ask JPM.

Yes but if you have to work just as many hours and in office as the private sector then why stay?

Hours at the Fed haven’t changed since pre-COVID. If you thought your hours were fine pre-COVID (and they were; few non-officer Feds work more than 40 hours), they’re no worse now, and maybe better. So, you’re not being overworked at the Fed compared to your private counterparts. As for telework, many Fed staff worked 3 DOW in office pre-COVID. The upcoming requirements are largely a return to that standard. Essentially, if you liked the work/life balance at the Fed pre-COVID, nothing will have changed post-implementation of the upcoming RTO. What you’re really saying is that CFPB staff got a crazy-good remote /WFH policy post-COVID, and you want it too. The outlier here is the CFPB, not the Fed.

It's quite the opposite. No financial regulatory agency is requiring anything close to 50% in office, as far as I know. FDIC can be as little as one day per pay period, and I think SEC is the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most long-term staff at the Fed are there for the mission, lifestyle, and benefits. The pension is only transferable to the CFPB, but those jobs are possibilities for only a small percentage of Fed staff. The reality is that long-term employees are going nowhere (except retirement), despite their gripes.

But this is not what the attrition stats show! Very large numbers of staff have left and are leaving. The FRB is hemorrhaging staff especially younger more talented people.

A lot of people don’t want to work their entire careers there anyway. The pension doesn’t necessarily make up for what you can earn in the private sector. If you’re lazy and untalented then yes you need the pension and should stay there your entire career.

Young, smart staff with few years of service have oftentimes left the Fed. They’re leaving for better earning opportunities, not for better telework. In fact, the better paying jobs require more office time - ask JPM.

Yes but if you have to work just as many hours and in office as the private sector then why stay?

Hours at the Fed haven’t changed since pre-COVID. If you thought your hours were fine pre-COVID (and they were; few non-officer Feds work more than 40 hours), they’re no worse now, and maybe better. So, you’re not being overworked at the Fed compared to your private counterparts. As for telework, many Fed staff worked 3 DOW in office pre-COVID. The upcoming requirements are largely a return to that standard. Essentially, if you liked the work/life balance at the Fed pre-COVID, nothing will have changed post-implementation of the upcoming RTO. What you’re really saying is that CFPB staff got a crazy-good remote /WFH policy post-COVID, and you want it too. The outlier here is the CFPB, not the Fed.

It's quite the opposite. No financial regulatory agency is requiring anything close to 50% in office, as far as I know. FDIC can be as little as one day per pay period, and I think SEC is the same.

OCC is the same.
They are all union, whereas the Fed is nonunion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most long-term staff at the Fed are there for the mission, lifestyle, and benefits. The pension is only transferable to the CFPB, but those jobs are possibilities for only a small percentage of Fed staff. The reality is that long-term employees are going nowhere (except retirement), despite their gripes.

But this is not what the attrition stats show! Very large numbers of staff have left and are leaving. The FRB is hemorrhaging staff especially younger more talented people.

A lot of people don’t want to work their entire careers there anyway. The pension doesn’t necessarily make up for what you can earn in the private sector. If you’re lazy and untalented then yes you need the pension and should stay there your entire career.

Young, smart staff with few years of service have oftentimes left the Fed. They’re leaving for better earning opportunities, not for better telework. In fact, the better paying jobs require more office time - ask JPM.

Yes but if you have to work just as many hours and in office as the private sector then why stay?

Hours at the Fed haven’t changed since pre-COVID. If you thought your hours were fine pre-COVID (and they were; few non-officer Feds work more than 40 hours), they’re no worse now, and maybe better. So, you’re not being overworked at the Fed compared to your private counterparts. As for telework, many Fed staff worked 3 DOW in office pre-COVID. The upcoming requirements are largely a return to that standard. Essentially, if you liked the work/life balance at the Fed pre-COVID, nothing will have changed post-implementation of the upcoming RTO. What you’re really saying is that CFPB staff got a crazy-good remote /WFH policy post-COVID, and you want it too. The outlier here is the CFPB, not the Fed.

It's quite the opposite. No financial regulatory agency is requiring anything close to 50% in office, as far as I know. FDIC can be as little as one day per pay period, and I think SEC is the same.

OCC is the same.
They are all union, whereas the Fed is nonunion.

It's kinda ironic that all the market watchers want to be unionized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most long-term staff at the Fed are there for the mission, lifestyle, and benefits. The pension is only transferable to the CFPB, but those jobs are possibilities for only a small percentage of Fed staff. The reality is that long-term employees are going nowhere (except retirement), despite their gripes.

But this is not what the attrition stats show! Very large numbers of staff have left and are leaving. The FRB is hemorrhaging staff especially younger more talented people.

A lot of people don’t want to work their entire careers there anyway. The pension doesn’t necessarily make up for what you can earn in the private sector. If you’re lazy and untalented then yes you need the pension and should stay there your entire career.

Young, smart staff with few years of service have oftentimes left the Fed. They’re leaving for better earning opportunities, not for better telework. In fact, the better paying jobs require more office time - ask JPM.

Yes but if you have to work just as many hours and in office as the private sector then why stay?

Hours at the Fed haven’t changed since pre-COVID. If you thought your hours were fine pre-COVID (and they were; few non-officer Feds work more than 40 hours), they’re no worse now, and maybe better. So, you’re not being overworked at the Fed compared to your private counterparts. As for telework, many Fed staff worked 3 DOW in office pre-COVID. The upcoming requirements are largely a return to that standard. Essentially, if you liked the work/life balance at the Fed pre-COVID, nothing will have changed post-implementation of the upcoming RTO. What you’re really saying is that CFPB staff got a crazy-good remote /WFH policy post-COVID, and you want it too. The outlier here is the CFPB, not the Fed.

It's quite the opposite. No financial regulatory agency is requiring anything close to 50% in office, as far as I know. FDIC can be as little as one day per pay period, and I think SEC is the same.

+1 Same story with RBs.

[Anonymous]

The argument here seems to be that someone else has it, why can't we. I don't know if that's a good argument. What is everyone else had it worse?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The argument here seems to be that someone else has it, why can't we. I don't know if that's a good argument. What is everyone else had it worse?

If we had it better than everyone else, then everyone else would (correctly) argue to get what we had, and change jobs to find it if employers didn't come around.

Lots of people have things worse than you and I do, on every front. I want better for them, not worse for you and me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The argument here seems to be that someone else has it, why can't we. I don't know if that's a good argument. What is everyone else had it worse?

It’s not just about this.

It’s also how the RTO policy limits who the FRB can hire. Surely you can imagine that the FRB may want to consider candidates from reserve banks. Now they have to relocate per the policy. In the past the FRB used to hire people with specific expertise from another region - NY - and they would work remotely. Now this isn’t an option. Positions are being filled with less talented staff because of the policy.