Jeff Zients throws a hissy fit in a memo about RTO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question- for those agencies with negotiated collective bargaining agreements in place providing for 2 days or less every two weeks- so only requiring in person 2-4 times per MONTH - how is an agency head supposed to “require” three days a week?

Our agreement allows managers to approve as little as 2 days in the office per pay period, but if you read the actual collective bargaining agreement it’s in the manager’s discretion. The manager can’t be arbitrary but they could say that their entire work group is now only approved for telework 6 days or 4 per pay period. The agreements don’t say they must provide maximum flexibility.

That varies by agency, mine does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve met Jeff Zients and he’s as bad as they say, but he’s right about this issue. Empty federal offices is a huge political loser.

So sell the property and save money. How is this a loser?

I’ll say it again - the dems are reaping what they sowed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve met Jeff Zients and he’s as bad as they say, but he’s right about this issue. Empty federal offices is a huge political loser.

So sell the property and save money. How is this a loser?

I’ll say it again - the dems are reaping what they sowed.

Look at all of the giant hideous federal office buildings with historic designations that can’t be torn down or even modernized much. Who would buy them? Do you know what’s going on in the commercial real estate market these days?

The only rational answer is to send federal employees back to their offices. I’m guessing the White House / OMB / OPM / GSA has thought about this from all sides more than those on this message board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question- for those agencies with negotiated collective bargaining agreements in place providing for 2 days or less every two weeks- so only requiring in person 2-4 times per MONTH - how is an agency head supposed to “require” three days a week?

Our agreement allows managers to approve as little as 2 days in the office per pay period, but if you read the actual collective bargaining agreement it’s in the manager’s discretion. The manager can’t be arbitrary but they could say that their entire work group is now only approved for telework 6 days or 4 per pay period. The agreements don’t say they must provide maximum flexibility.

That varies by agency, mine does.

It seems that people think the SEC collective bargaining agreement that was just signed strongly protects telework (2 days in-office per pay period) for the next few years at least, but when I read the CBA it does seem to be in the supervisor's discretion. Could someone please fill in the blanks for me?

Also what happens for people not in the union? Are they just out of luck?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question- for those agencies with negotiated collective bargaining agreements in place providing for 2 days or less every two weeks- so only requiring in person 2-4 times per MONTH - how is an agency head supposed to “require” three days a week?

Our agreement allows managers to approve as little as 2 days in the office per pay period, but if you read the actual collective bargaining agreement it’s in the manager’s discretion. The manager can’t be arbitrary but they could say that their entire work group is now only approved for telework 6 days or 4 per pay period. The agreements don’t say they must provide maximum flexibility.

That varies by agency, mine does.

It seems that people think the SEC collective bargaining agreement that was just signed strongly protects telework (2 days in-office per pay period) for the next few years at least, but when I read the CBA it does seem to be in the supervisor's discretion. Could someone please fill in the blanks for me?

Also what happens for people not in the union? Are they just out of luck?

Yes, you are out of luck if you are not in the union and yes, managers do not have to allow maximum flexibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question- for those agencies with negotiated collective bargaining agreements in place providing for 2 days or less every two weeks- so only requiring in person 2-4 times per MONTH - how is an agency head supposed to “require” three days a week?

Our agreement allows managers to approve as little as 2 days in the office per pay period, but if you read the actual collective bargaining agreement it’s in the manager’s discretion. The manager can’t be arbitrary but they could say that their entire work group is now only approved for telework 6 days or 4 per pay period. The agreements don’t say they must provide maximum flexibility.

That varies by agency, mine does.

It seems that people think the SEC collective bargaining agreement that was just signed strongly protects telework (2 days in-office per pay period) for the next few years at least, but when I read the CBA it does seem to be in the supervisor's discretion. Could someone please fill in the blanks for me?

Also what happens for people not in the union? Are they just out of luck?

Yes, you are out of luck if you are not in the union and yes, managers do not have to allow maximum flexibility.

NP and article 11, Section 6 provides the criteria for denying it and it is not subject to the whim of managers. They have to have a legit business reason to deny. There are also provisions for employees that screw up to not be allowed to TW.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have heard through friends that the administration wants all federal employees in the office at least three days a week by January 2024. We can debate the merits of WFH vs. in-office productivity, but RTO is coming.

My component was 3 days WFH pre-COVID (protected under a bargaining unit agreement) and was in the process of implementing a 4th day. Since COVID, we gave up all our DMV leased space and are 100% telework.

So LOL act RTO happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve met Jeff Zients and he’s as bad as they say, but he’s right about this issue. Empty federal offices is a huge political loser.

So sell or give up leases on the buisonongs. Save federal dollars. Stop supporting commercial real estate developers.

[Anonymous]

He's the investor for that over priced bagel sandwich place

https://www.washingtonian.com/2023/01/23/biden-taps-dc-bagel-shop-founder-as-white-house-chief-of-staff/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve met Jeff Zients and he’s as bad as they say, but he’s right about this issue. Empty federal offices is a huge political loser.

So sell the property and save money. How is this a loser?

I’ll say it again - the dems are reaping what they sowed.

Look at all of the giant hideous federal office buildings with historic designations that can’t be torn down or even modernized much. Who would buy them? Do you know what’s going on in the commercial real estate market these days?

The only rational answer is to send federal employees back to their offices. I’m guessing the White House / OMB / OPM / GSA has thought about this from all sides more than those on this message board.

So the mission of the federal government is to prop up real estate?

[Anonymous]

Bidets trying to take down his own government? We already have thousands of vacancies we can’t fill. Baby boomers will stay, but people with young kids will leave. Women will leave. We don’t want to lose a couple precious hours a day with our kids to a commute. Then boomers will retire and there will be no one. He’s leaving no succession plan for agencies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve met Jeff Zients and he’s as bad as they say, but he’s right about this issue. Empty federal offices is a huge political loser.

No, no one in Iowa or Wisconsin knows or cares. This is grift. This is about making landlords rich

[Anonymous]

We have always been in person or 3 days in the office since the beginning of Covid, I do not expect that to change. Just saying a lot of federal employees have been working in person all along. I hope you all don’t ruin what little flexibility we were able to gain during Covid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is Biden's Chief of Staff. He is carrying out the President's direction here. Sure, he likely had a lot of flexibility in exactly what was said. But people who write him off as "a choad" should realize that this is not some random person ranting. This is direction from the White House.

(Taking no stance whatsoever on the debate over WFH/hybrid/onsite.)

“Direction from the WH”? Sure, but certainly not from “the President”. What a joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who? Am I supposed to know who this person is?

If you are in this town you’ll know who it is

I have no idea who he is either.

Me either and I’ve been living in this city for 33 years.