Is there anything they can’t ruin?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that a call for 9-5 has so many in a panic when to me it seems like a basic requirement and a very simple way to simplify all the inefficiencies of everyone's tweaked schedules.

Every time a parent posts that RTO is causing child care issues someone responds that back in the 90’s, they used to stagger schedules with their spouse so one spouse went in 7-3:30 and the other went in 930-600. But you can’t do that with 9-5 required for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get it. This was what it was like when I had my kids in the late 2000s.

I call BS. USG has had flex schedules for much longer than that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that a call for 9-5 has so many in a panic when to me it seems like a basic requirement and a very simple way to simplify all the inefficiencies of everyone's tweaked schedules.

Are you for real, that you don’t see any logistical or efficiency problems with an entire building of 3000 employees arriving and departing all at the same time?

Clowns.

[Anonymous]

They want you to self-RIF.

The punitive aspect of having everyone work rigid 9-5 hours is so obviously NOT for efficiency, but rather meant to punish and “traumatize,” it’ll be a helpful data point in the many lawsuits against the administration.

[Anonymous]

I work for a large corporation and I have never had a set schedule. Never. And the people who report to me- I barely know what their arrival and departure is. I hire adults.

This mandatory 9-5 is because they want people to quit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get it. This was what it was like when I had my kids in the late 2000s.

I call BS. USG has had flex schedules for much longer than that.

Also I guess OP doesn't expect any progress in 20 years but I sure do. Times have changed, we now know for a fact much work can be done remotely with no loss of productivity or even with a gain in productivity. It is completely justifiable to be angry that things are going back to the way they were in the 2000s.

PP, do you work a 12 hour/6 day schedule? That's what it was like for all workers when my great-grandpa was in the workforce. Why are you OK reaping the benefits of progress from his era but it's unreasonable for us to want to reap the benefits of progress of our era?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get it. This was what it was like when I had my kids in the late 2000s.

For me as well. However, times have changed. And the fact that you don't recognize that is kind of concerning. We can't be stuck in the past. In the olden days I also had a desktop computer. Now I have a laptop and I have security features on my laptop that allow me to work anywhere and my data is secure. If we have that technology, why shouldn't we use it? Why go in and out to an office and waste gas and pollute the air just because some people think we should be back in the 1980s.

[Anonymous]

Flexibility is better for everyone involved, including employers. However I do not think it helps the dialogue when people are complaining violently about having to be in the office 9 to 5. It just sounds whiny. You either need to do it or find a new job. Acting like being in the office 9 to 5 is some great affront, is just feeding the narrative of entitled workers.

[Anonymous]

This is why, despite economic uncertainty, real estate and rents in DC and close-in suburbs are staying very high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Flexibility is better for everyone involved, including employers. However I do not think it helps the dialogue when people are complaining violently about having to be in the office 9 to 5. It just sounds whiny. You either need to do it or find a new job. Acting like being in the office 9 to 5 is some great affront, is just feeding the narrative of entitled workers.

The problem for most people isn't the 9-5, it's the 7-9 and 5-7 commute, including the half an hour just trying to get into and out of the building. Also, this was sprung on us with four days notice. If you think I sound whiny, well, I think you sound stupid, so I guess we're even.

[Anonymous]

Is everyone going to bum rush the building at 9am?? I just don't see how thousands of cars can park at 8:50-9am, flood the turnstiles and then flood the elevators. Are we all going to wait in lines at the keurigs too? Currently there's only a rush at 6:30, 7, 7:30, 8, 8:30 and a very tiny amount of people at 9. Who comes into work that late (other than west coast offices!)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Flexibility is better for everyone involved, including employers. However I do not think it helps the dialogue when people are complaining violently about having to be in the office 9 to 5. It just sounds whiny. You either need to do it or find a new job. Acting like being in the office 9 to 5 is some great affront, is just feeding the narrative of entitled workers.

No one is complaining about working the correct number of hours. They're complaining about rigid hours. Most of us have set our whole lives up around working 8-4 or whatever. My kids have tons of 5pm activities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is everyone going to bum rush the building at 9am?? I just don't see how thousands of cars can park at 8:50-9am, flood the turnstiles and then flood the elevators. Are we all going to wait in lines at the keurigs too? Currently there's only a rush at 6:30, 7, 7:30, 8, 8:30 and a very tiny amount of people at 9. Who comes into work that late (other than west coast offices!)?

I think people are going to have to go into the office early. I’m already planning on arriving an hour early and reading. I won’t be logging in and working during that hour.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Flexibility is better for everyone involved, including employers. However I do not think it helps the dialogue when people are complaining violently about having to be in the office 9 to 5. It just sounds whiny. You either need to do it or find a new job. Acting like being in the office 9 to 5 is some great affront, is just feeding the narrative of entitled workers.

Childcare takes ages to set up. I used to have to call preschools in early January for spots in September. Changing things midyear is a big issue, no matter what you think of 9-5 in general. They should have announced in January for 9-5 starting in September. That would allow daycares to staff up and parents to choose those daycares.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flexibility is better for everyone involved, including employers. However I do not think it helps the dialogue when people are complaining violently about having to be in the office 9 to 5. It just sounds whiny. You either need to do it or find a new job. Acting like being in the office 9 to 5 is some great affront, is just feeding the narrative of entitled workers.

The problem for most people isn't the 9-5, it's the 7-9 and 5-7 commute, including the half an hour just trying to get into and out of the building. Also, this was sprung on us with four days notice. If you think I sound whiny, well, I think you sound stupid, so I guess we're even.

Louder for those in the back.