RTO and No Childcare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 And getting in to work can take over an hour. Getting back home isn't quite as bad, but is still a solid 30-40 minutes.

[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:

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.

+1

Ours references changing telework due to something like workload needs. Which is obviously vague and not fully iron proof. However, it does create a requirement to show some sort of rationale related to why the work needs to be done in an office, not just simply “because we want employees to be miserable and quit so we can downsize the government” or for “any reason.”

Also I’m at an agency that isn’t being targeted and that has a production metric with a longstanding history of telework prior to COVID, so I’m hoping we’re not high on the priority list for RTO.

[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?

DP, but many people are in dual income households that have to balance proximity to 2 jobs that may not be right near each other. Or they could have bought their house before getting this job and now don’t want to uproot their kids from their school/friends. Or possibly they want to live somewhere nicer than where their office is. A lot of fed buildings are in some dumpy areas in the hopes that fed employees will revitalize them (has yet to happen). You couldn’t pay me to live right by my office.

I live close-in in a high income zip code, so it’s not an inability to live where I want. It’s that I want to like where I live and I probably won’t stay at this job forever (esp if RTO) so why would I plan my whole life around one office?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other than a few months early in COVID were all daycares shut down. Never in my fed office has it been acceptable to not have daycare. Not sure why folks think they can work AND watch kids. Those are two jobs and you can't do either fully if you're trying to do both at the same time.

How are some of you this stupid?

If you have elementary aged kids (which is the situation most people in this thread are discussing), you generally don’t need to “watch” them when they get home from school - but you do need to be *available* in case there is some sort of emergency. There is absolutely zero reason why a parent can’t work effectively from a home office while their school aged kids play in the next room (or the backyard).

Then they can find a position that is WFH at hire — which clearly most of the endless complainers’ positions were not. The pandemic is over. Pandemic health-relayed concessions are over. Back to the office you go.

You didn’t respond to the point being made. You are incredibly stupid, just like most RTO cheerleaders on this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other than a few months early in COVID were all daycares shut down. Never in my fed office has it been acceptable to not have daycare. Not sure why folks think they can work AND watch kids. Those are two jobs and you can't do either fully if you're trying to do both at the same time.

How are some of you this stupid?

If you have elementary aged kids (which is the situation most people in this thread are discussing), you generally don’t need to “watch” them when they get home from school - but you do need to be *available* in case there is some sort of emergency. There is absolutely zero reason why a parent can’t work effectively from a home office while their school aged kids play in the next room (or the backyard).

I understand your perspective, but it’s important to consider both the legal and practical implications of supervising children while working from home, especially in government roles.

Balancing work and childcare isn’t just a personal decision; it has legal and professional requirements. Telework agreements for government employees explicitly state that appropriate childcare arrangements must be in place while working. It’s illegal to manage both responsibilities simultaneously, whether you're physically supervising or just "listening in." You're expected to fully account for your work hours, with no distractions from other responsibilities.

Childcare While Teleworking: A Professional Expectation
Think of childcare the same way you would if you were in the office: the expectation is that your children are being cared for by someone else. Telework is a convenience, not a substitute for childcare. It was never intended to subsidize your childcare needs but rather to provide flexibility for where you work, not how you manage dual responsibilities.

Age Guidelines and Childcare Needs
8 years and under: Must always be in the care of a responsible person. They should never be left unsupervised in homes, cars, playgrounds, or yards.
9 to 10 years: May be left unsupervised for up to 1.5 hours during daylight and early evening hours.
11 to 12 years: May be left unsupervised for up to 3 hours during daylight and early evening hours.
13 to 15 years: May be left unsupervised for more than 3 hours but not overnight.
16 and older: May be left unsupervised overnight for 1 to 2 days with a plan in place.
These guidelines underscore that children, especially elementary-aged, require supervision. Teleworking doesn’t change that responsibility. For your role to remain compliant and effective, proper childcare arrangements must be in place, ensuring both your productivity and your children’s safety.

Listen, dummy. Y’all don’t get to gaslight us anymore about what’s illegal or ethical when it comes to Federal employment after voting that traitor back into office. Just stop.

“Dummy?” Are you 6? That person is correct. The fact that you don’t like the policy is entirely immaterial.

DP, lifelong Democrat voter, from (Bill) Clinton to Harris

Of course you’re a lifelong Democrat. That’s why you give a single sh!t about a government agency mandating that a damn third grader needs direct adult supervision literally every second of the day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other than a few months early in COVID were all daycares shut down. Never in my fed office has it been acceptable to not have daycare. Not sure why folks think they can work AND watch kids. Those are two jobs and you can't do either fully if you're trying to do both at the same time.

How are some of you this stupid?

If you have elementary aged kids (which is the situation most people in this thread are discussing), you generally don’t need to “watch” them when they get home from school - but you do need to be *available* in case there is some sort of emergency. There is absolutely zero reason why a parent can’t work effectively from a home office while their school aged kids play in the next room (or the backyard).

Then they can find a position that is WFH at hire — which clearly most of the endless complainers’ positions were not. The pandemic is over. Pandemic health-relayed concessions are over. Back to the office you go.

You didn’t respond to the point being made. You are incredibly stupid, just like most RTO cheerleaders on this thread.

They aren't going to be happy when productivity goes down and people are less flexiblle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP, but many people are in dual income households that have to balance proximity to 2 jobs that may not be right near each other. Or they could have bought their house before getting this job and now don’t want to uproot their kids from their school/friends. Or possibly they want to live somewhere nicer than where their office is. A lot of fed buildings are in some dumpy areas in the hopes that fed employees will revitalize them (has yet to happen). You couldn’t pay me to live right by my office.

I live close-in in a high income zip code, so it’s not an inability to live where I want. It’s that I want to like where I live and I probably won’t stay at this job forever (esp if RTO) so why would I plan my whole life around one office?

Most people who live far out either cannot afford it or want a bigger house/different area or spouse/family. My husband job jumps every few years so moving makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In terms of “why not live closer to work,” I’m a fed in a field office. We moved from DC years before the pandemic and I was only required to go to the office 14 hrs a pay period (on two separate days). My husband took a job in a lab and had to be there daily, sometimes nights and weekends, depending on his experiments. So we found a town that was 20 mins for him and 40 mins for me via public transit. Then my office moved (interestingly, pre-pandemic my office moved and another field office moved - both to much cheaper leases - but both had to bridge the gap by requiring about a year of telework) and now my office is 90 mins via public transit. My husband actually works from home now, as do I, but moving would require breaking a low cost lease, leaving a town we’ve loved for 10 years, pulling our children from their school and activities etc. And for what? I’m in northern California, my boss is in DC and my colleague on the project is in southern CA. When the pandemic started my team was in Boston, Chicago and CA (no DC). I would go into the office for my required day and sit by myself or be on zoom.

[Anonymous]

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

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.

childcare costs more than a teacher's salary? that's hard to believe. granted, it might not be worth working for the difference (salary - childcare), but surely childcare does not cost more than a teacher's salary.

[Anonymous]

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

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.

childcare costs more than a teacher's salary? that's hard to believe. granted, it might not be worth working for the difference (salary - childcare), but surely childcare does not cost more than a teacher's salary.

You are so out of touch if you’re shocked by this.

[Anonymous]

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

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.

childcare costs more than a teacher's salary? that's hard to believe. granted, it might not be worth working for the difference (salary - childcare), but surely childcare does not cost more than a teacher's salary.

Young teachers, social workers, nonprofit, yes. Some make $49-60k. Day care is $2-3k. Post taxes, health insurance and all that, not much left for one child, two is more than their pay.

[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.

Someone who is suggesting people will stop using Teams is clueless. Maybe something will replace Teams, but no people will not stop using technology that makes work more efficient and meetings better. Just like we aren’t stopping using emails if we all RTO.

I can’t imagine the ignorance to actually suggest that, but it does make sense why they support or think RTO makes sense. They are clueless about the nature of work.

[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.

This is such an insane comment and I can’t believe someone believes it. You’re clueless about how the nature of work has changed.

No, we wouldn’t stop using Teams. It makes it easier and better to share documents and conduct a meeting. Just like it’s easier and better to share a document via email versus a fax. Do you think we’d all go back to printing out documents and handing them to each other if we RTO? Nope, we’d still use email.

[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.

Someone who is suggesting people will stop using Teams is clueless. Maybe something will replace Teams, but no people will not stop using technology that makes work more efficient and meetings better. Just like we aren’t stopping using emails if we all RTO.

I can’t imagine the ignorance to actually suggest that, but it does make sense why they support or think RTO makes sense. They are clueless about the nature of work.

And my coworkers are not all in the same place so rto will be in different states. We will just be on calls from cubes annoying those around us.

[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.

This is such an insane comment and I can’t believe someone believes it. You’re clueless about how the nature of work has changed.

No, we wouldn’t stop using Teams. It makes it easier and better to share documents and conduct a meeting. Just like it’s easier and better to share a document via email versus a fax. Do you think we’d all go back to printing out documents and handing them to each other if we RTO? Nope, we’d still use email.

99% of my TEAMs usage is "can I braincheck this with you" or "do you remember where the guidance is for this situation". It's work.