RTO and No Childcare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s not a lack of childcare that’s the problem; it’s that these women want to have it both ways. They don’t want to pay anyone else to watch their children, they prefer to fleece their employers.

I find it odd that your sympathies lie with the capitalists. I dare say your ire and indignation are misplaced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not a lack of childcare that’s the problem; it’s that these women want to have it both ways. They don’t want to pay anyone else to watch their children, they prefer to fleece their employers.

I find it odd that your sympathies lie with the capitalists. I dare say your ire and indignation are misplaced.

They are clueless. RTO often requires extra hours of childcare. That’s the issue. It’s not that I don’t want childcare. I employ a nanny. I don’t want to pay her an extra $400 a week so I can I can sit in a conference room alone on Teams.

[Anonymous]

I probably won't have to get additional childcare. But that commute time and lack of flexibility would mean fewer days just working through while kid or I'm sick and less flexing around school activities and such. You're almost certainly going to lose productivity from me. It's just dumb.

[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?

THANK YOU. My husband and I are both pretty specialized and have to go where the work is, rather than being able to find jobs wherever we want to live. We lived in an apartment near my job for a long time, while he commuted 3 hours a day 2-3 days a week and teleworked the other days. Then he got a tenure track job that requires teaching in person most days, so we moved and I commuted 3 hours half the days until I was hired into a remote classified position. That's the only way we've both managed to be "close to work." But if my remote position gets reclassified, I'll be commuting 4-5 hours a day due to my employing office's location.

And no, we can't afford for me to quit, nor would my dinky fed salary and equity on our townhouse pay for us to buy anything close to DC on one income. We tried! We really, really tried.

[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.

What do you on your days in the office?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I probably won't have to get additional childcare. But that commute time and lack of flexibility would mean fewer days just working through while kid or I'm sick and less flexing around school activities and such. You're almost certainly going to lose productivity from me. It's just dumb.

I highly doubt they will get rid of telework entirely. I think we'll just see stricter enforcement of the 3 day/week RTO policy that the Biden administration made.

[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.

Also apparently thinking people only work with people physically in their own office? In my current job most meetings apart from weekly Teams meetings are with people outside my office and across the country. Even in my past job, which was focused on DC, MD, and VA, most of my meetings were with people *in other offices.* It's even saved time and money to meet with DC-based contractors virtually instead of leaving an hour early to drive through the city and search for parking, or pay $200/hr for each contractor to drive and park at our office. (We do meet in person but it doesnt have to be every time anymore.) Teams meetings are so much better than conference calls, and don't take half a day like a lot of in person meetings.

[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.

lol! If you have multiple kids that need childcare, the total could easily be $5,000 to $6,000 a month. How much do you think teachers make?

[Anonymous]

If people were not abusing WFH this wouldn’t be an issue. But know people like me, who follows every rule, have to go to the office because other people are not following the rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I probably won't have to get additional childcare. But that commute time and lack of flexibility would mean fewer days just working through while kid or I'm sick and less flexing around school activities and such. You're almost certainly going to lose productivity from me. It's just dumb.

I highly doubt they will get rid of telework entirely. I think we'll just see stricter enforcement of the 3 day/week RTO policy that the Biden administration made.

+1 There is no space to bring everyone back everyday. It will probably go back to preCoVID telework policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If people were not abusing WFH this wouldn’t be an issue. But know people like me, who follows every rule, have to go to the office because other people are not following the rules.

No way. It’s because of commercial real estate. We are in the stage where we have to pretend the real estate is necessary. Technology infrastructure changed the workforce but it takes time for the structure of work to catch up.

There were likely many people and companies who couldn’t adopt the assembly line even though it’s a more efficient means of production. They likely had many reasons as to why workers should not use an assembly line. Some of these reasons are legit but not worth the efficiencies from using an assembly line.

It is going to take time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Np, and I told a coworker last week that I suspected lack of childcare as the real reason many are flipping out over RTO. I also suspect some are working two jobs.

I think a lot of people are working two jobs. Like, a lot.

I suspect this in my company as well. My company went fully remote during covid and gave up most of its office space in the headquarter lease renewal so we couldn't even all fit if we RTOed (6 floors down to 1). My team is 3/4 Gen Z or very young millennials, none of who have kids. But they all have multiple pets and they have all made it very clear they cannot go RTO because their pets would be at home all day. I am not the lead manager so it's not my circus to manage but I have been pretty stunned at their resistance to any in person meetings (we usually have 1 a quarter) when it clearly isn't a child care issue at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Np, and I told a coworker last week that I suspected lack of childcare as the real reason many are flipping out over RTO. I also suspect some are working two jobs.

I think a lot of people are working two jobs. Like, a lot.

I suspect this in my company as well. My company went fully remote during covid and gave up most of its office space in the headquarter lease renewal so we couldn't even all fit if we RTOed (6 floors down to 1). My team is 3/4 Gen Z or very young millennials, none of who have kids. But they all have multiple pets and they have all made it very clear they cannot go RTO because their pets would be at home all day. I am not the lead manager so it's not my circus to manage but I have been pretty stunned at their resistance to any in person meetings (we usually have 1 a quarter) when it clearly isn't a child care issue at all.

+1 I worked with remote workers at my former agency who were impossible to get in touch with and did nothing for weeks. My supervisor was shocked at how much work I was getting done, and it was just because I was actually working and doing my job! I don't know how to fix it, but it's broken. Maybe we do need a restart. Figuring out the childcare is going to suck though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our kid has been working from home since well before Covid. When she and her husband decided to have kids they lined up child care first - the grandparents when the kids were babies and a preschool/daycare once they were toddlers. It never occurred to her for a second that she could watch her kids at home herself and work at the same time. It’s not fair to anyone involved.

Time to return to reality, ladies.

Ugh this is such sexist garbage. As PPs have explained the issue isn’t people trying to WAH with a toddler. It’s tacking on the commuting hours to the workday which = needing even more childcare (this is essentially a sudden pay cut — after care for 2 kids can be $700+ per month).

Also my DH works in private sector IT. He and many other *men* (and women) in his field are fully remote. My DH has enjoyed the work/life balance and being home to coach the kids sports after school, he helps cook dinner, etc.

So it’s not just “ladies” who care about being around for their kids. Sorry your daughter couldn’t find a better father for her kids if you think this way.

“Couldn’t find a better father?” Really? That is so rude and uncalled for.

Sorry your husband might be out of a job in IT and actually have to work? So many people I know in tech and IT are getting laid off and those who finally found new roles have a rude awakening. One friend a PhD / MD but in biotech was laid off and is now complaining that he can’t pick his kids up at 3 and be done for the day, he now has to actually work!

Many people don’t have that same reality- talk to teachers, nurses, health aides, lawyers, etc, who have to be in the office or hospital. They actually work when they are meant to instead of having “work / life balance” and go do the grocery run in the middle of the day?

Also it was your choice to live where you are living I am kind of sick of this commute business. I grew up
In a small town with mediocre schools so I could be close to my mom’s work. I worked hard and got myself into a good college. You don’t need a McMansion an hour from your job and if that’s what you want good for you but then stop complaining about the commute.

My husband and I live in a small house and we can both walk or bike to work. Our child is in a good school although if we moved out the public schools are considered “better” but we made our choice.

If you aren’t happy with what is on offer then get a new job. It’s a two way street.

I know I'm a million pages behind, but this comparison right here is not the same. Aside from lawyers (many of whom I know work from home and have flexible schedules and are also compensated very well), teachers, nurses and health aides have pretty flexible schedules. My school district has days off all the time (not including summer), and the parking lot is empty 20 minutes after school is over. This is nothing against teachers, but the argument here is 50 hours/week in the office with long commutes on both sides. We need to compare apples to apples here which this is not doing.

[Anonymous]

I may be the exception, but on my in office days, I’m often expected to attend meetings in person. These meetings could be done remotely, but there is a desire to encourage collegiality. I’m fine with that, but my office is a 30 minute walk from the main building where meetings are held. I regularly spend 1-2 hours a day walking back and forth to meetings. (One day each month they hold one of the meetings in my buildings to save us the walk. But we have a mandatory meeting in the main building the same day, so I walk to the main building, walk back for the meeting in my building, and then frequently walk back to the main building for various other meetings.). I enjoy the walk, but it does make it very difficult for me to meet my deadlines. They can pay me to do more walking back and forth, but it doesn’t seem like government efficiency. (No, there is no shuttle.)