Parents of small children - how are you managing RTO?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is the crux of it. Too many people who feel they suffered so everyone else must too.
So. Many. Aholes.

But how does an agency balance it with those that can't telework?

I can't telework and I was in person all through covid. Morale for the in person workforce was awful and we constantly lost people who went for telework jobs. I spent $300 in gas alone to get to the office when my coworkers sat at home and complained if they had to come in one day per month to keep the network connection active.

You can't effectively run an agency when 80% of the workforce works at home and gets to live a vastly better life and tell the other 20% to suck it up.

If anyone has a serious answer to this then I'd love to hear it. Saying "suck it up" to the in person workforce isn't the answer.

Its a silly argument if you cannot work from home. My spouse was working from home long before covid. On top of a 60-90 minute commute each way, he has $15 in tolls, gas and we'll have to buy a new car.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At my child’s private school, many families keep their nannies until middle school so that they can pick their children up from school at 3:00, drive them to sports/tutoring/ extracurricular activities and then bring them home and prep dinner by the time the parents get home from work. I don’t see what’s wrong with that.

It makes sense but these are very wealthy families.

I'm friends with a couple who are both Fed attorneys. They have 3 kids and have kept an au pair through middle school. They plan to leave the au pair program once the youngest can drive. They have a gap where all 3 kids will be in 3 different schools for a couple of years, so they need someone to be a driver and do some air traffic control at home. They are not a "wealthy family" in the sense of being wealthier than many of the federal employees posting here.

That is a very wealthy family. Three kids, three cars, an au pair, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is the crux of it. Too many people who feel they suffered so everyone else must too.
So. Many. Aholes.

But how does an agency balance it with those that can't telework?

I can't telework and I was in person all through covid. Morale for the in person workforce was awful and we constantly lost people who went for telework jobs. I spent $300 in gas alone to get to the office when my coworkers sat at home and complained if they had to come in one day per month to keep the network connection active.

You can't effectively run an agency when 80% of the workforce works at home and gets to live a vastly better life and tell the other 20% to suck it up.

If anyone has a serious answer to this then I'd love to hear it. Saying "suck it up" to the in person workforce isn't the answer.

+1 relatedly, in many workplaces the in-person jobs pay less. These are the bus drivers, police, firefighters, corrections officers, case workers, teachers, solid waste workers, etc. that are actually making society function on a daily basis, not the budget analysts, program managers and administrators that can WFH and whose jobs are important too but not essential.

Perhaps they could restructure payscales to have a second payscale for remote work that is a lower rate.

Most of work done by teachers, garbage collectors, corrections officers, etc., is facilitated by those admin positions, who ensure coverage, pay, insurance, and future planning. They may not need to be onsite every day, but their functions truly are essential.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We pay for pre-care and after-care. It’s wonderful to know that it is there as we need it. If we come home early one day, then just pick the DC up. It’s an expense that gives peace of mind. I don’t want to keep hiring Nannie’s and teens for an hour here or there. I don’t want to keep searching on care.com. We just sucked up and paid for the given spot.

This! It’s a necessary expenditure. It is what it is. Some things are out of your control. We had 5 years of a good run at it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is the crux of it. Too many people who feel they suffered so everyone else must too.
So. Many. Aholes.

But how does an agency balance it with those that can't telework?

I can't telework and I was in person all through covid. Morale for the in person workforce was awful and we constantly lost people who went for telework jobs. I spent $300 in gas alone to get to the office when my coworkers sat at home and complained if they had to come in one day per month to keep the network connection active.

You can't effectively run an agency when 80% of the workforce works at home and gets to live a vastly better life and tell the other 20% to suck it up.

If anyone has a serious answer to this then I'd love to hear it. Saying "suck it up" to the in person workforce isn't the answer.

+1 relatedly, in many workplaces the in-person jobs pay less. These are the bus drivers, police, firefighters, corrections officers, case workers, teachers, solid waste workers, etc. that are actually making society function on a daily basis, not the budget analysts, program managers and administrators that can WFH and whose jobs are important too but not essential.

Perhaps they could restructure payscales to have a second payscale for remote work that is a lower rate.

Most of work done by teachers, garbage collectors, corrections officers, etc., is facilitated by those admin positions, who ensure coverage, pay, insurance, and future planning. They may not need to be onsite every day, but their functions truly are essential.

Those functions as a whole are essential. But there are tons of organizations where 50 people are doing work that could easily be done by 30-35 people. The bloat in public school administration (I don't mean the principals, I mean the people who work for the admin building) is notorious. Like there is a whole department whose job is to select reading programs, pay tons of money for them, implement them, decide they are terrible and need to be gotten rid of, then rinse and repeat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is the crux of it. Too many people who feel they suffered so everyone else must too.
So. Many. Aholes.

But how does an agency balance it with those that can't telework?

I can't telework and I was in person all through covid. Morale for the in person workforce was awful and we constantly lost people who went for telework jobs. I spent $300 in gas alone to get to the office when my coworkers sat at home and complained if they had to come in one day per month to keep the network connection active.

You can't effectively run an agency when 80% of the workforce works at home and gets to live a vastly better life and tell the other 20% to suck it up.

If anyone has a serious answer to this then I'd love to hear it. Saying "suck it up" to the in person workforce isn't the answer.

I'm not really sure what you are asking (I'm promise I'm not being snarky). There are some jobs that have never switched to telework, because they cannot be done remotely. That hasn't changed. Patient care, animal care, lab work, on-site security, on and on. But there are lots of jobs that can be effectively done from a remote workstation at home. Why should someone whose job can be effectively completed off site be forced to commute?

Because those same parents lose their ever-loving minds when their kid's in-person teacher gets a snow day the parent doesn't think they "deserve."

Oh FFS. What a ridiculous generalization. Everyone must pay because you met a ahole parent. Oh well sure sure that make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is the crux of it. Too many people who feel they suffered so everyone else must too.
So. Many. Aholes.

But how does an agency balance it with those that can't telework?

I can't telework and I was in person all through covid. Morale for the in person workforce was awful and we constantly lost people who went for telework jobs. I spent $300 in gas alone to get to the office when my coworkers sat at home and complained if they had to come in one day per month to keep the network connection active.

You can't effectively run an agency when 80% of the workforce works at home and gets to live a vastly better life and tell the other 20% to suck it up.

If anyone has a serious answer to this then I'd love to hear it. Saying "suck it up" to the in person workforce isn't the answer.

I'm not really sure what you are asking (I'm promise I'm not being snarky). There are some jobs that have never switched to telework, because they cannot be done remotely. That hasn't changed. Patient care, animal care, lab work, on-site security, on and on. But there are lots of jobs that can be effectively done from a remote workstation at home. Why should someone whose job can be effectively completed off site be forced to commute?

Because those same parents lose their ever-loving minds when their kid's in-person teacher gets a snow day the parent doesn't think they "deserve."

Oh FFS. What a ridiculous generalization. Everyone must pay because you met a ahole parent. Oh well sure sure that make sense.

It was anecdotal. A lot of people take essential workers for granted and treat them like crap. And complain when they want higher pay, more days off, etc. You should see my neighborhood listserve if the garbage truck doesn't come one day, school is called off, they have to wait at the doctor's office, etc. But all these same people literally cannot imagine having to RTO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is the crux of it. Too many people who feel they suffered so everyone else must too.
So. Many. Aholes.

But how does an agency balance it with those that can't telework?

I can't telework and I was in person all through covid. Morale for the in person workforce was awful and we constantly lost people who went for telework jobs. I spent $300 in gas alone to get to the office when my coworkers sat at home and complained if they had to come in one day per month to keep the network connection active.

You can't effectively run an agency when 80% of the workforce works at home and gets to live a vastly better life and tell the other 20% to suck it up.

If anyone has a serious answer to this then I'd love to hear it. Saying "suck it up" to the in person workforce isn't the answer.

I'm not really sure what you are asking (I'm promise I'm not being snarky). There are some jobs that have never switched to telework, because they cannot be done remotely. That hasn't changed. Patient care, animal care, lab work, on-site security, on and on. But there are lots of jobs that can be effectively done from a remote workstation at home. Why should someone whose job can be effectively completed off site be forced to commute?

Because those same parents lose their ever-loving minds when their kid's in-person teacher gets a snow day the parent doesn't think they "deserve."

Oh FFS. What a ridiculous generalization. Everyone must pay because you met a ahole parent. Oh well sure sure that make sense.

It was anecdotal. A lot of people take essential workers for granted and treat them like crap. And complain when they want higher pay, more days off, etc. You should see my neighborhood listserve if the garbage truck doesn't come one day, school is called off, they have to wait at the doctor's office, etc. But all these same people literally cannot imagine having to RTO.

I don't know the people on your listserv, but it's possible to complain about these things and also respect the people doing the work. Doctors offices notoriously understaff and overbook. The waste management company should have back up staff in case someone gets sick. Of course, in the name of making things efficient, we remove all contingency and then create situations where people complain about the person in front of them instead of the people who really created the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At my child’s private school, many families keep their nannies until middle school so that they can pick their children up from school at 3:00, drive them to sports/tutoring/ extracurricular activities and then bring them home and prep dinner by the time the parents get home from work. I don’t see what’s wrong with that.

It makes sense but these are very wealthy families.

I'm friends with a couple who are both Fed attorneys. They have 3 kids and have kept an au pair through middle school. They plan to leave the au pair program once the youngest can drive. They have a gap where all 3 kids will be in 3 different schools for a couple of years, so they need someone to be a driver and do some air traffic control at home. They are not a "wealthy family" in the sense of being wealthier than many of the federal employees posting here.

That is a very wealthy family. Three kids, three cars, an au pair, etc.

Not wealthy (and not 3 cars) but they did prioritize the care of their children over expensive vacations, cars, and other trivial things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is the crux of it. Too many people who feel they suffered so everyone else must too.
So. Many. Aholes.

But how does an agency balance it with those that can't telework?

I can't telework and I was in person all through covid. Morale for the in person workforce was awful and we constantly lost people who went for telework jobs. I spent $300 in gas alone to get to the office when my coworkers sat at home and complained if they had to come in one day per month to keep the network connection active.

You can't effectively run an agency when 80% of the workforce works at home and gets to live a vastly better life and tell the other 20% to suck it up.

If anyone has a serious answer to this then I'd love to hear it. Saying "suck it up" to the in person workforce isn't the answer.

I don’t know why you were onsite. But some jobs are not amenable to TW. My DH works with classified material so could not TW FT. I sit at a computer and am in Trams meetings and write briefs and orders. Nothing requires me to be onsite. Why should I have to go in just bc he has a job that is not conducive to it? That’s childish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm tired of people like PPs on here who say we were "spoiled" these last few years. Bullsh*t. We were finally coming closer to having better work situations for families with two working parents. It's not spoiled. It's more practical and better for the whole family, including kids, who most people claim to care so much about.

This is a step backward. Telling people who are upset to put on their big girl panties or similar stupid BS is just ahole behavior. EVERYONE would love flexibility if offered. Of course people with kids don't want to give it up, ESPECIALLY when there is no REAL reason they are doing this in terms of quality of work. This is all to hurt the workers so they'll quit. It's backassward and cruel. Don't be a dick about it.

I am not your boss who made the RTO call, just trying to help by coming up with some childcare options. If you are so angry just go find another job, and stop seeing random internet posters as your enemy. In reality, no one cares.

If you don’t care then why post. The OP was asking ppl who are returning to the office how they are coping with young kids. Now if you are already in the office or don’t have kids or whatever then this doesn’t have much to do with you. OP didn’t ask for your sympathy. She asked others who are in a similar position how they are coping.

And people may respond as they see fit, within the confines of DCUM’s very liberal TOS, much to your, and OP’s, apparent chagrin. Shrug.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Others are managing RTO without a village just like any other parents who work in person and don’t have a village. Having kids always has been a sacrifice for most people. You just had a reprieve for a few years.

A lot of child care centers decreased their hours and enrollment during the pandemic for safety reasons and haven’t been able to staff up to increase back to pre pandemic enrollment.

Parenthood has always been difficult, but I’ll put money on this delightful remark having come from someone ignorant to the fact that there is a dwindling supply of child care.

It’s not a dwindling supply but increased cost. I’m actually sympathetic to the RTO side because it’s apparent even in my own work (private) that full time WFH does not work, but something needs to be done about the cost of childcare. I pay exactly double an hour for a nanny that I did pre-pandemic. Double! And I’m not DCUM wealthy. The people saying “suck it up” paid $16 for a nanny just 5 years and have no idea what parents are up against. And if you complain about what nannies cost (more than many nurses make) people accuse you of abusing your employees. Parents can’t win.

But that’s the problem. You don’t need a “nanny.” Private in home childcare is a premium service. If you can’t afford it, you don’t get it. You use group childcare that you can afford. Yes, it will be less convenient for you. That’s OK. Yes, it may mean your kid doesn’t do extracurriculars every day after school that require transportation. That’s OK too. Locate your adult pants, pull them up and get on with it.

Spoken like someone who is either childless or has 1 kid.

That was me and you are hilariously wrong. I have multiple kids, from ES to a freshman in college. Good try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Others are managing RTO without a village just like any other parents who work in person and don’t have a village. Having kids always has been a sacrifice for most people. You just had a reprieve for a few years.

A lot of child care centers decreased their hours and enrollment during the pandemic for safety reasons and haven’t been able to staff up to increase back to pre pandemic enrollment.

Parenthood has always been difficult, but I’ll put money on this delightful remark having come from someone ignorant to the fact that there is a dwindling supply of child care.

It’s not a dwindling supply but increased cost. I’m actually sympathetic to the RTO side because it’s apparent even in my own work (private) that full time WFH does not work, but something needs to be done about the cost of childcare. I pay exactly double an hour for a nanny that I did pre-pandemic. Double! And I’m not DCUM wealthy. The people saying “suck it up” paid $16 for a nanny just 5 years and have no idea what parents are up against. And if you complain about what nannies cost (more than many nurses make) people accuse you of abusing your employees. Parents can’t win.

But that’s the problem. You don’t need a “nanny.” Private in home childcare is a premium service. If you can’t afford it, you don’t get it. You use group childcare that you can afford. Yes, it will be less convenient for you. That’s OK. Yes, it may mean your kid doesn’t do extracurriculars every day after school that require transportation. That’s OK too. Locate your adult pants, pull them up and get on with it.

Spoken like someone who is either childless or has 1 kid.

The number of kids is your choice. You need to figure it out.

Lol the childless HOA president with 12 cats over here is here to lecture us on life choices 😂

Aren’t you embarrassed to be so loud and so wrong? You should be.

[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:I am a mom who managed this problem pre covid. It's not that I want more women to be miserable. I agree that flexibility is priceless for working families and I also agree that RTO will have the largest negative impact on women and that is sad.

But I am also annoyed at how clueless and entitled some of these posts are! This is a common problem that until very recently we all dealt with. It's not a unique attack on you. You can figure it out.

I also agree with the poster who said people used to prioritize commute when buying a home. I recall making a test drive to pick my kids up and drive by our potential new home to see what that would be like before putting in an offer. We didnt put offers in to houses that had more difficult commutes. Even if we loved the space the daily reality of needing to pick up kids and get to from the office was most important.

Sorry it's changing abruptly but not sorry you can't understand that this is life.

So we should all give up are low mortgage rates and buy homes closer in (since there is an abundance of homes on the market and it the COL in DC is so reasonable). Plus uproot our kids from their schools, activities and friends. What a short sighted comment

You made a decision that fit your situation at that time. But it wasn't smart to not plan for a change in situation. The situation has changed so yes you have to pivot. A low mortgage rate on a house located inconveniently isn't a positive thing.

Ohh geese guess I should have used my
Magic 8 ball ten years ago to know this was coming…silly me to think it was smart to have a family and buy a home!

Literally this is real life! You dont need to know what the change may be but you need to anticipate that family and work obligations shift with time. Assuming what you had at time of home purchase was a life long guarantee is very short sighted. Adults understand contingency plans. It's not fun or pleasant but it is real life. If you chose to have kids you should have expected that to alter your commuting or working abilities in some ways.

Your earlier assertion was that individuals should be able to pivot on a whim, as if selling and buying a new home or relocating children is a trivial matter. You also seem to suggest that there shouldn't be any complaints about returning to the office (RTO) b/c every adult must have their entire life meticulously planned out, accounting for every possible contingency. That reality ain’t possible.

DP. We still have elementary school aged kids and made sure to keep before and after care for our kids all through COVID and beyond because we realized this RTO would potentially be a possibility. I’m sorry if you didn’t plan better. It’s not an expense that we wanted but are thankful to still have it, tens of thousands of dollars later. We bought our home knowing we each could commute to office five days a week. We have colleagues that get up at 4 am to make the in person office commute work. There’s going to be no sympathy with this administration if you’re looking for more flexibility. They want you to quit. Either embrace the change and costs or give in to their demands and quit. There’s really no middle ground.

Not all of us commuted to the office 5 days a week pre covid. Majority of federal government employees were on a hybrid schedule.

So you've been more fortunate than most for a longer time. Can you understand why the complaining isn't getting sympathy?

No actually. Part of the reason I chose to work in my agency and not in a law firm was because it allowed me to have a hybrid schedule. I wanted a job where I didn’t have to commute into DC five days a week. Same with my husband. We made our life decisions (such as the decision to have three kids) based on our work schedules. Get it?

And apparently assumed, for some bizarre reason, that it would stay exactly the same in perpetuity until retirement. Your mistake.

+1. I can’t even with this.

Why not. It’s part of the benefit package that they advertise when you get hired: healthcare, dental benefits, paid leave depending on years of service and flexible work options. We make less but have better benefits.

It’s not “part of the benefit package” that your job and responsibilities and situation will remain exactly the same your entire career. Have you ever even had another job besides your Fed job? It doesn’t sound like it. Jobs, job situations, job duties, bosses, coworkers, and other aspects of your job are not promised and not forever. If you think you can find a different job that promises you full telework and full job security forever, you should definitely take it.

Even if it is part of the benefit package, benefits change. I’ve had employers move from pensions to 401ks, change health insurance carriers and plans, increase premiums, add transit accounts, take away long term care insurance, move to “unlimited” PTO, add telework, reduce telework, rework comp days. A federal government job is more stable than most private sector one, but nothing is guaranteed.

For decades, we’ve heard feds smugly claim how underpaid they are vis-a-vis what they could be making in the private sector, but that they endure because of their morally superior sense of duty and service. Meanwhile, we hear about the million-dollar (+) close-in homes you live in, and the more evolved vacations you take because you are better with money than we are.

I think a good part of America is struggling to understand why there is now so much panic about forks and RIFs and RTO, if you were making such a mission-driven sacrifice in the first place. Why not take one of these plentiful private sector jobs that you were oh-so-qualified for but didn’t take? Or why your dedication to public service is gone now that you have to put your kids in daycare and commute during rush hour like the rest of us?

Was it really moral superiority, or did you just have a good deal, and now that that deal is gone, you’re facing the same trade-offs that the rest of America faces?

I see. Your benefits suck and you want everyone to be miserable like you.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a mom who managed this problem pre covid. It's not that I want more women to be miserable. I agree that flexibility is priceless for working families and I also agree that RTO will have the largest negative impact on women and that is sad.

But I am also annoyed at how clueless and entitled some of these posts are! This is a common problem that until very recently we all dealt with. It's not a unique attack on you. You can figure it out.

I also agree with the poster who said people used to prioritize commute when buying a home. I recall making a test drive to pick my kids up and drive by our potential new home to see what that would be like before putting in an offer. We didnt put offers in to houses that had more difficult commutes. Even if we loved the space the daily reality of needing to pick up kids and get to from the office was most important.

Sorry it's changing abruptly but not sorry you can't understand that this is life.

So we should all give up are low mortgage rates and buy homes closer in (since there is an abundance of homes on the market and it the COL in DC is so reasonable). Plus uproot our kids from their schools, activities and friends. What a short sighted comment

You made a decision that fit your situation at that time. But it wasn't smart to not plan for a change in situation. The situation has changed so yes you have to pivot. A low mortgage rate on a house located inconveniently isn't a positive thing.

Ohh geese guess I should have used my
Magic 8 ball ten years ago to know this was coming…silly me to think it was smart to have a family and buy a home!

Literally this is real life! You dont need to know what the change may be but you need to anticipate that family and work obligations shift with time. Assuming what you had at time of home purchase was a life long guarantee is very short sighted. Adults understand contingency plans. It's not fun or pleasant but it is real life. If you chose to have kids you should have expected that to alter your commuting or working abilities in some ways.

Your earlier assertion was that individuals should be able to pivot on a whim, as if selling and buying a new home or relocating children is a trivial matter. You also seem to suggest that there shouldn't be any complaints about returning to the office (RTO) b/c every adult must have their entire life meticulously planned out, accounting for every possible contingency. That reality ain’t possible.

DP. We still have elementary school aged kids and made sure to keep before and after care for our kids all through COVID and beyond because we realized this RTO would potentially be a possibility. I’m sorry if you didn’t plan better. It’s not an expense that we wanted but are thankful to still have it, tens of thousands of dollars later. We bought our home knowing we each could commute to office five days a week. We have colleagues that get up at 4 am to make the in person office commute work. There’s going to be no sympathy with this administration if you’re looking for more flexibility. They want you to quit. Either embrace the change and costs or give in to their demands and quit. There’s really no middle ground.

Not all of us commuted to the office 5 days a week pre covid. Majority of federal government employees were on a hybrid schedule.

So you've been more fortunate than most for a longer time. Can you understand why the complaining isn't getting sympathy?

No actually. Part of the reason I chose to work in my agency and not in a law firm was because it allowed me to have a hybrid schedule. I wanted a job where I didn’t have to commute into DC five days a week. Same with my husband. We made our life decisions (such as the decision to have three kids) based on our work schedules. Get it?

And apparently assumed, for some bizarre reason, that it would stay exactly the same in perpetuity until retirement. Your mistake.

+1. I can’t even with this.

Why not. It’s part of the benefit package that they advertise when you get hired: healthcare, dental benefits, paid leave depending on years of service and flexible work options. We make less but have better benefits.

It’s not “part of the benefit package” that your job and responsibilities and situation will remain exactly the same your entire career. Have you ever even had another job besides your Fed job? It doesn’t sound like it. Jobs, job situations, job duties, bosses, coworkers, and other aspects of your job are not promised and not forever. If you think you can find a different job that promises you full telework and full job security forever, you should definitely take it.

Even if it is part of the benefit package, benefits change. I’ve had employers move from pensions to 401ks, change health insurance carriers and plans, increase premiums, add transit accounts, take away long term care insurance, move to “unlimited” PTO, add telework, reduce telework, rework comp days. A federal government job is more stable than most private sector one, but nothing is guaranteed.

For decades, we’ve heard feds smugly claim how underpaid they are vis-a-vis what they could be making in the private sector, but that they endure because of their morally superior sense of duty and service. Meanwhile, we hear about the million-dollar (+) close-in homes you live in, and the more evolved vacations you take because you are better with money than we are.

I think a good part of America is struggling to understand why there is now so much panic about forks and RIFs and RTO, if you were making such a mission-driven sacrifice in the first place. Why not take one of these plentiful private sector jobs that you were oh-so-qualified for but didn’t take? Or why your dedication to public service is gone now that you have to put your kids in daycare and commute during rush hour like the rest of us?

Was it really moral superiority, or did you just have a good deal, and now that that deal is gone, you’re facing the same trade-offs that the rest of America faces?

TLDR: "I can't have flexibility so nobody can have flexibility"

In reality, it's that this crop of workers has never needed to be flexible themselves, and now they can't flex their brain to adapt to a changing environment. I highly recommend the book "Who Moved My Cheese?"

This isn’t the own you think it is. They tried to starve the mice out for sport. Seems accurate.

It was a research exercise. The ones who realized they needed to look elsewhere for the cheese were most successful. But you'd rather stand still pouting and saying how unfair it is. Starve then.

You know who else did research exercises on humans right?

Again, this isn’t the own you think it is.

Oops. Godwin’s Law. You lose.