RTO and No Childcare.

[Anonymous]

I go in now 3X/week and on most of those days meet with no one in person. I have a once-a-week talk with my boss in person, but otherwise we just talk on the phone every day. Everyone else I work with is via zoom or teams. We also have a policy that an 'in-person day' means you must be in the office for 6 hours, but can do an additional 2 hours at home. This completely works for me and I hope it doesn't change. I could manage to come in an additional day per week, although it seems silly.

[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.

No one said you would stop using teams, they said “Many federal employees wouldn’t spend half their day on Teams if everyone was in person.” Many is not all and this is in response to someone saying they currently spend half their day on teams, could that go down in the slightest if some of your colleagues were in person with you?

Honestly the screeching obstinance on this RTO issue comes through loud and clear and is playing into the hands of those who would end all flexibility. You people sound insane and incapable of imagining anything different from what you currently have.

[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.

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.

No one said you would stop using teams, they said “Many federal employees wouldn’t spend half their day on Teams if everyone was in person.” Many is not all and this is in response to someone saying they currently spend half their day on teams, could that go down in the slightest if some of your colleagues were in person with you?

Honestly the screeching obstinance on this RTO issue comes through loud and clear and is playing into the hands of those who would end all flexibility. You people sound insane and incapable of imagining anything different from what you currently have.

The answer is NO. Let me try to explain this to you.

All meetings are now scheduled for Teams. If a single person is in a different location then we use Teams. Because of that, Teams is always included in the meeting invitation.

Ignoring location, Teams allows the sharing of documents. Even if we were all in the same building, we’d want to use Teams for the meeting to facilitate the discussion and exchange of materials.

Additionally Teams has a chat feature we are all used to using during meetings and if also tracks who attends the meeting.

This is why everyone is still using Teams when they are in the office.

[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.

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.

No one said you would stop using teams, they said “Many federal employees wouldn’t spend half their day on Teams if everyone was in person.” Many is not all and this is in response to someone saying they currently spend half their day on teams, could that go down in the slightest if some of your colleagues were in person with you?

Honestly the screeching obstinance on this RTO issue comes through loud and clear and is playing into the hands of those who would end all flexibility. You people sound insane and incapable of imagining anything different from what you currently have.

The answer is NO. Let me try to explain this to you.

All meetings are now scheduled for Teams. If a single person is in a different location then we use Teams. Because of that, Teams is always included in the meeting invitation.

Ignoring location, Teams allows the sharing of documents. Even if we were all in the same building, we’d want to use Teams for the meeting to facilitate the discussion and exchange of materials.

Additionally Teams has a chat feature we are all used to using during meetings and if also tracks who attends the meeting.

This is why everyone is still using Teams when they are in the office.

So I think the answer is that we need to get rid of Teams, right?

[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.

Do men want to have it both ways?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Right. We have to RTO to support commercial real estate and Panera.

We have to work for capitalism, not vice versa.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

No one said you would stop using teams, they said “Many federal employees wouldn’t spend half their day on Teams if everyone was in person.” Many is not all and this is in response to someone saying they currently spend half their day on teams, could that go down in the slightest if some of your colleagues were in person with you?

Honestly the screeching obstinance on this RTO issue comes through loud and clear and is playing into the hands of those who would end all flexibility. You people sound insane and incapable of imagining anything different from what you currently have.

The answer is NO. Let me try to explain this to you.

All meetings are now scheduled for Teams. If a single person is in a different location then we use Teams. Because of that, Teams is always included in the meeting invitation.

Ignoring location, Teams allows the sharing of documents. Even if we were all in the same building, we’d want to use Teams for the meeting to facilitate the discussion and exchange of materials.

Additionally Teams has a chat feature we are all used to using during meetings and if also tracks who attends the meeting.

This is why everyone is still using Teams when they are in the office.

So I think the answer is that we need to get rid of Teams, right?

Definitely and we should get rid of e-mail too!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

No one said you would stop using teams, they said “Many federal employees wouldn’t spend half their day on Teams if everyone was in person.” Many is not all and this is in response to someone saying they currently spend half their day on teams, could that go down in the slightest if some of your colleagues were in person with you?

Honestly the screeching obstinance on this RTO issue comes through loud and clear and is playing into the hands of those who would end all flexibility. You people sound insane and incapable of imagining anything different from what you currently have.

The answer is NO. Let me try to explain this to you.

All meetings are now scheduled for Teams. If a single person is in a different location then we use Teams. Because of that, Teams is always included in the meeting invitation.

Ignoring location, Teams allows the sharing of documents. Even if we were all in the same building, we’d want to use Teams for the meeting to facilitate the discussion and exchange of materials.

Additionally Teams has a chat feature we are all used to using during meetings and if also tracks who attends the meeting.

This is why everyone is still using Teams when they are in the office.

So I think the answer is that we need to get rid of Teams, right?

We should get rid of it because it works...better?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Right. We have to RTO to support commercial real estate and Panera.

We have to work for capitalism, not vice versa.

It's so laughably transparent. Wish the fat cats would pull their money from commercial real estate and dump it into remote tech. Winners.

[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, you haven't been listening. The current DOGE push people are worried about has absolutely nothing to do with this. The qualified RTO Biden's admin has pushed might, but not this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

No one said you would stop using teams, they said “Many federal employees wouldn’t spend half their day on Teams if everyone was in person.” Many is not all and this is in response to someone saying they currently spend half their day on teams, could that go down in the slightest if some of your colleagues were in person with you?

Honestly the screeching obstinance on this RTO issue comes through loud and clear and is playing into the hands of those who would end all flexibility. You people sound insane and incapable of imagining anything different from what you currently have.

The answer is NO. Let me try to explain this to you.

All meetings are now scheduled for Teams. If a single person is in a different location then we use Teams. Because of that, Teams is always included in the meeting invitation.

Ignoring location, Teams allows the sharing of documents. Even if we were all in the same building, we’d want to use Teams for the meeting to facilitate the discussion and exchange of materials.

Additionally Teams has a chat feature we are all used to using during meetings and if also tracks who attends the meeting.

This is why everyone is still using Teams when they are in the office.

So I think the answer is that we need to get rid of Teams, right?

Definitely and we should get rid of e-mail too!

and laptops

[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.

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.

No one said you would stop using teams, they said “Many federal employees wouldn’t spend half their day on Teams if everyone was in person.” Many is not all and this is in response to someone saying they currently spend half their day on teams, could that go down in the slightest if some of your colleagues were in person with you?

Honestly the screeching obstinance on this RTO issue comes through loud and clear and is playing into the hands of those who would end all flexibility. You people sound insane and incapable of imagining anything different from what you currently have.

+1 I can't wait to be able to stand at someone's desk so they can't ignore me after I've messaged and called and emailed for two weeks. I'm so sick of people hiding behind Teams and pretending like they are busy. So much easier to be an a-hole when you don't have to actually encounter a human being.

[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.

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.

No one said you would stop using teams, they said “Many federal employees wouldn’t spend half their day on Teams if everyone was in person.” Many is not all and this is in response to someone saying they currently spend half their day on teams, could that go down in the slightest if some of your colleagues were in person with you?

Honestly the screeching obstinance on this RTO issue comes through loud and clear and is playing into the hands of those who would end all flexibility. You people sound insane and incapable of imagining anything different from what you currently have.

The answer is NO. Let me try to explain this to you.

All meetings are now scheduled for Teams. If a single person is in a different location then we use Teams. Because of that, Teams is always included in the meeting invitation.

Ignoring location, Teams allows the sharing of documents. Even if we were all in the same building, we’d want to use Teams for the meeting to facilitate the discussion and exchange of materials.

Additionally Teams has a chat feature we are all used to using during meetings and if also tracks who attends the meeting.

This is why everyone is still using Teams when they are in the office.

+1

The people saying Teams is going away clearly don’t do any sort of collaborative knowledge work. They hear the word “meeting” and envision a bunch of people sitting around a conference table with legal pads. The reality is no one uses paper anymore and everything is shared through Teams (you can share your screen so everyone can see your presentation, type comments in the chat box, respond to poll questions, upload documents for the group to edit, etc.).

The way we used to do meetings is gone with the dodo regardless of where your butt is planted.

[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.

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.

No one said you would stop using teams, they said “Many federal employees wouldn’t spend half their day on Teams if everyone was in person.” Many is not all and this is in response to someone saying they currently spend half their day on teams, could that go down in the slightest if some of your colleagues were in person with you?

Honestly the screeching obstinance on this RTO issue comes through loud and clear and is playing into the hands of those who would end all flexibility. You people sound insane and incapable of imagining anything different from what you currently have.

+1 I can't wait to be able to stand at someone's desk so they can't ignore me after I've messaged and called and emailed for two weeks. I'm so sick of people hiding behind Teams and pretending like they are busy. So much easier to be an a-hole when you don't have to actually encounter a human being.

If this is a real problem, it doesn't sound like a WFH issue.

[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.

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.

No one said you would stop using teams, they said “Many federal employees wouldn’t spend half their day on Teams if everyone was in person.” Many is not all and this is in response to someone saying they currently spend half their day on teams, could that go down in the slightest if some of your colleagues were in person with you?

Honestly the screeching obstinance on this RTO issue comes through loud and clear and is playing into the hands of those who would end all flexibility. You people sound insane and incapable of imagining anything different from what you currently have.

Honestly, it's the FT RTO people that sound insane. The arguments all boil down to "cuz that's the way it is" and/or "cuz some managers suck at managing".