RTO and No Childcare.

[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?

Why? So we can go back to a power point projector and people taking hand written notes, then emailing all sorts of attachments later on with file names (e.g. Document 12-3-24 JK Version). Plus trying to keep track of a gazillion different email chains in Outlook (which is awful with search functionality).

The reality is Teams isn’t just for meetings. Once a “team” is made you can create a shared filing system that also has posts (you can have topical posts in which people enter replies to a particular subject in lieu of 50 different email threads), survey links, feedback options, etc. So for instance I have a “team” made for every project I’m on (hence the name) that is actually used for doing work such as communicating and editing.

If you think it’s going away with RTO then it’s clear you don’t even understand this type of work.

[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.

+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.

I’m surprised that so many people on this thread, including federal workers, are thinking about the likely push for RTO as some sort of effort to encourage better collaboration, make sure people aren’t slacking off or even as a way to help the real estate sector.

While we could quibble about those things - as evidenced by the many posts in those threads - those are the typical arguments about in office vs WAH. Their merit likely varies depending on the kind of job you do and the caliber of employees in your office.

My understanding is that RTO wouldn’t be for those reasons. DOGE at least is literally saying they think this is a way to cut federal worker headcount. I think that’s the only real objective and that’s why I find it so concerning, because it’s not about things working better or more effectively, it’s meant to be punitive to get people to quit. So, eg, all the childcare issues are probably seen as a good thing because hey, more people will quit, instead of thinking about in terms of hey, if we are requiring RTO maybe we need more daycare centers in fed bldgs or something.

[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.

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?

I leave when my kids get on the bus at 7:00ish, arrive to the office and an in my seat at 7:45ish. Work until 4:30ish. My kids go to after care. With the added traffic on the way home, usually get them from after-care around 5:30ish. Then either go to an activity or go home and make dinner.

[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.

+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.

I’m surprised that so many people on this thread, including federal workers, are thinking about the likely push for RTO as some sort of effort to encourage better collaboration, make sure people aren’t slacking off or even as a way to help the real estate sector.

While we could quibble about those things - as evidenced by the many posts in those threads - those are the typical arguments about in office vs WAH. Their merit likely varies depending on the kind of job you do and the caliber of employees in your office.

My understanding is that RTO wouldn’t be for those reasons. DOGE at least is literally saying they think this is a way to cut federal worker headcount. I think that’s the only real objective and that’s why I find it so concerning, because it’s not about things working better or more effectively, it’s meant to be punitive to get people to quit. So, eg, all the childcare issues are probably seen as a good thing because hey, more people will quit, instead of thinking about in terms of hey, if we are requiring RTO maybe we need more daycare centers in fed bldgs or something.

That point has been made like 20 times in this thread. We know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+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.

I’m surprised that so many people on this thread, including federal workers, are thinking about the likely push for RTO as some sort of effort to encourage better collaboration, make sure people aren’t slacking off or even as a way to help the real estate sector.

While we could quibble about those things - as evidenced by the many posts in those threads - those are the typical arguments about in office vs WAH. Their merit likely varies depending on the kind of job you do and the caliber of employees in your office.

My understanding is that RTO wouldn’t be for those reasons. DOGE at least is literally saying they think this is a way to cut federal worker headcount. I think that’s the only real objective and that’s why I find it so concerning, because it’s not about things working better or more effectively, it’s meant to be punitive to get people to quit. So, eg, all the childcare issues are probably seen as a good thing because hey, more people will quit, instead of thinking about in terms of hey, if we are requiring RTO maybe we need more daycare centers in fed bldgs or something.

That point has been made like 20 times in this thread. We know.

With the ultimate irony being Musk thinking declining birth rates are a crisis.

[Anonymous]

Yeah we literally do staff meetings and trainings on teams. My phone is through teams. I did an oral argument on Teams once.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+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.

I’m surprised that so many people on this thread, including federal workers, are thinking about the likely push for RTO as some sort of effort to encourage better collaboration, make sure people aren’t slacking off or even as a way to help the real estate sector.

While we could quibble about those things - as evidenced by the many posts in those threads - those are the typical arguments about in office vs WAH. Their merit likely varies depending on the kind of job you do and the caliber of employees in your office.

My understanding is that RTO wouldn’t be for those reasons. DOGE at least is literally saying they think this is a way to cut federal worker headcount. I think that’s the only real objective and that’s why I find it so concerning, because it’s not about things working better or more effectively, it’s meant to be punitive to get people to quit. So, eg, all the childcare issues are probably seen as a good thing because hey, more people will quit, instead of thinking about in terms of hey, if we are requiring RTO maybe we need more daycare centers in fed bldgs or something.

That point has been made like 20 times in this thread. We know.

Right? Enough already. I know why DOGE is cawing about this. But maybe just maybe getting people back into the office will make people more accessible and more accountable for their work and customer service.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+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.

I’m surprised that so many people on this thread, including federal workers, are thinking about the likely push for RTO as some sort of effort to encourage better collaboration, make sure people aren’t slacking off or even as a way to help the real estate sector.

While we could quibble about those things - as evidenced by the many posts in those threads - those are the typical arguments about in office vs WAH. Their merit likely varies depending on the kind of job you do and the caliber of employees in your office.

My understanding is that RTO wouldn’t be for those reasons. DOGE at least is literally saying they think this is a way to cut federal worker headcount. I think that’s the only real objective and that’s why I find it so concerning, because it’s not about things working better or more effectively, it’s meant to be punitive to get people to quit. So, eg, all the childcare issues are probably seen as a good thing because hey, more people will quit, instead of thinking about in terms of hey, if we are requiring RTO maybe we need more daycare centers in fed bldgs or something.

That point has been made like 20 times in this thread. We know.

Right? Enough already. I know why DOGE is cawing about this. But maybe just maybe getting people back into the office will make people more accessible and more accountable for their work and customer service.

I recognize that there are some people on this thread that have discussed unavailable coworkers. If anything, that's a management problem. Deal with your crap employees. But others on this thread (most) have discussed how they are MORE productive with WFH and would have taken a higher paying private sector job if it weren't for WFH (telework or otherwise).

It's not a one-size-fits all solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+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.

I’m surprised that so many people on this thread, including federal workers, are thinking about the likely push for RTO as some sort of effort to encourage better collaboration, make sure people aren’t slacking off or even as a way to help the real estate sector.

While we could quibble about those things - as evidenced by the many posts in those threads - those are the typical arguments about in office vs WAH. Their merit likely varies depending on the kind of job you do and the caliber of employees in your office.

My understanding is that RTO wouldn’t be for those reasons. DOGE at least is literally saying they think this is a way to cut federal worker headcount. I think that’s the only real objective and that’s why I find it so concerning, because it’s not about things working better or more effectively, it’s meant to be punitive to get people to quit. So, eg, all the childcare issues are probably seen as a good thing because hey, more people will quit, instead of thinking about in terms of hey, if we are requiring RTO maybe we need more daycare centers in fed bldgs or something.

That point has been made like 20 times in this thread. We know.

Right? Enough already. I know why DOGE is cawing about this. But maybe just maybe getting people back into the office will make people more accessible and more accountable for their work and customer service.

I recognize that there are some people on this thread that have discussed unavailable coworkers. If anything, that's a management problem. Deal with your crap employees. But others on this thread (most) have discussed how they are MORE productive with WFH and would have taken a higher paying private sector job if it weren't for WFH (telework or otherwise).

It's not a one-size-fits all solution.

It's also not like we haven't hired and fired people who didn't do their jobs since COVID. We've hired some people, they weren't getting their jobs done from home, we let them go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another reason why 1950s America was better.

my mom had to quit her job when she married. She was not allowed to have a credit card in her name until 1972. She was white. It was NOT better in the 1950’s.

My mom was kicked out of the military for getting pregnant. But yeah. It was totally better back then.

[Anonymous]

My team is dispersed all over the US so all of our meetings on on Teams. I do have the 50% in person requirement since I am NBU in DC area and when I go it I am going in just to be on Teams meetings the entire time. I interact with no one from my team in person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+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.

I’m surprised that so many people on this thread, including federal workers, are thinking about the likely push for RTO as some sort of effort to encourage better collaboration, make sure people aren’t slacking off or even as a way to help the real estate sector.

While we could quibble about those things - as evidenced by the many posts in those threads - those are the typical arguments about in office vs WAH. Their merit likely varies depending on the kind of job you do and the caliber of employees in your office.

My understanding is that RTO wouldn’t be for those reasons. DOGE at least is literally saying they think this is a way to cut federal worker headcount. I think that’s the only real objective and that’s why I find it so concerning, because it’s not about things working better or more effectively, it’s meant to be punitive to get people to quit. So, eg, all the childcare issues are probably seen as a good thing because hey, more people will quit, instead of thinking about in terms of hey, if we are requiring RTO maybe we need more daycare centers in fed bldgs or something.

That point has been made like 20 times in this thread. We know.

With the ultimate irony being Musk thinking declining birth rates are a crisis.

Yeah..but Musk thinks the solution is more "geniuses" like him. Not the progeny of the fed workers he holds in disdain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another reason why 1950s America was better.

my mom had to quit her job when she married. She was not allowed to have a credit card in her name until 1972. She was white. It was NOT better in the 1950’s.

My mom was kicked out of the military for getting pregnant. But yeah. It was totally better back then.

This doesn’t seem unreasonable.

[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.

My office does hybrid meetings. People in the office go in person and other can join on Teams/Zoom. Most people try to change their day in the office for the meeting day to attend in person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+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.

I’m surprised that so many people on this thread, including federal workers, are thinking about the likely push for RTO as some sort of effort to encourage better collaboration, make sure people aren’t slacking off or even as a way to help the real estate sector.

While we could quibble about those things - as evidenced by the many posts in those threads - those are the typical arguments about in office vs WAH. Their merit likely varies depending on the kind of job you do and the caliber of employees in your office.

My understanding is that RTO wouldn’t be for those reasons. DOGE at least is literally saying they think this is a way to cut federal worker headcount. I think that’s the only real objective and that’s why I find it so concerning, because it’s not about things working better or more effectively, it’s meant to be punitive to get people to quit. So, eg, all the childcare issues are probably seen as a good thing because hey, more people will quit, instead of thinking about in terms of hey, if we are requiring RTO maybe we need more daycare centers in fed bldgs or something.

That point has been made like 20 times in this thread. We know.

Right? Enough already. I know why DOGE is cawing about this. But maybe just maybe getting people back into the office will make people more accessible and more accountable for their work and customer service.

I recognize that there are some people on this thread that have discussed unavailable coworkers. If anything, that's a management problem. Deal with your crap employees. But others on this thread (most) have discussed how they are MORE productive with WFH and would have taken a higher paying private sector job if it weren't for WFH (telework or otherwise).

It's not a one-size-fits all solution.

It is NOT my job to deal with these people. I'm not a supervisor. I'm just a person trying to get my job done, and everyone else is MIA.