RTO and No Childcare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

BS. No one gets let go. I'm been on teams with people who literally don't turn on their computers, and the worst I've ever seen happen is supervisory duties are taken away and they are demoted. That's it. No. One. Gets fired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

did men get kicked out for getting a woman pregnant?

[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: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.

BS. No one gets let go. I'm been on teams with people who literally don't turn on their computers, and the worst I've ever seen happen is supervisory duties are taken away and they are demoted. That's it. No. One. Gets fired.

I don't know what to tell you, we literally let 2 people go in my division just last month. We do always offer people the chance to resign before they're fired unless for misconduct, but if you're failing the PAP, you're out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

did men get kicked out for getting a woman pregnant?

I’m truly sorry that you don’t understand basic biology. A pregnancy can actually impact a woman’s ability to do her job, particularly in highly physical jobs such as the military.

If it’s just punishment for a rules violation, a woman is easier to catch (I would think this would be obvious) because… she’s pregnant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They’re probably all off together somewhere, actually working, without having to be distracted by your ranting and raving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

did men get kicked out for getting a woman pregnant?

I’m truly sorry that you don’t understand basic biology. A pregnancy can actually impact a woman’s ability to do her job, particularly in highly physical jobs such as the military.

If it’s just punishment for a rules violation, a woman is easier to catch (I would think this would be obvious) because… she’s pregnant.

You think there are no desk jobs in the military?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

did men get kicked out for getting a woman pregnant?

I’m truly sorry that you don’t understand basic biology. A pregnancy can actually impact a woman’s ability to do her job, particularly in highly physical jobs such as the military.

If it’s just punishment for a rules violation, a woman is easier to catch (I would think this would be obvious) because… she’s pregnant.

True, it’s impossible to reassign someone temporarily due to a physical condition. I’m sure every man in the military was dismissed if he got injured.

[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: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.

They’re probably all off together somewhere, actually working, without having to be distracted by your ranting and raving.

Nope. They're at Target. Or napping. Or putting the baby down. Or at the grocery store. Or running errands. Or throwing a party at their kid's school (I kid you not! Just take leave!). And if you don't think this is happening on a large scale, you haven't worked for the government for long.

If your job is to write reports, research, code, do something that is independent and deadline driven, it is fine to flit in and out and live your life like this. You aren't hurting anyone. But if your job is customer facing - either to the public or internal to an agency - you have to actually be around to do your job.

[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: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.

They’re probably all off together somewhere, actually working, without having to be distracted by your ranting and raving.

Nope. They're at Target. Or napping. Or putting the baby down. Or at the grocery store. Or running errands. Or throwing a party at their kid's school (I kid you not! Just take leave!). And if you don't think this is happening on a large scale, you haven't worked for the government for long.

If your job is to write reports, research, code, do something that is independent and deadline driven, it is fine to flit in and out and live your life like this. You aren't hurting anyone. But if your job is customer facing - either to the public or internal to an agency - you have to actually be around to do your job.

I have been working in the federal government for over a decade and have not seen this at a large scale.

What customer facing role do you have, and how do you know your coworkers are doing these things? Does your manager just not care?

[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: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.

They’re probably all off together somewhere, actually working, without having to be distracted by your ranting and raving.

Nope. They're at Target. Or napping. Or putting the baby down. Or at the grocery store. Or running errands. Or throwing a party at their kid's school (I kid you not! Just take leave!). And if you don't think this is happening on a large scale, you haven't worked for the government for long.

If your job is to write reports, research, code, do something that is independent and deadline driven, it is fine to flit in and out and live your life like this. You aren't hurting anyone. But if your job is customer facing - either to the public or internal to an agency - you have to actually be around to do your job.

I have been working in the federal government for over a decade and have not seen this at a large scale.

What customer facing role do you have, and how do you know your coworkers are doing these things? Does your manager just not care?

No one keeps it a secret! It's common knowledge. I never know when someone is officially in the office or out because there's no difference. Right now, the co-worker I backup is dark on Teams. All day. Is she in? Is she not in? Who knows? This is actually better than my last agency though. One person would take calls from her other job during meetings and not mute. The other one openly admitted to scheduling a class during her work day. These were people who were hired to provide incredibly important intergovernmental services to agency programs - super important to provide good customer service. It took forever to get anything out of them.

What can managers do?!? Of course they care, but it's 200% more work to fire someone in the govt than ask someone else in the group to pick up the slack.

Stop gaslighting people who are having these experiences and fed up with it. It is happening. Maybe not to you but to alot of other people.

[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: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.

They’re probably all off together somewhere, actually working, without having to be distracted by your ranting and raving.

Nope. They're at Target. Or napping. Or putting the baby down. Or at the grocery store. Or running errands. Or throwing a party at their kid's school (I kid you not! Just take leave!). And if you don't think this is happening on a large scale, you haven't worked for the government for long.

If your job is to write reports, research, code, do something that is independent and deadline driven, it is fine to flit in and out and live your life like this. You aren't hurting anyone. But if your job is customer facing - either to the public or internal to an agency - you have to actually be around to do your job.

I have been working in the federal government for over a decade and have not seen this at a large scale.

What customer facing role do you have, and how do you know your coworkers are doing these things? Does your manager just not care?

No one keeps it a secret! It's common knowledge. I never know when someone is officially in the office or out because there's no difference. Right now, the co-worker I backup is dark on Teams. All day. Is she in? Is she not in? Who knows? This is actually better than my last agency though. One person would take calls from her other job during meetings and not mute. The other one openly admitted to scheduling a class during her work day. These were people who were hired to provide incredibly important intergovernmental services to agency programs - super important to provide good customer service. It took forever to get anything out of them.

What can managers do?!? Of course they care, but it's 200% more work to fire someone in the govt than ask someone else in the group to pick up the slack.

Stop gaslighting people who are having these experiences and fed up with it. It is happening. Maybe not to you but to alot of other people.

Gaslighting? I believe that it is happening to you. That's very different than your statement that it is widescale. You are just as gaslighting about those of us that don't have your experience when you say it is common.

[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: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.

They’re probably all off together somewhere, actually working, without having to be distracted by your ranting and raving.

Nope. They're at Target. Or napping. Or putting the baby down. Or at the grocery store. Or running errands. Or throwing a party at their kid's school (I kid you not! Just take leave!). And if you don't think this is happening on a large scale, you haven't worked for the government for long.

If your job is to write reports, research, code, do something that is independent and deadline driven, it is fine to flit in and out and live your life like this. You aren't hurting anyone. But if your job is customer facing - either to the public or internal to an agency - you have to actually be around to do your job.

I have been working in the federal government for over a decade and have not seen this at a large scale.

What customer facing role do you have, and how do you know your coworkers are doing these things? Does your manager just not care?

No one keeps it a secret! It's common knowledge. I never know when someone is officially in the office or out because there's no difference. Right now, the co-worker I backup is dark on Teams. All day. Is she in? Is she not in? Who knows? This is actually better than my last agency though. One person would take calls from her other job during meetings and not mute. The other one openly admitted to scheduling a class during her work day. These were people who were hired to provide incredibly important intergovernmental services to agency programs - super important to provide good customer service. It took forever to get anything out of them.

What can managers do?!? Of course they care, but it's 200% more work to fire someone in the govt than ask someone else in the group to pick up the slack.

Stop gaslighting people who are having these experiences and fed up with it. It is happening. Maybe not to you but to alot of other people.

Then you have bad managers who don’t want to do their jobs. At my agency we have fired poor performers. It takes work, but it can be done and is done.

[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: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.

They’re probably all off together somewhere, actually working, without having to be distracted by your ranting and raving.

Nope. They're at Target. Or napping. Or putting the baby down. Or at the grocery store. Or running errands. Or throwing a party at their kid's school (I kid you not! Just take leave!). And if you don't think this is happening on a large scale, you haven't worked for the government for long.

If your job is to write reports, research, code, do something that is independent and deadline driven, it is fine to flit in and out and live your life like this. You aren't hurting anyone. But if your job is customer facing - either to the public or internal to an agency - you have to actually be around to do your job.

I have been working in the federal government for over a decade and have not seen this at a large scale.

What customer facing role do you have, and how do you know your coworkers are doing these things? Does your manager just not care?

No one keeps it a secret! It's common knowledge. I never know when someone is officially in the office or out because there's no difference. Right now, the co-worker I backup is dark on Teams. All day. Is she in? Is she not in? Who knows? This is actually better than my last agency though. One person would take calls from her other job during meetings and not mute. The other one openly admitted to scheduling a class during her work day. These were people who were hired to provide incredibly important intergovernmental services to agency programs - super important to provide good customer service. It took forever to get anything out of them.

What can managers do?!? Of course they care, but it's 200% more work to fire someone in the govt than ask someone else in the group to pick up the slack.

Stop gaslighting people who are having these experiences and fed up with it. It is happening. Maybe not to you but to alot of other people.

Then you have bad managers who don’t want to do their jobs. At my agency we have fired poor performers. It takes work, but it can be done and is done.

We just generally pay very close attention in the first year probationary period and use that feature.

[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: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.

They’re probably all off together somewhere, actually working, without having to be distracted by your ranting and raving.

Nope. They're at Target. Or napping. Or putting the baby down. Or at the grocery store. Or running errands. Or throwing a party at their kid's school (I kid you not! Just take leave!). And if you don't think this is happening on a large scale, you haven't worked for the government for long.

If your job is to write reports, research, code, do something that is independent and deadline driven, it is fine to flit in and out and live your life like this. You aren't hurting anyone. But if your job is customer facing - either to the public or internal to an agency - you have to actually be around to do your job.

I have been working in the federal government for over a decade and have not seen this at a large scale.

What customer facing role do you have, and how do you know your coworkers are doing these things? Does your manager just not care?

No one keeps it a secret! It's common knowledge. I never know when someone is officially in the office or out because there's no difference. Right now, the co-worker I backup is dark on Teams. All day. Is she in? Is she not in? Who knows? This is actually better than my last agency though. One person would take calls from her other job during meetings and not mute. The other one openly admitted to scheduling a class during her work day. These were people who were hired to provide incredibly important intergovernmental services to agency programs - super important to provide good customer service. It took forever to get anything out of them.

What can managers do?!? Of course they care, but it's 200% more work to fire someone in the govt than ask someone else in the group to pick up the slack.

Stop gaslighting people who are having these experiences and fed up with it. It is happening. Maybe not to you but to alot of other people.

Then you have bad managers who don’t want to do their jobs. At my agency we have fired poor performers. It takes work, but it can be done and is done.

The managers are particularly bad if they aren't protecting you from extra work that might be induced by the coworkers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is 28 pages, and AFAICT not a single pro-RTO person has explained why it is better or necessary to have people commute to an office 5d/week where they will be on virtual calls at least half the time.

I don't know anyone who has no childcare and WFH. That's a strawman. But if you WFH, it's much easier to find and afford childcare since you don't have to account for commuting time.

This is the issue. FT RTO is being proposed solely to punish federal workers, for no other reason. And if you think that private sector employers won't see that they can also use this tactic with impunity (rather than layoffs with severance), you are an idiot.

Lots of people have made arguments, you just disagree with them. That’s fine, but don’t pretend the arguments done exist. I will try to briefly summarize, not to argue big just to clarify: Many federal employees wouldn’t spend half their day on Teams if everyone was in person. They would be interacting with their colleagues and there is arguably some benefit to in person interaction. Also, downtown DC would benefit from a returning federal employee customer base. Finally, there is some benefit to federal managers and leaders who often find it easier to manage in person.

Again, you don’t have to agree with any of these arguments. But don’t pretend that everyone who disagrees with you is entirely mean-spirited or everyone who doesn’t adopt your views an idiot.

I wouldn't call someone an idiot but they are surely misguided. My managers live in NY and Austin. Senior staff live in DC. Junior staff are new remote hires. They'll never be in person in the DMV. Yes, I'd be on teams. I manage contracts ... none of them are in house. My office is in a no mans land where literally one pot belly benefits and it's super gross. (Aside, it's not our job to revitalize DC. Boomers need to adapt and find new ways.)

These arguments are just tired ones that fail to acknowledge reality.

I have childcare 8-5. When commuting I need childcare 7-6:30. When not commuting 8-5. It's not the money. It's the time with my family that counts and I am not interested in rigid thinkers taking it away because they are stuck on how things used to be.

If it's not the money, why don't you live closer to work?

Why don't I care to live near the gross potbelly in SW DC where my kids don't go to school? (And where single family houses aren't really available?) You can't be this bad at debate?