Biden wants RTO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My agency:

Prior to 2020: regular telework up to 4 days per pay period. Anything beyond that required special approval from the Director’s office.

Mar 2020 - Oct 2022: Full remote possible.

Oct 2022 - Oct 2023: Max telework (up to 8 days/pp), remote work available in 4 consecutive 90-day arrangements.

Oct 2023 - forward: Telework capped at 6 days/pp. Remote work can still be requested, but there is a non-consecutive limit. Unclear what happens to those who moved away.

So, while we demonstrated that in-person was not necessary for the mission, the current plan under the Biden memo is better than the Republican plan of completely reverting to the pre-pandemic posture.

Yeah, my agency had a policy that supervisors weren't allowed regular telework at all because "supervision inherently requires being in person." I'll be unbelievably mad if they go back to that after proving that wrong for 3 years, and would be willing to take a pay cut to leave the government. For now I don't like 50% in person, but I may not be able to get a better deal elsewhere, so I'll live with it.

That’s the point of a lot of this. Most of the country is back to the office. Stupid or not, the White House is following everyone else.

Some are, some aren’t. Feds who have been their jobs absolutely fine for three years at home have absolutely zero reason to return to to some building in the district.

It has nothing to do with productivity though. It's all 2024 election driven.

LOL. What? Even less of a reason to take the memo seriously, especially given the thundering silence from agencies in response to Zients publishing it.

Whether you take the memo seriously or not has no bearing on anything. You are nobody just like everyone else here. You do what you are told.

lmao.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My agency:

Prior to 2020: regular telework up to 4 days per pay period. Anything beyond that required special approval from the Director’s office.

Mar 2020 - Oct 2022: Full remote possible.

Oct 2022 - Oct 2023: Max telework (up to 8 days/pp), remote work available in 4 consecutive 90-day arrangements.

Oct 2023 - forward: Telework capped at 6 days/pp. Remote work can still be requested, but there is a non-consecutive limit. Unclear what happens to those who moved away.

So, while we demonstrated that in-person was not necessary for the mission, the current plan under the Biden memo is better than the Republican plan of completely reverting to the pre-pandemic posture.

Yeah, my agency had a policy that supervisors weren't allowed regular telework at all because "supervision inherently requires being in person." I'll be unbelievably mad if they go back to that after proving that wrong for 3 years, and would be willing to take a pay cut to leave the government. For now I don't like 50% in person, but I may not be able to get a better deal elsewhere, so I'll live with it.

That’s the point of a lot of this. Most of the country is back to the office. Stupid or not, the White House is following everyone else.

Some are, some aren’t. Feds who have been their jobs absolutely fine for three years at home have absolutely zero reason to return to to some building in the district.

I am that fed. I never need to go into the office to get my work done. However, I am not blind to the political realities that the federal workforce is already looked at as entitled and overcompensated (whether fair or not) and that this is just another thing that can be used as an attack item. I view Biden’s memo as a protective one against the Rs who really want to shrink the federal workforce. And how better to shrink it than by taking away “perks” like WFH.

I think you are reading it right. That's why I am convinced this is about next year's election, nothing more. Administration is trying to preemptively address politically vulnerable areas - WFH is definitely a liability from Biden's standpoint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My agency:

Prior to 2020: regular telework up to 4 days per pay period. Anything beyond that required special approval from the Director’s office.

Mar 2020 - Oct 2022: Full remote possible.

Oct 2022 - Oct 2023: Max telework (up to 8 days/pp), remote work available in 4 consecutive 90-day arrangements.

Oct 2023 - forward: Telework capped at 6 days/pp. Remote work can still be requested, but there is a non-consecutive limit. Unclear what happens to those who moved away.

So, while we demonstrated that in-person was not necessary for the mission, the current plan under the Biden memo is better than the Republican plan of completely reverting to the pre-pandemic posture.

Yeah, my agency had a policy that supervisors weren't allowed regular telework at all because "supervision inherently requires being in person." I'll be unbelievably mad if they go back to that after proving that wrong for 3 years, and would be willing to take a pay cut to leave the government. For now I don't like 50% in person, but I may not be able to get a better deal elsewhere, so I'll live with it.

That’s the point of a lot of this. Most of the country is back to the office. Stupid or not, the White House is following everyone else.

Some are, some aren’t. Feds who have been their jobs absolutely fine for three years at home have absolutely zero reason to return to to some building in the district.

I am that fed. I never need to go into the office to get my work done. However, I am not blind to the political realities that the federal workforce is already looked at as entitled and overcompensated (whether fair or not) and that this is just another thing that can be used as an attack item. I view Biden’s memo as a protective one against the Rs who really want to shrink the federal workforce. And how better to shrink it than by taking away “perks” like WFH.

I think you are reading it right. That's why I am convinced this is about next year's election, nothing more. Administration is trying to preemptively address politically vulnerable areas - WFH is definitely a liability from Biden's standpoint.

So feds are simply pawns for the administration? At the detriment to the environment? The ill effects on workers’ health? Unions are already pushing back.
Sorry it doesn’t add up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My agency:

Prior to 2020: regular telework up to 4 days per pay period. Anything beyond that required special approval from the Director’s office.

Mar 2020 - Oct 2022: Full remote possible.

Oct 2022 - Oct 2023: Max telework (up to 8 days/pp), remote work available in 4 consecutive 90-day arrangements.

Oct 2023 - forward: Telework capped at 6 days/pp. Remote work can still be requested, but there is a non-consecutive limit. Unclear what happens to those who moved away.

So, while we demonstrated that in-person was not necessary for the mission, the current plan under the Biden memo is better than the Republican plan of completely reverting to the pre-pandemic posture.

Yeah, my agency had a policy that supervisors weren't allowed regular telework at all because "supervision inherently requires being in person." I'll be unbelievably mad if they go back to that after proving that wrong for 3 years, and would be willing to take a pay cut to leave the government. For now I don't like 50% in person, but I may not be able to get a better deal elsewhere, so I'll live with it.

That’s the point of a lot of this. Most of the country is back to the office. Stupid or not, the White House is following everyone else.

Some are, some aren’t. Feds who have been their jobs absolutely fine for three years at home have absolutely zero reason to return to to some building in the district.

I am that fed. I never need to go into the office to get my work done. However, I am not blind to the political realities that the federal workforce is already looked at as entitled and overcompensated (whether fair or not) and that this is just another thing that can be used as an attack item. I view Biden’s memo as a protective one against the Rs who really want to shrink the federal workforce. And how better to shrink it than by taking away “perks” like WFH.

I think you are reading it right. That's why I am convinced this is about next year's election, nothing more. Administration is trying to preemptively address politically vulnerable areas - WFH is definitely a liability from Biden's standpoint.

I think this is right which is why the WH periodically saying “we want more people back in the office” and the agencies saying “yes, we are studying the issue and figuring out the optimal way to maximize engagement” is basically a win-win

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My agency:

Prior to 2020: regular telework up to 4 days per pay period. Anything beyond that required special approval from the Director’s office.

Mar 2020 - Oct 2022: Full remote possible.

Oct 2022 - Oct 2023: Max telework (up to 8 days/pp), remote work available in 4 consecutive 90-day arrangements.

Oct 2023 - forward: Telework capped at 6 days/pp. Remote work can still be requested, but there is a non-consecutive limit. Unclear what happens to those who moved away.

So, while we demonstrated that in-person was not necessary for the mission, the current plan under the Biden memo is better than the Republican plan of completely reverting to the pre-pandemic posture.

Yeah, my agency had a policy that supervisors weren't allowed regular telework at all because "supervision inherently requires being in person." I'll be unbelievably mad if they go back to that after proving that wrong for 3 years, and would be willing to take a pay cut to leave the government. For now I don't like 50% in person, but I may not be able to get a better deal elsewhere, so I'll live with it.

That’s the point of a lot of this. Most of the country is back to the office. Stupid or not, the White House is following everyone else.

Some are, some aren’t. Feds who have been their jobs absolutely fine for three years at home have absolutely zero reason to return to to some building in the district.

I am that fed. I never need to go into the office to get my work done. However, I am not blind to the political realities that the federal workforce is already looked at as entitled and overcompensated (whether fair or not) and that this is just another thing that can be used as an attack item. I view Biden’s memo as a protective one against the Rs who really want to shrink the federal workforce. And how better to shrink it than by taking away “perks” like WFH.

I think you are reading it right. That's why I am convinced this is about next year's election, nothing more. Administration is trying to preemptively address politically vulnerable areas - WFH is definitely a liability from Biden's standpoint.

So feds are simply pawns for the administration? At the detriment to the environment? The ill effects on workers’ health? Unions are already pushing back.
Sorry it doesn’t add up.

In the grand scheme of things, feds are always pawns to the politics. It doesn't matter which party is in power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My agency:

Prior to 2020: regular telework up to 4 days per pay period. Anything beyond that required special approval from the Director’s office.

Mar 2020 - Oct 2022: Full remote possible.

Oct 2022 - Oct 2023: Max telework (up to 8 days/pp), remote work available in 4 consecutive 90-day arrangements.

Oct 2023 - forward: Telework capped at 6 days/pp. Remote work can still be requested, but there is a non-consecutive limit. Unclear what happens to those who moved away.

So, while we demonstrated that in-person was not necessary for the mission, the current plan under the Biden memo is better than the Republican plan of completely reverting to the pre-pandemic posture.

Yeah, my agency had a policy that supervisors weren't allowed regular telework at all because "supervision inherently requires being in person." I'll be unbelievably mad if they go back to that after proving that wrong for 3 years, and would be willing to take a pay cut to leave the government. For now I don't like 50% in person, but I may not be able to get a better deal elsewhere, so I'll live with it.

That’s the point of a lot of this. Most of the country is back to the office. Stupid or not, the White House is following everyone else.

Some are, some aren’t. Feds who have been their jobs absolutely fine for three years at home have absolutely zero reason to return to to some building in the district.

I am that fed. I never need to go into the office to get my work done. However, I am not blind to the political realities that the federal workforce is already looked at as entitled and overcompensated (whether fair or not) and that this is just another thing that can be used as an attack item. I view Biden’s memo as a protective one against the Rs who really want to shrink the federal workforce. And how better to shrink it than by taking away “perks” like WFH.

I think you are reading it right. That's why I am convinced this is about next year's election, nothing more. Administration is trying to preemptively address politically vulnerable areas - WFH is definitely a liability from Biden's standpoint.

So feds are simply pawns for the administration? At the detriment to the environment? The ill effects on workers’ health? Unions are already pushing back.
Sorry it doesn’t add up.

I know you don’t agree but there are many people who believe that working together in an office is better for the work and the workforce, there are lots of organizations sending workers back to the office for the right reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They’re not talking about returning to office all 5 days of the week. Why is everyone losing their $hit over this?

World bank has orders min 4 days/ week. President def want us in 5 days. Insane!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Call J. Jordan’s office

How many hours a week does Gym Jordan work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My agency:

Prior to 2020: regular telework up to 4 days per pay period. Anything beyond that required special approval from the Director’s office.

Mar 2020 - Oct 2022: Full remote possible.

Oct 2022 - Oct 2023: Max telework (up to 8 days/pp), remote work available in 4 consecutive 90-day arrangements.

Oct 2023 - forward: Telework capped at 6 days/pp. Remote work can still be requested, but there is a non-consecutive limit. Unclear what happens to those who moved away.

So, while we demonstrated that in-person was not necessary for the mission, the current plan under the Biden memo is better than the Republican plan of completely reverting to the pre-pandemic posture.

Yeah, my agency had a policy that supervisors weren't allowed regular telework at all because "supervision inherently requires being in person." I'll be unbelievably mad if they go back to that after proving that wrong for 3 years, and would be willing to take a pay cut to leave the government. For now I don't like 50% in person, but I may not be able to get a better deal elsewhere, so I'll live with it.

That’s the point of a lot of this. Most of the country is back to the office. Stupid or not, the White House is following everyone else.

Some are, some aren’t. Feds who have been their jobs absolutely fine for three years at home have absolutely zero reason to return to to some building in the district.

I am that fed. I never need to go into the office to get my work done. However, I am not blind to the political realities that the federal workforce is already looked at as entitled and overcompensated (whether fair or not) and that this is just another thing that can be used as an attack item. I view Biden’s memo as a protective one against the Rs who really want to shrink the federal workforce. And how better to shrink it than by taking away “perks” like WFH.

I think you are reading it right. That's why I am convinced this is about next year's election, nothing more. Administration is trying to preemptively address politically vulnerable areas - WFH is definitely a liability from Biden's standpoint.

Biden’s loser son is more damaging to him politically than Feds working from home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My agency:

Prior to 2020: regular telework up to 4 days per pay period. Anything beyond that required special approval from the Director’s office.

Mar 2020 - Oct 2022: Full remote possible.

Oct 2022 - Oct 2023: Max telework (up to 8 days/pp), remote work available in 4 consecutive 90-day arrangements.

Oct 2023 - forward: Telework capped at 6 days/pp. Remote work can still be requested, but there is a non-consecutive limit. Unclear what happens to those who moved away.

So, while we demonstrated that in-person was not necessary for the mission, the current plan under the Biden memo is better than the Republican plan of completely reverting to the pre-pandemic posture.

Yeah, my agency had a policy that supervisors weren't allowed regular telework at all because "supervision inherently requires being in person." I'll be unbelievably mad if they go back to that after proving that wrong for 3 years, and would be willing to take a pay cut to leave the government. For now I don't like 50% in person, but I may not be able to get a better deal elsewhere, so I'll live with it.

That’s the point of a lot of this. Most of the country is back to the office. Stupid or not, the White House is following everyone else.

Some are, some aren’t. Feds who have been their jobs absolutely fine for three years at home have absolutely zero reason to return to to some building in the district.

I am that fed. I never need to go into the office to get my work done. However, I am not blind to the political realities that the federal workforce is already looked at as entitled and overcompensated (whether fair or not) and that this is just another thing that can be used as an attack item. I view Biden’s memo as a protective one against the Rs who really want to shrink the federal workforce. And how better to shrink it than by taking away “perks” like WFH.

I think you are reading it right. That's why I am convinced this is about next year's election, nothing more. Administration is trying to preemptively address politically vulnerable areas - WFH is definitely a liability from Biden's standpoint.

Biden’s loser son is more damaging to him politically than Feds working from home.

Absolutely. I don’t disagree. But there is nothing he can do about son’s situation politically speaking. WFH, however, he can certainly do something to claim victory. I really don’t think this means going back to pre-Covid days for most. Just enough for him to say “I ended Covid and I brought back Feds back in the office.”

[Anonymous]

Good luck getting my cohorts to RTO. We were never there. We had unlimited WFH long before the pandemic hit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good luck getting my cohorts to RTO. We were never there. We had unlimited WFH long before the pandemic hit.

Well then I guess this won’t apply to you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My agency:

Prior to 2020: regular telework up to 4 days per pay period. Anything beyond that required special approval from the Director’s office.

Mar 2020 - Oct 2022: Full remote possible.

Oct 2022 - Oct 2023: Max telework (up to 8 days/pp), remote work available in 4 consecutive 90-day arrangements.

Oct 2023 - forward: Telework capped at 6 days/pp. Remote work can still be requested, but there is a non-consecutive limit. Unclear what happens to those who moved away.

So, while we demonstrated that in-person was not necessary for the mission, the current plan under the Biden memo is better than the Republican plan of completely reverting to the pre-pandemic posture.

Yeah, my agency had a policy that supervisors weren't allowed regular telework at all because "supervision inherently requires being in person." I'll be unbelievably mad if they go back to that after proving that wrong for 3 years, and would be willing to take a pay cut to leave the government. For now I don't like 50% in person, but I may not be able to get a better deal elsewhere, so I'll live with it.

That’s the point of a lot of this. Most of the country is back to the office. Stupid or not, the White House is following everyone else.

Some are, some aren’t. Feds who have been their jobs absolutely fine for three years at home have absolutely zero reason to return to to some building in the district.

I am that fed. I never need to go into the office to get my work done. However, I am not blind to the political realities that the federal workforce is already looked at as entitled and overcompensated (whether fair or not) and that this is just another thing that can be used as an attack item. I view Biden’s memo as a protective one against the Rs who really want to shrink the federal workforce. And how better to shrink it than by taking away “perks” like WFH.

I think you are reading it right. That's why I am convinced this is about next year's election, nothing more. Administration is trying to preemptively address politically vulnerable areas - WFH is definitely a liability from Biden's standpoint.

So feds are simply pawns for the administration? At the detriment to the environment? The ill effects on workers’ health? Unions are already pushing back.
Sorry it doesn’t add up.

In the grand scheme of things, feds are always pawns to the politics. It doesn't matter which party is in power.

This. So much this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My agency:

Prior to 2020: regular telework up to 4 days per pay period. Anything beyond that required special approval from the Director’s office.

Mar 2020 - Oct 2022: Full remote possible.

Oct 2022 - Oct 2023: Max telework (up to 8 days/pp), remote work available in 4 consecutive 90-day arrangements.

Oct 2023 - forward: Telework capped at 6 days/pp. Remote work can still be requested, but there is a non-consecutive limit. Unclear what happens to those who moved away.

So, while we demonstrated that in-person was not necessary for the mission, the current plan under the Biden memo is better than the Republican plan of completely reverting to the pre-pandemic posture.

Yeah, my agency had a policy that supervisors weren't allowed regular telework at all because "supervision inherently requires being in person." I'll be unbelievably mad if they go back to that after proving that wrong for 3 years, and would be willing to take a pay cut to leave the government. For now I don't like 50% in person, but I may not be able to get a better deal elsewhere, so I'll live with it.

That’s the point of a lot of this. Most of the country is back to the office. Stupid or not, the White House is following everyone else.

Some are, some aren’t. Feds who have been their jobs absolutely fine for three years at home have absolutely zero reason to return to to some building in the district.

I am that fed. I never need to go into the office to get my work done. However, I am not blind to the political realities that the federal workforce is already looked at as entitled and overcompensated (whether fair or not) and that this is just another thing that can be used as an attack item. I view Biden’s memo as a protective one against the Rs who really want to shrink the federal workforce. And how better to shrink it than by taking away “perks” like WFH.

I think you are reading it right. That's why I am convinced this is about next year's election, nothing more. Administration is trying to preemptively address politically vulnerable areas - WFH is definitely a liability from Biden's standpoint.

So feds are simply pawns for the administration? At the detriment to the environment? The ill effects on workers’ health? Unions are already pushing back.
Sorry it doesn’t add up.

I know you don’t agree but there are many people who believe that working together in an office is better for the work and the workforce, there are lots of organizations sending workers back to the office for the right reasons.

Lol. So go in. No one is stopping you but don’t think your dated work values cover everyone.
BTW unions are already starting to push back against this.

[Anonymous]

Letting OPM expand DC's locality pay to areas from which workers can't humanly commute daily to DC is irritating. You can't have your HR agency incentivize workers to live further away while having your WH COS ask to bring everyone back in more often.

You can't invest in and believe in carbon emissions- driven catastrophic climate change, and create a Federal workforce that lives in WV and drives to DC 3-4 days a week.
We need mass transit and we need to live near where we work. The best way to help DC, help the environment, help Fed employees whose purchasing power has fallen off a cliff, is to find ways to help them live in Washington itself.