Biden wants RTO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Federal employee unions have decades of experience protecting federal employees who want to do as little work as possible in the most convenient conditions with no consequences for awful behavior or performance. Of course they are barking about minimal increases in return to the office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know that many of my fellow federal employees don’t want to return to the office but why is it so hard to believe that our leaders are making the same decision as many large companies across the country for mostly the same reasons? Lots of companies returned to the office more 2 years ago, we’re just late to the game.

Poor analogy. Some companies provide $ for commuting time. Will I get the same benefit? No.
Lots of large companies have rightly shifted to permanent WFH btw.

What companies? No company is providing money for commuting time and if you live in West Virginia and get paid like you live in DC then it stands to reason that somewhere you are getting paid for your commuting time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know that many of my fellow federal employees don’t want to return to the office but why is it so hard to believe that our leaders are making the same decision as many large companies across the country for mostly the same reasons? Lots of companies returned to the office more 2 years ago, we’re just late to the game.

Poor analogy. Some companies provide $ for commuting time. Will I get the same benefit? No.
Lots of large companies have rightly shifted to permanent WFH btw.

What companies? No company is providing money for commuting time and if you live in West Virginia and get paid like you live in DC then it stands to reason that somewhere you are getting paid for your commuting time.

+1. My company’s US HQ is in SF and employees in/around SF are required to be hybrid. Employees close to other offices do not have the same requirement but my company pays our SF employees with one pay scale and employees anywhere else in the US with a different pay scale. But my company is becoming an outlier in tech because it hasn’t asked employees to go hybrid. Most text companies are hybrid and most financial institutions are in office five days. Companies that are located in undesirable locations are being more flexible with certain difficult to fill roles but I’m seeing a lot of those companies require a few days each quarter in the office. FWIW, I’m also seeing this at nonprofits and foundations. It’s reasonable for the federal government to expect at least a few days in office each quarter or a more hybrid work schedule, especially for people managers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden has no clue what he wants.

He needs votes and money for the election.

He’s not getting mine if they force RTO.

You gonna vote for Trump now? Talk about selfish.

You’ll go back to an office under Trump too..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden has no clue what he wants.

He needs votes and money for the election.

He’s not getting mine if they force RTO.

You gonna vote for Trump now? Talk about selfish.

You’ll go back to an office under Trump too..

I highly doubt angry Biden voters would vote for DT because of RTO. I just don't see that. What I think it may happen is disappointed fed voters not voting in 2024. Given how close recent elections have been, every vote will count.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know that many of my fellow federal employees don’t want to return to the office but why is it so hard to believe that our leaders are making the same decision as many large companies across the country for mostly the same reasons? Lots of companies returned to the office more 2 years ago, we’re just late to the game.

Poor analogy. Some companies provide $ for commuting time. Will I get the same benefit? No.
Lots of large companies have rightly shifted to permanent WFH btw.

What companies? No company is providing money for commuting time and if you live in West Virginia and get paid like you live in DC then it stands to reason that somewhere you are getting paid for your commuting time.

+1. My company’s US HQ is in SF and employees in/around SF are required to be hybrid. Employees close to other offices do not have the same requirement but my company pays our SF employees with one pay scale and employees anywhere else in the US with a different pay scale. But my company is becoming an outlier in tech because it hasn’t asked employees to go hybrid. Most text companies are hybrid and most financial institutions are in office five days. Companies that are located in undesirable locations are being more flexible with certain difficult to fill roles but I’m seeing a lot of those companies require a few days each quarter in the office. FWIW, I’m also seeing this at nonprofits and foundations. It’s reasonable for the federal government to expect at least a few days in office each quarter or a more hybrid work schedule, especially for people managers.

+1 as a former fed I’m constantly surprised at how out of step feds are about the rest of the workforce. Most of the workforce around the country went back to the office most of the time a year or two ago, feds are expected to go in once or twice a week now and somehow feel like life isn’t fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

The locality pay exansion was the benefit federal employees who WORK in federal agencies those outskirt areas, not employees who work close to DC bu want to work from home and stil receive DC locality pay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a bad move. I'm a DOJ attorney, and constantly evaluating my private sector options. If WFH is reduced, I'll go with the money, understanding that I am being paid more and going in at least as often.

And the DOJ will replace you in a heartbeat. Bye!

Same, we have all of these people in their 60s and 70s threatening to retire if we return to the office and although I’d rather stay home too I hope we go back just enough for them all to retire from the jobs they’ve been sitting in for decades.

It sounds like you are a little bit of a lazy middle-aged Fed who just wants to slide into the 60 year old’s (or 70? Really?) desk and then sit there, too. Glad my tax dollars are going to you! You make this country better with your hard work!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden has no clue what he wants.

He needs votes and money for the election.

He’s not getting mine if they force RTO.

You gonna vote for Trump now? Talk about selfish.

You’ll go back to an office under Trump too..

I highly doubt angry Biden voters would vote for DT because of RTO. I just don't see that. What I think it may happen is disappointed fed voters not voting in 2024. Given how close recent elections have been, every vote will count.

Yes. I’m sure the Biden administration is terrified of angry feds in DC and the VA and MD suburbs sitting out of the election for RTO It’s the opposite - they are doing this so they don’t look soft with swing voters who think that feds are getting paid to do nothing while WFH while they are in the office all week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden has no clue what he wants.

He needs votes and money for the election.

He’s not getting mine if they force RTO.

You gonna vote for Trump now? Talk about selfish.

You’ll go back to an office under Trump too..

I highly doubt angry Biden voters would vote for DT because of RTO. I just don't see that. What I think it may happen is disappointed fed voters not voting in 2024. Given how close recent elections have been, every vote will count.

Yes. I’m sure the Biden administration is terrified of angry feds in DC and the VA and MD suburbs sitting out of the election for RTO It’s the opposite - they are doing this so they don’t look soft with swing voters who think that feds are getting paid to do nothing while WFH while they are in the office all week.

PP you are responding to. I completely agree. I was responding to PP's statement of voting for Trump, not why WH sent out the memo. 45% of either side has dug in their heels already. I think WH is trying to swing 10% in the middle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a bad move. I'm a DOJ attorney, and constantly evaluating my private sector options. If WFH is reduced, I'll go with the money, understanding that I am being paid more and going in at least as often.

And the DOJ will replace you in a heartbeat. Bye!

Same, we have all of these people in their 60s and 70s threatening to retire if we return to the office and although I’d rather stay home too I hope we go back just enough for them all to retire from the jobs they’ve been sitting in for decades.

It sounds like you are a little bit of a lazy middle-aged Fed who just wants to slide into the 60 year old’s (or 70? Really?) desk and then sit there, too. Glad my tax dollars are going to you! You make this country better with your hard work!

I’m a 40 year old SES who would like to hire some new talent into these types of jobs, I support RTO for many reasons and this is one of them.

[Anonymous]

Next up is a rollback on remote work. They've sunsetted it for our SES and senior leaders. They're currently getting a legal opinion on whether or not they have to pay to move remote workers who moved away back to their offices.

Ridiculous that we'd have to pay to move remote workers back when it wasn't our choice that they moved away. Something else that hurt the remote worker program was that they get mileage and per diem when they go into the office. We didn't want to pay for that, so remote workers got left out of a lot of meetings, even ones they wanted to attend in person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Next up is a rollback on remote work. They've sunsetted it for our SES and senior leaders. They're currently getting a legal opinion on whether or not they have to pay to move remote workers who moved away back to their offices.

Ridiculous that we'd have to pay to move remote workers back when it wasn't our choice that they moved away. Something else that hurt the remote worker program was that they get mileage and per diem when they go into the office. We didn't want to pay for that, so remote workers got left out of a lot of meetings, even ones they wanted to attend in person.

That's a bridge too far at my agency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden has no clue what he wants.

He needs votes and money for the election.

He’s not getting mine if they force RTO.

You gonna vote for Trump now? Talk about selfish.

You’ll go back to an office under Trump too..

I highly doubt angry Biden voters would vote for DT because of RTO. I just don't see that. What I think it may happen is disappointed fed voters not voting in 2024. Given how close recent elections have been, every vote will count.

Yes. I’m sure the Biden administration is terrified of angry feds in DC and the VA and MD suburbs sitting out of the election for RTO It’s the opposite - they are doing this so they don’t look soft with swing voters who think that feds are getting paid to do nothing while WFH while they are in the office all week.

I hear you but VA is not given.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Next up is a rollback on remote work. They've sunsetted it for our SES and senior leaders. They're currently getting a legal opinion on whether or not they have to pay to move remote workers who moved away back to their offices.

Ridiculous that we'd have to pay to move remote workers back when it wasn't our choice that they moved away. Something else that hurt the remote worker program was that they get mileage and per diem when they go into the office. We didn't want to pay for that, so remote workers got left out of a lot of meetings, even ones they wanted to attend in person.

That's a bridge too far at my agency.

Same, the “I felt like moving to Boston during the pandemic and now you need to pay to see me” remote worker in our office has basically killed this possibility of remote work for the entire agency.