RTO and No Childcare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other than a few months early in COVID were all daycares shut down. Never in my fed office has it been acceptable to not have daycare. Not sure why folks think they can work AND watch kids. Those are two jobs and you can't do either fully if you're trying to do both at the same time.

How are some of you this stupid?

If you have elementary aged kids (which is the situation most people in this thread are discussing), you generally don’t need to “watch” them when they get home from school - but you do need to be *available* in case there is some sort of emergency. There is absolutely zero reason why a parent can’t work effectively from a home office while their school aged kids play in the next room (or the backyard).

Then they can find a position that is WFH at hire — which clearly most of the endless complainers’ positions were not. The pandemic is over. Pandemic health-relayed concessions are over. Back to the office you go.

You didn’t respond to the point being made. You are incredibly stupid, just like most RTO cheerleaders on this thread.

Oh, that’s fresh, when in actuality, the “incredibly stupid” people here are the overgrown toddlers tantruming ad nauseum about RTO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Because you aren’t due an explanation. It’s happening. Get ready.

Yeah. All the "but, but, but, but WHHHYYYYY?" people are driving me nuts. Why? Because it's happening that's why. Can we please focus on the reality already? It's time. I'm a Democrat, I voted for Harris, and I'm going back to the office whether I like it or not. Start communicating with your leadership ways in which you could participate to make this work for your agency and for your family. Nothing will be gained here by digging in and throwing a tantrum over why.

No way. This is America. I’m not going to just go along with something like this because “it’s happening that’s why.”

RTO is pointless, bad for the environment and families and even bad for business.

Ok, so quit. Which is exactly what they want you to do.

I’m not quitting. I won’t meet the requirement like many other employees. This is all a game and easily won.

Sure, Jan.

[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.

Because you aren’t due an explanation. It’s happening. Get ready.

Yeah. All the "but, but, but, but WHHHYYYYY?" people are driving me nuts. Why? Because it's happening that's why. Can we please focus on the reality already? It's time. I'm a Democrat, I voted for Harris, and I'm going back to the office whether I like it or not. Start communicating with your leadership ways in which you could participate to make this work for your agency and for your family. Nothing will be gained here by digging in and throwing a tantrum over why.

Not a current fed, but you realize that this is much easier to do if the reason for FT RTO is clear? Otherwise, it's hard to talk about how to make things work for the agency, if the policy is just arbitrary.

Nope. The why is irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Let’s make having kids really difficult. Yet let’s worry that people are not having babies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let’s make having kids really difficult. Yet let’s worry that people are not having babies.

I mean this is the best news I've seen for the climate and planet health / sustainability...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t even find expensive after school childcare, short of hearing a personal nanny or chauffeur for my kid. This problem is nobody’s responsibility to solve except each family in their own. It’s a failure of society

+1

And at every corner we’re told having a parent SAH is a luxury. Then we’re told having quality childcare is a luxury. Basically we’ve made having a family a “luxury.” Also info want to live close to your job you are told “well living close in to the city is not a right, too bad you can’t afford it.” Then if you move farther from the city you’re told “that is your fault for moving so far away.”

Essentially we are all supposed to just shut up and suck up expensive housing, long commutes, warehousing our kids in aftercare until 6 PM etc. and accept any term of employment without complaint.

The PP going on about how someone's mom should just not have gotten pregnant or gotten an abortion, simple, it's just the consequences of her choices is a glaring example of this. These people DO see having a family as a luxury, not a basic element of being human. (Note I didn't say it was a *mandatory* element of being human, I just think it's so much more than a "lifestyle choice.") They have zero interest in empathy and humanity, only blame. You can't talk with people like this. It's always the individual's fault, structures can't be criticized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

The lifestyle was different in the 1950s allowing more families to live on one income. Houses were smaller. No dishwashers. Often no air conditioning, second car, dining out, vacations other than to their families. Fewer clothes, fewer things. Living on one income is still possible, but challenging in this area.

This.

No, it was not "lifestyle." It certainly wasn't "no dishwashers." It was high wages and union protections.
(And people of that time who didn't have those things needed multiple incomes.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t even find expensive after school childcare, short of hearing a personal nanny or chauffeur for my kid. This problem is nobody’s responsibility to solve except each family in their own. It’s a failure of society

+1

And at every corner we’re told having a parent SAH is a luxury. Then we’re told having quality childcare is a luxury. Basically we’ve made having a family a “luxury.” Also info want to live close to your job you are told “well living close in to the city is not a right, too bad you can’t afford it.” Then if you move farther from the city you’re told “that is your fault for moving so far away.”

Essentially we are all supposed to just shut up and suck up expensive housing, long commutes, warehousing our kids in aftercare until 6 PM etc. and accept any term of employment without complaint.

The PP going on about how someone's mom should just not have gotten pregnant or gotten an abortion, simple, it's just the consequences of her choices is a glaring example of this. These people DO see having a family as a luxury, not a basic element of being human. (Note I didn't say it was a *mandatory* element of being human, I just think it's so much more than a "lifestyle choice.") They have zero interest in empathy and humanity, only blame. You can't talk with people like this. It's always the individual's fault, structures can't be criticized.

No. Having a family shouldn’t be a luxury but it is *absolutely* a choice. If the terms of your employment state “don’t get pregnant” then just… don’t get pregnant! Or be prepared to get a different job. Again, it’s not complicated.

Societal structure is one thing when it comes to having kids. Criticize away. But the military/police/fire departments (etc.) and such are absolutely entitled to not have people on the payroll who physically cannot do the job. To argue otherwise is disingenuous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Many men *were* (and still are) dismissed if they got injured, actually. Have you never heard of a discharge?

Sounds like the PP’s mom got knocked up, against the rules of her employment, and wants to cry sexism when she suffered the consequences of her actions.

The point is that the rule is sexist. If my employer required me to wear a skirt to work it would be predictable that I'd be fired if I wore pants. It would also be sexist.

Nature is sexist. Women get pregnant, men do not. Being in a physically demanding job while pregnant is a problem; being in a physically demanding job while someone else is pregnant (even if you impregnated them) is not.

Welcome to reality.

welcome to reality ca 1951 😂

Oh right. I forgot that in 2024 some of you pretend that “men” can get pregnant…

[Anonymous]

Ironic that Musk brought Little X with him to the Senate today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ironic that Musk brought Little X with him to the Senate today.

+1, can you imagine their outrage if I brought my 4 yo to work? Just reinforces this is entertainment first and foremost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t even find expensive after school childcare, short of hearing a personal nanny or chauffeur for my kid. This problem is nobody’s responsibility to solve except each family in their own. It’s a failure of society

+1

And at every corner we’re told having a parent SAH is a luxury. Then we’re told having quality childcare is a luxury. Basically we’ve made having a family a “luxury.” Also info want to live close to your job you are told “well living close in to the city is not a right, too bad you can’t afford it.” Then if you move farther from the city you’re told “that is your fault for moving so far away.”

Essentially we are all supposed to just shut up and suck up expensive housing, long commutes, warehousing our kids in aftercare until 6 PM etc. and accept any term of employment without complaint.

The PP going on about how someone's mom should just not have gotten pregnant or gotten an abortion, simple, it's just the consequences of her choices is a glaring example of this. These people DO see having a family as a luxury, not a basic element of being human. (Note I didn't say it was a *mandatory* element of being human, I just think it's so much more than a "lifestyle choice.") They have zero interest in empathy and humanity, only blame. You can't talk with people like this. It's always the individual's fault, structures can't be criticized.

No. Having a family shouldn’t be a luxury but it is *absolutely* a choice. If the terms of your employment state “don’t get pregnant” then just… don’t get pregnant! Or be prepared to get a different job. Again, it’s not complicated.

Societal structure is one thing when it comes to having kids. Criticize away. But the military/police/fire departments (etc.) and such are absolutely entitled to not have people on the payroll who physically cannot do the job. To argue otherwise is disingenuous.

It's classified as a temporary disability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ironic that Musk brought Little X with him to the Senate today.

I mean if Musk can't find childcare, we're all doomed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ironic that Musk brought Little X with him to the Senate today.

The nanny was probably with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ironic that Musk brought Little X with him to the Senate today.

The nanny was probably with them.

well we'd have to see receipts for that, wouldn't we. Can't trust that that would actually happen.