Federal Reserve RTO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Too many dinosaur boomers in charge.

Hopefully one returns to Treasury soon

Too many newbie Zs want to isolate at home, stay in bed, post on social media and order GrubHub.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The writing was on the wall when the Fed invested in new leases and expensive building renovations. Other agencies are reducing their footprint, while the Fed is expanding its footprint.

Good point. But that project started long before COVID and with money already budgeted. If anything, desire for hybrid work might induce the Board to finally offer daycare at the new Constitution Ave bldg. That will bring parents back to the office 5 days/week.

Correct. New plans started long ago. Also part of the plan is to move people from rented K St space to the (relatively) newly acquired Const. Ave. building. Love the daycare idea but not sure if it's in the plans (if not it should be).

[Anonymous]

Here's the RTO policy timeline:
Starting Sept 2022, 6 days a month (so about 1.5 days/week). This policy was announced in early 2022.
Starting April 2023, 4 days per 2 week pay period, so 2 days/week in office, with of course more if required by job type.
Starting Sept 2023, 5 days per 2 week pay period, so 2.5 days/week in office.

Lots of questions about how sick leave, vacation, holidays, and work travel fit into these calculations.

Pre covid most groups had a one-day/week tele option plus flex scheduling. The flex scheduling remains.

--long time Fed employee

[Anonymous]

Why is it the banking agency employees always complain the most on this forum?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is it the banking agency employees always complain the most on this forum?

Ha! They're into money (greedy)!They are best compensated federal employees with the best benefits. They'll say it's because their private employment opportunities are better, thus the agencies must compete. However, the reality is that most people who work for these agencies, particularly the lifers, have no desire to live in NYC or work the hours of private bankers. Yet, the argument is persuasive to outsiders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's the RTO policy timeline:
Starting Sept 2022, 6 days a month (so about 1.5 days/week). This policy was announced in early 2022.
Starting April 2023, 4 days per 2 week pay period, so 2 days/week in office, with of course more if required by job type.
Starting Sept 2023, 5 days per 2 week pay period, so 2.5 days/week in office.

Lots of questions about how sick leave, vacation, holidays, and work travel fit into these calculations.

Pre covid most groups had a one-day/week tele option plus flex scheduling. The flex scheduling remains.

--long time Fed employee

Funny about the questions related to in-office days and leave. Are people truly so desperate to avoid the office that they would take sick and vacation leave for scheduled in-office days? That's reaching a new level of pathetic. You all seem like losers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument here seems to be that someone else has it, why can't we. I don't know if that's a good argument. What is everyone else had it worse?

It’s not just about this.

It’s also how the RTO policy limits who the FRB can hire. Surely you can imagine that the FRB may want to consider candidates from reserve banks. Now they have to relocate per the policy. In the past the FRB used to hire people with specific expertise from another region - NY - and they would work remotely. Now this isn’t an option. Positions are being filled with less talented staff because of the policy.

A big problem at the Board is the lack of geo pay. If someone works for the Board, they get the same in Kansas City as in DC. That is unlike any other agency. People in DC resent it. That's why the Board has stopped such hiring. It's divisive. Maybe the Fed should enact geo pay. Again, that's not a telework argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument here seems to be that someone else has it, why can't we. I don't know if that's a good argument. What is everyone else had it worse?

It’s not just about this.

It’s also how the RTO policy limits who the FRB can hire. Surely you can imagine that the FRB may want to consider candidates from reserve banks. Now they have to relocate per the policy. In the past the FRB used to hire people with specific expertise from another region - NY - and they would work remotely. Now this isn’t an option. Positions are being filled with less talented staff because of the policy.

A big problem at the Board is the lack of geo pay. If someone works for the Board, they get the same in Kansas City as in DC. That is unlike any other agency. People in DC resent it. That's why the Board has stopped such hiring. It's divisive. Maybe the Fed should enact geo pay. Again, that's not a telework argument.

Not just geo pay - pay in general. FRB pay is way below our competitors.

[Anonymous]

CFPB gonna get a lot of apps in the near future with full remote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument here seems to be that someone else has it, why can't we. I don't know if that's a good argument. What is everyone else had it worse?

It’s not just about this.

It’s also how the RTO policy limits who the FRB can hire. Surely you can imagine that the FRB may want to consider candidates from reserve banks. Now they have to relocate per the policy. In the past the FRB used to hire people with specific expertise from another region - NY - and they would work remotely. Now this isn’t an option. Positions are being filled with less talented staff because of the policy.

A big problem at the Board is the lack of geo pay. If someone works for the Board, they get the same in Kansas City as in DC. That is unlike any other agency. People in DC resent it. That's why the Board has stopped such hiring. It's divisive. Maybe the Fed should enact geo pay. Again, that's not a telework argument.

Not just geo pay - pay in general. FRB pay is way below our competitors.

Don't you guys get like 20% bonuses every year? I know that the attorneys do at least.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the RTO policy timeline:
Starting Sept 2022, 6 days a month (so about 1.5 days/week). This policy was announced in early 2022.
Starting April 2023, 4 days per 2 week pay period, so 2 days/week in office, with of course more if required by job type.
Starting Sept 2023, 5 days per 2 week pay period, so 2.5 days/week in office.

Lots of questions about how sick leave, vacation, holidays, and work travel fit into these calculations.

Pre covid most groups had a one-day/week tele option plus flex scheduling. The flex scheduling remains.

--long time Fed employee

Funny about the questions related to in-office days and leave. Are people truly so desperate to avoid the office that they would take sick and vacation leave for scheduled in-office days? That's reaching a new level of pathetic. You all seem like losers.

Way to project. That’s not what the questions are about. The question is if you take a week off does it mean you have to spend the entire next week in the office to meet the 5/10 days per pay period?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument here seems to be that someone else has it, why can't we. I don't know if that's a good argument. What is everyone else had it worse?

It’s not just about this.

It’s also how the RTO policy limits who the FRB can hire. Surely you can imagine that the FRB may want to consider candidates from reserve banks. Now they have to relocate per the policy. In the past the FRB used to hire people with specific expertise from another region - NY - and they would work remotely. Now this isn’t an option. Positions are being filled with less talented staff because of the policy.

A big problem at the Board is the lack of geo pay. If someone works for the Board, they get the same in Kansas City as in DC. That is unlike any other agency. People in DC resent it. That's why the Board has stopped such hiring. It's divisive. Maybe the Fed should enact geo pay. Again, that's not a telework argument.

It might be decisive but it’s how you hire the best talent. A lot of the remote workers are subject matter experts and the old lazy bones at the Board resent them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it the banking agency employees always complain the most on this forum?

Ha! They're into money (greedy)!They are best compensated federal employees with the best benefits. They'll say it's because their private employment opportunities are better, thus the agencies must compete. However, the reality is that most people who work for these agencies, particularly the lifers, have no desire to live in NYC or work the hours of private bankers. Yet, the argument is persuasive to outsiders.

You’re clueless. They would likely be attorneys. Not bankers. There is likely not a single board employee qualified to become even a corporate banker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument here seems to be that someone else has it, why can't we. I don't know if that's a good argument. What is everyone else had it worse?

It’s not just about this.

It’s also how the RTO policy limits who the FRB can hire. Surely you can imagine that the FRB may want to consider candidates from reserve banks. Now they have to relocate per the policy. In the past the FRB used to hire people with specific expertise from another region - NY - and they would work remotely. Now this isn’t an option. Positions are being filled with less talented staff because of the policy.

A big problem at the Board is the lack of geo pay. If someone works for the Board, they get the same in Kansas City as in DC. That is unlike any other agency. People in DC resent it. That's why the Board has stopped such hiring. It's divisive. Maybe the Fed should enact geo pay. Again, that's not a telework argument.

Not just geo pay - pay in general. FRB pay is way below our competitors.

What? You are not paid below your competitors! The Fed may have somewhat lower pay than other agencies, but the annual bonus and pension makeup for it. Non-officer lawyers and economists can make $250k pay plus 20% bonus. That’s $300k, plus 401k, plus outsized pension. You are not underpaid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it the banking agency employees always complain the most on this forum?

Ha! They're into money (greedy)!They are best compensated federal employees with the best benefits. They'll say it's because their private employment opportunities are better, thus the agencies must compete. However, the reality is that most people who work for these agencies, particularly the lifers, have no desire to live in NYC or work the hours of private bankers. Yet, the argument is persuasive to outsiders.

You’re clueless. They would likely be attorneys. Not bankers. There is likely not a single board employee qualified to become even a corporate banker.

Fine. Let’s talk attorneys. There are very few attorneys at the Fed who want to be in private practice. Most of them fled private practice for the agency. This job board is replete with threads about private practice attorneys who want an agency job. The only Fed attorneys who might consider a private role are in Board Legal. However, the division-based attorneys are typically moms dialing it in.