Biden wants RTO

[Anonymous]

There are quite obviously a lot of related problems here. Return to office, aging workforce, lack of mid-level opportunities, and pay compression. Am I missing any?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How will this impact employees whose positions have been deemed eligible for full remote?

How about the remote employees who have left the area? Will they have to relocate?

I’m a single mom with no help. My position is remote. Kids are teens and don’t need actual childcare, but still. RTO would upend our lives. I will use any card I can to avoid this. There is literally no reason my team needs to be in the office.

If you are fully remote, not just teleworking, my understanding is that this isn’t really about you. But, who knows.

At my work, this is raising equity questions. How do you allow one person to remote and deny others to do teleworking. We all do similar work which makes it even more problematic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are quite obviously a lot of related problems here. Return to office, aging workforce, lack of mid-level opportunities, and pay compression. Am I missing any?

The difficulty of refilling vacant positions, so we have to cover multiple people's jobs with no potential for promotion as a result?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How will this impact employees whose positions have been deemed eligible for full remote?

How about the remote employees who have left the area? Will they have to relocate?

I’m a single mom with no help. My position is remote. Kids are teens and don’t need actual childcare, but still. RTO would upend our lives. I will use any card I can to avoid this. There is literally no reason my team needs to be in the office.

If you are fully remote, not just teleworking, my understanding is that this isn’t really about you. But, who knows.

At my work, this is raising equity questions. How do you allow one person to remote and deny others to do teleworking. We all do similar work which makes it even more problematic.

+1…especially when they’re in the same job series. DHs agency gave people the option to go fully remote, but you had to move at least 50 miles from DC. I have to go to DC once a week, our kids are too old to change schools, etc. Because he actually lived within commuting distance he has to go in once a week!

[Anonymous]

Yes, I’ve heard similar. Many people who didn’t have strong family tiesup and moved and they hired a bunch of newbies into remote positions. I get it to some degree and don’t mind going in once a week or as needed, but beyond that, I don’t want to do. And the current system for deciding on remote seems to almost penalize people who for whatever reason (kids, elder care, lack of money) can’t move immediately. It also seems to benefit new hires over those of us who have been long term excellent employees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I’ve heard similar. Many people who didn’t have strong family tiesup and moved and they hired a bunch of newbies into remote positions. I get it to some degree and don’t mind going in once a week or as needed, but beyond that, I don’t want to do. And the current system for deciding on remote seems to almost penalize people who for whatever reason (kids, elder care, lack of money) can’t move immediately. It also seems to benefit new hires over those of us who have been long term excellent employees.

I agree with this, but frankly we're having trouble recruiting new folks because the GS 11-12 positions don't really pay enough for anyone with a family or student loans to move to DC and live decently. (I live almost 50 miles away because my salary doesn't stretch that far, I wish remote were an option.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I’ve heard similar. Many people who didn’t have strong family tiesup and moved and they hired a bunch of newbies into remote positions. I get it to some degree and don’t mind going in once a week or as needed, but beyond that, I don’t want to do. And the current system for deciding on remote seems to almost penalize people who for whatever reason (kids, elder care, lack of money) can’t move immediately. It also seems to benefit new hires over those of us who have been long term excellent employees.

Well there need to be some people buying lunch from the DC food trucks and chain restaurants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How will this impact employees whose positions have been deemed eligible for full remote?

How about the remote employees who have left the area? Will they have to relocate?

I’m a single mom with no help. My position is remote. Kids are teens and don’t need actual childcare, but still. RTO would upend our lives. I will use any card I can to avoid this. There is literally no reason my team needs to be in the office.

If you are fully remote, not just teleworking, my understanding is that this isn’t really about you. But, who knows.

At my work, this is raising equity questions. How do you allow one person to remote and deny others to do teleworking. We all do similar work which makes it even more problematic.

+1…especially when they’re in the same job series. DHs agency gave people the option to go fully remote, but you had to move at least 50 miles from DC. I have to go to DC once a week, our kids are too old to change schools, etc. Because he actually lived within commuting distance he has to go in once a week!

I agree, this is the most outrageous. Basically rewarding people who moved away, even though everyone does the same job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I’ve heard similar. Many people who didn’t have strong family tiesup and moved and they hired a bunch of newbies into remote positions. I get it to some degree and don’t mind going in once a week or as needed, but beyond that, I don’t want to do. And the current system for deciding on remote seems to almost penalize people who for whatever reason (kids, elder care, lack of money) can’t move immediately. It also seems to benefit new hires over those of us who have been long term excellent employees.

I agree with this, but frankly we're having trouble recruiting new folks because the GS 11-12 positions don't really pay enough for anyone with a family or student loans to move to DC and live decently. (I live almost 50 miles away because my salary doesn't stretch that far, I wish remote were an option.)

You can live closer just not where you want and how you want.

[Anonymous]

I will be surprised if agencies act decisively given all these factors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will be surprised if agencies act decisively given all these factors.

Govt is not known for decisive actions. It will take months if it ever happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How will this impact employees whose positions have been deemed eligible for full remote?

How about the remote employees who have left the area? Will they have to relocate?

I’m a single mom with no help. My position is remote. Kids are teens and don’t need actual childcare, but still. RTO would upend our lives. I will use any card I can to avoid this. There is literally no reason my team needs to be in the office.

If you are fully remote, not just teleworking, my understanding is that this isn’t really about you. But, who knows.

At my work, this is raising equity questions. How do you allow one person to remote and deny others to do teleworking. We all do similar work which makes it even more problematic.

At my agency, or at least in my office, we are not doing similar work. It would indeed be problematic if we were. I do think paying people who have to come to the office a little more would be appropriate, since there are so many costs associated with commuting and going in person and fed pay has not kept up with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I’ve heard similar. Many people who didn’t have strong family tiesup and moved and they hired a bunch of newbies into remote positions. I get it to some degree and don’t mind going in once a week or as needed, but beyond that, I don’t want to do. And the current system for deciding on remote seems to almost penalize people who for whatever reason (kids, elder care, lack of money) can’t move immediately. It also seems to benefit new hires over those of us who have been long term excellent employees.

I agree with this, but frankly we're having trouble recruiting new folks because the GS 11-12 positions don't really pay enough for anyone with a family or student loans to move to DC and live decently. (I live almost 50 miles away because my salary doesn't stretch that far, I wish remote were an option.)

You can live closer just not where you want and how you want.

Sure, I could fit my family of 4 into a one bedroom apartment if i absolutely had to. But doesn't that actually just support my point that people don't want to take these jobs because why would you move somewhere at a salary that won't let you live where and how you want?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

At my work, this is raising equity questions. How do you allow one person to remote and deny others to do teleworking. We all do similar work which makes it even more problematic.

I think it will, if anyone speaks up, where I work too. We have two managers. One remote. Possible for that person to travel to a regional office but it would be the dumbest requirement on earth (travel to be alone and manage people half in DC half everywhere). We also hired 4 new staff over the last year all of whom are remote and don't live near regional offices. Obviously they won't be required to come it. So, the newbies who might need mentoring in person won't get it but senior staff will commute 40-90min twice a day? It's all a mess and not at all related to job performance. The only person clearly not doing much NEVER did anything. At least with telework he doesn't distract everyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

At my work, this is raising equity questions. How do you allow one person to remote and deny others to do teleworking. We all do similar work which makes it even more problematic.

I think it will, if anyone speaks up, where I work too. We have two managers. One remote. Possible for that person to travel to a regional office but it would be the dumbest requirement on earth (travel to be alone and manage people half in DC half everywhere). We also hired 4 new staff over the last year all of whom are remote and don't live near regional offices. Obviously they won't be required to come it. So, the newbies who might need mentoring in person won't get it but senior staff will commute 40-90min twice a day? It's all a mess and not at all related to job performance. The only person clearly not doing much NEVER did anything. At least with telework he doesn't distract everyone else.

That distraction is now called “collaboration” and we are being told it’s a good thing. God help us.