DHS ends teleworking, requires employees to work in person

[Anonymous]

As former military, I did find this part concerning -

24.4% of total hours worked by U.S. Coast Guard personnel — a branch of the armed services tasked with protecting our coasts — were done remotely.

Military service should not be done remotely, that includes IT and office based service members.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Military service should not be done remotely, that includes IT and office based service members.

Why?

[Anonymous]

Aren't there civilian office staff in the USCG? I doubt crews on a cutter are reporting remote hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These headline grabbing articles are just that. There are exemptions for lack of physical space or employee’s inability to return. Let’s see how this plays out with actual DHS employees.

+1, the loopholes are actually huge.

They are using RTO as stealth layoffs, just like the private sector has the last few years. It's also a way to clear out older workers who probably should retire but have stuck around because their jobs are very easy for them at this stage and if they can do them at home with a flexible schedule, why not.

Managers are going to come back with exemptions for most of their other workers though. A lot of these jobs have no permanent offices to go back to. Some are highly skilled workers who are very hard to replace (and most replacements would also expect WFH allowances).

If you have an empty office somewhere that you never go to, are relatively easy to replace, and are a poor performer, you should either ready yourself to return to the office or look for another job.

I can't stand Trump but I support this specific policy. I've managed people a long time and there are lots of appropriate uses for RTO but there are also a lot of people who just abuse it to avoid working and you need mechanisms for rooting those people out.

Feel like too many people just aren't accepting this fact. It doesn't matter if there "isn't enough office space"...they may tell people to go work in conference rooms (at 10-12 per room) or set up makeshift stations.

However, the point is to just get people to quit so everyone can talk about how much $$$ they saved the government, without having to actually fire people or go through bargaining nonsense or whatever.

My experience is that plenty of people will do whatever it takes to hold onto their federal job, especially if they have a lot of years of service under their belt already or are getting close to retirement. The people who will leave will be the ones most able to get lucrative work in the private sector -- not exactly the folks the Trump administration should want to drive away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Aren't there civilian office staff in the USCG? I doubt crews on a cutter are reporting remote hours.

Yes, the USCG has a good amount of civilians doing the same things other agencies do: acquisitions, IT, compliance, safety regulations, etc. They also have space constraints just like everybody else is dealing with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As former military, I did find this part concerning -

24.4% of total hours worked by U.S. Coast Guard personnel — a branch of the armed services tasked with protecting our coasts — were done remotely.

Military service should not be done remotely, that includes IT and office based service members.

Why shouldn’t they?

[Anonymous]

Folks who think the loop holes will same them are sadly delusional. No manager wants to go to bat for a bunch of their staff people to are they should keep their remote status. Of that manager argues to keep, say, 50% of their people in remote status, it's that manager who's going to get booted. They are on the hot seat to prove they are a team player and the team is Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Folks who think the loop holes will same them are sadly delusional. No manager wants to go to bat for a bunch of their staff people to are they should keep their remote status. Of that manager argues to keep, say, 50% of their people in remote status, it's that manager who's going to get booted. They are on the hot seat to prove they are a team player and the team is Trump.

This, it's all on you to get a RA or have your office balk at paying your moving reimbursement. Supervisors aren't going to simply justify remote work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These headline grabbing articles are just that. There are exemptions for lack of physical space or employee’s inability to return. Let’s see how this plays out with actual DHS employees.

+1, the loopholes are actually huge.

They are using RTO as stealth layoffs, just like the private sector has the last few years. It's also a way to clear out older workers who probably should retire but have stuck around because their jobs are very easy for them at this stage and if they can do them at home with a flexible schedule, why not.

Managers are going to come back with exemptions for most of their other workers though. A lot of these jobs have no permanent offices to go back to. Some are highly skilled workers who are very hard to replace (and most replacements would also expect WFH allowances).

If you have an empty office somewhere that you never go to, are relatively easy to replace, and are a poor performer, you should either ready yourself to return to the office or look for another job.

I can't stand Trump but I support this specific policy. I've managed people a long time and there are lots of appropriate uses for RTO but there are also a lot of people who just abuse it to avoid working and you need mechanisms for rooting those people out.

Feel like too many people just aren't accepting this fact. It doesn't matter if there "isn't enough office space"...they may tell people to go work in conference rooms (at 10-12 per room) or set up makeshift stations.

However, the point is to just get people to quit so everyone can talk about how much $$$ they saved the government, without having to actually fire people or go through bargaining nonsense or whatever.

So generally you can't actually do the bolded. Space for employees is something that is in our CBA for example. And it is specific about cube requirements. I work on a team of 10 people. One would get an office and after that we have three desks in our building. Four of us are spread across the country. So there are 5 people who will have to share those three desks. Which could be fine ok they each come in 2-3 days a week and rotate through the cubes. but if all 9 of us are there you have a 1 in every 3 days situation. 1-2 days a week. Or you could pick 3 to RTO full time. Regardless it makes no sense for them to get 4 of us to quit while we're in a hiring freeze and can't backfill in order to get us to come and just add complication to a desk rotation schedule where max only 4 of us will be in the office together on the same day at any time.

It just doesn't make sense. And my manager WOULD go to bat to protect this because if he loses 40% of his team then his job will get dramatically harder. It isn't about sticking his neck out, its self protective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As former military, I did find this part concerning -

24.4% of total hours worked by U.S. Coast Guard personnel — a branch of the armed services tasked with protecting our coasts — were done remotely.

Military service should not be done remotely, that includes IT and office based service members.

Well 15% of coast guard is civilian, they need tech personnel for protecting ports from cyber threats, responding to emergency is more about logistics, etc. A good part of the Coast Guard is support, paperwork review, back tracking seize cargo, et. Those are all desk jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Folks who think the loop holes will same them are sadly delusional. No manager wants to go to bat for a bunch of their staff people to are they should keep their remote status. Of that manager argues to keep, say, 50% of their people in remote status, it's that manager who's going to get booted. They are on the hot seat to prove they are a team player and the team is Trump.

Approx 50% of my office is either on RWA or DETO. We actually get a lot of work done that is already quantified. It's also public interest work, so I have a hard time believing they think they can just ax more than half the office (all RWA/DETO plus DC based quits) without any repercussions down the line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, this is good because my neighbor is a fed and spends all day eating Cheetos and going to the grocery store instead of working. I know because I have a camera in her house and an AirTag implanted between her shoulder blades. Also, she’s actually my friend and just tells me how she’s abusing telework and running an Etsy store eight hours a day. And my other friend is actually her supervisor and told me he tried to fire her but HR said no and she can only get 5’s on her performance eval because DEI. And I also commute nine hours to work each day so she should too.

Do I have it right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These headline grabbing articles are just that. There are exemptions for lack of physical space or employee’s inability to return. Let’s see how this plays out with actual DHS employees.

+1, the loopholes are actually huge.

They are using RTO as stealth layoffs, just like the private sector has the last few years. It's also a way to clear out older workers who probably should retire but have stuck around because their jobs are very easy for them at this stage and if they can do them at home with a flexible schedule, why not.

Managers are going to come back with exemptions for most of their other workers though. A lot of these jobs have no permanent offices to go back to. Some are highly skilled workers who are very hard to replace (and most replacements would also expect WFH allowances).

If you have an empty office somewhere that you never go to, are relatively easy to replace, and are a poor performer, you should either ready yourself to return to the office or look for another job.

I can't stand Trump but I support this specific policy. I've managed people a long time and there are lots of appropriate uses for RTO but there are also a lot of people who just abuse it to avoid working and you need mechanisms for rooting those people out.

Feel like too many people just aren't accepting this fact. It doesn't matter if there "isn't enough office space"...they may tell people to go work in conference rooms (at 10-12 per room) or set up makeshift stations.

However, the point is to just get people to quit so everyone can talk about how much $$$ they saved the government, without having to actually fire people or go through bargaining nonsense or whatever.

My experience is that plenty of people will do whatever it takes to hold onto their federal job, especially if they have a lot of years of service under their belt already or are getting close to retirement. The people who will leave will be the ones most able to get lucrative work in the private sector -- not exactly the folks the Trump administration should want to drive away.

RIFs are never about keeping the good people or the bad…it’s just getting rid of bodies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These headline grabbing articles are just that. There are exemptions for lack of physical space or employee’s inability to return. Let’s see how this plays out with actual DHS employees.

+1, the loopholes are actually huge.

They are using RTO as stealth layoffs, just like the private sector has the last few years. It's also a way to clear out older workers who probably should retire but have stuck around because their jobs are very easy for them at this stage and if they can do them at home with a flexible schedule, why not.

Managers are going to come back with exemptions for most of their other workers though. A lot of these jobs have no permanent offices to go back to. Some are highly skilled workers who are very hard to replace (and most replacements would also expect WFH allowances).

If you have an empty office somewhere that you never go to, are relatively easy to replace, and are a poor performer, you should either ready yourself to return to the office or look for another job.

I can't stand Trump but I support this specific policy. I've managed people a long time and there are lots of appropriate uses for RTO but there are also a lot of people who just abuse it to avoid working and you need mechanisms for rooting those people out.

Feel like too many people just aren't accepting this fact. It doesn't matter if there "isn't enough office space"...they may tell people to go work in conference rooms (at 10-12 per room) or set up makeshift stations.

However, the point is to just get people to quit so everyone can talk about how much $$$ they saved the government, without having to actually fire people or go through bargaining nonsense or whatever.

My experience is that plenty of people will do whatever it takes to hold onto their federal job, especially if they have a lot of years of service under their belt already or are getting close to retirement. The people who will leave will be the ones most able to get lucrative work in the private sector -- not exactly the folks the Trump administration should want to drive away.

RIFs are never about keeping the good people or the bad…it’s just getting rid of bodies.

Meh the RIFs I’ve seen were because offices were closing. The good people were helped a lot to find good jobs. If you are an excellent Fed, you can get a job instantly. I’ve lateraled numerous times in under a month and when I’ve put out feelers I’ve had job offers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These headline grabbing articles are just that. There are exemptions for lack of physical space or employee’s inability to return. Let’s see how this plays out with actual DHS employees.

+1, the loopholes are actually huge.

They are using RTO as stealth layoffs, just like the private sector has the last few years. It's also a way to clear out older workers who probably should retire but have stuck around because their jobs are very easy for them at this stage and if they can do them at home with a flexible schedule, why not.

Managers are going to come back with exemptions for most of their other workers though. A lot of these jobs have no permanent offices to go back to. Some are highly skilled workers who are very hard to replace (and most replacements would also expect WFH allowances).

If you have an empty office somewhere that you never go to, are relatively easy to replace, and are a poor performer, you should either ready yourself to return to the office or look for another job.

I can't stand Trump but I support this specific policy. I've managed people a long time and there are lots of appropriate uses for RTO but there are also a lot of people who just abuse it to avoid working and you need mechanisms for rooting those people out.

I think agency heads are going to set policies for exemptions that will be too narrow for individual managers to circumvent. That's been my experience in my career to date.

This!
An administration that doesn’t believe in remote work and telework will make sure that many people don’t use exemptions to work around the EO.
They have a goal and will make sure they achieve.