Biden wants RTO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government also has an interest in running well, which surpasses DC’s interests. As it should. Federal employees are not going to turn around CRE. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Private sector is hiring and figuring out ways to deal with the labor market that exists. The government needs to follow their lead if they want to retain or hire. Commercial real estate investors can pivot to the burbs. Everyone else did.

+ My private sector DH and neighbors are all still full time WAH. And they make a lot more than me. Making GS level employees like me go into DC even a few days a week isn’t going to save CRE or failing businesses. We don’t collectively make enough to keep DC afloat and the government risks losing good employees to private sector jobs. Even if they land in a private sector job that requires in office days, they’ll make more $ to counteract the commute.

WAH is basically the reason I’m at my job as a working mom of 3. This literally could be the difference of whether I stay in government, possibly even the workforce. (Before you ask, my kids were in daycare before the pandemic so commuting wasn’t as bad). But now that they are school age and their school has an extended day waitlist we haven’t been able to make it off for 3 years (employee shortage due to the post-COVID labor market) and they have early activities beginning around 5 pm, I have really come to rely on WAH. (DH also WAH but can’t start/end his day early like me). I know I’m not alone and collectively the government could lose a lot of qualified employees.

Someone else would happily do your job. None of us are owed or entitled to federal employment.

You are absolutely wrong about this. Yes, someone without my qualifications and experience would be happy to have the money. But they can’t do the job. So there’s the rub.

So move on, if you don’t like the federal government coming back to the office in DC please go do something else. Many of us are glad to be back in the office and think this is good policy.

I will. As Will others. And then you e got a massive problem. Stop putting your head in the sand. A one size fits all solution — everybody back 6 days a PP— is not going to work.

I’ve been a fed for more than 20 years and have listened to so many versions of “if x is elected, if they change this policy, if y happens EVERYONE WILL LEAVE!” Meanwhile federal attrition has been pretty flat over the years and the retirement wave of older feds that I heard about back in grad school never happened. It’s not a bad deal, we have more flexibility than most with decent pay and benefits. Before the pandemic I was required to be in my office 4 days a week, now we’re coming back 2 days a week. Seems like a win to me, we’d be lucky if we had certain people leave but there won’t be a serious exodus over this.

+1.

I've been a fed since the Reagan administration and it's always been we're underpaid compared to the private sector, everyone will leave if such and such happens, and guess what? It's rare when someone actually leaves the fed. Yes they might change to a different agency, but they aren't leaving the fed because despite all the 24/7 nose to the grindstone federal employees here on DCUM, it's a gravy train. I'm the first to admit it! Generous leave, a great 401K with 5% matching, cheap life insurance, not the best health insurance but can't complain about the choices, now free parental leave, flexibility, etc.

Say two feds who entered the workforce in the EIGHTIES, bought their homes when housing and education for their kids were just a small fraction of what they are now. Dear god. Retire. Please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government also has an interest in running well, which surpasses DC’s interests. As it should. Federal employees are not going to turn around CRE. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Private sector is hiring and figuring out ways to deal with the labor market that exists. The government needs to follow their lead if they want to retain or hire. Commercial real estate investors can pivot to the burbs. Everyone else did.

+ My private sector DH and neighbors are all still full time WAH. And they make a lot more than me. Making GS level employees like me go into DC even a few days a week isn’t going to save CRE or failing businesses. We don’t collectively make enough to keep DC afloat and the government risks losing good employees to private sector jobs. Even if they land in a private sector job that requires in office days, they’ll make more $ to counteract the commute.

WAH is basically the reason I’m at my job as a working mom of 3. This literally could be the difference of whether I stay in government, possibly even the workforce. (Before you ask, my kids were in daycare before the pandemic so commuting wasn’t as bad). But now that they are school age and their school has an extended day waitlist we haven’t been able to make it off for 3 years (employee shortage due to the post-COVID labor market) and they have early activities beginning around 5 pm, I have really come to rely on WAH. (DH also WAH but can’t start/end his day early like me). I know I’m not alone and collectively the government could lose a lot of qualified employees.

Someone else would happily do your job. None of us are owed or entitled to federal employment.

You are absolutely wrong about this. Yes, someone without my qualifications and experience would be happy to have the money. But they can’t do the job. So there’s the rub.

So move on, if you don’t like the federal government coming back to the office in DC please go do something else. Many of us are glad to be back in the office and think this is good policy.

I will. As Will others. And then you e got a massive problem. Stop putting your head in the sand. A one size fits all solution — everybody back 6 days a PP— is not going to work.

I’ve been a fed for more than 20 years and have listened to so many versions of “if x is elected, if they change this policy, if y happens EVERYONE WILL LEAVE!” Meanwhile federal attrition has been pretty flat over the years and the retirement wave of older feds that I heard about back in grad school never happened. It’s not a bad deal, we have more flexibility than most with decent pay and benefits. Before the pandemic I was required to be in my office 4 days a week, now we’re coming back 2 days a week. Seems like a win to me, we’d be lucky if we had certain people leave but there won’t be a serious exodus over this.

+1.

I've been a fed since the Reagan administration and it's always been we're underpaid compared to the private sector, everyone will leave if such and such happens, and guess what? It's rare when someone actually leaves the fed. Yes they might change to a different agency, but they aren't leaving the fed because despite all the 24/7 nose to the grindstone federal employees here on DCUM, it's a gravy train. I'm the first to admit it! Generous leave, a great 401K with 5% matching, cheap life insurance, not the best health insurance but can't complain about the choices, now free parental leave, flexibility, etc.

Say two feds who entered the workforce in the EIGHTIES, bought their homes when housing and education for their kids were just a small fraction of what they are now. Dear god. Retire. Please.

Different topic for a different thread but... why? Why do you hate older workers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government also has an interest in running well, which surpasses DC’s interests. As it should. Federal employees are not going to turn around CRE. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Private sector is hiring and figuring out ways to deal with the labor market that exists. The government needs to follow their lead if they want to retain or hire. Commercial real estate investors can pivot to the burbs. Everyone else did.

+ My private sector DH and neighbors are all still full time WAH. And they make a lot more than me. Making GS level employees like me go into DC even a few days a week isn’t going to save CRE or failing businesses. We don’t collectively make enough to keep DC afloat and the government risks losing good employees to private sector jobs. Even if they land in a private sector job that requires in office days, they’ll make more $ to counteract the commute.

WAH is basically the reason I’m at my job as a working mom of 3. This literally could be the difference of whether I stay in government, possibly even the workforce. (Before you ask, my kids were in daycare before the pandemic so commuting wasn’t as bad). But now that they are school age and their school has an extended day waitlist we haven’t been able to make it off for 3 years (employee shortage due to the post-COVID labor market) and they have early activities beginning around 5 pm, I have really come to rely on WAH. (DH also WAH but can’t start/end his day early like me). I know I’m not alone and collectively the government could lose a lot of qualified employees.

Someone else would happily do your job. None of us are owed or entitled to federal employment.

You are absolutely wrong about this. Yes, someone without my qualifications and experience would be happy to have the money. But they can’t do the job. So there’s the rub.

There is truth to this. We are struggling to hire already because by the time our byzantine hiring process allows us to make an offer, most of the qualified candidates have already taken other jobs. The most qualified candidates are people with graduate degrees and experience who often aren't willing to move to DC for a GS-11 or 12 salary. If you require more than the current minimum of in-office time, you're going to have to replace those experienced people making weekly trips from other locations with people just out of school who don't need to worry about dual careers or the costs that come with having a family.

I agree that recruitment and retention is a challenge with RTO. I also think that the federal government has entire agencies that have all of the data on federal employment, private employment, job markets, and trends. They look at the aggregate and across a lot of dimensions. They know, at least better than all of us, what the impact has been and will be. It isn’t like they aren’t aware when they set policy. Presumably they concluded that the benefit of bringing federal employees back to the office somewhat more frequently outweighs the cons.

Ha! No they didn’t! This is some sort of giveaway to someone and has nothing to do with the benefit to employees or the economy.

I'm not at all sure how to engage with this speculation.

Are you using ChatGPT to have a policy discussion or something? Because welcome to the future of government when all of the brains leave. FFS.

No, I am not.

I'll try this- Why have you concluded that the government's policy position is a "giveaway to someone" and not about anything else? Do you have any data or information?

It’s a wealth tranfser to DC and CRE interests, as everyone in this entire thread explained. Hence the “giveaway” that the PP referred to. If you understood what your were reading, it would make sense.

I will admit I have not read all 51 pages in this thread, however I think the main arguments are that it’s good for DC as a city and lots of federal work is better done in person collaboratively. You may strenuously disagree with these arguments but I think our leadership believes this and is making them in good faith.

Your leadership cannot possibly know what works best in every individual office within the federal government’s purview. If you have the data, by all means, share it. You don’t. You assume what works best for some, works best for every unit. That is not good leadership. You cannot weigh the costs and benefits without considering more than your feelings. People are looking at the economic data and see that jobs are up, business formation is up, more women are in the workforce, people are happier at work, and happier at home with their families…. and we are going to mess with that because why? A few lunch counters closed? Those people opened businesses in more residential neighborhoods or started new ventures. The people that are really freaked out own the assets that are not as useful as they used to be. They need to use their enormous portfolios more creatively and pivot. For once, workers and small business owners have the upper hand. Let’s not destroy that.

+1.

Smart leadership would give managers the reins and flexibility to do what works best for their teams/divisions/components/agencies. But we don’t seem to have that kind of smart progressive leadership.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government also has an interest in running well, which surpasses DC’s interests. As it should. Federal employees are not going to turn around CRE. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Private sector is hiring and figuring out ways to deal with the labor market that exists. The government needs to follow their lead if they want to retain or hire. Commercial real estate investors can pivot to the burbs. Everyone else did.

+ My private sector DH and neighbors are all still full time WAH. And they make a lot more than me. Making GS level employees like me go into DC even a few days a week isn’t going to save CRE or failing businesses. We don’t collectively make enough to keep DC afloat and the government risks losing good employees to private sector jobs. Even if they land in a private sector job that requires in office days, they’ll make more $ to counteract the commute.

WAH is basically the reason I’m at my job as a working mom of 3. This literally could be the difference of whether I stay in government, possibly even the workforce. (Before you ask, my kids were in daycare before the pandemic so commuting wasn’t as bad). But now that they are school age and their school has an extended day waitlist we haven’t been able to make it off for 3 years (employee shortage due to the post-COVID labor market) and they have early activities beginning around 5 pm, I have really come to rely on WAH. (DH also WAH but can’t start/end his day early like me). I know I’m not alone and collectively the government could lose a lot of qualified employees.

Someone else would happily do your job. None of us are owed or entitled to federal employment.

You are absolutely wrong about this. Yes, someone without my qualifications and experience would be happy to have the money. But they can’t do the job. So there’s the rub.

So move on, if you don’t like the federal government coming back to the office in DC please go do something else. Many of us are glad to be back in the office and think this is good policy.

I will. As Will others. And then you e got a massive problem. Stop putting your head in the sand. A one size fits all solution — everybody back 6 days a PP— is not going to work.

I’ve been a fed for more than 20 years and have listened to so many versions of “if x is elected, if they change this policy, if y happens EVERYONE WILL LEAVE!” Meanwhile federal attrition has been pretty flat over the years and the retirement wave of older feds that I heard about back in grad school never happened. It’s not a bad deal, we have more flexibility than most with decent pay and benefits. Before the pandemic I was required to be in my office 4 days a week, now we’re coming back 2 days a week. Seems like a win to me, we’d be lucky if we had certain people leave but there won’t be a serious exodus over this.

+1.

I've been a fed since the Reagan administration and it's always been we're underpaid compared to the private sector, everyone will leave if such and such happens, and guess what? It's rare when someone actually leaves the fed. Yes they might change to a different agency, but they aren't leaving the fed because despite all the 24/7 nose to the grindstone federal employees here on DCUM, it's a gravy train. I'm the first to admit it! Generous leave, a great 401K with 5% matching, cheap life insurance, not the best health insurance but can't complain about the choices, now free parental leave, flexibility, etc.

Say two feds who entered the workforce in the EIGHTIES, bought their homes when housing and education for their kids were just a small fraction of what they are now. Dear god. Retire. Please.

Different topic for a different thread but... why? Why do you hate older workers?

Nope. They need to retire because they are managers who are completely out of touch with the needs and constraints of their workforce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government also has an interest in running well, which surpasses DC’s interests. As it should. Federal employees are not going to turn around CRE. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Private sector is hiring and figuring out ways to deal with the labor market that exists. The government needs to follow their lead if they want to retain or hire. Commercial real estate investors can pivot to the burbs. Everyone else did.

+ My private sector DH and neighbors are all still full time WAH. And they make a lot more than me. Making GS level employees like me go into DC even a few days a week isn’t going to save CRE or failing businesses. We don’t collectively make enough to keep DC afloat and the government risks losing good employees to private sector jobs. Even if they land in a private sector job that requires in office days, they’ll make more $ to counteract the commute.

WAH is basically the reason I’m at my job as a working mom of 3. This literally could be the difference of whether I stay in government, possibly even the workforce. (Before you ask, my kids were in daycare before the pandemic so commuting wasn’t as bad). But now that they are school age and their school has an extended day waitlist we haven’t been able to make it off for 3 years (employee shortage due to the post-COVID labor market) and they have early activities beginning around 5 pm, I have really come to rely on WAH. (DH also WAH but can’t start/end his day early like me). I know I’m not alone and collectively the government could lose a lot of qualified employees.

Someone else would happily do your job. None of us are owed or entitled to federal employment.

You are absolutely wrong about this. Yes, someone without my qualifications and experience would be happy to have the money. But they can’t do the job. So there’s the rub.

There is truth to this. We are struggling to hire already because by the time our byzantine hiring process allows us to make an offer, most of the qualified candidates have already taken other jobs. The most qualified candidates are people with graduate degrees and experience who often aren't willing to move to DC for a GS-11 or 12 salary. If you require more than the current minimum of in-office time, you're going to have to replace those experienced people making weekly trips from other locations with people just out of school who don't need to worry about dual careers or the costs that come with having a family.

I agree that recruitment and retention is a challenge with RTO. I also think that the federal government has entire agencies that have all of the data on federal employment, private employment, job markets, and trends. They look at the aggregate and across a lot of dimensions. They know, at least better than all of us, what the impact has been and will be. It isn’t like they aren’t aware when they set policy. Presumably they concluded that the benefit of bringing federal employees back to the office somewhat more frequently outweighs the cons.

Ha! No they didn’t! This is some sort of giveaway to someone and has nothing to do with the benefit to employees or the economy.

I'm not at all sure how to engage with this speculation.

Are you using ChatGPT to have a policy discussion or something? Because welcome to the future of government when all of the brains leave. FFS.

No, I am not.

I'll try this- Why have you concluded that the government's policy position is a "giveaway to someone" and not about anything else? Do you have any data or information?

It’s a wealth tranfser to DC and CRE interests, as everyone in this entire thread explained. Hence the “giveaway” that the PP referred to. If you understood what your were reading, it would make sense.

And if you don't see the impact on the economy of that "wealth transfer" then you don't understand what you are reading.

(I'm not trying to make this personal or attack individual posters. Just matching the energy on this one.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government also has an interest in running well, which surpasses DC’s interests. As it should. Federal employees are not going to turn around CRE. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Private sector is hiring and figuring out ways to deal with the labor market that exists. The government needs to follow their lead if they want to retain or hire. Commercial real estate investors can pivot to the burbs. Everyone else did.

+ My private sector DH and neighbors are all still full time WAH. And they make a lot more than me. Making GS level employees like me go into DC even a few days a week isn’t going to save CRE or failing businesses. We don’t collectively make enough to keep DC afloat and the government risks losing good employees to private sector jobs. Even if they land in a private sector job that requires in office days, they’ll make more $ to counteract the commute.

WAH is basically the reason I’m at my job as a working mom of 3. This literally could be the difference of whether I stay in government, possibly even the workforce. (Before you ask, my kids were in daycare before the pandemic so commuting wasn’t as bad). But now that they are school age and their school has an extended day waitlist we haven’t been able to make it off for 3 years (employee shortage due to the post-COVID labor market) and they have early activities beginning around 5 pm, I have really come to rely on WAH. (DH also WAH but can’t start/end his day early like me). I know I’m not alone and collectively the government could lose a lot of qualified employees.

Someone else would happily do your job. None of us are owed or entitled to federal employment.

You are absolutely wrong about this. Yes, someone without my qualifications and experience would be happy to have the money. But they can’t do the job. So there’s the rub.

There is truth to this. We are struggling to hire already because by the time our byzantine hiring process allows us to make an offer, most of the qualified candidates have already taken other jobs. The most qualified candidates are people with graduate degrees and experience who often aren't willing to move to DC for a GS-11 or 12 salary. If you require more than the current minimum of in-office time, you're going to have to replace those experienced people making weekly trips from other locations with people just out of school who don't need to worry about dual careers or the costs that come with having a family.

I agree that recruitment and retention is a challenge with RTO. I also think that the federal government has entire agencies that have all of the data on federal employment, private employment, job markets, and trends. They look at the aggregate and across a lot of dimensions. They know, at least better than all of us, what the impact has been and will be. It isn’t like they aren’t aware when they set policy. Presumably they concluded that the benefit of bringing federal employees back to the office somewhat more frequently outweighs the cons.

Ha! No they didn’t! This is some sort of giveaway to someone and has nothing to do with the benefit to employees or the economy.

I'm not at all sure how to engage with this speculation.

Are you using ChatGPT to have a policy discussion or something? Because welcome to the future of government when all of the brains leave. FFS.

No, I am not.

I'll try this- Why have you concluded that the government's policy position is a "giveaway to someone" and not about anything else? Do you have any data or information?

It’s a wealth tranfser to DC and CRE interests, as everyone in this entire thread explained. Hence the “giveaway” that the PP referred to. If you understood what your were reading, it would make sense.

I will admit I have not read all 51 pages in this thread, however I think the main arguments are that it’s good for DC as a city and lots of federal work is better done in person collaboratively. You may strenuously disagree with these arguments but I think our leadership believes this and is making them in good faith.

Your leadership cannot possibly know what works best in every individual office within the federal government’s purview. If you have the data, by all means, share it. You don’t. You assume what works best for some, works best for every unit. That is not good leadership. You cannot weigh the costs and benefits without considering more than your feelings. People are looking at the economic data and see that jobs are up, business formation is up, more women are in the workforce, people are happier at work, and happier at home with their families…. and we are going to mess with that because why? A few lunch counters closed? Those people opened businesses in more residential neighborhoods or started new ventures. The people that are really freaked out own the assets that are not as useful as they used to be. They need to use their enormous portfolios more creatively and pivot. For once, workers and small business owners have the upper hand. Let’s not destroy that.

+1.

Smart leadership would give managers the reins and flexibility to do what works best for their teams/divisions/components/agencies. But we don’t seem to have that kind of smart progressive leadership.

FWIW, unions would also not give individual managers this flexibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government also has an interest in running well, which surpasses DC’s interests. As it should. Federal employees are not going to turn around CRE. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Private sector is hiring and figuring out ways to deal with the labor market that exists. The government needs to follow their lead if they want to retain or hire. Commercial real estate investors can pivot to the burbs. Everyone else did.

+ My private sector DH and neighbors are all still full time WAH. And they make a lot more than me. Making GS level employees like me go into DC even a few days a week isn’t going to save CRE or failing businesses. We don’t collectively make enough to keep DC afloat and the government risks losing good employees to private sector jobs. Even if they land in a private sector job that requires in office days, they’ll make more $ to counteract the commute.

WAH is basically the reason I’m at my job as a working mom of 3. This literally could be the difference of whether I stay in government, possibly even the workforce. (Before you ask, my kids were in daycare before the pandemic so commuting wasn’t as bad). But now that they are school age and their school has an extended day waitlist we haven’t been able to make it off for 3 years (employee shortage due to the post-COVID labor market) and they have early activities beginning around 5 pm, I have really come to rely on WAH. (DH also WAH but can’t start/end his day early like me). I know I’m not alone and collectively the government could lose a lot of qualified employees.

Someone else would happily do your job. None of us are owed or entitled to federal employment.

You are absolutely wrong about this. Yes, someone without my qualifications and experience would be happy to have the money. But they can’t do the job. So there’s the rub.

There is truth to this. We are struggling to hire already because by the time our byzantine hiring process allows us to make an offer, most of the qualified candidates have already taken other jobs. The most qualified candidates are people with graduate degrees and experience who often aren't willing to move to DC for a GS-11 or 12 salary. If you require more than the current minimum of in-office time, you're going to have to replace those experienced people making weekly trips from other locations with people just out of school who don't need to worry about dual careers or the costs that come with having a family.

I agree that recruitment and retention is a challenge with RTO. I also think that the federal government has entire agencies that have all of the data on federal employment, private employment, job markets, and trends. They look at the aggregate and across a lot of dimensions. They know, at least better than all of us, what the impact has been and will be. It isn’t like they aren’t aware when they set policy. Presumably they concluded that the benefit of bringing federal employees back to the office somewhat more frequently outweighs the cons.

Ha! No they didn’t! This is some sort of giveaway to someone and has nothing to do with the benefit to employees or the economy.

I'm not at all sure how to engage with this speculation.

Are you using ChatGPT to have a policy discussion or something? Because welcome to the future of government when all of the brains leave. FFS.

No, I am not.

I'll try this- Why have you concluded that the government's policy position is a "giveaway to someone" and not about anything else? Do you have any data or information?

It’s a wealth tranfser to DC and CRE interests, as everyone in this entire thread explained. Hence the “giveaway” that the PP referred to. If you understood what your were reading, it would make sense.

And if you don't see the impact on the economy of that "wealth transfer" then you don't understand what you are reading.

(I'm not trying to make this personal or attack individual posters. Just matching the energy on this one.)

Show me the economic research that says RTO for federal employees will save the CRE industry please.

[Anonymous]

The issue is that DC was overbuilt and underplanned. It had the worst traffic in the country for decades. People don’t want to live in DC without taking severe hits to their QOL. So they moved and sucked up the commute as long as the pay and benefits made it workable. It’s not workable anymore. The workforce is incredibly different than it was in the 80s and 90s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government also has an interest in running well, which surpasses DC’s interests. As it should. Federal employees are not going to turn around CRE. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Private sector is hiring and figuring out ways to deal with the labor market that exists. The government needs to follow their lead if they want to retain or hire. Commercial real estate investors can pivot to the burbs. Everyone else did.

+ My private sector DH and neighbors are all still full time WAH. And they make a lot more than me. Making GS level employees like me go into DC even a few days a week isn’t going to save CRE or failing businesses. We don’t collectively make enough to keep DC afloat and the government risks losing good employees to private sector jobs. Even if they land in a private sector job that requires in office days, they’ll make more $ to counteract the commute.

WAH is basically the reason I’m at my job as a working mom of 3. This literally could be the difference of whether I stay in government, possibly even the workforce. (Before you ask, my kids were in daycare before the pandemic so commuting wasn’t as bad). But now that they are school age and their school has an extended day waitlist we haven’t been able to make it off for 3 years (employee shortage due to the post-COVID labor market) and they have early activities beginning around 5 pm, I have really come to rely on WAH. (DH also WAH but can’t start/end his day early like me). I know I’m not alone and collectively the government could lose a lot of qualified employees.

Someone else would happily do your job. None of us are owed or entitled to federal employment.

You are absolutely wrong about this. Yes, someone without my qualifications and experience would be happy to have the money. But they can’t do the job. So there’s the rub.

So move on, if you don’t like the federal government coming back to the office in DC please go do something else. Many of us are glad to be back in the office and think this is good policy.

I will. As Will others. And then you e got a massive problem. Stop putting your head in the sand. A one size fits all solution — everybody back 6 days a PP— is not going to work.

I’ve been a fed for more than 20 years and have listened to so many versions of “if x is elected, if they change this policy, if y happens EVERYONE WILL LEAVE!” Meanwhile federal attrition has been pretty flat over the years and the retirement wave of older feds that I heard about back in grad school never happened. It’s not a bad deal, we have more flexibility than most with decent pay and benefits. Before the pandemic I was required to be in my office 4 days a week, now we’re coming back 2 days a week. Seems like a win to me, we’d be lucky if we had certain people leave but there won’t be a serious exodus over this.

+1.

I've been a fed since the Reagan administration and it's always been we're underpaid compared to the private sector, everyone will leave if such and such happens, and guess what? It's rare when someone actually leaves the fed. Yes they might change to a different agency, but they aren't leaving the fed because despite all the 24/7 nose to the grindstone federal employees here on DCUM, it's a gravy train. I'm the first to admit it! Generous leave, a great 401K with 5% matching, cheap life insurance, not the best health insurance but can't complain about the choices, now free parental leave, flexibility, etc.

Say two feds who entered the workforce in the EIGHTIES, bought their homes when housing and education for their kids were just a small fraction of what they are now. Dear god. Retire. Please.

Different topic for a different thread but... why? Why do you hate older workers?

Nope. They need to retire because they are managers who are completely out of touch with the needs and constraints of their workforce.

And you are better than them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government also has an interest in running well, which surpasses DC’s interests. As it should. Federal employees are not going to turn around CRE. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Private sector is hiring and figuring out ways to deal with the labor market that exists. The government needs to follow their lead if they want to retain or hire. Commercial real estate investors can pivot to the burbs. Everyone else did.

+ My private sector DH and neighbors are all still full time WAH. And they make a lot more than me. Making GS level employees like me go into DC even a few days a week isn’t going to save CRE or failing businesses. We don’t collectively make enough to keep DC afloat and the government risks losing good employees to private sector jobs. Even if they land in a private sector job that requires in office days, they’ll make more $ to counteract the commute.

WAH is basically the reason I’m at my job as a working mom of 3. This literally could be the difference of whether I stay in government, possibly even the workforce. (Before you ask, my kids were in daycare before the pandemic so commuting wasn’t as bad). But now that they are school age and their school has an extended day waitlist we haven’t been able to make it off for 3 years (employee shortage due to the post-COVID labor market) and they have early activities beginning around 5 pm, I have really come to rely on WAH. (DH also WAH but can’t start/end his day early like me). I know I’m not alone and collectively the government could lose a lot of qualified employees.

Someone else would happily do your job. None of us are owed or entitled to federal employment.

You are absolutely wrong about this. Yes, someone without my qualifications and experience would be happy to have the money. But they can’t do the job. So there’s the rub.

There is truth to this. We are struggling to hire already because by the time our byzantine hiring process allows us to make an offer, most of the qualified candidates have already taken other jobs. The most qualified candidates are people with graduate degrees and experience who often aren't willing to move to DC for a GS-11 or 12 salary. If you require more than the current minimum of in-office time, you're going to have to replace those experienced people making weekly trips from other locations with people just out of school who don't need to worry about dual careers or the costs that come with having a family.

I agree that recruitment and retention is a challenge with RTO. I also think that the federal government has entire agencies that have all of the data on federal employment, private employment, job markets, and trends. They look at the aggregate and across a lot of dimensions. They know, at least better than all of us, what the impact has been and will be. It isn’t like they aren’t aware when they set policy. Presumably they concluded that the benefit of bringing federal employees back to the office somewhat more frequently outweighs the cons.

Ha! No they didn’t! This is some sort of giveaway to someone and has nothing to do with the benefit to employees or the economy.

I'm not at all sure how to engage with this speculation.

Are you using ChatGPT to have a policy discussion or something? Because welcome to the future of government when all of the brains leave. FFS.

No, I am not.

I'll try this- Why have you concluded that the government's policy position is a "giveaway to someone" and not about anything else? Do you have any data or information?

It’s a wealth tranfser to DC and CRE interests, as everyone in this entire thread explained. Hence the “giveaway” that the PP referred to. If you understood what your were reading, it would make sense.

I will admit I have not read all 51 pages in this thread, however I think the main arguments are that it’s good for DC as a city and lots of federal work is better done in person collaboratively. You may strenuously disagree with these arguments but I think our leadership believes this and is making them in good faith.

Your leadership cannot possibly know what works best in every individual office within the federal government’s purview. If you have the data, by all means, share it. You don’t. You assume what works best for some, works best for every unit. That is not good leadership. You cannot weigh the costs and benefits without considering more than your feelings. People are looking at the economic data and see that jobs are up, business formation is up, more women are in the workforce, people are happier at work, and happier at home with their families…. and we are going to mess with that because why? A few lunch counters closed? Those people opened businesses in more residential neighborhoods or started new ventures. The people that are really freaked out own the assets that are not as useful as they used to be. They need to use their enormous portfolios more creatively and pivot. For once, workers and small business owners have the upper hand. Let’s not destroy that.

The White House doesn’t owe you an analysis of each office within the federal government, they get to make broad decisions about the workforce without our individual buy in. That’s the way large employers typically work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government also has an interest in running well, which surpasses DC’s interests. As it should. Federal employees are not going to turn around CRE. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Private sector is hiring and figuring out ways to deal with the labor market that exists. The government needs to follow their lead if they want to retain or hire. Commercial real estate investors can pivot to the burbs. Everyone else did.

+ My private sector DH and neighbors are all still full time WAH. And they make a lot more than me. Making GS level employees like me go into DC even a few days a week isn’t going to save CRE or failing businesses. We don’t collectively make enough to keep DC afloat and the government risks losing good employees to private sector jobs. Even if they land in a private sector job that requires in office days, they’ll make more $ to counteract the commute.

WAH is basically the reason I’m at my job as a working mom of 3. This literally could be the difference of whether I stay in government, possibly even the workforce. (Before you ask, my kids were in daycare before the pandemic so commuting wasn’t as bad). But now that they are school age and their school has an extended day waitlist we haven’t been able to make it off for 3 years (employee shortage due to the post-COVID labor market) and they have early activities beginning around 5 pm, I have really come to rely on WAH. (DH also WAH but can’t start/end his day early like me). I know I’m not alone and collectively the government could lose a lot of qualified employees.

Someone else would happily do your job. None of us are owed or entitled to federal employment.

You are absolutely wrong about this. Yes, someone without my qualifications and experience would be happy to have the money. But they can’t do the job. So there’s the rub.

So move on, if you don’t like the federal government coming back to the office in DC please go do something else. Many of us are glad to be back in the office and think this is good policy.

I will. As Will others. And then you e got a massive problem. Stop putting your head in the sand. A one size fits all solution — everybody back 6 days a PP— is not going to work.

I’ve been a fed for more than 20 years and have listened to so many versions of “if x is elected, if they change this policy, if y happens EVERYONE WILL LEAVE!” Meanwhile federal attrition has been pretty flat over the years and the retirement wave of older feds that I heard about back in grad school never happened. It’s not a bad deal, we have more flexibility than most with decent pay and benefits. Before the pandemic I was required to be in my office 4 days a week, now we’re coming back 2 days a week. Seems like a win to me, we’d be lucky if we had certain people leave but there won’t be a serious exodus over this.

+1.

I've been a fed since the Reagan administration and it's always been we're underpaid compared to the private sector, everyone will leave if such and such happens, and guess what? It's rare when someone actually leaves the fed. Yes they might change to a different agency, but they aren't leaving the fed because despite all the 24/7 nose to the grindstone federal employees here on DCUM, it's a gravy train. I'm the first to admit it! Generous leave, a great 401K with 5% matching, cheap life insurance, not the best health insurance but can't complain about the choices, now free parental leave, flexibility, etc.

Say two feds who entered the workforce in the EIGHTIES, bought their homes when housing and education for their kids were just a small fraction of what they are now. Dear god. Retire. Please.

Different topic for a different thread but... why? Why do you hate older workers?

Nope. They need to retire because they are managers who are completely out of touch with the needs and constraints of their workforce.

And you are better than them?

I know more about what people who aren’t close to retirement need in a job. Seems a core bit of knowledge that they might need to consider before making decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government also has an interest in running well, which surpasses DC’s interests. As it should. Federal employees are not going to turn around CRE. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Private sector is hiring and figuring out ways to deal with the labor market that exists. The government needs to follow their lead if they want to retain or hire. Commercial real estate investors can pivot to the burbs. Everyone else did.

+ My private sector DH and neighbors are all still full time WAH. And they make a lot more than me. Making GS level employees like me go into DC even a few days a week isn’t going to save CRE or failing businesses. We don’t collectively make enough to keep DC afloat and the government risks losing good employees to private sector jobs. Even if they land in a private sector job that requires in office days, they’ll make more $ to counteract the commute.

WAH is basically the reason I’m at my job as a working mom of 3. This literally could be the difference of whether I stay in government, possibly even the workforce. (Before you ask, my kids were in daycare before the pandemic so commuting wasn’t as bad). But now that they are school age and their school has an extended day waitlist we haven’t been able to make it off for 3 years (employee shortage due to the post-COVID labor market) and they have early activities beginning around 5 pm, I have really come to rely on WAH. (DH also WAH but can’t start/end his day early like me). I know I’m not alone and collectively the government could lose a lot of qualified employees.

Someone else would happily do your job. None of us are owed or entitled to federal employment.

You are absolutely wrong about this. Yes, someone without my qualifications and experience would be happy to have the money. But they can’t do the job. So there’s the rub.

So move on, if you don’t like the federal government coming back to the office in DC please go do something else. Many of us are glad to be back in the office and think this is good policy.

I will. As Will others. And then you e got a massive problem. Stop putting your head in the sand. A one size fits all solution — everybody back 6 days a PP— is not going to work.

I’ve been a fed for more than 20 years and have listened to so many versions of “if x is elected, if they change this policy, if y happens EVERYONE WILL LEAVE!” Meanwhile federal attrition has been pretty flat over the years and the retirement wave of older feds that I heard about back in grad school never happened. It’s not a bad deal, we have more flexibility than most with decent pay and benefits. Before the pandemic I was required to be in my office 4 days a week, now we’re coming back 2 days a week. Seems like a win to me, we’d be lucky if we had certain people leave but there won’t be a serious exodus over this.

+1.

I've been a fed since the Reagan administration and it's always been we're underpaid compared to the private sector, everyone will leave if such and such happens, and guess what? It's rare when someone actually leaves the fed. Yes they might change to a different agency, but they aren't leaving the fed because despite all the 24/7 nose to the grindstone federal employees here on DCUM, it's a gravy train. I'm the first to admit it! Generous leave, a great 401K with 5% matching, cheap life insurance, not the best health insurance but can't complain about the choices, now free parental leave, flexibility, etc.

Say two feds who entered the workforce in the EIGHTIES, bought their homes when housing and education for their kids were just a small fraction of what they are now. Dear god. Retire. Please.

Different topic for a different thread but... why? Why do you hate older workers?

Nope. They need to retire because they are managers who are completely out of touch with the needs and constraints of their workforce.

And you are better than them?

I know more about what people who aren’t close to retirement need in a job. Seems a core bit of knowledge that they might need to consider before making decisions.

That just means you know your OWN situation. It doesn't mean you understand the decisions that are needed for the organization. And implications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government also has an interest in running well, which surpasses DC’s interests. As it should. Federal employees are not going to turn around CRE. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Private sector is hiring and figuring out ways to deal with the labor market that exists. The government needs to follow their lead if they want to retain or hire. Commercial real estate investors can pivot to the burbs. Everyone else did.

+ My private sector DH and neighbors are all still full time WAH. And they make a lot more than me. Making GS level employees like me go into DC even a few days a week isn’t going to save CRE or failing businesses. We don’t collectively make enough to keep DC afloat and the government risks losing good employees to private sector jobs. Even if they land in a private sector job that requires in office days, they’ll make more $ to counteract the commute.

WAH is basically the reason I’m at my job as a working mom of 3. This literally could be the difference of whether I stay in government, possibly even the workforce. (Before you ask, my kids were in daycare before the pandemic so commuting wasn’t as bad). But now that they are school age and their school has an extended day waitlist we haven’t been able to make it off for 3 years (employee shortage due to the post-COVID labor market) and they have early activities beginning around 5 pm, I have really come to rely on WAH. (DH also WAH but can’t start/end his day early like me). I know I’m not alone and collectively the government could lose a lot of qualified employees.

Someone else would happily do your job. None of us are owed or entitled to federal employment.

You are absolutely wrong about this. Yes, someone without my qualifications and experience would be happy to have the money. But they can’t do the job. So there’s the rub.

There is truth to this. We are struggling to hire already because by the time our byzantine hiring process allows us to make an offer, most of the qualified candidates have already taken other jobs. The most qualified candidates are people with graduate degrees and experience who often aren't willing to move to DC for a GS-11 or 12 salary. If you require more than the current minimum of in-office time, you're going to have to replace those experienced people making weekly trips from other locations with people just out of school who don't need to worry about dual careers or the costs that come with having a family.

I agree that recruitment and retention is a challenge with RTO. I also think that the federal government has entire agencies that have all of the data on federal employment, private employment, job markets, and trends. They look at the aggregate and across a lot of dimensions. They know, at least better than all of us, what the impact has been and will be. It isn’t like they aren’t aware when they set policy. Presumably they concluded that the benefit of bringing federal employees back to the office somewhat more frequently outweighs the cons.

Ha! No they didn’t! This is some sort of giveaway to someone and has nothing to do with the benefit to employees or the economy.

I'm not at all sure how to engage with this speculation.

Are you using ChatGPT to have a policy discussion or something? Because welcome to the future of government when all of the brains leave. FFS.

No, I am not.

I'll try this- Why have you concluded that the government's policy position is a "giveaway to someone" and not about anything else? Do you have any data or information?

It’s a wealth tranfser to DC and CRE interests, as everyone in this entire thread explained. Hence the “giveaway” that the PP referred to. If you understood what your were reading, it would make sense.

I will admit I have not read all 51 pages in this thread, however I think the main arguments are that it’s good for DC as a city and lots of federal work is better done in person collaboratively. You may strenuously disagree with these arguments but I think our leadership believes this and is making them in good faith.

Your leadership cannot possibly know what works best in every individual office within the federal government’s purview. If you have the data, by all means, share it. You don’t. You assume what works best for some, works best for every unit. That is not good leadership. You cannot weigh the costs and benefits without considering more than your feelings. People are looking at the economic data and see that jobs are up, business formation is up, more women are in the workforce, people are happier at work, and happier at home with their families…. and we are going to mess with that because why? A few lunch counters closed? Those people opened businesses in more residential neighborhoods or started new ventures. The people that are really freaked out own the assets that are not as useful as they used to be. They need to use their enormous portfolios more creatively and pivot. For once, workers and small business owners have the upper hand. Let’s not destroy that.

The White House doesn’t owe you an analysis of each office within the federal government, they get to make broad decisions about the workforce without our individual buy in. That’s the way large employers typically work.

Yes. And that is why they typically do not make decisions about workforce policy at the granular level. The agencies have broad discretion. And the units within those agencies do as well. Typically. But politics are politics and there appears to be a push to change past practices to accommodate a narrow agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government also has an interest in running well, which surpasses DC’s interests. As it should. Federal employees are not going to turn around CRE. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Private sector is hiring and figuring out ways to deal with the labor market that exists. The government needs to follow their lead if they want to retain or hire. Commercial real estate investors can pivot to the burbs. Everyone else did.

+ My private sector DH and neighbors are all still full time WAH. And they make a lot more than me. Making GS level employees like me go into DC even a few days a week isn’t going to save CRE or failing businesses. We don’t collectively make enough to keep DC afloat and the government risks losing good employees to private sector jobs. Even if they land in a private sector job that requires in office days, they’ll make more $ to counteract the commute.

WAH is basically the reason I’m at my job as a working mom of 3. This literally could be the difference of whether I stay in government, possibly even the workforce. (Before you ask, my kids were in daycare before the pandemic so commuting wasn’t as bad). But now that they are school age and their school has an extended day waitlist we haven’t been able to make it off for 3 years (employee shortage due to the post-COVID labor market) and they have early activities beginning around 5 pm, I have really come to rely on WAH. (DH also WAH but can’t start/end his day early like me). I know I’m not alone and collectively the government could lose a lot of qualified employees.

Someone else would happily do your job. None of us are owed or entitled to federal employment.

You are absolutely wrong about this. Yes, someone without my qualifications and experience would be happy to have the money. But they can’t do the job. So there’s the rub.

So move on, if you don’t like the federal government coming back to the office in DC please go do something else. Many of us are glad to be back in the office and think this is good policy.

I will. As Will others. And then you e got a massive problem. Stop putting your head in the sand. A one size fits all solution — everybody back 6 days a PP— is not going to work.

I’ve been a fed for more than 20 years and have listened to so many versions of “if x is elected, if they change this policy, if y happens EVERYONE WILL LEAVE!” Meanwhile federal attrition has been pretty flat over the years and the retirement wave of older feds that I heard about back in grad school never happened. It’s not a bad deal, we have more flexibility than most with decent pay and benefits. Before the pandemic I was required to be in my office 4 days a week, now we’re coming back 2 days a week. Seems like a win to me, we’d be lucky if we had certain people leave but there won’t be a serious exodus over this.

+1.

I've been a fed since the Reagan administration and it's always been we're underpaid compared to the private sector, everyone will leave if such and such happens, and guess what? It's rare when someone actually leaves the fed. Yes they might change to a different agency, but they aren't leaving the fed because despite all the 24/7 nose to the grindstone federal employees here on DCUM, it's a gravy train. I'm the first to admit it! Generous leave, a great 401K with 5% matching, cheap life insurance, not the best health insurance but can't complain about the choices, now free parental leave, flexibility, etc.

Say two feds who entered the workforce in the EIGHTIES, bought their homes when housing and education for their kids were just a small fraction of what they are now. Dear god. Retire. Please.

Different topic for a different thread but... why? Why do you hate older workers?

Nope. They need to retire because they are managers who are completely out of touch with the needs and constraints of their workforce.

And you are better than them?

I know more about what people who aren’t close to retirement need in a job. Seems a core bit of knowledge that they might need to consider before making decisions.

That just means you know your OWN situation. It doesn't mean you understand the decisions that are needed for the organization. And implications.

Wrong. I’m thinking of people younger and newer than me. I don’t need the flexibility as much as some do and I want them to stay! We have already lost people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government also has an interest in running well, which surpasses DC’s interests. As it should. Federal employees are not going to turn around CRE. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Private sector is hiring and figuring out ways to deal with the labor market that exists. The government needs to follow their lead if they want to retain or hire. Commercial real estate investors can pivot to the burbs. Everyone else did.

+ My private sector DH and neighbors are all still full time WAH. And they make a lot more than me. Making GS level employees like me go into DC even a few days a week isn’t going to save CRE or failing businesses. We don’t collectively make enough to keep DC afloat and the government risks losing good employees to private sector jobs. Even if they land in a private sector job that requires in office days, they’ll make more $ to counteract the commute.

WAH is basically the reason I’m at my job as a working mom of 3. This literally could be the difference of whether I stay in government, possibly even the workforce. (Before you ask, my kids were in daycare before the pandemic so commuting wasn’t as bad). But now that they are school age and their school has an extended day waitlist we haven’t been able to make it off for 3 years (employee shortage due to the post-COVID labor market) and they have early activities beginning around 5 pm, I have really come to rely on WAH. (DH also WAH but can’t start/end his day early like me). I know I’m not alone and collectively the government could lose a lot of qualified employees.

Someone else would happily do your job. None of us are owed or entitled to federal employment.

You are absolutely wrong about this. Yes, someone without my qualifications and experience would be happy to have the money. But they can’t do the job. So there’s the rub.

There is truth to this. We are struggling to hire already because by the time our byzantine hiring process allows us to make an offer, most of the qualified candidates have already taken other jobs. The most qualified candidates are people with graduate degrees and experience who often aren't willing to move to DC for a GS-11 or 12 salary. If you require more than the current minimum of in-office time, you're going to have to replace those experienced people making weekly trips from other locations with people just out of school who don't need to worry about dual careers or the costs that come with having a family.

I agree that recruitment and retention is a challenge with RTO. I also think that the federal government has entire agencies that have all of the data on federal employment, private employment, job markets, and trends. They look at the aggregate and across a lot of dimensions. They know, at least better than all of us, what the impact has been and will be. It isn’t like they aren’t aware when they set policy. Presumably they concluded that the benefit of bringing federal employees back to the office somewhat more frequently outweighs the cons.

Ha! No they didn’t! This is some sort of giveaway to someone and has nothing to do with the benefit to employees or the economy.

I'm not at all sure how to engage with this speculation.

Are you using ChatGPT to have a policy discussion or something? Because welcome to the future of government when all of the brains leave. FFS.

No, I am not.

I'll try this- Why have you concluded that the government's policy position is a "giveaway to someone" and not about anything else? Do you have any data or information?

It’s a wealth tranfser to DC and CRE interests, as everyone in this entire thread explained. Hence the “giveaway” that the PP referred to. If you understood what your were reading, it would make sense.

I will admit I have not read all 51 pages in this thread, however I think the main arguments are that it’s good for DC as a city and lots of federal work is better done in person collaboratively. You may strenuously disagree with these arguments but I think our leadership believes this and is making them in good faith.

Your leadership cannot possibly know what works best in every individual office within the federal government’s purview. If you have the data, by all means, share it. You don’t. You assume what works best for some, works best for every unit. That is not good leadership. You cannot weigh the costs and benefits without considering more than your feelings. People are looking at the economic data and see that jobs are up, business formation is up, more women are in the workforce, people are happier at work, and happier at home with their families…. and we are going to mess with that because why? A few lunch counters closed? Those people opened businesses in more residential neighborhoods or started new ventures. The people that are really freaked out own the assets that are not as useful as they used to be. They need to use their enormous portfolios more creatively and pivot. For once, workers and small business owners have the upper hand. Let’s not destroy that.

The White House doesn’t owe you an analysis of each office within the federal government, they get to make broad decisions about the workforce without our individual buy in. That’s the way large employers typically work.

Yes. And that is why they typically do not make decisions about workforce policy at the granular level. The agencies have broad discretion. And the units within those agencies do as well. Typically. But politics are politics and there appears to be a push to change past practices to accommodate a narrow agenda.

Congress and the White House make broad workforce decisions about federal employees all of the time. One federal pay raise for all, everyone suddenly got paid parental leave, we all got a new paid federal holiday. The percent of feds still working from home is a huge shift from a few years ago and our leadership wants to change that. Keep complaining but this is not some conspiracy.