Federal Reserve RTO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

I’ve known plenty of board attorneys who have left for the private sector!

I’ve not known one. The only ones I saw leave the Fed either retired or went to another agency. Agency hopping is popular to get your salary up, but these people always come back to the Fed for retirement.

If you agency hop, doesn't the receiving agency just match what you were making at the releasing agency?

No.

-Someone who recently hopped between financial regulators

Nice! What % increase?

NP. My experience is 8-10%, up to 15%.

I got 20% but am losing an additional 3% retirement match from old FIRREA.

(to clarify - neither was the Fed)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too many dinosaur boomers in charge.

Hopefully one returns to Treasury soon

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

Oh, you.

Typical Z non-response.

[Anonymous]

Typically, the larger raises are for much-needed positions and those who currently are not paid well by their agency. So if you’re currently in the 25th percentile of your pay band and you’re a data scientist, economist, attorney, etc., you could get a big bump to move. Obviously, if your move requires a lot more responsibility, like going from a manger to a director, you’re going to get a big bump. The caveat here, is how long you’ve been a manager. For example, if you’ve maxed out your pay band, the jump to officer may immediately yield something modest, like 8%. But, at the Board, directors are eligible for larger bonuses and other goodies.

[Anonymous]

Most people find the bonus and pension worth being at the Fed over the FDIC and OCC. The only real competitor here is the CFPB, which is an option mostly for DCCA staff. Sounds like OP may be a DCCA attorney (earlier reference to attorneys and the comparison to CFPB).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most people find the bonus and pension worth being at the Fed over the FDIC and OCC. The only real competitor here is the CFPB, which is an option mostly for DCCA staff. Sounds like OP may be a DCCA attorney (earlier reference to attorneys and the comparison to CFPB).

Is job security good?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most people find the bonus and pension worth being at the Fed over the FDIC and OCC. The only real competitor here is the CFPB, which is an option mostly for DCCA staff. Sounds like OP may be a DCCA attorney (earlier reference to attorneys and the comparison to CFPB).

Is job security good?

Ha! It’s generally good, but they do get rid of poor performers. However, this varies greatly by division. The more productive and visible the division, the more important your performance be good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most people find the bonus and pension worth being at the Fed over the FDIC and OCC. The only real competitor here is the CFPB, which is an option mostly for DCCA staff. Sounds like OP may be a DCCA attorney (earlier reference to attorneys and the comparison to CFPB).

Is job security good?

Ha! It’s generally good, but they do get rid of poor performers. However, this varies greatly by division. The more productive and visible the division, the more important your performance be good.

Is Legal enforcement a visible division in your opinion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

--long time Fed employee

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

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

Agree. I posted this summary and it doesn't matter to me because I'm already in most days and I've already been meeting the upcoming standard for months. But I've heard that those questions came up. And yes I do know one person who fully relocated to another area and will either meet the standard with strategic use of leave or will retire.

[Anonymous]

This thread is depressing. I used to work for the Fed, and I thought the staff was better than this. The answer to RTO is to form a union or strategically use leave to cover it? Thank goodness the Chair is more dedicated to the mission than those in it for an easy paycheck. Really, really disappointing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is depressing. I used to work for the Fed, and I thought the staff was better than this. The answer to RTO is to form a union or strategically use leave to cover it? Thank goodness the Chair is more dedicated to the mission than those in it for an easy paycheck. Really, really disappointing.

Wow. Your response is what's depressing and disappointing. There's nothing like being lectured about loyalty to the mission by someone who left. Way to set an example. The sneering reference to a union (working people who demand a say in how their workplace is run? what horror!) matches up with the bootlicking mindset on display here.

If there's anyone who's loyal to public service, it's the current career employees who work hard every day to get the job done. That's why RTO is so frustrating, because study after study shows that employees are more efficient and productive at home, away from office gossip and idle hallway chatter. They donate otherwise wasted commuting time to doing work. But the Board members mandating this obviously love the idea of having people around saluting and fawning over them in person to stroke their egos, which is what this is about. There's a reason the RTO message didn't cite a single objective reason for the change in policy, because there isn't one. And to think they are in this for the mission? Haha, more like in it for the book deals and future paid Wall Street jobs and speaking gigs (even Saint Yellen). It's "the staff" who make the place run and do the work, and they do it better offsite.

[Anonymous]

PP nailed it.

The total lack of justification for this move from an organization which is supposed to be "data dependent " is disappointing .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP nailed it.

The total lack of justification for this move from an organization which is supposed to be "data dependent " is disappointing .

Agree. It makes me think the higher ups are completely detached from the reality of the current labor market. There seems to be this belief that employees are forced to stay and put up with this due to the labor market. This is crazy considering the unemployment rate.

An organization with an attrition rate like the Board should be way more careful in rolling out policy changes like this.

[Anonymous]

Many large and admired private organizations (Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.) are now cutting jobs because they overhired during the pandemic. Yet, they expect to do just as well or better in the future. These same companies are also requiring more people to return to the office. One issue they cite is the decline in innovation. What makes you think that the Fed - a government bureaucracy - is immune to the same issues and remedies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is depressing. I used to work for the Fed, and I thought the staff was better than this. The answer to RTO is to form a union or strategically use leave to cover it? Thank goodness the Chair is more dedicated to the mission than those in it for an easy paycheck. Really, really disappointing.

Wow. Your response is what's depressing and disappointing. There's nothing like being lectured about loyalty to the mission by someone who left. Way to set an example. The sneering reference to a union (working people who demand a say in how their workplace is run? what horror!) matches up with the bootlicking mindset on display here.

If there's anyone who's loyal to public service, it's the current career employees who work hard every day to get the job done. That's why RTO is so frustrating, because study after study shows that employees are more efficient and productive at home, away from office gossip and idle hallway chatter. They donate otherwise wasted commuting time to doing work. But the Board members mandating this obviously love the idea of having people around saluting and fawning over them in person to stroke their egos, which is what this is about. There's a reason the RTO message didn't cite a single objective reason for the change in policy, because there isn't one. And to think they are in this for the mission? Haha, more like in it for the book deals and future paid Wall Street jobs and speaking gigs (even Saint Yellen). It's "the staff" who make the place run and do the work, and they do it better offsite.

Pretty cynical and narcissistic: no one cares as much about the Fed as poor you. You have no idea why the PP left. Maybe they’re now a SAHM. Or switched careers, retired, or moved for a spouse’s reassignment. You make it sound like they abandoned the mission for a crypto firm. As for unions, they have typically thrived where workers have been abused. Think filthy conditions, long hours, no breaks, and poor pay. None of that applies to the Fed and its employees. You’re not being abused. As for WFH, many studies show that WFH is NOT GOOD for innovation and employee engagement. WFH leads to a check-the-box mentality that wants to complete a set of tasks and sign off. Long-term, an organization like that will fail because the world is changing too quickly. As for higher ups pushing RTO to have others fawn over them, I think you’re projecting. When was the last time you fawned over a Board member? In fact, protocol denies staff such opportunities. As for leaders serving the Fed for a book deal or a Wall Street job, most of them have been-there-done-that before they get to the Fed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP nailed it.

The total lack of justification for this move from an organization which is supposed to be "data dependent " is disappointing .

According to a poster’s response, not so much.