DMV Feds only - is your agency still struggling with WFH policy?

[Anonymous]

At my agency, it's an office-specific decision. Some offices are in 2 days/week, some 1 day/week, and some are fully remote.

My office is in 2 days/week and while it took some time to adjust, many of us like it better than 1 day/week. We all come in on the same days. With 2 days, we're better able to fit in the priority in-person meetings (team collaboration, cross-divisional work, 1:1s that are better in person). This allows for a bit more unscheduled time to say hi to coworkers and build community. It has also been helpful to pop by and pull a few people together, or have a quick meeting after the meeting, to knock something out that would have been a long back and forth series of emails or time spent trying to find a meeting time when working from home.

I'm glad to have the balance of some in-person time and some days with no commute and getting to work in the comfort of home. Even though I'm an introvert, fully remote forevermore isn't for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rumor is fdic is going back to 3x a week in office

- xoxo gossip girl

It’s going to be a big fight with the union.

Arbitrator may cut it down to 2x a week in the office....yayyyy

I heard 5 days a pay period.

That would match the Fed, iirc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At my agency, it's an office-specific decision. Some offices are in 2 days/week, some 1 day/week, and some are fully remote.

My office is in 2 days/week and while it took some time to adjust, many of us like it better than 1 day/week. We all come in on the same days. With 2 days, we're better able to fit in the priority in-person meetings (team collaboration, cross-divisional work, 1:1s that are better in person). This allows for a bit more unscheduled time to say hi to coworkers and build community. It has also been helpful to pop by and pull a few people together, or have a quick meeting after the meeting, to knock something out that would have been a long back and forth series of emails or time spent trying to find a meeting time when working from home.

I'm glad to have the balance of some in-person time and some days with no commute and getting to work in the comfort of home. Even though I'm an introvert, fully remote forevermore isn't for me.

I don’t know that being introverted is the trait that makes people prefer FT WFH. I’m introverted and I prefer hybrid because full time at home is making me a hermit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At my agency, it's an office-specific decision. Some offices are in 2 days/week, some 1 day/week, and some are fully remote.

My office is in 2 days/week and while it took some time to adjust, many of us like it better than 1 day/week. We all come in on the same days. With 2 days, we're better able to fit in the priority in-person meetings (team collaboration, cross-divisional work, 1:1s that are better in person). This allows for a bit more unscheduled time to say hi to coworkers and build community. It has also been helpful to pop by and pull a few people together, or have a quick meeting after the meeting, to knock something out that would have been a long back and forth series of emails or time spent trying to find a meeting time when working from home.

I'm glad to have the balance of some in-person time and some days with no commute and getting to work in the comfort of home. Even though I'm an introvert, fully remote forevermore isn't for me.

I don’t know that being introverted is the trait that makes people prefer FT WFH. I’m introverted and I prefer hybrid because full time at home is making me a hermit.

I am an introvert myself and I am perfectly happy with full time WFH. I could do this as long as they let me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At my agency, it's an office-specific decision. Some offices are in 2 days/week, some 1 day/week, and some are fully remote.

My office is in 2 days/week and while it took some time to adjust, many of us like it better than 1 day/week. We all come in on the same days. With 2 days, we're better able to fit in the priority in-person meetings (team collaboration, cross-divisional work, 1:1s that are better in person). This allows for a bit more unscheduled time to say hi to coworkers and build community. It has also been helpful to pop by and pull a few people together, or have a quick meeting after the meeting, to knock something out that would have been a long back and forth series of emails or time spent trying to find a meeting time when working from home.

I'm glad to have the balance of some in-person time and some days with no commute and getting to work in the comfort of home. Even though I'm an introvert, fully remote forevermore isn't for me.

I don’t know that being introverted is the trait that makes people prefer FT WFH. I’m introverted and I prefer hybrid because full time at home is making me a hermit.

I am an introvert myself and I am perfectly happy with full time WFH. I could do this as long as they let me.

I don’t doubt that, but I think it’s less of a factor than people assume. Also it probably depends on your role.

I’m in meetings most of the day and can barely take a break. I’m exhausted from the constant online interaction. Also, I’m social so I like chatting with people I already know but meeting new people is intimidating for me. I think there are just a lot of traits and factors to preferences of people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They watch Netflix and order takeout so they can eat while watching.
No work is happening.

Who’s that? My BIL in private sector cybersecurity? You’re correct.

Ha! Private sector cybersecurity is a joke. I left the gov for a private sector position and returned to government. Private sector wants to say they have a cybersecurity team in their marketing and for insurance purposes but you don’t actually do anything. This is why private companies leak all our data all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again: it’s not the responsibility of federal workers to support downtown “restaurants.”

Maybe not, but it is the responsibility of the federal government to care about the variability of restaurants in our economy.

You’re a civil servant….so that means you.

Unless you’re paying for my lunch you have no business telling me how to spend my money. Why don’t you go into DC every day to buy your meals, if you’re that concerned?

I’m not telling you how to spend your money. I’m telling you why the government cares. You work for the Government so you’re one of the affected employees. The argument that it is not the responsibility of federal employees to support downtown is moot because you work for the entity designed to care. If you don’t, that’s fine, but it’s not an invalid reason for the employer even if the employee doesn’t like it.


Your reaction is disproportionate.

You sound like the idiot business owner who goes around lecturing people about their supposed obligation to others when it serves you, even though you would not feel the slightest obligation to your own employees the next time you lay them all off because you'd rather keep making your boat payments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again: it’s not the responsibility of federal workers to support downtown “restaurants.”

Maybe not, but it is the responsibility of the federal government to care about the variability of restaurants in our economy.

You’re a civil servant….so that means you.

Unless you’re paying for my lunch you have no business telling me how to spend my money. Why don’t you go into DC every day to buy your meals, if you’re that concerned?

I’m not telling you how to spend your money. I’m telling you why the government cares. You work for the Government so you’re one of the affected employees. The argument that it is not the responsibility of federal employees to support downtown is moot because you work for the entity designed to care. If you don’t, that’s fine, but it’s not an invalid reason for the employer even if the employee doesn’t like it.


Your reaction is disproportionate.

You sound like the idiot business owner who goes around lecturing people about their supposed obligation to others when it serves you, even though you would not feel the slightest obligation to your own employees the next time you lay them all off because you'd rather keep making your boat payments.

I’m a career Federal staff level employee who has not worked for a private company since I was a temp in 2001 looking for a job. But you’re obviously really good at this game so keep playing it. Now tell me how I’m a loser because I’m not a manager. The most ridiculous part of this post is that I would never buy a boat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again: it’s not the responsibility of federal workers to support downtown “restaurants.”

Maybe not, but it is the responsibility of the federal government to care about the variability of restaurants in our economy.

You’re a civil servant….so that means you.

Unless you’re paying for my lunch you have no business telling me how to spend my money. Why don’t you go into DC every day to buy your meals, if you’re that concerned?

I’m not telling you how to spend your money. I’m telling you why the government cares. You work for the Government so you’re one of the affected employees. The argument that it is not the responsibility of federal employees to support downtown is moot because you work for the entity designed to care. If you don’t, that’s fine, but it’s not an invalid reason for the employer even if the employee doesn’t like it.


Your reaction is disproportionate.

You sound like the idiot business owner who goes around lecturing people about their supposed obligation to others when it serves you, even though you would not feel the slightest obligation to your own employees the next time you lay them all off because you'd rather keep making your boat payments.

I’m a career Federal staff level employee who has not worked for a private company since I was a temp in 2001 looking for a job. But you’re obviously really good at this game so keep playing it. Now tell me how I’m a loser because I’m not a manager. The most ridiculous part of this post is that I would never buy a boat.

np - your initial post about it's feds job to support dc restaurants was dumb though. what does "government cares" really mean anyway?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again: it’s not the responsibility of federal workers to support downtown “restaurants.”

Maybe not, but it is the responsibility of the federal government to care about the variability of restaurants in our economy.

You’re a civil servant….so that means you.

Unless you’re paying for my lunch you have no business telling me how to spend my money. Why don’t you go into DC every day to buy your meals, if you’re that concerned?

I’m not telling you how to spend your money. I’m telling you why the government cares. You work for the Government so you’re one of the affected employees. The argument that it is not the responsibility of federal employees to support downtown is moot because you work for the entity designed to care. If you don’t, that’s fine, but it’s not an invalid reason for the employer even if the employee doesn’t like it.


Your reaction is disproportionate.

You sound like the idiot business owner who goes around lecturing people about their supposed obligation to others when it serves you, even though you would not feel the slightest obligation to your own employees the next time you lay them all off because you'd rather keep making your boat payments.

I’m a career Federal staff level employee who has not worked for a private company since I was a temp in 2001 looking for a job. But you’re obviously really good at this game so keep playing it. Now tell me how I’m a loser because I’m not a manager. The most ridiculous part of this post is that I would never buy a boat.

np - your initial post about it's feds job to support dc restaurants was dumb though. what does "government cares" really mean anyway?

It's also ridiculous because can you imagine if we said it's the government's job to pay enough to their employees to live in DC instead of commuting from the exurbs* because the executive branch *actually says* climate change is a priority far more directly than DC restaurants? There would be HOWLS about waste of taxpayer money to support a cushy lifestyle for lazy feds. And yet you feel entitled to our salaries being spent on unnecessary food in DC?

*No, I and most others don't fit the DCUM ideal of two GS-15 feds in a giant new house. Many of us literally can't afford more than a crappy apartment in/near DC, which I think is fine for new grads, but not for mid-career folks. Most younger people in my agency who have kids either move to suburbs/exurbs for affordability, or look for jobs outside DC entirely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again: it’s not the responsibility of federal workers to support downtown “restaurants.”

Maybe not, but it is the responsibility of the federal government to care about the variability of restaurants in our economy.

You’re a civil servant….so that means you.

Unless you’re paying for my lunch you have no business telling me how to spend my money. Why don’t you go into DC every day to buy your meals, if you’re that concerned?

I’m not telling you how to spend your money. I’m telling you why the government cares. You work for the Government so you’re one of the affected employees. The argument that it is not the responsibility of federal employees to support downtown is moot because you work for the entity designed to care. If you don’t, that’s fine, but it’s not an invalid reason for the employer even if the employee doesn’t like it.


Your reaction is disproportionate.

You sound like the idiot business owner who goes around lecturing people about their supposed obligation to others when it serves you, even though you would not feel the slightest obligation to your own employees the next time you lay them all off because you'd rather keep making your boat payments.

I’m a career Federal staff level employee who has not worked for a private company since I was a temp in 2001 looking for a job. But you’re obviously really good at this game so keep playing it. Now tell me how I’m a loser because I’m not a manager. The most ridiculous part of this post is that I would never buy a boat.

Hill staffer?

Figures. Putting feds back in their offices full time is not the best way to move DC forward economically. There are lots of ways to move forward that don’t involve making people engage in pointless and expensive commutes, that harm the environment and make it hard to retain and attract talent. DC is too damn expensive to live near for most new employees. You probably bought your home 20 years ago and live in a nice area. Telework is staying, get used to it and be more creative. If you want feds back in DC full time they need huge raises and better working conditions. That’s what the private sector offers in exchange for the sacrifice’s employees make to put butts in seats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again: it’s not the responsibility of federal workers to support downtown “restaurants.”

Maybe not, but it is the responsibility of the federal government to care about the variability of restaurants in our economy.

You’re a civil servant….so that means you.

Unless you’re paying for my lunch you have no business telling me how to spend my money. Why don’t you go into DC every day to buy your meals, if you’re that concerned?

I’m not telling you how to spend your money. I’m telling you why the government cares. You work for the Government so you’re one of the affected employees. The argument that it is not the responsibility of federal employees to support downtown is moot because you work for the entity designed to care. If you don’t, that’s fine, but it’s not an invalid reason for the employer even if the employee doesn’t like it.


Your reaction is disproportionate.

You sound like the idiot business owner who goes around lecturing people about their supposed obligation to others when it serves you, even though you would not feel the slightest obligation to your own employees the next time you lay them all off because you'd rather keep making your boat payments.

I’m a career Federal staff level employee who has not worked for a private company since I was a temp in 2001 looking for a job. But you’re obviously really good at this game so keep playing it. Now tell me how I’m a loser because I’m not a manager. The most ridiculous part of this post is that I would never buy a boat.

np - your initial post about it's feds job to support dc restaurants was dumb though. what does "government cares" really mean anyway?

It's also ridiculous because can you imagine if we said it's the government's job to pay enough to their employees to live in DC instead of commuting from the exurbs* because the executive branch *actually says* climate change is a priority far more directly than DC restaurants? There would be HOWLS about waste of taxpayer money to support a cushy lifestyle for lazy feds. And yet you feel entitled to our salaries being spent on unnecessary food in DC?

*No, I and most others don't fit the DCUM ideal of two GS-15 feds in a giant new house. Many of us literally can't afford more than a crappy apartment in/near DC, which I think is fine for new grads, but not for mid-career folks. Most younger people in my agency who have kids either move to suburbs/exurbs for affordability, or look for jobs outside DC entirely.

2 15s don’t pay for a big house inside the beltway these days anyway. Most families like that with more than one kid live further out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again: it’s not the responsibility of federal workers to support downtown “restaurants.”

Maybe not, but it is the responsibility of the federal government to care about the variability of restaurants in our economy.

You’re a civil servant….so that means you.

Unless you’re paying for my lunch you have no business telling me how to spend my money. Why don’t you go into DC every day to buy your meals, if you’re that concerned?

I’m not telling you how to spend your money. I’m telling you why the government cares. You work for the Government so you’re one of the affected employees. The argument that it is not the responsibility of federal employees to support downtown is moot because you work for the entity designed to care. If you don’t, that’s fine, but it’s not an invalid reason for the employer even if the employee doesn’t like it.


Your reaction is disproportionate.

You sound like the idiot business owner who goes around lecturing people about their supposed obligation to others when it serves you, even though you would not feel the slightest obligation to your own employees the next time you lay them all off because you'd rather keep making your boat payments.

I’m a career Federal staff level employee who has not worked for a private company since I was a temp in 2001 looking for a job. But you’re obviously really good at this game so keep playing it. Now tell me how I’m a loser because I’m not a manager. The most ridiculous part of this post is that I would never buy a boat.

What’s most comical is that you probably ARE a manager. A manager who is completely out of touch with the workforce and wondering why he can’t retain mid-level professional staff. Show them the money or let them work at home at least 50%—it’s simple.

Or maybe you don’t want the mid level staff to stay. It is definitely easier to manage people who can’t see how horrible you are. It’s not better for the US taxpayer though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rumor is fdic is going back to 3x a week in office

- xoxo gossip girl

It’s going to be a big fight with the union.

Arbitrator may cut it down to 2x a week in the office....yayyyy

I heard 5 days a pay period.

4 would be better. Consistent weekly schedule. 2 days in, 3 days out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rumor is fdic is going back to 3x a week in office

- xoxo gossip girl

It’s going to be a big fight with the union.

Arbitrator may cut it down to 2x a week in the office....yayyyy

I heard 5 days a pay period.

4 would be better. Consistent weekly schedule. 2 days in, 3 days out.

Once a pay period would be better