Is there anything they can’t ruin?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get it. This was what it was like when I had my kids in the late 2000s.

For me as well. However, times have changed. And the fact that you don't recognize that is kind of concerning. We can't be stuck in the past. In the olden days I also had a desktop computer. Now I have a laptop and I have security features on my laptop that allow me to work anywhere and my data is secure. If we have that technology, why shouldn't we use it? Why go in and out to an office and waste gas and pollute the air just because some people think we should be back in the 1980s.

.

Yes, that traditional job with the traditional commute was so much fun back when we were pregnant and had morning sickness and we could vomit into a plastic bag on the metro or get out and vomit into a trash can on the platform. Letting people work from home in those situations added a lot of humanity and dignity but sure let’s go back to the old way.

OMG, did I write this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get it. This was what it was like when I had my kids in the late 2000s.

& it’s not sustainable, for mental health or birth rates. Even without kids this is miserable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am so tired of the people talking about what it was like in the late 90s/early 2000s. You could live on one income, you could buy a house inside the beltway for 25% of what it costs now, the list goes on. It's not the same. People had AWS and were teleworking some 20 years ago. It's not the same and stop saying it was.

Hahahaha. You could not live on one income in the 2000s.

Actually, you could and my family did [no family money supplementing, either], as did many others. But you don’t take fancy vacations, have a beach home, or pay for private school.

Every choice has consequences and people make different choices and that is grand.

But don’t lie and say it couldn’t be done. Maybe it can’t now.

I was a fed in 2000, with a teacher spouse and a toddler. We could not afford to live in our 1200 sqft house within an easy commute to DC on just one of our salaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get it. This was what it was like when I had my kids in the late 2000s.

As someone who worked in the late 2000s, we were doing schedule shifts back then to avoid rushes at building entrances.

Sounds like they're just trying to get people to quit.

+1
Also had kids late 2000s. Spent lots of $ on before and aftercare for all of the elementary years, which most of my coworkers haven’t done due to flexible schedules. Also no maternity leave. So there were differences- we didn’t have a set start and end time, and agree that sucks and is punitive- but other things sucked working full time with kids.

But yes I agree a defined start and end time is bad for all of us. I might have to look into other transportation options if we go that way.

I have been in the labor market for 35 years and staggered work start times and AWS has been a major thing for that entire period. There are very few jobs where having everyone in the office at exactly the same hours is beneficial. This is all idiocy.

Huh. My first federal job at DoJ ran from 1997 to 2001. In that position, I worked closely with clients in USFWS, EPA, Energy, USFS, Dept of the Navy and probably some others. I can think of zero, literally zero, of these (non-admin/non-HR) people in all of those agencies (let's say GS12 and above) who worked from home. Like, none. I know because we'd meet all the time in person downtown. I can think of two EPA scientists who weren't there after 3 pm. Literally everyone else was in the office if we needed a 4 pm emergency meeting. Everyone worked between the hours of 8 and 6.

Do I want us to return to that? No. but for the love of god, PLEASE stop the lie that federal RTO is a novelty and WFH or ridiculous AWS like 0600-1400 has been the norm since the Nixon years. Not for the professional class.

I was teleworking in the late 1980s some days. I was a programmer at a university and could dial into the mainframe and workstation machines I programmed. My monochrome PC at home was the same as my monochrome terminal at the office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am so tired of the people talking about what it was like in the late 90s/early 2000s. You could live on one income, you could buy a house inside the beltway for 25% of what it costs now, the list goes on. It's not the same. People had AWS and were teleworking some 20 years ago. It's not the same and stop saying it was.

Hahahaha. You could not live on one income in the 2000s.

Actually, you could and my family did [no family money supplementing, either], as did many others. But you don’t take fancy vacations, have a beach home, or pay for private school.

Every choice has consequences and people make different choices and that is grand.

But don’t lie and say it couldn’t be done. Maybe it can’t now.

I was a fed in 2000, with a teacher spouse and a toddler. We could not afford to live in our 1200 sqft house within an easy commute to DC on just one of our salaries.

I'm a fed with a teacher spouse and a preschooler and we couldn't afford a 1200 Sq ft house with an easy commute to DC on two salaries! (Instead we have 1500 Sq ft and a horrible commute to DC, but we're down the street from my spouse's school, best we could do.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am so tired of the people talking about what it was like in the late 90s/early 2000s. You could live on one income, you could buy a house inside the beltway for 25% of what it costs now, the list goes on. It's not the same. People had AWS and were teleworking some 20 years ago. It's not the same and stop saying it was.

Hahahaha. You could not live on one income in the 2000s.

Actually, you could and my family did [no family money supplementing, either], as did many others. But you don’t take fancy vacations, have a beach home, or pay for private school.

Every choice has consequences and people make different choices and that is grand.

But don’t lie and say it couldn’t be done. Maybe it can’t now.

I was a fed in 2000, with a teacher spouse and a toddler. We could not afford to live in our 1200 sqft house within an easy commute to DC on just one of our salaries.

I'm a fed with a teacher spouse and a preschooler and we couldn't afford a 1200 Sq ft house with an easy commute to DC on two salaries! (Instead we have 1500 Sq ft and a horrible commute to DC, but we're down the street from my spouse's school, best we could do.)

PS I'm talking 2020 here. I was in high school in 2000.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flexibility is better for everyone involved, including employers. However I do not think it helps the dialogue when people are complaining violently about having to be in the office 9 to 5. It just sounds whiny. You either need to do it or find a new job. Acting like being in the office 9 to 5 is some great affront, is just feeding the narrative of entitled workers.

The problem for most people isn't the 9-5, it's the 7-9 and 5-7 commute, including the half an hour just trying to get into and out of the building. Also, this was sprung on us with four days notice. If you think I sound whiny, well, I think you sound stupid, so I guess we're even.

Louder for those in the back.

That 7a - 7p day does sound rough. It's probably time to find a different private sector job closer to you in Loudon, Anne Arundel, Howard or PW counties? That is what people did in olden times. They changed jobs.

I live in DC. And yes, I'm leaving. But in olden times they didn't typically change your work location with 12 hours notice in order to get you to leave like they just did to us. That's not actually normal or ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get it. This was what it was like when I had my kids in the late 2000s.

We all agree that you truly don’t get it, PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get it. This was what it was like when I had my kids in the late 2000s.

this is like saying because i didn't have maternity leave, no one should have maternity leave in the future

+1

~64yo, retired, no dog in this fight, think it sucks for workers especially working parents

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get it. This was what it was like when I had my kids in the late 2000s.

As someone who worked in the late 2000s, we were doing schedule shifts back then to avoid rushes at building entrances.

Sounds like they're just trying to get people to quit.

+1
Also had kids late 2000s. Spent lots of $ on before and aftercare for all of the elementary years, which most of my coworkers haven’t done due to flexible schedules. Also no maternity leave. So there were differences- we didn’t have a set start and end time, and agree that sucks and is punitive- but other things sucked working full time with kids.

But yes I agree a defined start and end time is bad for all of us. I might have to look into other transportation options if we go that way.

I will never, ever understand this viewpoint. Because circumstances sucked for me, they should suck for future generations? I don’t expect to change your mind. But I hope to never ever reach this mindset. I want good working conditions for all. Even if you want to be selfish try this: miserable workers don’t do a good job. Miserable parents don’t do a good job.

I agree. I had my kids 1997-2000 and it was too freaking hard. Business attire, pantyhose, in-office five days a week. No slack or flexibility whatsoever.

I wouldn't wish that on anyone including workers nowadays.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My cousin she lives in NY and works in DC. Hired fully remote in Covid in 2020. She went back four days a week in person and is in heaven.

Got a little pied a tier in DC. Her husband deals with kids during week as he is WFH. She meets girlfriends dinner, goes to shows. Her place is walking distance office. She is married 20 years so this is heaven for her.

She is always posting on Facebook big photos of her new DC lifestyle.

And she rarely sees her kids or DH. Sounds divine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why people used to live close in. Now they want to live way outside the beltway and also keep a downtown job. It’s a choice.

I live close in. My assigned office for the fully remote job I was hired into is way out. But please, keep talking.

NP. It was not realistic think a fully remote job was a forever thing. Sorry, it stinks having the change up.
What did we do before?? I paid for before care, after care, an after school nanny once kid aged out of regular aftercare. Brought my kid to the office on snow days where school was closed and work was not (or took an annual leave day those times, saved leave just for those occasions).

For real, why was this not realistic? I am not a Fed and work from where and when I want (though travel a ton). But I don't understand why in the age of distributed teams, videoconferencing, and relatively cost-effective travel it's unrealistic to think jobs could be fully remote.

Plenty of jobs are remote, It is just not realistic to expect any single job to be permanently remote. I’ve been remote most of the last 15 years, but every employer I’ve had has made it clear they can change that at any time.

If the only thing you like about your job is that it is/was remote, I think you should find something you like more!

Your argument is akin to it’s not realistic to expect any job to permanently exist. No shit. Explain why it makes sense to arbitrarily decide that a job that has been done well remotely should suddenly no longer be remote.

Priorities change. I mean, people also get laid off who were doing fine, solely because their role is no longer needed. Arbitrary things happen. On an individual level it does not work to ask it to “make sense” because it just is what it is.

This is not just one company and a limited set of roles. It's the entire federal government, and there's no sense to it at all.

I'm not a Fed. But I am an American taxpayer. This is insanity and has nothing to do with government efficiency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why people used to live close in. Now they want to live way outside the beltway and also keep a downtown job. It’s a choice.

I live close in. My assigned office for the fully remote job I was hired into is way out. But please, keep talking.

NP. [b] It was not realistic think a fully remote job was a forever thing. [/]Sorry, it stinks having the change up.
What did we do before?? I paid for before care, after care, an after school nanny once kid aged out of regular aftercare. Brought my kid to the office on snow days where school was closed and work was not (or took an annual leave day those times, saved leave just for those occasions).

Why? I have had a fully remote job for 20 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why people used to live close in. Now they want to live way outside the beltway and also keep a downtown job. It’s a choice.

I live close in. My assigned office for the fully remote job I was hired into is way out. But please, keep talking.

NP. It was not realistic think a fully remote job was a forever thing. Sorry, it stinks having the change up.
What did we do before?? I paid for before care, after care, an after school nanny once kid aged out of regular aftercare. Brought my kid to the office on snow days where school was closed and work was not (or took an annual leave day those times, saved leave just for those occasions).

For real, why was this not realistic? I am not a Fed and work from where and when I want (though travel a ton). But I don't understand why in the age of distributed teams, videoconferencing, and relatively cost-effective travel it's unrealistic to think jobs could be fully remote.

Plenty of jobs are remote, It is just not realistic to expect any single job to be permanently remote. I’ve been remote most of the last 15 years, but every employer I’ve had has made it clear they can change that at any time.

If the only thing you like about your job is that it is/was remote, I think you should find something you like more!

Your argument is akin to it’s not realistic to expect any job to permanently exist. No shit. Explain why it makes sense to arbitrarily decide that a job that has been done well remotely should suddenly no longer be remote.

Priorities change. I mean, people also get laid off who were doing fine, solely because their role is no longer needed. Arbitrary things happen. On an individual level it does not work to ask it to “make sense” because it just is what it is.

This is not just one company and a limited set of roles. It's the entire federal government, and there's no sense to it at all.

I'm not a Fed. But I am an American taxpayer. This is insanity and has nothing to do with government efficiency.

Thank you! One of my parents is a retired contractor and said "I understand, it was always tough when a contract ended." OK, but what if your contract ended and there were NO MORE CONTRACTS? This isn't an "it's normal in the private sector" situation. There are comparisons but can we please not pretend this is normal? It's not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why people used to live close in. Now they want to live way outside the beltway and also keep a downtown job. It’s a choice.

I live close in. My assigned office for the fully remote job I was hired into is way out. But please, keep talking.

NP. It was not realistic think a fully remote job was a forever thing. Sorry, it stinks having the change up.
What did we do before?? I paid for before care, after care, an after school nanny once kid aged out of regular aftercare. Brought my kid to the office on snow days where school was closed and work was not (or took an annual leave day those times, saved leave just for those occasions).

For real, why was this not realistic? I am not a Fed and work from where and when I want (though travel a ton). But I don't understand why in the age of distributed teams, videoconferencing, and relatively cost-effective travel it's unrealistic to think jobs could be fully remote.

Plenty of jobs are remote, It is just not realistic to expect any single job to be permanently remote. I’ve been remote most of the last 15 years, but every employer I’ve had has made it clear they can change that at any time.

If the only thing you like about your job is that it is/was remote, I think you should find something you like more!

Your argument is akin to it’s not realistic to expect any job to permanently exist. No shit. Explain why it makes sense to arbitrarily decide that a job that has been done well remotely should suddenly no longer be remote.

Priorities change. I mean, people also get laid off who were doing fine, solely because their role is no longer needed. Arbitrary things happen. On an individual level it does not work to ask it to “make sense” because it just is what it is.

You’re not good at this. Your deflections are obvious. The fact that you literally CANNOT explain the assertion you made upthread is also obvious. (You also don’t understand what “arbitrary” means.)

And no, this is not simply a matter of “it is what it is.” Decisions, arbitrary or otherwise, are being *actively made* to do these things. Mandatory RTO and rigid work schedules are not just some naturally occurring phenomena. “It is what it is” is meant for situations such as a volcano eruption in Iceland causing planes to be grounded causing you to miss your big meeting in Europe.

I am getting so irritated with the absolutely CONFIDENT stupidity of people like you. Your understanding of our society and our government wouldn’t enable you to pass a middle school level civics test. I’m embarrassed for you.