Biden wants RTO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RTO is going to cause some agencies to hemorrhage decent young-ish employees. One day a week already led to us losing a few attorneys for the private sector. They can’t afford to live close in and as soon as they have kids they can’t manage a commute that’s an hour plus. I’m in a weird boat where my spouse makes a lot of money so we live close in but has garbage health insurance which doesn’t work because one of our kids is SN.

+1. Some of the posters are delusional about how much it costs to live reasonably close in with kids, where there is access to safe public schools and housing. I bought my house in 2013 and prices have since skyrocketed, and I still had nearly an hour commute downtown from within Fairfax County. Why would I want to spend nearly 1.5 - 2 hours a day commuting when I could spend that time with my family, driving kids to activities, exercising, cooking a healthy meal, etc. Life is too short to waste it in a car to spend 8 hours in the office on Teams meetings. Furthermore, I am a Federal manager and most of my younger, hard-working staff all want telework - for the exact reasons I do, so they can balance their careers and home life. I don’t want to lose them and I certainly don’t want to force them in the office more. Our work is computer based and can be completed effectively from home. I also have staff more willing to work on an issue later in the day or earlier in the morning when they’re home. Staff is flexible and more engaged in the work because they have a manager who is flexible regarding where they do the work. For computer based work, RTO is not the answer. The genie is out of the bottle and it’s not going back.

I understand but has this all changed dramatically in the last 3 years since the pandemic started? My whole office used to commute 4 days a week deal with traffic or public transportation, figure out kids activities, etc and now just doing what they used to do is intolerable? I get that we had a few years with more flexibility but we're being asked to do what everyone did for decades and suddenly that's too hard and everyone will quit?

Houses I was looking at for 400k three years ago are now going for 700k. Federal employee pay has not increased 75%.

Most people don’t pay cash for a house. The relevant difference is the monthly payment on a 30-year mortgage of $400k vs. $700k. And, look at dollar, not percent, increase. If a stick of gum goes from 5 cents to 10, that’s a 100% increase, but it doesn’t mean your salary needs to double to afford gum.

Good thing interest rates haven't gone up! This is the dumbest post. Honestly. Going from a payment on 400k at 2.5% to 700k at 7% is way more than a 75% increase, and far far more in dollars than any fed salary increase in that time. Do the math. Don't be lazy.

That's the reason you don't want to go back in the office? Why not find another job??

My point is that it's not all people who worked in the same offices before covid not wanting to come back. I am trying to hire right now. We get more and better applications for remote jobs already. Our salaries are not sustainable for people to live a reasonable distance from work. Telework helps us attract well qualified people who can't move their families, whose partners have jobs in Richmond or Baltimore, etc. Why do you think this isn't a barrier?

Richmond and Baltimore? Sounds like you're a Fed Board manager trying to get staff from Fed Richmond branches. Fed Board salaries, bonuses, and benefits are definitely high enough to live in the DC area. What you're really saying is that if your recruits can get a DC salary and remain in Baltimore and Richmond, that's a coup. Of course it is! This has always been an issue at the Board because there is no locality pay difference. Some Fed managers are narrowly focused on hiring from the Reserve Banks, but there are plenty of qualified people in other places.

Plenty of people who will relocate to DC? I’m not seeing that. It’s challenging to get people to relocate these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RTO is going to cause some agencies to hemorrhage decent young-ish employees. One day a week already led to us losing a few attorneys for the private sector. They can’t afford to live close in and as soon as they have kids they can’t manage a commute that’s an hour plus. I’m in a weird boat where my spouse makes a lot of money so we live close in but has garbage health insurance which doesn’t work because one of our kids is SN.

+1. Some of the posters are delusional about how much it costs to live reasonably close in with kids, where there is access to safe public schools and housing. I bought my house in 2013 and prices have since skyrocketed, and I still had nearly an hour commute downtown from within Fairfax County. Why would I want to spend nearly 1.5 - 2 hours a day commuting when I could spend that time with my family, driving kids to activities, exercising, cooking a healthy meal, etc. Life is too short to waste it in a car to spend 8 hours in the office on Teams meetings. Furthermore, I am a Federal manager and most of my younger, hard-working staff all want telework - for the exact reasons I do, so they can balance their careers and home life. I don’t want to lose them and I certainly don’t want to force them in the office more. Our work is computer based and can be completed effectively from home. I also have staff more willing to work on an issue later in the day or earlier in the morning when they’re home. Staff is flexible and more engaged in the work because they have a manager who is flexible regarding where they do the work. For computer based work, RTO is not the answer. The genie is out of the bottle and it’s not going back.

I understand but has this all changed dramatically in the last 3 years since the pandemic started? My whole office used to commute 4 days a week deal with traffic or public transportation, figure out kids activities, etc and now just doing what they used to do is intolerable? I get that we had a few years with more flexibility but we're being asked to do what everyone did for decades and suddenly that's too hard and everyone will quit?

Houses I was looking at for 400k three years ago are now going for 700k. Federal employee pay has not increased 75%.

Most people don’t pay cash for a house. The relevant difference is the monthly payment on a 30-year mortgage of $400k vs. $700k. And, look at dollar, not percent, increase. If a stick of gum goes from 5 cents to 10, that’s a 100% increase, but it doesn’t mean your salary needs to double to afford gum.

Good thing interest rates haven't gone up! This is the dumbest post. Honestly. Going from a payment on 400k at 2.5% to 700k at 7% is way more than a 75% increase, and far far more in dollars than any fed salary increase in that time. Do the math. Don't be lazy.

That's the reason you don't want to go back in the office? Why not find another job??

My point is that it's not all people who worked in the same offices before covid not wanting to come back. I am trying to hire right now. We get more and better applications for remote jobs already. Our salaries are not sustainable for people to live a reasonable distance from work. Telework helps us attract well qualified people who can't move their families, whose partners have jobs in Richmond or Baltimore, etc. Why do you think this isn't a barrier?

Richmond and Baltimore? Sounds like you're a Fed Board manager trying to get staff from Fed Richmond branches. Fed Board salaries, bonuses, and benefits are definitely high enough to live in the DC area. What you're really saying is that if your recruits can get a DC salary and remain in Baltimore and Richmond, that's a coup. Of course it is! This has always been an issue at the Board because there is no locality pay difference. Some Fed managers are narrowly focused on hiring from the Reserve Banks, but there are plenty of qualified people in other places.

Plenty of people who will relocate to DC? I’m not seeing that. It’s challenging to get people to relocate these days.

+1. DH and I are both hiring GS-14s. No one wants DC, not even for a 14. It’s gotten way too expensive for federal employees to afford without family help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RTO is going to cause some agencies to hemorrhage decent young-ish employees. One day a week already led to us losing a few attorneys for the private sector. They can’t afford to live close in and as soon as they have kids they can’t manage a commute that’s an hour plus. I’m in a weird boat where my spouse makes a lot of money so we live close in but has garbage health insurance which doesn’t work because one of our kids is SN.

+1. Some of the posters are delusional about how much it costs to live reasonably close in with kids, where there is access to safe public schools and housing. I bought my house in 2013 and prices have since skyrocketed, and I still had nearly an hour commute downtown from within Fairfax County. Why would I want to spend nearly 1.5 - 2 hours a day commuting when I could spend that time with my family, driving kids to activities, exercising, cooking a healthy meal, etc. Life is too short to waste it in a car to spend 8 hours in the office on Teams meetings. Furthermore, I am a Federal manager and most of my younger, hard-working staff all want telework - for the exact reasons I do, so they can balance their careers and home life. I don’t want to lose them and I certainly don’t want to force them in the office more. Our work is computer based and can be completed effectively from home. I also have staff more willing to work on an issue later in the day or earlier in the morning when they’re home. Staff is flexible and more engaged in the work because they have a manager who is flexible regarding where they do the work. For computer based work, RTO is not the answer. The genie is out of the bottle and it’s not going back.

I understand but has this all changed dramatically in the last 3 years since the pandemic started? My whole office used to commute 4 days a week deal with traffic or public transportation, figure out kids activities, etc and now just doing what they used to do is intolerable? I get that we had a few years with more flexibility but we're being asked to do what everyone did for decades and suddenly that's too hard and everyone will quit?

No, it’s that in the past three years, people discovered that by working from home, we can balance work and family demands much more easily. We used to also have no child labor laws. Should we go back to that?

And why should govt care about that? It's your personal choice/life isn't it?

NP. Because it's like putting toothpaste back in the tube. No one who enjoys it is willingly or for long going to give up that newfound flexibility now that they know it is possible. So basically you have a critical mass of people in every white collar industry who don't want to go back to the office. Most RTO efforts have fizzled out after a few weeks or months. I think that is likely to continue, because there are just so many people who like WFH. It's just the way it's going to be. Do not stand against the wind...

Don't assume Govt will try to put it back. Getting a new one is always an option (i.e., let those who want to leave, leave).

Problem with that is the number of people who like to WFH. Sure there will be efforts to RTO, but I believe over the long term they will all fizzle. Because sooner or later people rebel, find ways to make exceptions, change policies, etc. It's human nature.

Why is that a problem? The number that matters is the number of people who leave. For every 100 WFH "I'm gonna leave if you make me come back", I doubt more than 10 would actually leave. Govt is a big system. It will chugging along with or without those 10 folks. And others will love to join even then

You may be right that most people who claim that they’d leave won’t. But to think this isn’t a problem is myopic. They’ll be the better people, and they’ll take expertise and familiarity and corporate memory with them. They’ll be replaced with people who don’t care about WFH or aren’t able to compete for the more desirable WFH/flexible jobs. That’s a cohort that is on average not going to be as good as the people who left, even when they get up to speed (however long that takes). And the turnover cost of a government employee is ballpark half a year’s productivity.

So if you’re right, and of 100 people only 10 leave, then you’ll end up with something like the top 10% going, replaced by people in the bottom 50%, and paying 5% that year for the privilege. If you owned a 100-person company this kind of maneuver could tank your business. The government will survive but will get worse, and people will complain about how it’s worse and not realize that it was not a bug but a feature.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RTO is going to cause some agencies to hemorrhage decent young-ish employees. One day a week already led to us losing a few attorneys for the private sector. They can’t afford to live close in and as soon as they have kids they can’t manage a commute that’s an hour plus. I’m in a weird boat where my spouse makes a lot of money so we live close in but has garbage health insurance which doesn’t work because one of our kids is SN.

+1. Some of the posters are delusional about how much it costs to live reasonably close in with kids, where there is access to safe public schools and housing. I bought my house in 2013 and prices have since skyrocketed, and I still had nearly an hour commute downtown from within Fairfax County. Why would I want to spend nearly 1.5 - 2 hours a day commuting when I could spend that time with my family, driving kids to activities, exercising, cooking a healthy meal, etc. Life is too short to waste it in a car to spend 8 hours in the office on Teams meetings. Furthermore, I am a Federal manager and most of my younger, hard-working staff all want telework - for the exact reasons I do, so they can balance their careers and home life. I don’t want to lose them and I certainly don’t want to force them in the office more. Our work is computer based and can be completed effectively from home. I also have staff more willing to work on an issue later in the day or earlier in the morning when they’re home. Staff is flexible and more engaged in the work because they have a manager who is flexible regarding where they do the work. For computer based work, RTO is not the answer. The genie is out of the bottle and it’s not going back.

I understand but has this all changed dramatically in the last 3 years since the pandemic started? My whole office used to commute 4 days a week deal with traffic or public transportation, figure out kids activities, etc and now just doing what they used to do is intolerable? I get that we had a few years with more flexibility but we're being asked to do what everyone did for decades and suddenly that's too hard and everyone will quit?

No, it’s that in the past three years, people discovered that by working from home, we can balance work and family demands much more easily. We used to also have no child labor laws. Should we go back to that?

And why should govt care about that? It's your personal choice/life isn't it?

NP. Because it's like putting toothpaste back in the tube. No one who enjoys it is willingly or for long going to give up that newfound flexibility now that they know it is possible. So basically you have a critical mass of people in every white collar industry who don't want to go back to the office. Most RTO efforts have fizzled out after a few weeks or months. I think that is likely to continue, because there are just so many people who like WFH. It's just the way it's going to be. Do not stand against the wind...

Don't assume Govt will try to put it back. Getting a new one is always an option (i.e., let those who want to leave, leave).

Problem with that is the number of people who like to WFH. Sure there will be efforts to RTO, but I believe over the long term they will all fizzle. Because sooner or later people rebel, find ways to make exceptions, change policies, etc. It's human nature.

Why is that a problem? The number that matters is the number of people who leave. For every 100 WFH "I'm gonna leave if you make me come back", I doubt more than 10 would actually leave. Govt is a big system. It will chugging along with or without those 10 folks. And others will love to join even then

You may be right that most people who claim that they’d leave won’t. But to think this isn’t a problem is myopic. They’ll be the better people, and they’ll take expertise and familiarity and corporate memory with them. They’ll be replaced with people who don’t care about WFH or aren’t able to compete for the more desirable WFH/flexible jobs. That’s a cohort that is on average not going to be as good as the people who left, even when they get up to speed (however long that takes). And the turnover cost of a government employee is ballpark half a year’s productivity.

So if you’re right, and of 100 people only 10 leave, then you’ll end up with something like the top 10% going, replaced by people in the bottom 50%, and paying 5% that year for the privilege. If you owned a 100-person company this kind of maneuver could tank your business. The government will survive but will get worse, and people will complain about how it’s worse and not realize that it was not a bug but a feature.

My guess is you lose the top 5% and the bottom 5% percent. There are those people that are really good, really motivate, and will get a job elsewhere. There are also those who are coasting, and the agency can't quite get rid of through performance. They either leave on their own/retire because they don't want to go in and/or be held accountable, OR they finally give management a reason to fire them for noncompliance with policy.

It is a hit, sure. But it is a manageable one that comes with benefits as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RTO is going to cause some agencies to hemorrhage decent young-ish employees. One day a week already led to us losing a few attorneys for the private sector. They can’t afford to live close in and as soon as they have kids they can’t manage a commute that’s an hour plus. I’m in a weird boat where my spouse makes a lot of money so we live close in but has garbage health insurance which doesn’t work because one of our kids is SN.

+1. Some of the posters are delusional about how much it costs to live reasonably close in with kids, where there is access to safe public schools and housing. I bought my house in 2013 and prices have since skyrocketed, and I still had nearly an hour commute downtown from within Fairfax County. Why would I want to spend nearly 1.5 - 2 hours a day commuting when I could spend that time with my family, driving kids to activities, exercising, cooking a healthy meal, etc. Life is too short to waste it in a car to spend 8 hours in the office on Teams meetings. Furthermore, I am a Federal manager and most of my younger, hard-working staff all want telework - for the exact reasons I do, so they can balance their careers and home life. I don’t want to lose them and I certainly don’t want to force them in the office more. Our work is computer based and can be completed effectively from home. I also have staff more willing to work on an issue later in the day or earlier in the morning when they’re home. Staff is flexible and more engaged in the work because they have a manager who is flexible regarding where they do the work. For computer based work, RTO is not the answer. The genie is out of the bottle and it’s not going back.

I understand but has this all changed dramatically in the last 3 years since the pandemic started? My whole office used to commute 4 days a week deal with traffic or public transportation, figure out kids activities, etc and now just doing what they used to do is intolerable? I get that we had a few years with more flexibility but we're being asked to do what everyone did for decades and suddenly that's too hard and everyone will quit?

No, it’s that in the past three years, people discovered that by working from home, we can balance work and family demands much more easily. We used to also have no child labor laws. Should we go back to that?

And why should govt care about that? It's your personal choice/life isn't it?

NP. Because it's like putting toothpaste back in the tube. No one who enjoys it is willingly or for long going to give up that newfound flexibility now that they know it is possible. So basically you have a critical mass of people in every white collar industry who don't want to go back to the office. Most RTO efforts have fizzled out after a few weeks or months. I think that is likely to continue, because there are just so many people who like WFH. It's just the way it's going to be. Do not stand against the wind...

Don't assume Govt will try to put it back. Getting a new one is always an option (i.e., let those who want to leave, leave).

Problem with that is the number of people who like to WFH. Sure there will be efforts to RTO, but I believe over the long term they will all fizzle. Because sooner or later people rebel, find ways to make exceptions, change policies, etc. It's human nature.

Why is that a problem? The number that matters is the number of people who leave. For every 100 WFH "I'm gonna leave if you make me come back", I doubt more than 10 would actually leave. Govt is a big system. It will chugging along with or without those 10 folks. And others will love to join even then

You may be right that most people who claim that they’d leave won’t. But to think this isn’t a problem is myopic. They’ll be the better people, and they’ll take expertise and familiarity and corporate memory with them. They’ll be replaced with people who don’t care about WFH or aren’t able to compete for the more desirable WFH/flexible jobs. That’s a cohort that is on average not going to be as good as the people who left, even when they get up to speed (however long that takes). And the turnover cost of a government employee is ballpark half a year’s productivity.

So if you’re right, and of 100 people only 10 leave, then you’ll end up with something like the top 10% going, replaced by people in the bottom 50%, and paying 5% that year for the privilege. If you owned a 100-person company this kind of maneuver could tank your business. The government will survive but will get worse, and people will complain about how it’s worse and not realize that it was not a bug but a feature.

My guess is you lose the top 5% and the bottom 5% percent. There are those people that are really good, really motivate, and will get a job elsewhere. There are also those who are coasting, and the agency can't quite get rid of through performance. They either leave on their own/retire because they don't want to go in and/or be held accountable, OR they finally give management a reason to fire them for noncompliance with policy.

It is a hit, sure. But it is a manageable one that comes with benefits as well.

PP here. In thinking about this more, I don't even think you lose the top 5%. Some of those top performers DON'T think increased onsite presence is a dealbreaker for them. They are committed to the agency and (correctly) see a great career path for them there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just got off the phone with my manager. RTO starting October. Ugh...

Which agency?

[Anonymous]

Do we have to RTO if our agency is in a suburb and because of parking issues no one ever leaves during the day to buy lunch?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RTO is going to cause some agencies to hemorrhage decent young-ish employees. One day a week already led to us losing a few attorneys for the private sector. They can’t afford to live close in and as soon as they have kids they can’t manage a commute that’s an hour plus. I’m in a weird boat where my spouse makes a lot of money so we live close in but has garbage health insurance which doesn’t work because one of our kids is SN.

+1. Some of the posters are delusional about how much it costs to live reasonably close in with kids, where there is access to safe public schools and housing. I bought my house in 2013 and prices have since skyrocketed, and I still had nearly an hour commute downtown from within Fairfax County. Why would I want to spend nearly 1.5 - 2 hours a day commuting when I could spend that time with my family, driving kids to activities, exercising, cooking a healthy meal, etc. Life is too short to waste it in a car to spend 8 hours in the office on Teams meetings. Furthermore, I am a Federal manager and most of my younger, hard-working staff all want telework - for the exact reasons I do, so they can balance their careers and home life. I don’t want to lose them and I certainly don’t want to force them in the office more. Our work is computer based and can be completed effectively from home. I also have staff more willing to work on an issue later in the day or earlier in the morning when they’re home. Staff is flexible and more engaged in the work because they have a manager who is flexible regarding where they do the work. For computer based work, RTO is not the answer. The genie is out of the bottle and it’s not going back.

I understand but has this all changed dramatically in the last 3 years since the pandemic started? My whole office used to commute 4 days a week deal with traffic or public transportation, figure out kids activities, etc and now just doing what they used to do is intolerable? I get that we had a few years with more flexibility but we're being asked to do what everyone did for decades and suddenly that's too hard and everyone will quit?

No, it’s that in the past three years, people discovered that by working from home, we can balance work and family demands much more easily. We used to also have no child labor laws. Should we go back to that?

And why should govt care about that? It's your personal choice/life isn't it?

NP. Because it's like putting toothpaste back in the tube. No one who enjoys it is willingly or for long going to give up that newfound flexibility now that they know it is possible. So basically you have a critical mass of people in every white collar industry who don't want to go back to the office. Most RTO efforts have fizzled out after a few weeks or months. I think that is likely to continue, because there are just so many people who like WFH. It's just the way it's going to be. Do not stand against the wind...

Don't assume Govt will try to put it back. Getting a new one is always an option (i.e., let those who want to leave, leave).

Problem with that is the number of people who like to WFH. Sure there will be efforts to RTO, but I believe over the long term they will all fizzle. Because sooner or later people rebel, find ways to make exceptions, change policies, etc. It's human nature.

Why is that a problem? The number that matters is the number of people who leave. For every 100 WFH "I'm gonna leave if you make me come back", I doubt more than 10 would actually leave. Govt is a big system. It will chugging along with or without those 10 folks. And others will love to join even then

You may be right that most people who claim that they’d leave won’t. But to think this isn’t a problem is myopic. They’ll be the better people, and they’ll take expertise and familiarity and corporate memory with them. They’ll be replaced with people who don’t care about WFH or aren’t able to compete for the more desirable WFH/flexible jobs. That’s a cohort that is on average not going to be as good as the people who left, even when they get up to speed (however long that takes). And the turnover cost of a government employee is ballpark half a year’s productivity.

So if you’re right, and of 100 people only 10 leave, then you’ll end up with something like the top 10% going, replaced by people in the bottom 50%, and paying 5% that year for the privilege. If you owned a 100-person company this kind of maneuver could tank your business. The government will survive but will get worse, and people will complain about how it’s worse and not realize that it was not a bug but a feature.

PP you are responding to. I don't know. I think people love to create theater over these situations. I honestly don't think people leaving the agency over this issue will be the top people or we are going to see mass exodus of workers. And, even if you end up losing some of the top performers, it will be hardly noticeable. Institutional knowledge will be maintained (thanks to older workers) and new hires will be trained. Govt will keep moving with or without those people.

[Anonymous]

Sound like a republican fever dream in which we gut government, install a bunch of know nothing kids right out of school as “managers”, and the politicals at the top proceed to grift without any oversight by career staff that knows better. Already happened in the last administration. This is just more of the same. And people wonder why voters don’t think government is working for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RTO is going to cause some agencies to hemorrhage decent young-ish employees. One day a week already led to us losing a few attorneys for the private sector. They can’t afford to live close in and as soon as they have kids they can’t manage a commute that’s an hour plus. I’m in a weird boat where my spouse makes a lot of money so we live close in but has garbage health insurance which doesn’t work because one of our kids is SN.

+1. Some of the posters are delusional about how much it costs to live reasonably close in with kids, where there is access to safe public schools and housing. I bought my house in 2013 and prices have since skyrocketed, and I still had nearly an hour commute downtown from within Fairfax County. Why would I want to spend nearly 1.5 - 2 hours a day commuting when I could spend that time with my family, driving kids to activities, exercising, cooking a healthy meal, etc. Life is too short to waste it in a car to spend 8 hours in the office on Teams meetings. Furthermore, I am a Federal manager and most of my younger, hard-working staff all want telework - for the exact reasons I do, so they can balance their careers and home life. I don’t want to lose them and I certainly don’t want to force them in the office more. Our work is computer based and can be completed effectively from home. I also have staff more willing to work on an issue later in the day or earlier in the morning when they’re home. Staff is flexible and more engaged in the work because they have a manager who is flexible regarding where they do the work. For computer based work, RTO is not the answer. The genie is out of the bottle and it’s not going back.

I understand but has this all changed dramatically in the last 3 years since the pandemic started? My whole office used to commute 4 days a week deal with traffic or public transportation, figure out kids activities, etc and now just doing what they used to do is intolerable? I get that we had a few years with more flexibility but we're being asked to do what everyone did for decades and suddenly that's too hard and everyone will quit?

No, it’s that in the past three years, people discovered that by working from home, we can balance work and family demands much more easily. We used to also have no child labor laws. Should we go back to that?

And why should govt care about that? It's your personal choice/life isn't it?

NP. Because it's like putting toothpaste back in the tube. No one who enjoys it is willingly or for long going to give up that newfound flexibility now that they know it is possible. So basically you have a critical mass of people in every white collar industry who don't want to go back to the office. Most RTO efforts have fizzled out after a few weeks or months. I think that is likely to continue, because there are just so many people who like WFH. It's just the way it's going to be. Do not stand against the wind...

Don't assume Govt will try to put it back. Getting a new one is always an option (i.e., let those who want to leave, leave).

Problem with that is the number of people who like to WFH. Sure there will be efforts to RTO, but I believe over the long term they will all fizzle. Because sooner or later people rebel, find ways to make exceptions, change policies, etc. It's human nature.

Why is that a problem? The number that matters is the number of people who leave. For every 100 WFH "I'm gonna leave if you make me come back", I doubt more than 10 would actually leave. Govt is a big system. It will chugging along with or without those 10 folks. And others will love to join even then

You may be right that most people who claim that they’d leave won’t. But to think this isn’t a problem is myopic. They’ll be the better people, and they’ll take expertise and familiarity and corporate memory with them. They’ll be replaced with people who don’t care about WFH or aren’t able to compete for the more desirable WFH/flexible jobs. That’s a cohort that is on average not going to be as good as the people who left, even when they get up to speed (however long that takes). And the turnover cost of a government employee is ballpark half a year’s productivity.

So if you’re right, and of 100 people only 10 leave, then you’ll end up with something like the top 10% going, replaced by people in the bottom 50%, and paying 5% that year for the privilege. If you owned a 100-person company this kind of maneuver could tank your business. The government will survive but will get worse, and people will complain about how it’s worse and not realize that it was not a bug but a feature.

Feds always over-leverage their self-worth.

[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:RTO is going to cause some agencies to hemorrhage decent young-ish employees. One day a week already led to us losing a few attorneys for the private sector. They can’t afford to live close in and as soon as they have kids they can’t manage a commute that’s an hour plus. I’m in a weird boat where my spouse makes a lot of money so we live close in but has garbage health insurance which doesn’t work because one of our kids is SN.

+1. Some of the posters are delusional about how much it costs to live reasonably close in with kids, where there is access to safe public schools and housing. I bought my house in 2013 and prices have since skyrocketed, and I still had nearly an hour commute downtown from within Fairfax County. Why would I want to spend nearly 1.5 - 2 hours a day commuting when I could spend that time with my family, driving kids to activities, exercising, cooking a healthy meal, etc. Life is too short to waste it in a car to spend 8 hours in the office on Teams meetings. Furthermore, I am a Federal manager and most of my younger, hard-working staff all want telework - for the exact reasons I do, so they can balance their careers and home life. I don’t want to lose them and I certainly don’t want to force them in the office more. Our work is computer based and can be completed effectively from home. I also have staff more willing to work on an issue later in the day or earlier in the morning when they’re home. Staff is flexible and more engaged in the work because they have a manager who is flexible regarding where they do the work. For computer based work, RTO is not the answer. The genie is out of the bottle and it’s not going back.

I understand but has this all changed dramatically in the last 3 years since the pandemic started? My whole office used to commute 4 days a week deal with traffic or public transportation, figure out kids activities, etc and now just doing what they used to do is intolerable? I get that we had a few years with more flexibility but we're being asked to do what everyone did for decades and suddenly that's too hard and everyone will quit?

No, it’s that in the past three years, people discovered that by working from home, we can balance work and family demands much more easily. We used to also have no child labor laws. Should we go back to that?

And why should govt care about that? It's your personal choice/life isn't it?

NP. Because it's like putting toothpaste back in the tube. No one who enjoys it is willingly or for long going to give up that newfound flexibility now that they know it is possible. So basically you have a critical mass of people in every white collar industry who don't want to go back to the office. Most RTO efforts have fizzled out after a few weeks or months. I think that is likely to continue, because there are just so many people who like WFH. It's just the way it's going to be. Do not stand against the wind...

Don't assume Govt will try to put it back. Getting a new one is always an option (i.e., let those who want to leave, leave).

Problem with that is the number of people who like to WFH. Sure there will be efforts to RTO, but I believe over the long term they will all fizzle. Because sooner or later people rebel, find ways to make exceptions, change policies, etc. It's human nature.

Why is that a problem? The number that matters is the number of people who leave. For every 100 WFH "I'm gonna leave if you make me come back", I doubt more than 10 would actually leave. Govt is a big system. It will chugging along with or without those 10 folks. And others will love to join even then

You may be right that most people who claim that they’d leave won’t. But to think this isn’t a problem is myopic. They’ll be the better people, and they’ll take expertise and familiarity and corporate memory with them. They’ll be replaced with people who don’t care about WFH or aren’t able to compete for the more desirable WFH/flexible jobs. That’s a cohort that is on average not going to be as good as the people who left, even when they get up to speed (however long that takes). And the turnover cost of a government employee is ballpark half a year’s productivity.

So if you’re right, and of 100 people only 10 leave, then you’ll end up with something like the top 10% going, replaced by people in the bottom 50%, and paying 5% that year for the privilege. If you owned a 100-person company this kind of maneuver could tank your business. The government will survive but will get worse, and people will complain about how it’s worse and not realize that it was not a bug but a feature.

My guess is you lose the top 5% and the bottom 5% percent. There are those people that are really good, really motivate, and will get a job elsewhere. There are also those who are coasting, and the agency can't quite get rid of through performance. They either leave on their own/retire because they don't want to go in and/or be held accountable, OR they finally give management a reason to fire them for noncompliance with policy.

It is a hit, sure. But it is a manageable one that comes with benefits as well.

PP here. In thinking about this more, I don't even think you lose the top 5%. Some of those top performers DON'T think increased onsite presence is a dealbreaker for them. They are committed to the agency and (correctly) see a great career path for them there.

PP. The original assertion was about the sub population who want to leave - so those are people who claim RTO is a dealbreaker. The ones who actually do leave will tend to be the best because they’re most likely to have the better options outside the government. While those people may also have a great career path, I was focusing on more senior feds for whom advancement potentials are markedly less than in the private sector.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RTO is going to cause some agencies to hemorrhage decent young-ish employees. One day a week already led to us losing a few attorneys for the private sector. They can’t afford to live close in and as soon as they have kids they can’t manage a commute that’s an hour plus. I’m in a weird boat where my spouse makes a lot of money so we live close in but has garbage health insurance which doesn’t work because one of our kids is SN.

+1. Some of the posters are delusional about how much it costs to live reasonably close in with kids, where there is access to safe public schools and housing. I bought my house in 2013 and prices have since skyrocketed, and I still had nearly an hour commute downtown from within Fairfax County. Why would I want to spend nearly 1.5 - 2 hours a day commuting when I could spend that time with my family, driving kids to activities, exercising, cooking a healthy meal, etc. Life is too short to waste it in a car to spend 8 hours in the office on Teams meetings. Furthermore, I am a Federal manager and most of my younger, hard-working staff all want telework - for the exact reasons I do, so they can balance their careers and home life. I don’t want to lose them and I certainly don’t want to force them in the office more. Our work is computer based and can be completed effectively from home. I also have staff more willing to work on an issue later in the day or earlier in the morning when they’re home. Staff is flexible and more engaged in the work because they have a manager who is flexible regarding where they do the work. For computer based work, RTO is not the answer. The genie is out of the bottle and it’s not going back.

I understand but has this all changed dramatically in the last 3 years since the pandemic started? My whole office used to commute 4 days a week deal with traffic or public transportation, figure out kids activities, etc and now just doing what they used to do is intolerable? I get that we had a few years with more flexibility but we're being asked to do what everyone did for decades and suddenly that's too hard and everyone will quit?

No, it’s that in the past three years, people discovered that by working from home, we can balance work and family demands much more easily. We used to also have no child labor laws. Should we go back to that?

And why should govt care about that? It's your personal choice/life isn't it?

NP. Because it's like putting toothpaste back in the tube. No one who enjoys it is willingly or for long going to give up that newfound flexibility now that they know it is possible. So basically you have a critical mass of people in every white collar industry who don't want to go back to the office. Most RTO efforts have fizzled out after a few weeks or months. I think that is likely to continue, because there are just so many people who like WFH. It's just the way it's going to be. Do not stand against the wind...

Don't assume Govt will try to put it back. Getting a new one is always an option (i.e., let those who want to leave, leave).

Problem with that is the number of people who like to WFH. Sure there will be efforts to RTO, but I believe over the long term they will all fizzle. Because sooner or later people rebel, find ways to make exceptions, change policies, etc. It's human nature.

Why is that a problem? The number that matters is the number of people who leave. For every 100 WFH "I'm gonna leave if you make me come back", I doubt more than 10 would actually leave. Govt is a big system. It will chugging along with or without those 10 folks. And others will love to join even then

You may be right that most people who claim that they’d leave won’t. But to think this isn’t a problem is myopic. They’ll be the better people, and they’ll take expertise and familiarity and corporate memory with them. They’ll be replaced with people who don’t care about WFH or aren’t able to compete for the more desirable WFH/flexible jobs. That’s a cohort that is on average not going to be as good as the people who left, even when they get up to speed (however long that takes). And the turnover cost of a government employee is ballpark half a year’s productivity.

So if you’re right, and of 100 people only 10 leave, then you’ll end up with something like the top 10% going, replaced by people in the bottom 50%, and paying 5% that year for the privilege. If you owned a 100-person company this kind of maneuver could tank your business. The government will survive but will get worse, and people will complain about how it’s worse and not realize that it was not a bug but a feature.

PP you are responding to. I don't know. I think people love to create theater over these situations. I honestly don't think people leaving the agency over this issue will be the top people or we are going to see mass exodus of workers. And, even if you end up losing some of the top performers, it will be hardly noticeable. Institutional knowledge will be maintained (thanks to older workers) and new hires will be trained. Govt will keep moving with or without those people.

PP. yeah, I agree that it would be amazing if a lot of feds actually quit. But I wouldn’t be amazed if preferentially the more capable ones do, and the rest slack off a bit out of foot-dragging. I think all we're struggling with is hot to estimate how much less effective government workers will be in total, and whether that decrease will be offset by the increase productivity of the increased RTO time. None of us can know whether that balance is an overall improvement or degradation of government performance. The policy isn’t data-driven anyway. It’s ideology-driven.

So all this talk about the good and bad of a blanket RTO policy can be summed up as follows: nobody can prove that it’s going to make the government more efficient, or that is isn’t.

[Anonymous]

Regardless of how many people leave the agency because of RTO there is always some turnover and there is no doubt that it is becoming harder to recruit good people and WFH flexibility is the last really good recruiting tool we have.

I can tell you we used to have our choice of the cream of the crop and now if I have to hire 2 people I am almost afraid to hire the second because I am lucky to get one really good candidate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RTO is going to cause some agencies to hemorrhage decent young-ish employees. One day a week already led to us losing a few attorneys for the private sector. They can’t afford to live close in and as soon as they have kids they can’t manage a commute that’s an hour plus. I’m in a weird boat where my spouse makes a lot of money so we live close in but has garbage health insurance which doesn’t work because one of our kids is SN.

+1. Some of the posters are delusional about how much it costs to live reasonably close in with kids, where there is access to safe public schools and housing. I bought my house in 2013 and prices have since skyrocketed, and I still had nearly an hour commute downtown from within Fairfax County. Why would I want to spend nearly 1.5 - 2 hours a day commuting when I could spend that time with my family, driving kids to activities, exercising, cooking a healthy meal, etc. Life is too short to waste it in a car to spend 8 hours in the office on Teams meetings. Furthermore, I am a Federal manager and most of my younger, hard-working staff all want telework - for the exact reasons I do, so they can balance their careers and home life. I don’t want to lose them and I certainly don’t want to force them in the office more. Our work is computer based and can be completed effectively from home. I also have staff more willing to work on an issue later in the day or earlier in the morning when they’re home. Staff is flexible and more engaged in the work because they have a manager who is flexible regarding where they do the work. For computer based work, RTO is not the answer. The genie is out of the bottle and it’s not going back.

I understand but has this all changed dramatically in the last 3 years since the pandemic started? My whole office used to commute 4 days a week deal with traffic or public transportation, figure out kids activities, etc and now just doing what they used to do is intolerable? I get that we had a few years with more flexibility but we're being asked to do what everyone did for decades and suddenly that's too hard and everyone will quit?

No, it’s that in the past three years, people discovered that by working from home, we can balance work and family demands much more easily. We used to also have no child labor laws. Should we go back to that?

And why should govt care about that? It's your personal choice/life isn't it?

NP. Because it's like putting toothpaste back in the tube. No one who enjoys it is willingly or for long going to give up that newfound flexibility now that they know it is possible. So basically you have a critical mass of people in every white collar industry who don't want to go back to the office. Most RTO efforts have fizzled out after a few weeks or months. I think that is likely to continue, because there are just so many people who like WFH. It's just the way it's going to be. Do not stand against the wind...

Don't assume Govt will try to put it back. Getting a new one is always an option (i.e., let those who want to leave, leave).

Problem with that is the number of people who like to WFH. Sure there will be efforts to RTO, but I believe over the long term they will all fizzle. Because sooner or later people rebel, find ways to make exceptions, change policies, etc. It's human nature.

Why is that a problem? The number that matters is the number of people who leave. For every 100 WFH "I'm gonna leave if you make me come back", I doubt more than 10 would actually leave. Govt is a big system. It will chugging along with or without those 10 folks. And others will love to join even then

You may be right that most people who claim that they’d leave won’t. But to think this isn’t a problem is myopic. They’ll be the better people, and they’ll take expertise and familiarity and corporate memory with them. They’ll be replaced with people who don’t care about WFH or aren’t able to compete for the more desirable WFH/flexible jobs. That’s a cohort that is on average not going to be as good as the people who left, even when they get up to speed (however long that takes). And the turnover cost of a government employee is ballpark half a year’s productivity.

So if you’re right, and of 100 people only 10 leave, then you’ll end up with something like the top 10% going, replaced by people in the bottom 50%, and paying 5% that year for the privilege. If you owned a 100-person company this kind of maneuver could tank your business. The government will survive but will get worse, and people will complain about how it’s worse and not realize that it was not a bug but a feature.

PP you are responding to. I don't know. I think people love to create theater over these situations. I honestly don't think people leaving the agency over this issue will be the top people or we are going to see mass exodus of workers. And, even if you end up losing some of the top performers, it will be hardly noticeable. Institutional knowledge will be maintained (thanks to older workers) and new hires will be trained. Govt will keep moving with or without those people.

The world will keep spinning, yes.

But at my own agency I’m seeing RTO be the catalyst for more older workers to retire. These workers are often SMEs and are impossible to replace from a knowledge standpoint.

RTO also sometimes encourages good employees to start looking for a job. Plenty of other companies offer benefits in line with the government with much higher salaries. RTO is often the push to get these employees to start looking.

There’s also the problem that it takes months and months to hire someone. Even when someone is hired it can then again take months to onboard the new employee and have their clearance approved.

[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:RTO is going to cause some agencies to hemorrhage decent young-ish employees. One day a week already led to us losing a few attorneys for the private sector. They can’t afford to live close in and as soon as they have kids they can’t manage a commute that’s an hour plus. I’m in a weird boat where my spouse makes a lot of money so we live close in but has garbage health insurance which doesn’t work because one of our kids is SN.

+1. Some of the posters are delusional about how much it costs to live reasonably close in with kids, where there is access to safe public schools and housing. I bought my house in 2013 and prices have since skyrocketed, and I still had nearly an hour commute downtown from within Fairfax County. Why would I want to spend nearly 1.5 - 2 hours a day commuting when I could spend that time with my family, driving kids to activities, exercising, cooking a healthy meal, etc. Life is too short to waste it in a car to spend 8 hours in the office on Teams meetings. Furthermore, I am a Federal manager and most of my younger, hard-working staff all want telework - for the exact reasons I do, so they can balance their careers and home life. I don’t want to lose them and I certainly don’t want to force them in the office more. Our work is computer based and can be completed effectively from home. I also have staff more willing to work on an issue later in the day or earlier in the morning when they’re home. Staff is flexible and more engaged in the work because they have a manager who is flexible regarding where they do the work. For computer based work, RTO is not the answer. The genie is out of the bottle and it’s not going back.

I understand but has this all changed dramatically in the last 3 years since the pandemic started? My whole office used to commute 4 days a week deal with traffic or public transportation, figure out kids activities, etc and now just doing what they used to do is intolerable? I get that we had a few years with more flexibility but we're being asked to do what everyone did for decades and suddenly that's too hard and everyone will quit?

No, it’s that in the past three years, people discovered that by working from home, we can balance work and family demands much more easily. We used to also have no child labor laws. Should we go back to that?

And why should govt care about that? It's your personal choice/life isn't it?

NP. Because it's like putting toothpaste back in the tube. No one who enjoys it is willingly or for long going to give up that newfound flexibility now that they know it is possible. So basically you have a critical mass of people in every white collar industry who don't want to go back to the office. Most RTO efforts have fizzled out after a few weeks or months. I think that is likely to continue, because there are just so many people who like WFH. It's just the way it's going to be. Do not stand against the wind...

Don't assume Govt will try to put it back. Getting a new one is always an option (i.e., let those who want to leave, leave).

Problem with that is the number of people who like to WFH. Sure there will be efforts to RTO, but I believe over the long term they will all fizzle. Because sooner or later people rebel, find ways to make exceptions, change policies, etc. It's human nature.

Why is that a problem? The number that matters is the number of people who leave. For every 100 WFH "I'm gonna leave if you make me come back", I doubt more than 10 would actually leave. Govt is a big system. It will chugging along with or without those 10 folks. And others will love to join even then

You may be right that most people who claim that they’d leave won’t. But to think this isn’t a problem is myopic. They’ll be the better people, and they’ll take expertise and familiarity and corporate memory with them. They’ll be replaced with people who don’t care about WFH or aren’t able to compete for the more desirable WFH/flexible jobs. That’s a cohort that is on average not going to be as good as the people who left, even when they get up to speed (however long that takes). And the turnover cost of a government employee is ballpark half a year’s productivity.

So if you’re right, and of 100 people only 10 leave, then you’ll end up with something like the top 10% going, replaced by people in the bottom 50%, and paying 5% that year for the privilege. If you owned a 100-person company this kind of maneuver could tank your business. The government will survive but will get worse, and people will complain about how it’s worse and not realize that it was not a bug but a feature.

My guess is you lose the top 5% and the bottom 5% percent. There are those people that are really good, really motivate, and will get a job elsewhere. There are also those who are coasting, and the agency can't quite get rid of through performance. They either leave on their own/retire because they don't want to go in and/or be held accountable, OR they finally give management a reason to fire them for noncompliance with policy.

It is a hit, sure. But it is a manageable one that comes with benefits as well.

PP here. In thinking about this more, I don't even think you lose the top 5%. Some of those top performers DON'T think increased onsite presence is a dealbreaker for them. They are committed to the agency and (correctly) see a great career path for them there.

PP. The original assertion was about the sub population who want to leave - so those are people who claim RTO is a dealbreaker. The ones who actually do leave will tend to be the best because they’re most likely to have the better options outside the government. While those people may also have a great career path, I was focusing on more senior feds for whom advancement potentials are markedly less than in the private sector.

Sure I get that, but I read the rest of your post as referring to what would happen if the top 10% of performers left a government or private organization. That really isn't the case. It is the top 5% of a subset of performers- now narrowed to more senior people who say RTO is a dealbreaker. Let's generously say that this subpopulation is 25% of all federal employees. You'll lose the top 5% of that already small population. And it isn't as though it is going to happen all at the exact same time.

Totally manageable.