Biden wants RTO

[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.

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.

I agree with this PP. But I'll also add that efficiency is not the only factor at play. As others have noted, broader environmental and economic impacts as well as the long term health of the organization- including talent development, succession planning, and even "culture" are also at play.

[Anonymous]

A blanket requirement for a set number of in-office days would be backsliding compared to where OPM was on this BEFORE the pandemic. We always had more flexibility than that.

I worked 2 days a week at home, sometimes 3, for several years. There were times I just worked from home for an entire week because I was under a deadline and had to get something done without any distractions at the office (which were MANY), or I was sick but could work from home, or I had a dr’s appointment but didn’t want to burn a whole day on leave. This idea that a firm RTO schedule is necessary or workable is a joke. The policy will be something like managers need to approve more than x% telework and any alternative work schedules on an as-needed basis. The federal government is bigger than big. People commenting here about how companies in the private sector operate, as if it’s any any way applicable, are hilarious.

[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.

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.

I agree with this PP. But I'll also add that efficiency is not the only factor at play. As others have noted, broader environmental and economic impacts as well as the long term health of the organization- including talent development, succession planning, and even "culture" are also at play.

I'd even go one step further and say efficiency is not a factor at play. I don't think this whole RTO has anything to do with efficiency or lack thereof. I think it's all politics as we are getting into "funny season" time of the election cycle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I agree with this PP. But I'll also add that efficiency is not the only factor at play. As others have noted, broader environmental and economic impacts as well as the long term health of the organization- including talent development, succession planning, and even "culture" are also at play.

I'd even go one step further and say efficiency is not a factor at play. I don't think this whole RTO has anything to do with efficiency or lack thereof. I think it's all politics as we are getting into "funny season" time of the election cycle.

Workers in person are 18 percent more productive. There was a study on that. If you forced people back and 18 percent quit you have zero loss of productivity and a savings of 18 percent in headcount costs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I agree with this PP. But I'll also add that efficiency is not the only factor at play. As others have noted, broader environmental and economic impacts as well as the long term health of the organization- including talent development, succession planning, and even "culture" are also at play.

I'd even go one step further and say efficiency is not a factor at play. I don't think this whole RTO has anything to do with efficiency or lack thereof. I think it's all politics as we are getting into "funny season" time of the election cycle.

Workers in person are 18 percent more productive. There was a study on that. If you forced people back and 18 percent quit you have zero loss of productivity and a savings of 18 percent in headcount costs

In govt? Govt is not a profit driven organization. I don't even know how they would measure that. While I hear your point, I don't know if that's relevant to DMV fed RTO question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

This. They might hang onto the established workers, but they're not going to bring in new workers, especially younger Millennials and Gen Z.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This. They might hang onto the established workers, but they're not going to bring in new workers, especially younger Millennials and Gen Z.

We just hired 4 new ones - two GS-15s and two GS-14s. Didn't have any issues. But 15s are older guys and 14s are in 40s. Maybe you are referring to even younger folks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This. They might hang onto the established workers, but they're not going to bring in new workers, especially younger Millennials and Gen Z.

They can get the young ones before they have kids. They can also get the older mid-careers who don’t need flexibility. They can also get men. I’m most concerned about the impact this policy is going to have on women, who tend to absorb all of the extra family stressors to accommodate work. A lot are going to leave or stall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This. They might hang onto the established workers, but they're not going to bring in new workers, especially younger Millennials and Gen Z.

They can get the young ones before they have kids. They can also get the older mid-careers who don’t need flexibility. They can also get men. I’m most concerned about the impact this policy is going to have on women, who tend to absorb all of the extra family stressors to accommodate work. A lot are going to leave or stall.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This. They might hang onto the established workers, but they're not going to bring in new workers, especially younger Millennials and Gen Z.

We just hired 4 new ones - two GS-15s and two GS-14s. Didn't have any issues. But 15s are older guys and 14s are in 40s. Maybe you are referring to even younger folks.

Totally agree. Lots of applications for our agency jobs. We’re filling jobs faster than ever before. We also have fewer available positions than pre-pandemic. In short, people are not fleeing government jobs. In fact, many want the security or to earn lifetime health insurance before retirement. The notion that people are going to leave in large numbers is just not true.

[Anonymous]

I know I can’t afford to stay. The added stress and cost of the commute just are not balanced out because of flat pay and lack of upward mobility. It’s time for me to go. I’m sad about it. But if it will hurt my family and shorten my life — might as well make more money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are being told WH COS memo is the driver.

Whatever happened to "agency heads will just ignore COS memo"? Some poster here was confident enough to guarantee it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This. They might hang onto the established workers, but they're not going to bring in new workers, especially younger Millennials and Gen Z.

We just hired 4 new ones - two GS-15s and two GS-14s. Didn't have any issues. But 15s are older guys and 14s are in 40s. Maybe you are referring to even younger folks.

Totally agree. Lots of applications for our agency jobs. We’re filling jobs faster than ever before. We also have fewer available positions than pre-pandemic. In short, people are not fleeing government jobs. In fact, many want the security or to earn lifetime health insurance before retirement. The notion that people are going to leave in large numbers is just not true.

Which agency? And do you currently offer remote work to new hires? The hiring situation now is the best it’s going to be, and it’s challenging at my agency. When RTO happens, you will see what we’re talking about here. I’ll be gone, but don’t say I didn’t warn you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This. They might hang onto the established workers, but they're not going to bring in new workers, especially younger Millennials and Gen Z.

We just hired 4 new ones - two GS-15s and two GS-14s. Didn't have any issues. But 15s are older guys and 14s are in 40s. Maybe you are referring to even younger folks.

Totally agree. Lots of applications for our agency jobs. We’re filling jobs faster than ever before. We also have fewer available positions than pre-pandemic. In short, people are not fleeing government jobs. In fact, many want the security or to earn lifetime health insurance before retirement. The notion that people are going to leave in large numbers is just not true.

Which agency? And do you currently offer remote work to new hires? The hiring situation now is the best it’s going to be, and it’s challenging at my agency. When RTO happens, you will see what we’re talking about here. I’ll be gone, but don’t say I didn’t warn you!

Door to your left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This. They might hang onto the established workers, but they're not going to bring in new workers, especially younger Millennials and Gen Z.

We just hired 4 new ones - two GS-15s and two GS-14s. Didn't have any issues. But 15s are older guys and 14s are in 40s. Maybe you are referring to even younger folks.

Totally agree. Lots of applications for our agency jobs. We’re filling jobs faster than ever before. We also have fewer available positions than pre-pandemic. In short, people are not fleeing government jobs. In fact, many want the security or to earn lifetime health insurance before retirement. The notion that people are going to leave in large numbers is just not true.

Which agency? And do you currently offer remote work to new hires? The hiring situation now is the best it’s going to be, and it’s challenging at my agency. When RTO happens, you will see what we’re talking about here. I’ll be gone, but don’t say I didn’t warn you!

Door to your left.

Already halfway out. Enjoy the mess you’re making.