Biden wants RTO

[Anonymous]

Our office gets the best candidates because we offer remote. I’ve seen other offices struggle to get qualified candidates. They may get hundreds of applicants but that doesn’t make them good. We have one of the best teams in our medium sized government agency because we have a manager who lives in 2023 and is focused on results and not butts in cubicles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I hope you stay but you should do whatever makes you happy. I don't even know if people take "I am going to leave, you will see" seriously anymore. It is so overused. Best of luck out there.

[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!

If you’re leaving, then you haven’t been at the government for long or don’t value what the government offers you. If you’re looking for work/life balance with good pay and benefits, you’re not going to find better. On the other hand, if you’re used to private, going back may be best for you. But be forewarned, privates are stricter and more demanding on RTO than any government agency. I just saw a story on CNBC this morning that Goldman Sachs is requiring 5 days/week in-office. Many, many other large corporations are requiring 3 or 4. I’m not sure you’re going to find something better, and that’s why you’re unlikely to quit government.

[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!

If you’re leaving, then you haven’t been at the government for long or don’t value what the government offers you. If you’re looking for work/life balance with good pay and benefits, you’re not going to find better. On the other hand, if you’re used to private, going back may be best for you. But be forewarned, privates are stricter and more demanding on RTO than any government agency. I just saw a story on CNBC this morning that Goldman Sachs is requiring 5 days/week in-office. Many, many other large corporations are requiring 3 or 4. I’m not sure you’re going to find something better, and that’s why you’re unlikely to quit government.

I agree. Folks barking louder than bite.

[Anonymous]

I don't think RTO is an issue in the DC area. We have no trouble recruiting here. It's fine in the Denver area too (where more feds live than DC). Other areas of the country are really difficult. We have an office in a rural state and it's incredibly difficult to recruit. The only other fed office in the city is a Social Security office that processes paperwork (versus the scientists I need), so it's not like we can hire from them. We'd basically be expecting people to move for this job.

I do like RTO though. I think 5/10 days a payperiod is great. Some of our top performers are actually the ones we want back in the office. People somehow got the impression that the only thing they need to do at their job is write one report. We have this great expertise, but they make themselves unavailable to absolutely everyone else. They rarely answer emails, don't answer the phone and aren't helping the rest of the agency (like my colleague who needed language proofread for accuracy to send back to Congress). My agency is scientific and most people are scientists and engineers. A lot are introverts and telework isn't helping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Even mid-week I95 I395 remain empty. The VRE is empty as is Metro. Slug Lots are empty. No one is RTOing.

[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!

If you’re leaving, then you haven’t been at the government for long or don’t value what the government offers you. If you’re looking for work/life balance with good pay and benefits, you’re not going to find better. On the other hand, if you’re used to private, going back may be best for you. But be forewarned, privates are stricter and more demanding on RTO than any government agency. I just saw a story on CNBC this morning that Goldman Sachs is requiring 5 days/week in-office. Many, many other large corporations are requiring 3 or 4. I’m not sure you’re going to find something better, and that’s why you’re unlikely to quit government.

Thanks. But I’m well aware of the trade offs. I have been in for more than 15 years. WFH kept me from leaving before. The grind of dual commutes was killing my family, I was considering divorce. The money was a big part of the issue. Very tough to pay for all of the outsourcing we needed to make things work on federal pay.

My job is stressful, I’m tired of being torn in different directions by Congress, the public, and the WH. I also am expected to be an expert on things a law firm would have ten people covering. Give me a narrow constituency to please and a 100k raise and I’m good for the next 5-10 years. At that point, maybe I’ll come back and be an SES until retirement. Or I’ll be rich and won’t have to work until I’m 70.

[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.

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

The people who fall into the category of women with young kids will take the jobs and that is ok. Not every job is for everybody.

[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

That 18% study measured the typing speed of newly hired data entry workers in India. Another study found WFH increased productivity 13% when measured by time spent on calls. Productivity can be measured lots of different ways.

WFH has led to big increases in written deliverables, many more meetings per day, and more hours online. You can argue about whether that's the same as productivity, but those activities will necessarily decrease if people are asked to spend their time on in-person events instead.

[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.

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

The people who fall into the category of women with young kids will take the jobs and that is ok. Not every job is for everybody.

That is the opposite of what will happen. Women with young kids will stall in their current jobs, leave for higher paying jobs, or quit entirely. That is not a great outcome overall for the workforce.

[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:

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

That 18% study measured the typing speed of newly hired data entry workers in India. Another study found WFH increased productivity 13% when measured by time spent on calls. Productivity can be measured lots of different ways.

WFH has led to big increases in written deliverables, many more meetings per day, and more hours online. You can argue about whether that's the same as productivity, but those activities will necessarily decrease if people are asked to spend their time on in-person events instead.

DP. It’s true. Sometimes I think the RTO people are just longing for the times when they only had to have a few meetings a week, over long lunches. My productivity is up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think RTO is an issue in the DC area. We have no trouble recruiting here. It's fine in the Denver area too (where more feds live than DC). Other areas of the country are really difficult. We have an office in a rural state and it's incredibly difficult to recruit. The only other fed office in the city is a Social Security office that processes paperwork (versus the scientists I need), so it's not like we can hire from them. We'd basically be expecting people to move for this job.

I do like RTO though. I think 5/10 days a payperiod is great. Some of our top performers are actually the ones we want back in the office. People somehow got the impression that the only thing they need to do at their job is write one report. We have this great expertise, but they make themselves unavailable to absolutely everyone else. They rarely answer emails, don't answer the phone and aren't helping the rest of the agency (like my colleague who needed language proofread for accuracy to send back to Congress). My agency is scientific and most people are scientists and engineers. A lot are introverts and telework isn't helping.

You should be revoking TW or otherwise disciplining people that aren't responsive during work hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I hope you stay but you should do whatever makes you happy. I don't even know if people take "I am going to leave, you will see" seriously anymore. It is so overused. Best of luck out there.

Perhaps it appears overused because the sentiment is rising, and genuine. If the vision for government is hold on to the old guys, let the middle leave, and hire new talent cheap and grind them up for a few years before they leave, I don’t want any part of that.

[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!

If you’re leaving, then you haven’t been at the government for long or don’t value what the government offers you. If you’re looking for work/life balance with good pay and benefits, you’re not going to find better. On the other hand, if you’re used to private, going back may be best for you. But be forewarned, privates are stricter and more demanding on RTO than any government agency. I just saw a story on CNBC this morning that Goldman Sachs is requiring 5 days/week in-office. Many, many other large corporations are requiring 3 or 4. I’m not sure you’re going to find something better, and that’s why you’re unlikely to quit government.

NP and I don't think the occupancy data supports this claim. Based on occupancy data it seems like most companies are somewhere around 2-3 days per week but then again that's also counting workers that have in-person jobs so for jobs that are TW eligible that number might be a little lower.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

If you’re leaving, then you haven’t been at the government for long or don’t value what the government offers you. If you’re looking for work/life balance with good pay and benefits, you’re not going to find better. On the other hand, if you’re used to private, going back may be best for you. But be forewarned, privates are stricter and more demanding on RTO than any government agency. I just saw a story on CNBC this morning that Goldman Sachs is requiring 5 days/week in-office. Many, many other large corporations are requiring 3 or 4. I’m not sure you’re going to find something better, and that’s why you’re unlikely to quit government.

NP and I don't think the occupancy data supports this claim. Based on occupancy data it seems like most companies are somewhere around 2-3 days per week but then again that's also counting workers that have in-person jobs so for jobs that are TW eligible that number might be a little lower.

You need to read the most recent headlines. It’s ramping fast. Even new wages are falling. Employers now have the upper hand.