Biden wants RTO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s interesting that this thread is now 65 pages! Government workers are doing a lot of complaining. Sounds right. Notice that there’s not a thread of similar length for private sector workers?

It’s a DC board. It’s the largest employer in the area. You think you’re clever but you’re not.

Not trying to be clever, just observant. There are lots of state and local government employees in the area and they’re not on DCUM complaining. Though the federal government is the largest employer in the area, private companies collectively employ more. If all the private employees were mad about RTO, why wouldn’t they be on here complaining? Sure, there is the random thread, but nothing of this size.

NP and I bet if you asked Jeff there are probably less than 20 unique posters posting in this thread. I wouldn't read anything into the size of the thread.

So, basically a few nut jobs?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s interesting that this thread is now 65 pages! Government workers are doing a lot of complaining. Sounds right. Notice that there’s not a thread of similar length for private sector workers?

We are passionate about what we do.

Ha! No one is talking about mission.

Incorrect. Most of the posts I’ve made are about how RTO will negatively affect the workforce, and the reasons for that. That is relevant to how my agency fulfills its mission. I want to stay. I want my colleagues to stay. I love my actual work. I love serving the public. The conditions dictate whether it’s worth it to continue doing it. That’s something people in charge need to hear.

You think Jeff Zients is on here reading through the comments and changing his mind? This is 65 pages of federal workers mostly complaining about how it’s harder for them personally to leave their homes to work, as most of the private sector is now doing. I find it so embarrassing, I hope no one in charge is reading this much whining.

Why are you here? I’m here to organize my thoughts and discuss this issue because it affects my life and I have to make some decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love WFH more than anyone, but there’s no question that RTO is much better for the local economy. Lunches, metro rides, parking fees, dry cleaners, etc.

Excuse me but RTO will cost me $1000/month. It’s not my responsibility to prop up the local economy at the expense of my own retirement or kids’ college fund.

That’s an underestimation.

There’s another thread about what “hacks” people use to juggle two commuters. The cost of coming in every day is really not small. Raising a family when both parents are out of the house 12 hours a day is hard and expensive. In my case—

300 per month to park, plus gas and mileage.
50 per week in dry cleaning (min)
350 per month for bi-weekly house keeping
400 for after school care if we can’t stagger our commutes
400 for dog walking

Plus whatever extra we spend on eating out for convenience since time is so tight.

Plus a work wardrobe and a gym membership near the office.

Plus private school or any educational enrichment you want for your kids since you can’t be with them as much.

So should people who have to work in person (doctors, nurses, teachers, construction workers, restaurant workers, etc) get a mandated in-person pay differential? I'd be cool with that.

No. A better solution is higher pay for everyone, and they can make a choice about where to live based on the in-office expectations. Locality based pay works fine. It’s based on where you live not where you work anyway, in case you weren’t aware. Maybe it should be more granular than it is!

No. The answer isn’t higher pay for everyone. You sound like a welfare queen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love WFH more than anyone, but there’s no question that RTO is much better for the local economy. Lunches, metro rides, parking fees, dry cleaners, etc.

Excuse me but RTO will cost me $1000/month. It’s not my responsibility to prop up the local economy at the expense of my own retirement or kids’ college fund.

That’s an underestimation.

There’s another thread about what “hacks” people use to juggle two commuters. The cost of coming in every day is really not small. Raising a family when both parents are out of the house 12 hours a day is hard and expensive. In my case—

300 per month to park, plus gas and mileage.
50 per week in dry cleaning (min)
350 per month for bi-weekly house keeping
400 for after school care if we can’t stagger our commutes
400 for dog walking

Plus whatever extra we spend on eating out for convenience since time is so tight.

Plus a work wardrobe and a gym membership near the office.

Plus private school or any educational enrichment you want for your kids since you can’t be with them as much.

So should people who have to work in person (doctors, nurses, teachers, construction workers, restaurant workers, etc) get a mandated in-person pay differential? I'd be cool with that.

No. A better solution is higher pay for everyone, and they can make a choice about where to live based on the in-office expectations. Locality based pay works fine. It’s based on where you live not where you work anyway, in case you weren’t aware. Maybe it should be more granular than it is!

No. The answer isn’t higher pay for everyone. You sound like a welfare queen.

Higher pay for everyone if it’s necessary to maintain staffing. Obviously.

And you sound like a racist troll.

[Anonymous]

I like government workers, in part, because they’re my financial advisory clients. On average, my government workers are far, far better prepared for retirement than most of my other clients. The pension and subsidized health insurance are massively helpful. If a family has two federal workers, the 401ks hardly matter. I’m just saying that many - maybe not all - federal employees have it very good - especially in the long-run - compared to most DC folks. Perhaps, that helps soften the blow of RTO.

[Anonymous]

I'm going to give it some time to see how it shakes out. We are currently in the office 2xs per PP. If it goes up to 4xs, I am ok with it. Above that, I will probably reevaulate (meaning that even if I stay a Fed, may try to get a job with an agency closer to my home in VA).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dear god, please understand that the federal government is nothing like a large tech company, and even those large tech companies have subcultures to accommodate—they also aren’t subject to congressional oversight and budget constraints or political pressure. They do what works for them and can change course on the fly on a case by case basis.

This whole conversation is completely absurd.

DP. The point is that the best companies in the world think RTO is important. Why wouldn’t the best federal government in the world want to follow their example?

The best companies also make their offices a nice place to work, with plenty of employee perks, instead of hoping their employees spend $10 on lunch at a sandwich shop.

$10 would be a steal! More like 15-20

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like government workers, in part, because they’re my financial advisory clients. On average, my government workers are far, far better prepared for retirement than most of my other clients. The pension and subsidized health insurance are massively helpful. If a family has two federal workers, the 401ks hardly matter. I’m just saying that many - maybe not all - federal employees have it very good - especially in the long-run - compared to most DC folks. Perhaps, that helps soften the blow of RTO.

Explain to me how good I have it because I don’t see how I’m going to pay for college on two federal salaries without selling my real assets. Yes, I’ve maxed out my TSP. But that’s all I’ve got plus some equity in my house and the rental property we own. No unsecured debt really, but we aren’t saving. Retirement is 15-20 years away and with pay compression my earnings are essentially capped. I can’t depend on inheriting money like some. I can’t even depend on being employed or alive for the next 20 years. My view is to maximize earning while the earning is to be had. The days of working for government for 40 years are gone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love WFH more than anyone, but there’s no question that RTO is much better for the local economy. Lunches, metro rides, parking fees, dry cleaners, etc.

Excuse me but RTO will cost me $1000/month. It’s not my responsibility to prop up the local economy at the expense of my own retirement or kids’ college fund.

That’s an underestimation.

There’s another thread about what “hacks” people use to juggle two commuters. The cost of coming in every day is really not small. Raising a family when both parents are out of the house 12 hours a day is hard and expensive. In my case—

300 per month to park, plus gas and mileage.
50 per week in dry cleaning (min)
350 per month for bi-weekly house keeping
400 for after school care if we can’t stagger our commutes
400 for dog walking

Plus whatever extra we spend on eating out for convenience since time is so tight.

Plus a work wardrobe and a gym membership near the office.

Plus private school or any educational enrichment you want for your kids since you can’t be with them as much.

That’s great. A few less people will be buying outrageously expensive cars and airline and hotel costs will finally deflate. Very few have talked about the ongoing savings boost that consumers have enjoyed with WFH. Let’s bust this bubble of implicit wage inflation.

The money we “saved” has been spent elsewhere in the economy.

Right. On luxury items, like new cars, fancy vacays, bigger house. All the while, you’ve received large pay increases for inflation that you didn’t personally experience. Now, those wage increases are baked into your salary and benefits for life. Sorry, but this isn’t fair to others. Vacation at home is up.

Hahaha. No. We spent it on education, housing (property taxes), and things for our children, like summer camp and other experiences we couldn’t have afforded otherwise. Boomers, with passive income, are the ones buying cars and vacations. Not working families. Look it up.

What exactly do you want boomers to do with their money? Write checks randomly to the younger generation?
I don't understand this boomer hate and money. They worked, they invested, they have had years to save. Or is it the life isn't fair because things are expensive now due to boomer politicians? I seriously don't understand the hate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like government workers, in part, because they’re my financial advisory clients. On average, my government workers are far, far better prepared for retirement than most of my other clients. The pension and subsidized health insurance are massively helpful. If a family has two federal workers, the 401ks hardly matter. I’m just saying that many - maybe not all - federal employees have it very good - especially in the long-run - compared to most DC folks. Perhaps, that helps soften the blow of RTO.

Explain to me how good I have it because I don’t see how I’m going to pay for college on two federal salaries without selling my real assets. Yes, I’ve maxed out my TSP. But that’s all I’ve got plus some equity in my house and the rental property we own. No unsecured debt really, but we aren’t saving. Retirement is 15-20 years away and with pay compression my earnings are essentially capped. I can’t depend on inheriting money like some. I can’t even depend on being employed or alive for the next 20 years. My view is to maximize earning while the earning is to be had. The days of working for government for 40 years are gone.

How is paying for college unique to feds? Private industry workers figure it out.

You pay what you can, or your kids take out loans, or they go to community college. Like everyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love WFH more than anyone, but there’s no question that RTO is much better for the local economy. Lunches, metro rides, parking fees, dry cleaners, etc.

Excuse me but RTO will cost me $1000/month. It’s not my responsibility to prop up the local economy at the expense of my own retirement or kids’ college fund.

That’s an underestimation.

There’s another thread about what “hacks” people use to juggle two commuters. The cost of coming in every day is really not small. Raising a family when both parents are out of the house 12 hours a day is hard and expensive. In my case—

300 per month to park, plus gas and mileage.
50 per week in dry cleaning (min)
350 per month for bi-weekly house keeping
400 for after school care if we can’t stagger our commutes
400 for dog walking

Plus whatever extra we spend on eating out for convenience since time is so tight.

Plus a work wardrobe and a gym membership near the office.

Plus private school or any educational enrichment you want for your kids since you can’t be with them as much.

That’s great. A few less people will be buying outrageously expensive cars and airline and hotel costs will finally deflate. Very few have talked about the ongoing savings boost that consumers have enjoyed with WFH. Let’s bust this bubble of implicit wage inflation.

The money we “saved” has been spent elsewhere in the economy.

Right. On luxury items, like new cars, fancy vacays, bigger house. All the while, you’ve received large pay increases for inflation that you didn’t personally experience. Now, those wage increases are baked into your salary and benefits for life. Sorry, but this isn’t fair to others. Vacation at home is up.

Hahaha. No. We spent it on education, housing (property taxes), and things for our children, like summer camp and other experiences we couldn’t have afforded otherwise. Boomers, with passive income, are the ones buying cars and vacations. Not working families. Look it up.

What exactly do you want boomers to do with their money? Write checks randomly to the younger generation?
I don't understand this boomer hate and money. They worked, they invested, they have had years to save. Or is it the life isn't fair because things are expensive now due to boomer politicians? I seriously don't understand the hate.

It’s not hate. I simply pointed out that working families didn’t spent the surplus they gained from WFH on luxuries. They spent it on things for their own kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dear god, please understand that the federal government is nothing like a large tech company, and even those large tech companies have subcultures to accommodate—they also aren’t subject to congressional oversight and budget constraints or political pressure. They do what works for them and can change course on the fly on a case by case basis.

This whole conversation is completely absurd.

DP. The point is that the best companies in the world think RTO is important. Why wouldn’t the best federal government in the world want to follow their example?

WTF PP. You actually wrote this? Pay us like those companies then we will follow. What an idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like government workers, in part, because they’re my financial advisory clients. On average, my government workers are far, far better prepared for retirement than most of my other clients. The pension and subsidized health insurance are massively helpful. If a family has two federal workers, the 401ks hardly matter. I’m just saying that many - maybe not all - federal employees have it very good - especially in the long-run - compared to most DC folks. Perhaps, that helps soften the blow of RTO.

Explain to me how good I have it because I don’t see how I’m going to pay for college on two federal salaries without selling my real assets. Yes, I’ve maxed out my TSP. But that’s all I’ve got plus some equity in my house and the rental property we own. No unsecured debt really, but we aren’t saving. Retirement is 15-20 years away and with pay compression my earnings are essentially capped. I can’t depend on inheriting money like some. I can’t even depend on being employed or alive for the next 20 years. My view is to maximize earning while the earning is to be had. The days of working for government for 40 years are gone.

How is paying for college unique to feds? Private industry workers figure it out.

You pay what you can, or your kids take out loans, or they go to community college. Like everyone else.

You are a financial advisor? Or are you a different PP? As many, many, people have said: private sector pay is HIGHER.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love WFH more than anyone, but there’s no question that RTO is much better for the local economy. Lunches, metro rides, parking fees, dry cleaners, etc.

Excuse me but RTO will cost me $1000/month. It’s not my responsibility to prop up the local economy at the expense of my own retirement or kids’ college fund.

Excuse me but it’s not the government’s job to employ you. Why should any employer OWE you a life on YOUR TERMS? If you can do better, get another job. Your comments reek of entitlement.

What’s entitled is businesses in DC thinking that they are owed federal workers’ money.

[Anonymous]

I ah e to leave this thread before I become unable to do my job. Someone having a lot of fun trolling feds who are justifiably concerned with a big change in their income/situation.