Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Jobs and Careers
Reply to "Federal Reserve RTO"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Since a lot of arguments have been floated, let’s recap the institutional reasons to not allow remote or full-time local telework, and instead, support hybrid, which was essentially the pre-pandemic standard: 1) Based on the number of job board postings, the Fed does not face a staffing emergency. Plenty of people are willing to accept hybrid to work at the Board. 2) The Board does not need remote or full-time local telework to differentiate itself from the private sector. Differentiators already include work/life balance, a generous, fully-paid pension, generous leave, lifetime healthcare, and more. Also, hybrid is consistent with or more generous than private options or where they’re heading. 3) The Board does not need remote to hire RB experts. There is a longstanding practice that most large System projects include substantial RB resources. The Board has never endeavored, nor should it, to directly employ all the System’s best experts. 4) The Fed should walk its community development talk. Hybrid supports both local communities and downtown DC. Full-time area telework does not support downtown DC. Remote doesn’t support Metro at all. Supporting Metro is important because the area and many private firms have made large investments on behalf of these jobs. Allowing these jobs to flee DC jeopardizes these investments and the surrounding communities. 5) Hybrid also balances institutional and community concerns with those of working families, minority concerns, and the environment. While it may not be a perfect solution, it is balanced. 6) As the world’s leading central bank and leading domestic economic authority, the Board continues to innovate in a rapidly changing world. In that context, innovation efforts in research, policy, and supervisory practices benefit from at least some in-office/person-to-person time with peers and industry players. 7) Hybrid encourages employee engagement, if only by getting people into the office and talking more directly with each other. Full-time telework or remote leads to a check-the-box-and-check-out mentality, which leads many to regard their work as a paycheck only. I hope your leaders will articulate these reasons to you, as many said their greatest frustration was removal of a WFH benefit without explanation. [/quote] A couple thing in response to your thoughtful post. 1. The Board is offering full-time remote work to a small percentage of the workforce. The question is not about remote work, but the minimum requirement for onsite work. They are requiring 50% onsite, which is significantly more than competitors. They currently require roughly 20%. Why the increase? What is the tangible benefit of that additional 30%? 2. The Board absolutely pulls a significant amount of talent from the RBs to be employed at the Board, notwithstanding the partnership that exists on many issues. The combination of the small percentage of fully remote allowed and the increased minimum will limit, and has limited, their ability to do this effectively. 3. The direct competitors for many divisions are the other financial regulators. The Board has historically offered a total benefits package that is slightly better than the rest. This is no longer true. 4. The number of job board postings is not a good indicator of attrition. The live postings represent only a percentage of the unfilled positions. The hiring timeline takes a lot longer and many more positions are unfilled at any given time than are reflected in the postings. 5. The "community development" argument does not track. There is no specific mission to promote development in DC. Communities develop all over the country and DC exurbs. 6. As to the argument for hybrid *in general* I agree. Some onsite presence is a good thing. Again, the question is exactly how much is needed, and when there should be more flexibility for FTR in some roles.[/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics