Reply to Jeff Zients throws a hissy fit in a memo about RTO

Forum Index » Jobs and Careers

Reply to "Jeff Zients throws a hissy fit in a memo about RTO "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]We don't work for a company, we are in public service, worker feelings are pretty irrelevant compared to larger public sentiment. We can get with the current WH vision of 50% RTO or hope for political change to a party that is pushing for closer to 100% RTO. Act like an adult and try to think about which makes more sense.[/quote]

I am of course aware of elected officials asking for RTO for government workers.  Can you point to anything to indicate that this is something that the general public cares about?  Surveys, polls, etc?[/quote]

DP.  I do not associate myself at all with the tone of the PP.  In fact, I firmly do believe that continued extensive WFH is better for work-life balance and retention, and that there is little to no reliable evidence that it impacts productivity.

That being said...

The political reality is that WFH is impacting commercial real estate, which is in turn affecting the financial markets and banking industry, which will eventually impact personal finance.  The reality is also that these industries have powerful lobbying arms.  Also, it isn't just congress members from a certain party that are calling for RTO.  Biden himself called for it in first state of the union, and per this thread, his administration is continuing to push for it, albeit without a ton of success.

And in politics perception is reality.  And there are many who are successfully pushing the narrative that federal employees are not working, that taxpayer dollars are wasted on federal employees, and that public services have degraded since WFH.  There are many voters who do not have the opportunity to work from home and are resentful.

All of these leads me to conclude that a change in administration will ABSOLUTELY mean an end to anything near current levels of WFH.  IF there is no change in administration, there will be less pressure after the election unless and until the financial sector really starts to take a hit.  Then pressure will ramp back up.  All of this is completely separate from the conversation about the pros/cons of WFH on the actual efficiency and effectiveness of the federal workforce.

[/quote]

Eh, the people who say Feds don't work, have been saying it forever and will continue to say it regardless of RTO. Similarly, CRE was oversaturated before covid and will  continue to crash even if every Fed goes to the office. I think you could send every Fed in 6 days a week and not change either of those things, or any voter minds.

I know it won't happen but I would love to see this administration try to boost WFH for everybody, and better pay or other incentives for jobs that must be in person. [/quote]

So you don't think that a new administration would take the federal workforce back to pre-pandemic levels of remote work, or less?[/quote]

DP but how is that relevant? Federal agencies/unions shouldn’t agree to reduce productivity by forcing people back to the office because the next administration might want to do that?[/quote]

The specific exchange you are responding to is ABOUT whether increased RTO is likely.  It is absolutely likely if the administration changes, and ramping up to the election you can expect this administration to ramp up the posturing about it at a minimum, and actually making it happen to some degree.

Again, separate and apart completely from any discussion about productivity and the question of whether it is a good thing v. bad thing.  Just whether it is likely...[/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