Reply to Biden to propose 5.2% federal pay increase, largest in pay raise in 43 years

Forum Index » Jobs and Careers

Reply to "Biden to propose 5.2% federal pay increase, largest in pay raise in 43 years"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I would gladly pass on the pay raise if Biden was willing to eliminate the RTO push in exchange.  I have won four performance awards (associated with cash) in the three years we have been working primarily from home, and had press releases regarding the success of my team and myself on two matters.  I do get that some people slack off during WFH, but I have not, and neither has most of my team.[/quote]

Someone else out there would be happy to do your job.

The purpose of federal government employment isn't to ensure that upper middle class women who are married to fellow white collar worker spouses are [b]inconveniced[/b] as little as possible by annoyances such as commutes, having to hire childcare (things most other employed people have [b]dealt[/b] with forever), so they can save as much money as [b]possible[/b] to live in million dollar homes and travel to Europe once a year. [/quote]

I realize that you are too dense to get this, but she is saying she is more than satisfactorily performing her job duties with WFH. 
BTW, dealth? possble? inconveniced? Learn to spell.[/quote]

But, the government doesn't want the majority of people to work from home. That is the point. The government has made that judgment call. The government has an opinion, she has an opinion, but govt is in charge.  I fixed my typos above, sorry I was typing in low light at my desk. My point still stands. [/quote]

The government's main concern should be receiving best value for work performed. 
That is being provided.
[b]The government has made a different judgment call. You are confusing your preference with fact, just because something is your preference doesn't make it a fact. You are not the main character. [/b]

The WFH horse is already out of the barn and the work force has been transformed.
[b]You are treating WFH as if it is water that has spilled into the soil from a bottle; you cannot gather water that has been spilled from a bottle into the soil back into the bottle, but yes, human beings can take themselves to the office after not going into the office for a period of time. It is not a physical impossibility. Again, you are just stating a preference and portraying it as a fact.[/b]

Watch the push back by almost the entire workforce, including unions, if the government takes a hard line stand on this.
[b]And? Just like noses, everyone has an opinion, and all people have preferences.[/b]

Please consider the positive benefits of WFH for our environment alone, gas saved, road maintenance saved, less auto accidents, etc.
It will be very hard now to claim to be pro environment and anti WFH.[/quote]

[b]Studies show there are more people on the road now during all times of the day due to WFH. Also, when WFH, people are not sitting in caves, they are at home using all sorts of energy. Lastly, what is the "environment"? Is this a gotcha of some sort? What specific actions are WFHomers doing that benefits what you are calling the "environment", which you actually have not defined?[/b][/quote]

"Studies show"?! What studies?
Absolute baloney and in conflict with common sense.

I realize you don't understand or accept the change in the workforce culture which was caused by WFH, but you will soon. 
The paradigm has shifted.[/quote]

OK, you say this as private sector and the government is calling people back into the office. You want to WFH really really really bad, and what you want is the most important thing in this world, and everyone needs to understand that, right? Again, main character syndrome. This isn't reality.[/quote]

It far, far from just me.
That you think it is just me demonstrates quite well that you really have no understanding of the issue, those involved, or its impact.
And again you do not accept or understand that this change in the workforce culture has already occurred.
WFH has been an overwhelming success.
And the workforce now has a very good argument for keeping it (or most of it) in place.[/quote]

[b]The "change in workforce culture" you describe is that people have a preference to do something.[/b] My preference is not to write my performance evaluation this year. It is possible that my employer will suspend this process for a year or two but bring it back at some point. This is employer prerogative. Same with WFH. You seem to believe in manifesting and speaking things into existence, if you say something and you really want it to happen, others will follow along.[/quote]

My the team was created on a transcontinental basis, and management did all the hiring based on a projection of continued liberal remote work.

Is it also the preference of those of us on the team? Yes, that’s why some
of us sought out these jobs.

But more than preference, it’s the logic of the work as we have always done it. The culture, if you will. Without dramatically increased funding for the office as a whole—enabling travel for F2F interaction—there is insufficient money to make being in a government building productive for any of us. [/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