Reply to Biden wants RTO

Forum Index » Jobs and Careers

Reply to "Biden wants RTO"

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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The government also has an interest in running well, which surpasses DC’s interests.  As it should.  Federal employees are not going to turn around CRE. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.  Private sector is hiring and figuring out ways to deal with the labor market that exists.  The government needs to follow their lead if they want to retain or hire. Commercial real estate investors can pivot to the burbs.  Everyone else did.[/quote]

+ My private sector DH and neighbors are all still full time WAH. And they make a lot more than me. Making GS level employees like me go into DC even a few days a week isn’t going to save CRE or failing businesses. We don’t collectively make enough to keep DC afloat and the government risks losing good employees to private sector jobs. Even if they land in a private sector job that requires in office days, they’ll make more $ to counteract the commute.

WAH is basically the reason I’m at my job as a working mom of 3. This literally could be the difference of whether I stay in government, possibly even the workforce. (Before you ask, my kids were in daycare before the pandemic so commuting wasn’t as bad). But now that they are school age and their school has an extended day waitlist we haven’t been able to make it off for 3 years (employee shortage due to the post-COVID labor market) and they have early activities beginning around 5 pm, I have really come to rely on WAH. (DH also WAH but can’t start/end his day early like me). I know I’m not alone and collectively the government could lose a lot of qualified employees.[/quote]

Someone else would happily do your job. None of us are owed or entitled to federal employment.[/quote]

You are absolutely wrong about this.  Yes, someone without my qualifications and experience would be happy to have the money.  But they can’t do the job. So there’s the rub.[/quote]

There is truth to this. We are struggling to hire already because by the time our byzantine hiring process allows us to make an offer, most of the qualified candidates have already taken other jobs. The most qualified candidates are people with graduate degrees and experience who often aren't willing to move to DC for a GS-11 or 12 salary. If you require more than the current minimum of in-office time, you're going to have to replace those experienced people making weekly trips from other locations with people just out of school who don't need to worry about dual careers or the costs that come with having a family. [/quote]

I agree that recruitment and retention is a challenge with RTO.  I also think that the federal government has entire agencies that have all of the data on federal employment, private employment, job markets, and trends. They look at the aggregate and across a lot of dimensions.  They know, at least better than all of us, what the impact has been and will be.  It isn’t like they aren’t aware when they set policy.  [b]Presumably they concluded that the benefit of bringing federal employees back to the office somewhat more frequently outweighs the cons[/b].[/quote]

Ha!  No they didn’t!  This is some sort of giveaway to someone and has nothing to do with the benefit to employees or the economy.[/quote]

I'm not at all sure how to engage with this speculation.[/quote]

Are you using ChatGPT to have a policy discussion or something?  Because welcome to the future of government when all of the brains leave.  FFS.[/quote]

No, I am not.

I'll try this- Why have you concluded that the government's policy position is a "giveaway to someone" and not about anything else?  Do you have any data or information?  [/quote]

It’s a wealth tranfser to DC and CRE interests, as everyone in this entire thread explained.  Hence the “giveaway” that the PP referred to. If you understood what your were reading, it would make sense.[/quote]

I will admit I have not read all 51 pages in this thread, however I think the main arguments are that it’s good for DC as a city and lots of federal work is better done in person collaboratively. You may strenuously disagree with these arguments but I think our leadership believes this and is making them in good faith.[/quote]

Your leadership cannot possibly know what works best in every individual office within the federal government’s purview.  If you have the data, by all means, share it.  You don’t.  You assume what works best for some, works best for every unit.  That is not good leadership. You cannot weigh the costs and benefits without considering more than your feelings.  People are looking at the economic data and see that jobs are up, business formation is up, more women are in the workforce, people are happier at work, and happier at home with their families…. and we are going to mess with that because why?  A few lunch counters closed?  Those people opened businesses in more residential neighborhoods or started new ventures.  The people that are really freaked out own the assets that are not as useful as they used to be.  They need to use their enormous portfolios more creatively and pivot. For once, workers and small business owners have the upper hand.  Let’s not destroy that.[/quote]

+1.

Smart leadership would give managers the reins and flexibility to do what works best for their teams/divisions/components/agencies.  But we don’t seem to have that kind of smart progressive leadership.[/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