Anonymous wrote:why? Honestly, why not?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:January/February is so not happening guys.

Yes it is.

No it isn’t.

It absolutely will because people don't spend as much when they work from home. With that said it shouldn't happen at all. I firmly believe that all business that can be conducted remotely should be done so. I am already dreading the amount of traffic that will be on the roads when everyone goes back.

You think the Administration is willing to force people to back in the office during peak of omicron? I don't think so. Omi/Delta/flu will be everywhere by then. I guess we will know soon enough.

Agency not budging.

Anonymous wrote:also there is a morale and equity concern that leadership is trying to resolve. will folks doing the same job get pissed that they are making less just because they are not in a locality. I'm a 15-10 in DC. so I get 172,500. but on the rest of US scale it is only 166k. I don't see the equity issue here. if you decided to live in Nebraska and I'm in DC, your 166k will take you further. but not every employee sees it like this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any other feds get their marching orders this week? We all just got 30 day notices on our return to work.

Personally I do want to return to work, but even I was shocked. Coworkers are a little bitter.

I work in a SCIF and have been in-person since like June 2020, so...

although I will say that I think the USG should use COVID as a reason to survey who can and can't work in person and adjust property ownership and leases accordingly.

You forgot to mention your free paid vacation March- June. The rest of us were teleworking full time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any other feds get their marching orders this week? We all just got 30 day notices on our return to work.

Personally I do want to return to work, but even I was shocked. Coworkers are a little bitter.

I work in a SCIF and have been in-person since like June 2020, so...

although I will say that I think the USG should use COVID as a reason to survey who can and can't work in person and adjust property ownership and leases accordingly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a fed returning in January. Managers are returning before non supervisors.

why and do what?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm so grateful to work for an agency that already allows telework up to 8 days per pay period (since 2010). leadership is considering converting 1/3 of its positions to 100 remote. Very few of us are complaining!

How do they handle locality pay issue for 100% remote staff?

that's what they are working through. The option on the table is for those that volunteer to convert to 100 percent remote AND want to live outside of our 10 field locations will get assigned to "rest of US" locality scale. Legal is doing a lot of work to see if we can do that.

GSA?

I thought they already resolved this- you move out of the DC locality area and you get whatever the "correct" locality is. Your home is your duty station.

I really like this solution and wish others would adopt it, recognizing that some positions may not actually be eligible for fulltime remote work.

not quite. a legal question was raised about "what if there is another federal agency present in the location, but not our agency." Because of some folks just have to have their cake and eat it too!

I'm confused about why that is difficult? If "home duty station" means literally that, you just map your home address to the appropriate zone? In other words, I think I agree with these people...

I don't understand it either. but that was the briefing they gave management. legal just needs to bless this. I don't understand. it's not like we are creating an entire new locality. it literally exist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:also there is a morale and equity concern that leadership is trying to resolve. will folks doing the same job get pissed that they are making less just because they are not in a locality. I'm a 15-10 in DC. so I get 172,500. but on the rest of US scale it is only 166k. I don't see the equity issue here. if you decided to live in Nebraska and I'm in DC, your 166k will take you further. but not every employee sees it like this.

That is not an equity issue. Locality pay exists in part to AVOID equity issues.

If I live in Omaha and get locality for DC, I am in effect earning MORE than my peers in DC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm so grateful to work for an agency that already allows telework up to 8 days per pay period (since 2010). leadership is considering converting 1/3 of its positions to 100 remote. Very few of us are complaining!

How do they handle locality pay issue for 100% remote staff?

that's what they are working through. The option on the table is for those that volunteer to convert to 100 percent remote AND want to live outside of our 10 field locations will get assigned to "rest of US" locality scale. Legal is doing a lot of work to see if we can do that.

GSA?

I thought they already resolved this- you move out of the DC locality area and you get whatever the "correct" locality is. Your home is your duty station.

I really like this solution and wish others would adopt it, recognizing that some positions may not actually be eligible for fulltime remote work.

not quite. a legal question was raised about "what if there is another federal agency present in the location, but not our agency." Because of some folks just have to have their cake and eat it too!

I'm confused about why that is difficult? If "home duty station" means literally that, you just map your home address to the appropriate zone? In other words, I think I agree with these people...

Anonymous wrote:also there is a morale and equity concern that leadership is trying to resolve. will folks doing the same job get pissed that they are making less just because they are not in a locality. I'm a 15-10 in DC. so I get 172,500. but on the rest of US scale it is only 166k. I don't see the equity issue here. if you decided to live in Nebraska and I'm in DC, your 166k will take you further. but not every employee sees it like this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm so grateful to work for an agency that already allows telework up to 8 days per pay period (since 2010). leadership is considering converting 1/3 of its positions to 100 remote. Very few of us are complaining!

How do they handle locality pay issue for 100% remote staff?

that's what they are working through. The option on the table is for those that volunteer to convert to 100 percent remote AND want to live outside of our 10 field locations will get assigned to "rest of US" locality scale. Legal is doing a lot of work to see if we can do that.

GSA?

I thought they already resolved this- you move out of the DC locality area and you get whatever the "correct" locality is. Your home is your duty station.

I really like this solution and wish others would adopt it, recognizing that some positions may not actually be eligible for fulltime remote work.

not quite. a legal question was raised about "what if there is another federal agency present in the location, but not our agency." Because of some folks just have to have their cake and eat it too!