Anonymous wrote:No, this is good because my neighbor is a fed and spends all day eating Cheetos and going to the grocery store instead of working. I know because I have a camera in her house and an AirTag implanted between her shoulder blades. Also, she’s actually my friend and just tells me how she’s abusing telework and running an Etsy store eight hours a day. And my other friend is actually her supervisor and told me he tried to fire her but HR said no and she can only get 5’s on her performance eval because DEI. And I also commute nine hours to work each day so she should too.

Do I have it right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't read all 7 pages but my friend that works there said they have 30 days to RTO. DHS is huge but at least in his group their building isn't big enough so it sounds like they are going to utilize space from another group, maybe customs? I forget which one but I didn't realize space could be set up that fast. Like the whole process, getting people access to the building, getting permission to use the building, etc.

You do realize after 9/11 companies in WTC relocated in a week or two. That is almost 25 years ago. That involved signing new leases, buying all new IT equipment and in a lot of cases hiring new staff. I worked at KBW briefly back that where 39 percent of company killed in 9/11. They had a new lease, all new equipment, new badges very quickly. In regards to losing 39 percent of company in one day. Ex employees, retired employees, their external auditor etc. all chipped in to do those jobs on short notice.

50,000 people worked in WTC and they were all set up in new places within 1-4 weeks. In NYC at a time where office space was tight. It is not hard as you think.

PP here and those were private companies right? I'm not saying I don't think it's physically possible, I just assumed there is a lot of red tape doing all that in the govt. Like signing a new lease isn't just something they can just do, they have to put out a proposal and let everyone bid on it, all of which takes time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a family member who works for DHS as a GS-15. The last 4 years he has spent more time on the golf course than working remotely. He openly brags about it! F HIM and he also voted for TRUMP!

I know lots of people who work remotely and brag about how much they do everything but work. Some even illegally work outside of the country. The chickens are finally coming home to roost.

Very believable.

Anonymous wrote:I have a fever and cough. I was going to TW today bc I have a ton of work and don't want to infect anyone. But I guess I'll just take PTO and look for jobs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These headline grabbing articles are just that. There are exemptions for lack of physical space or employee’s inability to return. Let’s see how this plays out with actual DHS employees.

+1, the loopholes are actually huge.

They are using RTO as stealth layoffs, just like the private sector has the last few years. It's also a way to clear out older workers who probably should retire but have stuck around because their jobs are very easy for them at this stage and if they can do them at home with a flexible schedule, why not.

Managers are going to come back with exemptions for most of their other workers though. A lot of these jobs have no permanent offices to go back to. Some are highly skilled workers who are very hard to replace (and most replacements would also expect WFH allowances).

If you have an empty office somewhere that you never go to, are relatively easy to replace, and are a poor performer, you should either ready yourself to return to the office or look for another job.

I can't stand Trump but I support this specific policy. I've managed people a long time and there are lots of appropriate uses for RTO but there are also a lot of people who just abuse it to avoid working and you need mechanisms for rooting those people out.

Feel like too many people just aren't accepting this fact. It doesn't matter if there "isn't enough office space"...they may tell people to go work in conference rooms (at 10-12 per room) or set up makeshift stations.

However, the point is to just get people to quit so everyone can talk about how much $$$ they saved the government, without having to actually fire people or go through bargaining nonsense or whatever.

My experience is that plenty of people will do whatever it takes to hold onto their federal job, especially if they have a lot of years of service under their belt already or are getting close to retirement. The people who will leave will be the ones most able to get lucrative work in the private sector -- not exactly the folks the Trump administration should want to drive away.

That is exactly who they want to get rid of. They don't want effective/smart/good people who may stand up to them.

+1

They don’t want a functioning government. They want to tear it all down. Losing good people is the goal.

Anonymous wrote:

True. The goal is to have people on the roads so that they buy gas and cars, then they spend 2-3 hrs in commute and are so tired that they end up eating out a lot, then when they are fat and unhealthy the pharmaceutical companies can make mind off of them.

The goal is to save trillions of dollars of investments held by big city real estate tycoons.

True. The goal is to have people on the roads so that they buy gas and cars, then they spend 2-3 hrs in commute and are so tired that they end up eating out a lot, then when they are fat and unhealthy the pharmaceutical companies can make mind off of them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren't there civilian office staff in the USCG? I doubt crews on a cutter are reporting remote hours.

Yes, the USCG has a good amount of civilians doing the same things other agencies do: acquisitions, IT, compliance, safety regulations, etc. They also have space constraints just like everybody else is dealing with.

Their HQ is also in Anacostia and only a very small number of employees get a parking spot. It's a nice building, but horrible place to work no matter where you live.

No parking, no public transportation either

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren't there civilian office staff in the USCG? I doubt crews on a cutter are reporting remote hours.

Yes, the USCG has a good amount of civilians doing the same things other agencies do: acquisitions, IT, compliance, safety regulations, etc. They also have space constraints just like everybody else is dealing with.

Their HQ is also in Anacostia and only a very small number of employees get a parking spot. It's a nice building, but horrible place to work no matter where you live.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't read all 7 pages but my friend that works there said they have 30 days to RTO. DHS is huge but at least in his group their building isn't big enough so it sounds like they are going to utilize space from another group, maybe customs? I forget which one but I didn't realize space could be set up that fast. Like the whole process, getting people access to the building, getting permission to use the building, etc.

You do realize after 9/11 companies in WTC relocated in a week or two. That is almost 25 years ago. That involved signing new leases, buying all new IT equipment and in a lot of cases hiring new staff. I worked at KBW briefly back that where 39 percent of company killed in 9/11. They had a new lease, all new equipment, new badges very quickly. In regards to losing 39 percent of company in one day. Ex employees, retired employees, their external auditor etc. all chipped in to do those jobs on short notice.

50,000 people worked in WTC and they were all set up in new places within 1-4 weeks. In NYC at a time where office space was tight. It is not hard as you think.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These headline grabbing articles are just that. There are exemptions for lack of physical space or employee’s inability to return. Let’s see how this plays out with actual DHS employees.

+1, the loopholes are actually huge.

They are using RTO as stealth layoffs, just like the private sector has the last few years. It's also a way to clear out older workers who probably should retire but have stuck around because their jobs are very easy for them at this stage and if they can do them at home with a flexible schedule, why not.

Managers are going to come back with exemptions for most of their other workers though. A lot of these jobs have no permanent offices to go back to. Some are highly skilled workers who are very hard to replace (and most replacements would also expect WFH allowances).

If you have an empty office somewhere that you never go to, are relatively easy to replace, and are a poor performer, you should either ready yourself to return to the office or look for another job.

I can't stand Trump but I support this specific policy. I've managed people a long time and there are lots of appropriate uses for RTO but there are also a lot of people who just abuse it to avoid working and you need mechanisms for rooting those people out.

Feel like too many people just aren't accepting this fact. It doesn't matter if there "isn't enough office space"...they may tell people to go work in conference rooms (at 10-12 per room) or set up makeshift stations.

However, the point is to just get people to quit so everyone can talk about how much $$$ they saved the government, without having to actually fire people or go through bargaining nonsense or whatever.

My experience is that plenty of people will do whatever it takes to hold onto their federal job, especially if they have a lot of years of service under their belt already or are getting close to retirement. The people who will leave will be the ones most able to get lucrative work in the private sector -- not exactly the folks the Trump administration should want to drive away.

That is exactly who they want to get rid of. They don't want effective/smart/good people who may stand up to them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These headline grabbing articles are just that. There are exemptions for lack of physical space or employee’s inability to return. Let’s see how this plays out with actual DHS employees.

+1, the loopholes are actually huge.

They are using RTO as stealth layoffs, just like the private sector has the last few years. It's also a way to clear out older workers who probably should retire but have stuck around because their jobs are very easy for them at this stage and if they can do them at home with a flexible schedule, why not.

Managers are going to come back with exemptions for most of their other workers though. A lot of these jobs have no permanent offices to go back to. Some are highly skilled workers who are very hard to replace (and most replacements would also expect WFH allowances).

If you have an empty office somewhere that you never go to, are relatively easy to replace, and are a poor performer, you should either ready yourself to return to the office or look for another job.

I can't stand Trump but I support this specific policy. I've managed people a long time and there are lots of appropriate uses for RTO but there are also a lot of people who just abuse it to avoid working and you need mechanisms for rooting those people out.

Feel like too many people just aren't accepting this fact. It doesn't matter if there "isn't enough office space"...they may tell people to go work in conference rooms (at 10-12 per room) or set up makeshift stations.

However, the point is to just get people to quit so everyone can talk about how much $$$ they saved the government, without having to actually fire people or go through bargaining nonsense or whatever.

My experience is that plenty of people will do whatever it takes to hold onto their federal job, especially if they have a lot of years of service under their belt already or are getting close to retirement. The people who will leave will be the ones most able to get lucrative work in the private sector -- not exactly the folks the Trump administration should want to drive away.