Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the motivation? To increase productivity or just because so many office buildings are empty?

Motivation is political. Reality is that the US economy needs it. Cities are dying for a number of reasons, but the main economic issue is the impact on service industries to include restaurants, bars, the local travel industry such as Metro in DC, etc.

Commercial real estate market crumbling, with thought of turning federal leased space into condos or apartments. Who is gong to move to DC.

Can replace DC with any number of city names. Work from home will gradually die, too many people taking advantage of the situation, loss of productivity etc.

To return feds back downtown, all it would take is an executive order from the White House ordering agencies to return to pre-pandemic telework and remote work policies by such and such date with instructions to release their compliance status. That’s it.
Maybe the memorandum from Zients was met more for the wider public and not the government?

Most agencies had pretty generous remote and telework even before the pandemic. Honestly going to pre-pandemic policies would be fine.

I disagree, but my agency put in a pretty draconian new policy pre-pandemic - zero telework for supervisors, because "supervision is an inherently in person responsibility." That sounds laughable 3.5 years later after what we've been through, but if we went back to that, I'd be on the first lateral transfer to a nonsupervisory job I could get. (I have a few such applications in just in case, although I'd rather move up than over.)

Okay. No one is irreplaceable in the office. You'd move to a position that is more suited to you - that's great!
You are irreplaceable though as a spouse, daughter, son, friend, etc. though. But to government, they'll find a person who, chances are, will do as good or better job than you did.

Yes, of course someone would fill my job. But vacancies in my agency and division tend to take 1-2 years to fill, during which time my boss would have to take on my workload (and is already dropping balls due to covering for another vacant position).

I just don't get the idea that turnover is great and has zero cost. Obviously you don't want everyone staying in the same job forever, from an individual or organizational perspective, but losing people much faster than you can replace them DOES harm productivity. Driving up churn without having the capacity to deal with the impact isn't some grand "the market will sort it out" thing, there is no great plan here.

Of course there’s a temporary cost to seasoned people quitting. But the government has been doing this a long time. The plan is in place. You will return to the office. The vast majority will deal with it and make it work. Some will rather quit and if quitting is their choice, so be it. Others will fill their shoes.

Please let us know where we can find people with masters degrees and PhDs in STEM fields, who can pass all the clearances plus haven't smoked any weed in the past 7 years...and would prefer to work in the DC metro rather than work remotely for private industry.

Not everyone is an admin assistant pp, those are the easily replaced feds. And also the ones who are doing more remote work than many of the rest of us.

There will absolutely be a temporary hit. But I think that people vastly exaggerate how many people will actually leave (due to people that don't like the instability/uncertainty of private sector, don't have the motivation for the change, and the finite job market) and how drawn out that attrition will actually be (not everyone is leaving on the same day or same quarter or same year).

I think this amounts to “I’m guessing this won’t be too bad.” But you don’t know how bad. Nobody does. And we can’t quantify what benefits RTO would provide, if any. So why force through a widespread high-impact policy when nobody can produce a reliable cost/benefit analysis? That’s incredibly foolish.

You are correct that I can't give you, nor have I seen anywhere, I highly data-driven analysis for or against.

But that doesn't mean a decision to increase onsite presence is a bad one. Overall reasoned cost benefit analysis is also a thing. I didn't see any highly data-driven reports when agencies started telework policies before the pandemic either. Should they not have done that?

It can reasonably be believed that adjusting the balance of onsite work would, or even could, create positive benefits for the overall economy and long term health of federal organizations. It can reasonably be believed that the hit of attrition is manageable in the long run and would be spread out over time (and that attrition itself coming with some silver linings.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the motivation? To increase productivity or just because so many office buildings are empty?

Motivation is political. Reality is that the US economy needs it. Cities are dying for a number of reasons, but the main economic issue is the impact on service industries to include restaurants, bars, the local travel industry such as Metro in DC, etc.

Commercial real estate market crumbling, with thought of turning federal leased space into condos or apartments. Who is gong to move to DC.

Can replace DC with any number of city names. Work from home will gradually die, too many people taking advantage of the situation, loss of productivity etc.

To return feds back downtown, all it would take is an executive order from the White House ordering agencies to return to pre-pandemic telework and remote work policies by such and such date with instructions to release their compliance status. That’s it.
Maybe the memorandum from Zients was met more for the wider public and not the government?

Most agencies had pretty generous remote and telework even before the pandemic. Honestly going to pre-pandemic policies would be fine.

I disagree, but my agency put in a pretty draconian new policy pre-pandemic - zero telework for supervisors, because "supervision is an inherently in person responsibility." That sounds laughable 3.5 years later after what we've been through, but if we went back to that, I'd be on the first lateral transfer to a nonsupervisory job I could get. (I have a few such applications in just in case, although I'd rather move up than over.)

Okay. No one is irreplaceable in the office. You'd move to a position that is more suited to you - that's great!
You are irreplaceable though as a spouse, daughter, son, friend, etc. though. But to government, they'll find a person who, chances are, will do as good or better job than you did.

Yes, of course someone would fill my job. But vacancies in my agency and division tend to take 1-2 years to fill, during which time my boss would have to take on my workload (and is already dropping balls due to covering for another vacant position).

I just don't get the idea that turnover is great and has zero cost. Obviously you don't want everyone staying in the same job forever, from an individual or organizational perspective, but losing people much faster than you can replace them DOES harm productivity. Driving up churn without having the capacity to deal with the impact isn't some grand "the market will sort it out" thing, there is no great plan here.

Of course there’s a temporary cost to seasoned people quitting. But the government has been doing this a long time. The plan is in place. You will return to the office. The vast majority will deal with it and make it work. Some will rather quit and if quitting is their choice, so be it. Others will fill their shoes.

Please let us know where we can find people with masters degrees and PhDs in STEM fields, who can pass all the clearances plus haven't smoked any weed in the past 7 years...and would prefer to work in the DC metro rather than work remotely for private industry.

Not everyone is an admin assistant pp, those are the easily replaced feds. And also the ones who are doing more remote work than many of the rest of us.

There will absolutely be a temporary hit. But I think that people vastly exaggerate how many people will actually leave (due to people that don't like the instability/uncertainty of private sector, don't have the motivation for the change, and the finite job market) and how drawn out that attrition will actually be (not everyone is leaving on the same day or same quarter or same year).

I think this amounts to “I’m guessing this won’t be too bad.” But you don’t know how bad. Nobody does. And we can’t quantify what benefits RTO would provide, if any. So why force through a widespread high-impact policy when nobody can produce a reliable cost/benefit analysis? That’s incredibly foolish.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the motivation? To increase productivity or just because so many office buildings are empty?

Motivation is political. Reality is that the US economy needs it. Cities are dying for a number of reasons, but the main economic issue is the impact on service industries to include restaurants, bars, the local travel industry such as Metro in DC, etc.

Commercial real estate market crumbling, with thought of turning federal leased space into condos or apartments. Who is gong to move to DC.

Can replace DC with any number of city names. Work from home will gradually die, too many people taking advantage of the situation, loss of productivity etc.

To return feds back downtown, all it would take is an executive order from the White House ordering agencies to return to pre-pandemic telework and remote work policies by such and such date with instructions to release their compliance status. That’s it.
Maybe the memorandum from Zients was met more for the wider public and not the government?

Most agencies had pretty generous remote and telework even before the pandemic. Honestly going to pre-pandemic policies would be fine.

I disagree, but my agency put in a pretty draconian new policy pre-pandemic - zero telework for supervisors, because "supervision is an inherently in person responsibility." That sounds laughable 3.5 years later after what we've been through, but if we went back to that, I'd be on the first lateral transfer to a nonsupervisory job I could get. (I have a few such applications in just in case, although I'd rather move up than over.)

Okay. No one is irreplaceable in the office. You'd move to a position that is more suited to you - that's great!
You are irreplaceable though as a spouse, daughter, son, friend, etc. though. But to government, they'll find a person who, chances are, will do as good or better job than you did.

Yes, of course someone would fill my job. But vacancies in my agency and division tend to take 1-2 years to fill, during which time my boss would have to take on my workload (and is already dropping balls due to covering for another vacant position).

I just don't get the idea that turnover is great and has zero cost. Obviously you don't want everyone staying in the same job forever, from an individual or organizational perspective, but losing people much faster than you can replace them DOES harm productivity. Driving up churn without having the capacity to deal with the impact isn't some grand "the market will sort it out" thing, there is no great plan here.

Good thing is you don’t have to worry about that. It’s not your problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the motivation? To increase productivity or just because so many office buildings are empty?

Motivation is political. Reality is that the US economy needs it. Cities are dying for a number of reasons, but the main economic issue is the impact on service industries to include restaurants, bars, the local travel industry such as Metro in DC, etc.

Commercial real estate market crumbling, with thought of turning federal leased space into condos or apartments. Who is gong to move to DC.

Can replace DC with any number of city names. Work from home will gradually die, too many people taking advantage of the situation, loss of productivity etc.

To return feds back downtown, all it would take is an executive order from the White House ordering agencies to return to pre-pandemic telework and remote work policies by such and such date with instructions to release their compliance status. That’s it.
Maybe the memorandum from Zients was met more for the wider public and not the government?

Most agencies had pretty generous remote and telework even before the pandemic. Honestly going to pre-pandemic policies would be fine.

I disagree, but my agency put in a pretty draconian new policy pre-pandemic - zero telework for supervisors, because "supervision is an inherently in person responsibility." That sounds laughable 3.5 years later after what we've been through, but if we went back to that, I'd be on the first lateral transfer to a nonsupervisory job I could get. (I have a few such applications in just in case, although I'd rather move up than over.)

Okay. No one is irreplaceable in the office. You'd move to a position that is more suited to you - that's great!
You are irreplaceable though as a spouse, daughter, son, friend, etc. though. But to government, they'll find a person who, chances are, will do as good or better job than you did.

Yes, of course someone would fill my job. But vacancies in my agency and division tend to take 1-2 years to fill, during which time my boss would have to take on my workload (and is already dropping balls due to covering for another vacant position).

I just don't get the idea that turnover is great and has zero cost. Obviously you don't want everyone staying in the same job forever, from an individual or organizational perspective, but losing people much faster than you can replace them DOES harm productivity. Driving up churn without having the capacity to deal with the impact isn't some grand "the market will sort it out" thing, there is no great plan here.

Of course there’s a temporary cost to seasoned people quitting. But the government has been doing this a long time. The plan is in place. You will return to the office. The vast majority will deal with it and make it work. Some will rather quit and if quitting is their choice, so be it. Others will fill their shoes.

Please let us know where we can find people with masters degrees and PhDs in STEM fields, who can pass all the clearances plus haven't smoked any weed in the past 7 years...and would prefer to work in the DC metro rather than work remotely for private industry.

Not everyone is an admin assistant pp, those are the easily replaced feds. And also the ones who are doing more remote work than many of the rest of us.

You raise a good point. This would be a great opportunity for the federal government to revise clearance/suitability guidelines..in keeping with the general direction of the administration. win/win!

There will absolutely be a temporary hit. But I think that people vastly exaggerate how many people will actually leave (due to people that don't like the instability/uncertainty of private sector, don't have the motivation for the change, and the finite job market) and how drawn out that attrition will actually be (not everyone is leaving on the same day or same quarter or same year).

It is also worth noting that everybody's "breaking point" is different. If I were ever called back five days a week with no flexibility, that would be mine. But that is not a real possibility. What we are really talking about (on average for the entire federal workforce) is a max of two/three days onsite per week with a lot of flexibility in working hours. For many many people, that is not a dealbreaker.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the motivation? To increase productivity or just because so many office buildings are empty?

Motivation is political. Reality is that the US economy needs it. Cities are dying for a number of reasons, but the main economic issue is the impact on service industries to include restaurants, bars, the local travel industry such as Metro in DC, etc.

Commercial real estate market crumbling, with thought of turning federal leased space into condos or apartments. Who is gong to move to DC.

Can replace DC with any number of city names. Work from home will gradually die, too many people taking advantage of the situation, loss of productivity etc.

To return feds back downtown, all it would take is an executive order from the White House ordering agencies to return to pre-pandemic telework and remote work policies by such and such date with instructions to release their compliance status. That’s it.
Maybe the memorandum from Zients was met more for the wider public and not the government?

Most agencies had pretty generous remote and telework even before the pandemic. Honestly going to pre-pandemic policies would be fine.

I disagree, but my agency put in a pretty draconian new policy pre-pandemic - zero telework for supervisors, because "supervision is an inherently in person responsibility." That sounds laughable 3.5 years later after what we've been through, but if we went back to that, I'd be on the first lateral transfer to a nonsupervisory job I could get. (I have a few such applications in just in case, although I'd rather move up than over.)

Okay. No one is irreplaceable in the office. You'd move to a position that is more suited to you - that's great!
You are irreplaceable though as a spouse, daughter, son, friend, etc. though. But to government, they'll find a person who, chances are, will do as good or better job than you did.

Yes, of course someone would fill my job. But vacancies in my agency and division tend to take 1-2 years to fill, during which time my boss would have to take on my workload (and is already dropping balls due to covering for another vacant position).

I just don't get the idea that turnover is great and has zero cost. Obviously you don't want everyone staying in the same job forever, from an individual or organizational perspective, but losing people much faster than you can replace them DOES harm productivity. Driving up churn without having the capacity to deal with the impact isn't some grand "the market will sort it out" thing, there is no great plan here.

Of course there’s a temporary cost to seasoned people quitting. But the government has been doing this a long time. The plan is in place. You will return to the office. The vast majority will deal with it and make it work. Some will rather quit and if quitting is their choice, so be it. Others will fill their shoes.

Please let us know where we can find people with masters degrees and PhDs in STEM fields, who can pass all the clearances plus haven't smoked any weed in the past 7 years...and would prefer to work in the DC metro rather than work remotely for private industry.

Not everyone is an admin assistant pp, those are the easily replaced feds. And also the ones who are doing more remote work than many of the rest of us.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the motivation? To increase productivity or just because so many office buildings are empty?

Motivation is political. Reality is that the US economy needs it. Cities are dying for a number of reasons, but the main economic issue is the impact on service industries to include restaurants, bars, the local travel industry such as Metro in DC, etc.

Commercial real estate market crumbling, with thought of turning federal leased space into condos or apartments. Who is gong to move to DC.

Can replace DC with any number of city names. Work from home will gradually die, too many people taking advantage of the situation, loss of productivity etc.

To return feds back downtown, all it would take is an executive order from the White House ordering agencies to return to pre-pandemic telework and remote work policies by such and such date with instructions to release their compliance status. That’s it.
Maybe the memorandum from Zients was met more for the wider public and not the government?

Most agencies had pretty generous remote and telework even before the pandemic. Honestly going to pre-pandemic policies would be fine.

I disagree, but my agency put in a pretty draconian new policy pre-pandemic - zero telework for supervisors, because "supervision is an inherently in person responsibility." That sounds laughable 3.5 years later after what we've been through, but if we went back to that, I'd be on the first lateral transfer to a nonsupervisory job I could get. (I have a few such applications in just in case, although I'd rather move up than over.)

Okay. No one is irreplaceable in the office. You'd move to a position that is more suited to you - that's great!
You are irreplaceable though as a spouse, daughter, son, friend, etc. though. But to government, they'll find a person who, chances are, will do as good or better job than you did.

Yes, of course someone would fill my job. But vacancies in my agency and division tend to take 1-2 years to fill, during which time my boss would have to take on my workload (and is already dropping balls due to covering for another vacant position).

I just don't get the idea that turnover is great and has zero cost. Obviously you don't want everyone staying in the same job forever, from an individual or organizational perspective, but losing people much faster than you can replace them DOES harm productivity. Driving up churn without having the capacity to deal with the impact isn't some grand "the market will sort it out" thing, there is no great plan here.

Of course there’s a temporary cost to seasoned people quitting. But the government has been doing this a long time. The plan is in place. You will return to the office. The vast majority will deal with it and make it work. Some will rather quit and if quitting is their choice, so be it. Others will fill their shoes.

That's...not a plan for dealing with a higher number of vacant positions. That's not a plan at all. That's just saying "oh, I'm sure it won't matter much."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the motivation? To increase productivity or just because so many office buildings are empty?

Motivation is political. Reality is that the US economy needs it. Cities are dying for a number of reasons, but the main economic issue is the impact on service industries to include restaurants, bars, the local travel industry such as Metro in DC, etc.

Commercial real estate market crumbling, with thought of turning federal leased space into condos or apartments. Who is gong to move to DC.

Can replace DC with any number of city names. Work from home will gradually die, too many people taking advantage of the situation, loss of productivity etc.

To return feds back downtown, all it would take is an executive order from the White House ordering agencies to return to pre-pandemic telework and remote work policies by such and such date with instructions to release their compliance status. That’s it.
Maybe the memorandum from Zients was met more for the wider public and not the government?

Most agencies had pretty generous remote and telework even before the pandemic. Honestly going to pre-pandemic policies would be fine.

I disagree, but my agency put in a pretty draconian new policy pre-pandemic - zero telework for supervisors, because "supervision is an inherently in person responsibility." That sounds laughable 3.5 years later after what we've been through, but if we went back to that, I'd be on the first lateral transfer to a nonsupervisory job I could get. (I have a few such applications in just in case, although I'd rather move up than over.)

Okay. No one is irreplaceable in the office. You'd move to a position that is more suited to you - that's great!
You are irreplaceable though as a spouse, daughter, son, friend, etc. though. But to government, they'll find a person who, chances are, will do as good or better job than you did.

Yes, of course someone would fill my job. But vacancies in my agency and division tend to take 1-2 years to fill, during which time my boss would have to take on my workload (and is already dropping balls due to covering for another vacant position).

I just don't get the idea that turnover is great and has zero cost. Obviously you don't want everyone staying in the same job forever, from an individual or organizational perspective, but losing people much faster than you can replace them DOES harm productivity. Driving up churn without having the capacity to deal with the impact isn't some grand "the market will sort it out" thing, there is no great plan here.

Of course there’s a temporary cost to seasoned people quitting. But the government has been doing this a long time. The plan is in place. You will return to the office. The vast majority will deal with it and make it work. Some will rather quit and if quitting is their choice, so be it. Others will fill their shoes.

“The plan is in place. You will return to the office.”

Do you have any idea how brainless you sound?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the motivation? To increase productivity or just because so many office buildings are empty?

Motivation is political. Reality is that the US economy needs it. Cities are dying for a number of reasons, but the main economic issue is the impact on service industries to include restaurants, bars, the local travel industry such as Metro in DC, etc.

Commercial real estate market crumbling, with thought of turning federal leased space into condos or apartments. Who is gong to move to DC.

Can replace DC with any number of city names. Work from home will gradually die, too many people taking advantage of the situation, loss of productivity etc.

To return feds back downtown, all it would take is an executive order from the White House ordering agencies to return to pre-pandemic telework and remote work policies by such and such date with instructions to release their compliance status. That’s it.
Maybe the memorandum from Zients was met more for the wider public and not the government?

Most agencies had pretty generous remote and telework even before the pandemic. Honestly going to pre-pandemic policies would be fine.

I disagree, but my agency put in a pretty draconian new policy pre-pandemic - zero telework for supervisors, because "supervision is an inherently in person responsibility." That sounds laughable 3.5 years later after what we've been through, but if we went back to that, I'd be on the first lateral transfer to a nonsupervisory job I could get. (I have a few such applications in just in case, although I'd rather move up than over.)

Okay. No one is irreplaceable in the office. You'd move to a position that is more suited to you - that's great!
You are irreplaceable though as a spouse, daughter, son, friend, etc. though. But to government, they'll find a person who, chances are, will do as good or better job than you did.

Yes, of course someone would fill my job. But vacancies in my agency and division tend to take 1-2 years to fill, during which time my boss would have to take on my workload (and is already dropping balls due to covering for another vacant position).

I just don't get the idea that turnover is great and has zero cost. Obviously you don't want everyone staying in the same job forever, from an individual or organizational perspective, but losing people much faster than you can replace them DOES harm productivity. Driving up churn without having the capacity to deal with the impact isn't some grand "the market will sort it out" thing, there is no great plan here.

Of course there’s a temporary cost to seasoned people quitting. But the government has been doing this a long time. The plan is in place. You will return to the office. The vast majority will deal with it and make it work. Some will rather quit and if quitting is their choice, so be it. Others will fill their shoes.

Anonymous wrote:We are RTO 6 days PP and I will be taking my flex hrs very liberally in order to still be around after school. What our leadership doesn’t understand is that WFH allowed us to stretch our productivity even further but providing flexibility. I could be at home to take my kids to practice, start dinner, etc. and still be online to finish up emails, assignments or whatever. Now if I have to maintain rigid hours in the office I won’t be opening a laptop after I get home unless my flexibility stays in place. Take away the flexibility and productivity will suffer.

I agree with this. The commute absolutely eats into my productivity. My agency is taking so seriously and I have been going in and the use two days I am in I get much less done.

Anonymous wrote:Yet when “govt shut down” happens no one cares.

They really need to just streamline hiring process.

Because most of the staff are still working. The government cant actually shut down. They just work for free during that time essentially and then get back pay. The only people who dont care that many are working without pay are ogres.

Anonymous wrote:Yet when “govt shut down” happens no one cares.

They really need to just streamline hiring process.

Not sure what your point is but when govt shuts down, everyone cares. That's probably the only time when most people actually care.

Yet when “govt shut down” happens no one cares.

They really need to just streamline hiring process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are RTO 6 days PP and I will be taking my flex hrs very liberally in order to still be around after school. What our leadership doesn’t understand is that WFH allowed us to stretch our productivity even further but providing flexibility. I could be at home to take my kids to practice, start dinner, etc. and still be online to finish up emails, assignments or whatever. Now if I have to maintain rigid hours in the office I won’t be opening a laptop after I get home unless my flexibility stays in place. Take away the flexibility and productivity will suffer.

Some of this flexibility is the problem too. Most meetings are from 2-5pm and people have their calendars blocked off. We work a lot with California so morning meetings won't work.

CA aside why do most meetings have to be between 2-5? Also, if I have to have a 5pm meeting on a day when my kid needs to be someplace by 5:30 or 6, I’m taking that meeting from home. Unless there’s an absolutely necessity I need to be there in person. The rigid thinking around work hours has to go. Meetings should try to be during code hrs.

PP here. Meetings aren't scheduled at 5, but we do have 4pm or 4:30 meetings that go until 5pm.

Most of the California staff doesn't get in until 9am, which is noon and lunch time for us. So most meetings run 1pm-5pm ET. I have tried fighting this too, but it is what it is. We actually have some staff in AK and Hawaii too.

Is 9am the East Cost arrival time as well? Im surprised that CA is allowed such flexibility when the EC is expected to cater but not the other way around. Where is your main office?

DC is the main office. 9-3pm are core hours, so they don't have to arrive before 9.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are RTO 6 days PP and I will be taking my flex hrs very liberally in order to still be around after school. What our leadership doesn’t understand is that WFH allowed us to stretch our productivity even further but providing flexibility. I could be at home to take my kids to practice, start dinner, etc. and still be online to finish up emails, assignments or whatever. Now if I have to maintain rigid hours in the office I won’t be opening a laptop after I get home unless my flexibility stays in place. Take away the flexibility and productivity will suffer.

Some of this flexibility is the problem too. Most meetings are from 2-5pm and people have their calendars blocked off. We work a lot with California so morning meetings won't work.

CA aside why do most meetings have to be between 2-5? Also, if I have to have a 5pm meeting on a day when my kid needs to be someplace by 5:30 or 6, I’m taking that meeting from home. Unless there’s an absolutely necessity I need to be there in person. The rigid thinking around work hours has to go. Meetings should try to be during code hrs.

PP here. Meetings aren't scheduled at 5, but we do have 4pm or 4:30 meetings that go until 5pm.

Most of the California staff doesn't get in until 9am, which is noon and lunch time for us. So most meetings run 1pm-5pm ET. I have tried fighting this too, but it is what it is. We actually have some staff in AK and Hawaii too.

Is 9am the East Cost arrival time as well? Im surprised that CA is allowed such flexibility when the EC is expected to cater but not the other way around. Where is your main office?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the motivation? To increase productivity or just because so many office buildings are empty?

Motivation is political. Reality is that the US economy needs it. Cities are dying for a number of reasons, but the main economic issue is the impact on service industries to include restaurants, bars, the local travel industry such as Metro in DC, etc.

Commercial real estate market crumbling, with thought of turning federal leased space into condos or apartments. Who is gong to move to DC.

Can replace DC with any number of city names. Work from home will gradually die, too many people taking advantage of the situation, loss of productivity etc.

To return feds back downtown, all it would take is an executive order from the White House ordering agencies to return to pre-pandemic telework and remote work policies by such and such date with instructions to release their compliance status. That’s it.
Maybe the memorandum from Zients was met more for the wider public and not the government?

Most agencies had pretty generous remote and telework even before the pandemic. Honestly going to pre-pandemic policies would be fine.

I disagree, but my agency put in a pretty draconian new policy pre-pandemic - zero telework for supervisors, because "supervision is an inherently in person responsibility." That sounds laughable 3.5 years later after what we've been through, but if we went back to that, I'd be on the first lateral transfer to a nonsupervisory job I could get. (I have a few such applications in just in case, although I'd rather move up than over.)

Okay. No one is irreplaceable in the office. You'd move to a position that is more suited to you - that's great!
You are irreplaceable though as a spouse, daughter, son, friend, etc. though. But to government, they'll find a person who, chances are, will do as good or better job than you did.

Yes, of course someone would fill my job. But vacancies in my agency and division tend to take 1-2 years to fill, during which time my boss would have to take on my workload (and is already dropping balls due to covering for another vacant position).

I just don't get the idea that turnover is great and has zero cost. Obviously you don't want everyone staying in the same job forever, from an individual or organizational perspective, but losing people much faster than you can replace them DOES harm productivity. Driving up churn without having the capacity to deal with the impact isn't some grand "the market will sort it out" thing, there is no great plan here.