Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because people need to wake up and understand how privileged they are. And stop whining.

Privilege implies we didn’t earn it. Which we did.

You didn’t earn it any more than I earned it as someone in private equity who has RTO’d or more than my husband who works at Goldman and is RTO 5 days has earned it. There is a near hysterical level of entitlement on this thread. And your attitude is horrible and elitist, like you’re better than every doctor, pharmacist, uber driver, lawyer, banker, teacher, firefighter, scientist, or professor who didn’t “earn it.”

My DH in the private sector was hired 100% remote, as was about 90% of his company. If that changes (there is talk that it might), he will leave the job. It upends our childcare arrangements, our insurance, etc. I don’t think it’s entitled of him to expect the work arrangement he was hired into and negotiated for or to talk to recruiters now that it might change.

What about all the people at IBM who were hired remote decades ago had to go back to the office or the people at Starbucks, Amazon, or Meta who have RTO recently? Of course people are looking for new roles if they don’t want to RTO, but no company or organization owes employees indefinite anything. Feds are not the first employees to find themselves in this position. There is nothing exceptional about having to RTO after being remote or hybrid. Some Feds may make less than some private sector peers, but this is untrue of every fed. And feds who may make less than they would in the private sector are not entitled to remote or hybrid conditions just because they are paid slightly less. The market will dictate if feds have better options than staying and I predict for many feds jumping to the private sector will not be better from the standpoint of remuneration, especially if FERS is taken into account.

My husband's org is doing RTO. They have months to prepare and will still have situational telework. That's very different from what's happening here. Of course being remote doesn't have to be permanent, but springing it on people like this is something you only do when the point is to make their lives worse, and I don't know why anyone would defend that.

Anonymous wrote:My agency heavily recruited remote attorneys in Puerto Rico. We're still being told to sit tight.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because people need to wake up and understand how privileged they are. And stop whining.

Privilege implies we didn’t earn it. Which we did.

You didn’t earn it any more than I earned it as someone in private equity who has RTO’d or more than my husband who works at Goldman and is RTO 5 days has earned it. There is a near hysterical level of entitlement on this thread. And your attitude is horrible and elitist, like you’re better than every doctor, pharmacist, uber driver, lawyer, banker, teacher, firefighter, scientist, or professor who didn’t “earn it.”

My DH in the private sector was hired 100% remote, as was about 90% of his company. If that changes (there is talk that it might), he will leave the job. It upends our childcare arrangements, our insurance, etc. I don’t think it’s entitled of him to expect the work arrangement he was hired into and negotiated for or to talk to recruiters now that it might change.

What about all the people at IBM who were hired remote decades ago had to go back to the office or the people at Starbucks, Amazon, or Meta who have RTO recently? Of course people are looking for new roles if they don’t want to RTO, but no company or organization owes employees indefinite anything. Feds are not the first employees to find themselves in this position. There is nothing exceptional about having to RTO after being remote or hybrid. Some Feds may make less than some private sector peers, but this is untrue of every fed. And feds who may make less than they would in the private sector are not entitled to remote or hybrid conditions just because they are paid slightly less. The market will dictate if feds have better options than staying and I predict for many feds jumping to the private sector will not be better from the standpoint of remuneration, especially if FERS is taken into account.

My husband's org is doing RTO. They have months to prepare and will still have situational telework. That's very different from what's happening here. Of course being remote doesn't have to be permanent, but springing it on people like this is something you only do when the point is to make their lives worse, and I don't know why anyone would defend that.

I’m not sure how this is “springing it on” when Trump was elected Nov 6 and had said this was the plan. In the two and half months after that, we’ve all been expecting this Exec Order to come on Jan. 20.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At my agency, people who moved more than 50 miles away don’t have to come in. So I kind of wish we’d moved (tho no word on my spouse’s agency yet).

I get that, and I’m 42 miles from my duty station so I’d only have to move a little farther out, but where I am they’re safe “for now”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe people thought working from home full-time would continue indefinitely.

We knew this would happen at some point, especially if a GOP President was elected. It wasn’t just Trump, DeSantis said he’d do the same.

+1 DH and I are both feds. We didn’t do any major changes (e.g. moving) and kept paying for aftercare/camps because we knew this was always a possibility under any President but almost certain under Trump.

+2. We’re a two fed family and my husband talked of moving to another state, but I said no. Not until we retire because this could all change tomorrow.

Anonymous wrote:At my agency, people who moved more than 50 miles away don’t have to come in. So I kind of wish we’d moved (tho no word on my spouse’s agency yet).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of people are compensated and work in conditions based on what the market will bear. No one earns remote or hybrid working conditions in perpetuity based on past achievements. Employers in most industries have an upper hand in this market and have called back talented, high achieving employees who were previously hybrid or remote. These employers include Amazon, Goldman Sachs, BlackRock, Microsoft, Citigroup, AT&T, JP Morgan, Disney, IBM, ebay, Meta, Apple, Salesforce, state governments, and various nonprofits. It’s safe to assume that at least some employees at all of these organizations believed, based on the conditions of their employment when they joined, that they would be remote or hybrid for the extent of their employment. What makes these people different from feds needing to RTO in the next few months or years? Nothing.

The current market conditions, while not the main driver for Trump’s RTO policy, make the policy appear unremarkable to most non feds. Let’s also not forget that this was something that Biden and Zients were trying to do nearly two years ago. If anything, feds’ general unwillingness to compromise on RTO in 2023 and glee at playing (or overplaying) their hand on RTO served to bolster Trump’s campaign trail characterization of a supercilious civil service class obsessed with enacting DEI measures while working from home in pajamas.

I don't think anyone owes me or anyone else a permanent remote job. But if anyone at those other organizations was also informed that they needed to go from a job that was hired as fully remote to in an office up to 50 miles away five days a week with almost no time to prepare, I think that's pretty terrible, too, and I wouldn't tell them to not complain about it.

Also, I wasn't a fed in 2023, so I wasn't playing or overplaying anything.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because people need to wake up and understand how privileged they are. And stop whining.

Privilege implies we didn’t earn it. Which we did.

You didn’t earn it any more than I earned it as someone in private equity who has RTO’d or more than my husband who works at Goldman and is RTO 5 days has earned it. There is a near hysterical level of entitlement on this thread. And your attitude is horrible and elitist, like you’re better than every doctor, pharmacist, uber driver, lawyer, banker, teacher, firefighter, scientist, or professor who didn’t “earn it.”

My DH in the private sector was hired 100% remote, as was about 90% of his company. If that changes (there is talk that it might), he will leave the job. It upends our childcare arrangements, our insurance, etc. I don’t think it’s entitled of him to expect the work arrangement he was hired into and negotiated for or to talk to recruiters now that it might change.

What about all the people at IBM who were hired remote decades ago had to go back to the office or the people at Starbucks, Amazon, or Meta who have RTO recently? Of course people are looking for new roles if they don’t want to RTO, but no company or organization owes employees indefinite anything. Feds are not the first employees to find themselves in this position. There is nothing exceptional about having to RTO after being remote or hybrid. Some Feds may make less than some private sector peers, but this is untrue of every fed. And feds who may make less than they would in the private sector are not entitled to remote or hybrid conditions just because they are paid slightly less. The market will dictate if feds have better options than staying and I predict for many feds jumping to the private sector will not be better from the standpoint of remuneration, especially if FERS is taken into account.

My husband's org is doing RTO. They have months to prepare and will still have situational telework. That's very different from what's happening here. Of course being remote doesn't have to be permanent, but springing it on people like this is something you only do when the point is to make their lives worse, and I don't know why anyone would defend that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe people thought working from home full-time would continue indefinitely.

We knew this would happen at some point, especially if a GOP President was elected. It wasn’t just Trump, DeSantis said he’d do the same.

+1 DH and I are both feds. We didn’t do any major changes (e.g. moving) and kept paying for aftercare/camps because we knew this was always a possibility under any President but almost certain under Trump.

+2. We’re a two fed family and my husband talked of moving to another state, but I said no. Not until we retire because this could all change tomorrow.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe people thought working from home full-time would continue indefinitely.

We knew this would happen at some point, especially if a GOP President was elected. It wasn’t just Trump, DeSantis said he’d do the same.

+1 DH and I are both feds. We didn’t do any major changes (e.g. moving) and kept paying for aftercare/camps because we knew this was always a possibility under any President but almost certain under Trump.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe people thought working from home full-time would continue indefinitely.

We knew this would happen at some point, especially if a GOP President was elected. It wasn’t just Trump, DeSantis said he’d do the same.

+1 DH and I are both feds. We didn’t do any major changes (e.g. moving) and kept paying for aftercare/camps because we knew this was always a possibility under any President but almost certain under Trump.

Anonymous wrote:The irony is the private sector will now offer better work life balance for more pay.