Anonymous wrote:If the Fed goes fully remote, can you base yourself overseas? Would you have to work US east coast hours?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the Fed goes fully remote, can you base yourself overseas? Would you have to work US east coast hours?

Dude, you could work in a spaceship. Remote is remote.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is depressing. I used to work for the Fed, and I thought the staff was better than this. The answer to RTO is to form a union or strategically use leave to cover it? Thank goodness the Chair is more dedicated to the mission than those in it for an easy paycheck. Really, really disappointing.

Wow. Newsflash - you can be a union supporter AND support “the missiom.” There is a reason every single other financial agency has a union and it’s not that Fed workers are somehow more dedicated to the “mission.” Unless your view is that the “mission” means employees shouldn’t care about the terms and conditions of their employment.

I don’t understand why any of them have a union. As a PP said, unions are typically found where workers are abused and cannot effectively negotiate for themselves. I wouldn’t characterize $300k, a pension, a 401k, and lots of vacation and sick time for 40 hours of work in an individual office with a door as being abused. Also, the Fed has been VERY generous with WFH, including massive tolerance for parents with young children at home, during the pandemic. Your work conditions and pay are beyond compare for what you do.

They have a union to establish the terms and conditions of employment in a way that uses their collective influence and does not rest on the arbitrary whims of a manager. Not too hard to understand! Unions also protect against retaliation and unfair discipline - very important to maintain examiner integrity.

(Also - who is getting 300k?)

I have a couple of very close friends at the Fed, and we are very open about discussing compensation, and while they have tons of experience, they're not making anything close to 300K even with the sweet bonus. It's funny that figure keeps getting tossed around like everyone at the Fed is making that much.

Let me google that for you:
https://www.federalreserve.gov/careers-salary.htm
Now, I don't know how many people are at the top of the scale or close to it ($275) but I'd guess that more than a few attorneys and economists with long tenure are there.

Anonymous wrote:If the Fed goes fully remote, can you base yourself overseas? Would you have to work US east coast hours?

Anonymous wrote:If the Fed unionizes, do you think the pension differential goes away? Won’t the institution want something in return for remote for all? All other federal financial regulators have a regular government pension. Sure, CFPB has a union and Fed benefits, but the Fed may mix things up if the entire Fed System or the Board goes union.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is depressing. I used to work for the Fed, and I thought the staff was better than this. The answer to RTO is to form a union or strategically use leave to cover it? Thank goodness the Chair is more dedicated to the mission than those in it for an easy paycheck. Really, really disappointing.

Wow. Newsflash - you can be a union supporter AND support “the missiom.” There is a reason every single other financial agency has a union and it’s not that Fed workers are somehow more dedicated to the “mission.” Unless your view is that the “mission” means employees shouldn’t care about the terms and conditions of their employment.

I don’t understand why any of them have a union. As a PP said, unions are typically found where workers are abused and cannot effectively negotiate for themselves. I wouldn’t characterize $300k, a pension, a 401k, and lots of vacation and sick time for 40 hours of work in an individual office with a door as being abused. Also, the Fed has been VERY generous with WFH, including massive tolerance for parents with young children at home, during the pandemic. Your work conditions and pay are beyond compare for what you do.

They have a union to establish the terms and conditions of employment in a way that uses their collective influence and does not rest on the arbitrary whims of a manager. Not too hard to understand! Unions also protect against retaliation and unfair discipline - very important to maintain examiner integrity.

(Also - who is getting 300k?)

I have a couple of very close friends at the Fed, and we are very open about discussing compensation, and while they have tons of experience, they're not making anything close to 300K even with the sweet bonus. It's funny that figure keeps getting tossed around like everyone at the Fed is making that much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really hope we get a union because I want to leave DC and take my job with me. I love WFH because it lets me spend more time with my kids and get a jump on dinner. With this arrangement, I can imagine being with the Fed for a very long time. I just hope they don’t require too many (ideally any) trips back to the office.

How are you guys not union??? I saw a thread a while back about the crappy raises you guys get and was like wow they need a union.

Anonymous wrote:I really hope we get a union because I want to leave DC and take my job with me. I love WFH because it lets me spend more time with my kids and get a jump on dinner. With this arrangement, I can imagine being with the Fed for a very long time. I just hope they don’t require too many (ideally any) trips back to the office.

Anonymous wrote:If staff can take their jobs outside DC, are there popular locations where people hope to go? Just curious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Also, the Board should not approve remote without ironclad agreements for in-office time. Innovation and engagement require some in-office time.

This sentiment is repeated like a mantra by opponents of telework, and I don't get it. To quote an earlier poster:

If you don’t think the Fed needs to innovate, the Fed should fire you. Let’s see, in the past few years there’s been crypto/digital coins, climate, fintech, financial stability, payment processing, LIBOR/SOFR to name a few issues that have required new or significantly revised study, policy, and supervisory changes.

Exactly, and the Board "innovated" on all of these things in the past few years in a mostly all-telework posture. Teams and SharePoint are great, as it turns out. How does going back in person fix something that isn't broken?

The old status quo was working in office and the burden was on telework proponents to explain what was better about telework. But now the status quo is telework, and there hasn't been a solid argument for what was broken about that. It worked and continues to work, and provides real benefits.

As for "engagement" the evidence is mixed at best. Hardly a slam dunk case there.https://www.meritalk.com/articles/telework-led-to-more-employee-engagement-and-digital-savviness-experts-say/

Is this all about worrying that coworkers won't have to be locked into DC real estate and might get some kind of financial comparative advantage over you? It's not a zero sum world, though. Their gain is not your loss. This is petty.

The fear of unions is really noticeable too. Their proponents must be on to something. Hit dogs will holler.

The PP strongly against WFH seems overly focused on locality pay and the issue of fairness. I couldn’t care less where my coworkers live. Should my coworkers in Chevy Chase be paid more than those commuting in from Baltimore? See how ridiculous that sounds?

Anonymous wrote:

Also, the Board should not approve remote without ironclad agreements for in-office time. Innovation and engagement require some in-office time.

This sentiment is repeated like a mantra by opponents of telework, and I don't get it. To quote an earlier poster:

If you don’t think the Fed needs to innovate, the Fed should fire you. Let’s see, in the past few years there’s been crypto/digital coins, climate, fintech, financial stability, payment processing, LIBOR/SOFR to name a few issues that have required new or significantly revised study, policy, and supervisory changes.

Exactly, and the Board "innovated" on all of these things in the past few years in a mostly all-telework posture. Teams and SharePoint are great, as it turns out. How does going back in person fix something that isn't broken?

The old status quo was working in office and the burden was on telework proponents to explain what was better about telework. But now the status quo is telework, and there hasn't been a solid argument for what was broken about that. It worked and continues to work, and provides real benefits.

As for "engagement" the evidence is mixed at best. Hardly a slam dunk case there.https://www.meritalk.com/articles/telework-led-to-more-employee-engagement-and-digital-savviness-experts-say/

Is this all about worrying that coworkers won't have to be locked into DC real estate and might get some kind of financial comparative advantage over you? It's not a zero sum world, though. Their gain is not your loss. This is petty.

The fear of unions is really noticeable too. Their proponents must be on to something. Hit dogs will holler.