Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don't work for a company, we are in public service, worker feelings are pretty irrelevant compared to larger public sentiment. We can get with the current WH vision of 50% RTO or hope for political change to a party that is pushing for closer to 100% RTO. Act like an adult and try to think about which makes more sense.

I am of course aware of elected officials asking for RTO for government workers. Can you point to anything to indicate that this is something that the general public cares about? Surveys, polls, etc?

DP. I do not associate myself at all with the tone of the PP. In fact, I firmly do believe that continued extensive WFH is better for work-life balance and retention, and that there is little to no reliable evidence that it impacts productivity.

That being said...

The political reality is that WFH is impacting commercial real estate, which is in turn affecting the financial markets and banking industry, which will eventually impact personal finance. The reality is also that these industries have powerful lobbying arms. Also, it isn't just congress members from a certain party that are calling for RTO. Biden himself called for it in first state of the union, and per this thread, his administration is continuing to push for it, albeit without a ton of success.

And in politics perception is reality. And there are many who are successfully pushing the narrative that federal employees are not working, that taxpayer dollars are wasted on federal employees, and that public services have degraded since WFH. There are many voters who do not have the opportunity to work from home and are resentful.

All of these leads me to conclude that a change in administration will ABSOLUTELY mean an end to anything near current levels of WFH. IF there is no change in administration, there will be less pressure after the election unless and until the financial sector really starts to take a hit. Then pressure will ramp back up. All of this is completely separate from the conversation about the pros/cons of WFH on the actual efficiency and effectiveness of the federal workforce.

Eh, the people who say Feds don't work, have been saying it forever and will continue to say it regardless of RTO. Similarly, CRE was oversaturated before covid and will continue to crash even if every Fed goes to the office. I think you could send every Fed in 6 days a week and not change either of those things, or any voter minds.

I know it won't happen but I would love to see this administration try to boost WFH for everybody, and better pay or other incentives for jobs that must be in person.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don't work for a company, we are in public service, worker feelings are pretty irrelevant compared to larger public sentiment. We can get with the current WH vision of 50% RTO or hope for political change to a party that is pushing for closer to 100% RTO. Act like an adult and try to think about which makes more sense.

I am of course aware of elected officials asking for RTO for government workers. Can you point to anything to indicate that this is something that the general public cares about? Surveys, polls, etc?

DP. I do not associate myself at all with the tone of the PP. In fact, I firmly do believe that continued extensive WFH is better for work-life balance and retention, and that there is little to no reliable evidence that it impacts productivity.

That being said...

The political reality is that WFH is impacting commercial real estate, which is in turn affecting the financial markets and banking industry, which will eventually impact personal finance. The reality is also that these industries have powerful lobbying arms. Also, it isn't just congress members from a certain party that are calling for RTO. Biden himself called for it in first state of the union, and per this thread, his administration is continuing to push for it, albeit without a ton of success.

And in politics perception is reality. And there are many who are successfully pushing the narrative that federal employees are not working, that taxpayer dollars are wasted on federal employees, and that public services have degraded since WFH. There are many voters who do not have the opportunity to work from home and are resentful.

All of these leads me to conclude that a change in administration will ABSOLUTELY mean an end to anything near current levels of WFH. IF there is no change in administration, there will be less pressure after the election unless and until the financial sector really starts to take a hit. Then pressure will ramp back up. All of this is completely separate from the conversation about the pros/cons of WFH on the actual efficiency and effectiveness of the federal workforce.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don't work for a company, we are in public service, worker feelings are pretty irrelevant compared to larger public sentiment. We can get with the current WH vision of 50% RTO or hope for political change to a party that is pushing for closer to 100% RTO. Act like an adult and try to think about which makes more sense.

I am of course aware of elected officials asking for RTO for government workers. Can you point to anything to indicate that this is something that the general public cares about? Surveys, polls, etc?

Anonymous wrote:We don't work for a company, we are in public service, worker feelings are pretty irrelevant compared to larger public sentiment. We can get with the current WH vision of 50% RTO or hope for political change to a party that is pushing for closer to 100% RTO. Act like an adult and try to think about which makes more sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://x.com/i_am_nickbloom/status/1750932295190782418?s=46

This is the foremost researcher on distributed work / remote / hybrid etc

Suck it zients!

This is the truest take I've seen. Glad there's the data to back this up.

Anonymous wrote:https://x.com/i_am_nickbloom/status/1750932295190782418?s=46

This is the foremost researcher on distributed work / remote / hybrid etc

Suck it zients!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Advisory Board circa 1993 page: will Jeff Zients please come to the boardroom please?

94-96, thank you for this laugh

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.axios.com/2024/01/19/zients-biden-cabinet-return-to-office

he’s tantruming and feet stomping again

- being aggressive

- mad that feds aren’t back at desks

- wants personally tracked butts in seats

No one likes you except for bibi, Jeff!

Jeff Zients is the White House Chief of Staff, it is his job to direct federal agencies in these types of administrative matters. I don’t agree with his directions, but he’s not tantruming, foot stomping, or being aggressive. He’s doing his job. This weird listed response is childish.

Not really. Agencies are fully capable of handling their own administrative matters. It reminds me of an old story of James Baker (I think) when he refused to implement drug testing of Treasury employees during the Reagan administration. His response was “My employees have better things to do than piss in a cup.”

Agree. If I was a Senate confirmed Cabinet Secretary and I got an email like that “I expect you to personally monitor…” I’d ignore it at best

So you think that the people that are fireable at will by the president should ignore the direction of the president's chief of staff if they don't like them? Does this apply to everything the WH sayas, or just RTO issues?

For example: I think the President is evaluating Anthony Blinken based on things other than his RTO percentage. Effectively, at this point Blinken is not “fireable at will.” There would be a huge price to pay in Isr/Pal efforts for that, and RTO ain’t worth it—no matter what Jeff Zients says about it.

Of course RTO isn't the only metric that leaders are evaluated on, State has also done a good job of getting more staff in the office and Blinken has been publicly supportive of the importance of in person diplomacy.

This debate is going to be funny this time next year if we have a change of administrations next year and the Heritage folks show up and fire anyone who isn't back all of the time. Imagine complaining about being back half time.

I don't think our TW policy changed at all under Trump's guy. I think the only agencies that need to worry are the ones they hate like EPA and Education Dept.

Anonymous wrote:Zients is a pathetic, impotent loser. So sad to watch him whine and cajole and beg, to no effect. So powerless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.axios.com/2024/01/19/zients-biden-cabinet-return-to-office

he’s tantruming and feet stomping again

- being aggressive

- mad that feds aren’t back at desks

- wants personally tracked butts in seats

No one likes you except for bibi, Jeff!

Jeff Zients is the White House Chief of Staff, it is his job to direct federal agencies in these types of administrative matters. I don’t agree with his directions, but he’s not tantruming, foot stomping, or being aggressive. He’s doing his job. This weird listed response is childish.

Not really. Agencies are fully capable of handling their own administrative matters. It reminds me of an old story of James Baker (I think) when he refused to implement drug testing of Treasury employees during the Reagan administration. His response was “My employees have better things to do than piss in a cup.”

Agree. If I was a Senate confirmed Cabinet Secretary and I got an email like that “I expect you to personally monitor…” I’d ignore it at best

So you think that the people that are fireable at will by the president should ignore the direction of the president's chief of staff if they don't like them? Does this apply to everything the WH sayas, or just RTO issues?

For example: I think the President is evaluating Anthony Blinken based on things other than his RTO percentage. Effectively, at this point Blinken is not “fireable at will.” There would be a huge price to pay in Isr/Pal efforts for that, and RTO ain’t worth it—no matter what Jeff Zients says about it.

Of course RTO isn't the only metric that leaders are evaluated on, State has also done a good job of getting more staff in the office and Blinken has been publicly supportive of the importance of in person diplomacy.

This debate is going to be funny this time next year if we have a change of administrations next year and the Heritage folks show up and fire anyone who isn't back all of the time. Imagine complaining about being back half time.

I don't think our TW policy changed at all under Trump's guy. I think the only agencies that need to worry are the ones they hate like EPA and Education Dept.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.axios.com/2024/01/19/zients-biden-cabinet-return-to-office

he’s tantruming and feet stomping again

- being aggressive

- mad that feds aren’t back at desks

- wants personally tracked butts in seats

No one likes you except for bibi, Jeff!

Jeff Zients is the White House Chief of Staff, it is his job to direct federal agencies in these types of administrative matters. I don’t agree with his directions, but he’s not tantruming, foot stomping, or being aggressive. He’s doing his job. This weird listed response is childish.

Not really. Agencies are fully capable of handling their own administrative matters. It reminds me of an old story of James Baker (I think) when he refused to implement drug testing of Treasury employees during the Reagan administration. His response was “My employees have better things to do than piss in a cup.”

Agree. If I was a Senate confirmed Cabinet Secretary and I got an email like that “I expect you to personally monitor…” I’d ignore it at best

So you think that the people that are fireable at will by the president should ignore the direction of the president's chief of staff if they don't like them? Does this apply to everything the WH sayas, or just RTO issues?

For example: I think the President is evaluating Anthony Blinken based on things other than his RTO percentage. Effectively, at this point Blinken is not “fireable at will.” There would be a huge price to pay in Isr/Pal efforts for that, and RTO ain’t worth it—no matter what Jeff Zients says about it.

Of course RTO isn't the only metric that leaders are evaluated on, State has also done a good job of getting more staff in the office and Blinken has been publicly supportive of the importance of in person diplomacy.

This debate is going to be funny this time next year if we have a change of administrations next year and the Heritage folks show up and fire anyone who isn't back all of the time. Imagine complaining about being back half time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.axios.com/2024/01/19/zients-biden-cabinet-return-to-office

he’s tantruming and feet stomping again

- being aggressive

- mad that feds aren’t back at desks

- wants personally tracked butts in seats

No one likes you except for bibi, Jeff!

Jeff Zients is the White House Chief of Staff, it is his job to direct federal agencies in these types of administrative matters. I don’t agree with his directions, but he’s not tantruming, foot stomping, or being aggressive. He’s doing his job. This weird listed response is childish.

Not really. Agencies are fully capable of handling their own administrative matters. It reminds me of an old story of James Baker (I think) when he refused to implement drug testing of Treasury employees during the Reagan administration. His response was “My employees have better things to do than piss in a cup.”

Agree. If I was a Senate confirmed Cabinet Secretary and I got an email like that “I expect you to personally monitor…” I’d ignore it at best

So you think that the people that are fireable at will by the president should ignore the direction of the president's chief of staff if they don't like them? Does this apply to everything the WH sayas, or just RTO issues?

For example: I think the President is evaluating Anthony Blinken based on things other than his RTO percentage. Effectively, at this point Blinken is not “fireable at will.” There would be a huge price to pay in Isr/Pal efforts for that, and RTO ain’t worth it—no matter what Jeff Zients says about it.

Of course RTO isn't the only metric that leaders are evaluated on, State has also done a good job of getting more staff in the office and Blinken has been publicly supportive of the importance of in person diplomacy.

This debate is going to be funny this time next year if we have a change of administrations next year and the Heritage folks show up and fire anyone who isn't back all of the time. Imagine complaining about being back half time.