Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was one of the things that bothered me when I worked for the government. I am a rule follower and recognize that “not” working during work hours could be perceived as fraud. The most annoying part was not having enough work to do during the day! As long as you’re getting work done on time and a strong performer, what’s the harm in running errands if you have time? Should be nothing, but I never did that when I worked for the government. I always stayed logged in!

My problem is, how do you define working during work hours? Someone in the cube down the hall is physically present in her cube and her computer is turned on, but she barely, hardly does any work. I am a strong performer at work. I am also present and when I am, I work hard and get things done on time (and at triple the rate of this particular co-worker) but if I take more than 15 min to run an errand, I’m the one defrauding the government.

Two different things. Your coworker's performance should be managed by her employer. Running an errand takes more than 15 min. Do it during your lunch break, not during your 15 min break or it can be considered time fraud.

For the federal government, time and being present matters.

But even in the office, there are large numbers of people not really doing much of anything during their 40 hours.

But they are at least available if/when people need them. Versus feds who are off running errands and not available at all.

I am a fed and that's what I don't get about these WFH/remote work threads. People seem to think they can just do their one report or write their one code and that's all they need to do. They can run errands or do whatever they want as long as they get their one report done. That's not how the federal government works. You need to be available to collaborate, answer questions and should ask for more work if you only have 2 hours of work a day. I've seen people get disciplined for only working 2 hours a day and constantly telling their managers they have too much work.

I'm only a GS-12, and the idea that I could just say "well did my assigned work and I'm done" is so absurd. There is the availability factor, but there are also ALWAYS exhausting backlogs (unfinished or delayed projects others left behind, records management, etc) and ALWAYS new efforts and project proposals on the wishlist if we only had twice the staff. I just don't get the idea that people getting paid as much as apparently everyone else on this board does don't have to take responsibility to see the gaps and plan to take care of them in all this free time they have.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was one of the things that bothered me when I worked for the government. I am a rule follower and recognize that “not” working during work hours could be perceived as fraud. The most annoying part was not having enough work to do during the day! As long as you’re getting work done on time and a strong performer, what’s the harm in running errands if you have time? Should be nothing, but I never did that when I worked for the government. I always stayed logged in!

My problem is, how do you define working during work hours? Someone in the cube down the hall is physically present in her cube and her computer is turned on, but she barely, hardly does any work. I am a strong performer at work. I am also present and when I am, I work hard and get things done on time (and at triple the rate of this particular co-worker) but if I take more than 15 min to run an errand, I’m the one defrauding the government.

Two different things. Your coworker's performance should be managed by her employer. Running an errand takes more than 15 min. Do it during your lunch break, not during your 15 min break or it can be considered time fraud.

For the federal government, time and being present matters.

But even in the office, there are large numbers of people not really doing much of anything during their 40 hours.

How do you know what that actually looks like for their jobs though? I'm a fed program manager (on my unpaid lunch right now!). My job title is my PhD field of study (so let's just say Scientist). I probably look like I'm not doing anything because I'm not spending my days in the lab or writing up papers, what kind of scientist is that?! But actually, I don't have time to do my own research because that's not how my job is structured. I spend my days on the phone and email and reviewing documents to manage around 30 contracts and agreements with outside researchers instead, because the government no longer operates via in-house staff in a lot of areas. It actually does take work to scope the projects, manage funding, coordinate with the researchers and get the results to people who will use it, and i also have to do a lot of "clean up" of messy or unfinished deliverables. But that work doesn't look like work the same way a bunch of peer reviewed papers would.

That said, in my first job I always walked by an old guy who was playing solitaire on his desktop every single time. THAT guy was not doing much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was one of the things that bothered me when I worked for the government. I am a rule follower and recognize that “not” working during work hours could be perceived as fraud. The most annoying part was not having enough work to do during the day! As long as you’re getting work done on time and a strong performer, what’s the harm in running errands if you have time? Should be nothing, but I never did that when I worked for the government. I always stayed logged in!

My problem is, how do you define working during work hours? Someone in the cube down the hall is physically present in her cube and her computer is turned on, but she barely, hardly does any work. I am a strong performer at work. I am also present and when I am, I work hard and get things done on time (and at triple the rate of this particular co-worker) but if I take more than 15 min to run an errand, I’m the one defrauding the government.

Two different things. Your coworker's performance should be managed by her employer. Running an errand takes more than 15 min. Do it during your lunch break, not during your 15 min break or it can be considered time fraud.

For the federal government, time and being present matters.

But even in the office, there are large numbers of people not really doing much of anything during their 40 hours.

But they are at least available if/when people need them. Versus feds who are off running errands and not available at all.

I am a fed and that's what I don't get about these WFH/remote work threads. People seem to think they can just do their one report or write their one code and that's all they need to do. They can run errands or do whatever they want as long as they get their one report done. That's not how the federal government works. You need to be available to collaborate, answer questions and should ask for more work if you only have 2 hours of work a day. I've seen people get disciplined for only working 2 hours a day and constantly telling their managers they have too much work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should work the minimum number of hours needed todo your job well. If that is two hours a day of real work, all the better.

People who pride themselves on how hard they work are pathetic, as are people that regularly don’t take their full vacation entitlement.

Unless you are doing something like trying to find a cure for cancer, work is a means to an end. The corporation willhave no loyalty to you when the time comes.

This is not a corporation, this is the federal government and your hours matter. You never have to work after hours, but you need to be available 8-4:30 or whatever your hours are. You can’t work 2 hours and then run errands.

HAHAHAHAHHA nope. Not all fed govt is like that. On the regular (q2-3 months) my fed spouse is up until 12-2am because of deadlines or changes made to final documents thanks to GS-15s deciding they didnt like the final product (even though the approved the direction previously) etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was one of the things that bothered me when I worked for the government. I am a rule follower and recognize that “not” working during work hours could be perceived as fraud. The most annoying part was not having enough work to do during the day! As long as you’re getting work done on time and a strong performer, what’s the harm in running errands if you have time? Should be nothing, but I never did that when I worked for the government. I always stayed logged in!

My problem is, how do you define working during work hours? Someone in the cube down the hall is physically present in her cube and her computer is turned on, but she barely, hardly does any work. I am a strong performer at work. I am also present and when I am, I work hard and get things done on time (and at triple the rate of this particular co-worker) but if I take more than 15 min to run an errand, I’m the one defrauding the government.

Two different things. Your coworker's performance should be managed by her employer. Running an errand takes more than 15 min. Do it during your lunch break, not during your 15 min break or it can be considered time fraud.

For the federal government, time and being present matters.

But even in the office, there are large numbers of people not really doing much of anything during their 40 hours.

Anonymous wrote:I have not worked for the government, but I suspect that the real question is this: are you paid to do a specific amount of work, or are you paid to be "available" during certain hours. In the former case (writer, mechanic, accountant, engineer, etc.), the hours shouldn't matter (much) as long as the necessary work is being done. In the latter case (receiptionist, help desk, librarian, etc.), the hours absolutely do matter.

This is generally the issue, because the government just tells everyone to work 40 hours and keeps strict control of it, regardless of the job type. My supervisor doesn't care what I'm doing and when, as long as the work gets done.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should work the minimum number of hours needed todo your job well. If that is two hours a day of real work, all the better.

People who pride themselves on how hard they work are pathetic, as are people that regularly don’t take their full vacation entitlement.

Unless you are doing something like trying to find a cure for cancer, work is a means to an end. The corporation willhave no loyalty to you when the time comes.

This is not a corporation, this is the federal government and your hours matter. You never have to work after hours, but you need to be available 8-4:30 or whatever your hours are. You can’t work 2 hours and then run errands.

Tell that to my spouse, who worked at UST. I bet it was at least 20 hours of unpaid overtime a week on average.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was one of the things that bothered me when I worked for the government. I am a rule follower and recognize that “not” working during work hours could be perceived as fraud. The most annoying part was not having enough work to do during the day! As long as you’re getting work done on time and a strong performer, what’s the harm in running errands if you have time? Should be nothing, but I never did that when I worked for the government. I always stayed logged in!

My problem is, how do you define working during work hours? Someone in the cube down the hall is physically present in her cube and her computer is turned on, but she barely, hardly does any work. I am a strong performer at work. I am also present and when I am, I work hard and get things done on time (and at triple the rate of this particular co-worker) but if I take more than 15 min to run an errand, I’m the one defrauding the government.

Two different things. Your coworker's performance should be managed by her employer. Running an errand takes more than 15 min. Do it during your lunch break, not during your 15 min break or it can be considered time fraud.

For the federal government, time and being present matters.

Anonymous wrote:This was one of the things that bothered me when I worked for the government. I am a rule follower and recognize that “not” working during work hours could be perceived as fraud. The most annoying part was not having enough work to do during the day! As long as you’re getting work done on time and a strong performer, what’s the harm in running errands if you have time? Should be nothing, but I never did that when I worked for the government. I always stayed logged in!

My problem is, how do you define working during work hours? Someone in the cube down the hall is physically present in her cube and her computer is turned on, but she barely, hardly does any work. I am a strong performer at work. I am also present and when I am, I work hard and get things done on time (and at triple the rate of this particular co-worker) but if I take more than 15 min to run an errand, I’m the one defrauding the government.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should work the minimum number of hours needed todo your job well. If that is two hours a day of real work, all the better.

People who pride themselves on how hard they work are pathetic, as are people that regularly don’t take their full vacation entitlement.

Unless you are doing something like trying to find a cure for cancer, work is a means to an end. The corporation willhave no loyalty to you when the time comes.

This is not a corporation, this is the federal government and your hours matter. You never have to work after hours, but you need to be available 8-4:30 or whatever your hours are. You can’t work 2 hours and then run errands.

Only working 8 hours has not been my experience. The unsaid expectation in my branch is that you have to work more than that to get the work done. We simply do not have enough people to do all of the work that is required in the time allotted. Yet we can’t charge overtime for it because it’s not considered “high profile project” work. But our supervisor tells us “I want to make it clear that no one has to work more than 8 hours a day.” But that’s not the reality—we actually do if we expect to be able to finish the work in time.

Anonymous wrote:You should work the minimum number of hours needed todo your job well. If that is two hours a day of real work, all the better.

People who pride themselves on how hard they work are pathetic, as are people that regularly don’t take their full vacation entitlement.

Unless you are doing something like trying to find a cure for cancer, work is a means to an end. The corporation willhave no loyalty to you when the time comes.

This is not a corporation, this is the federal government and your hours matter. You never have to work after hours, but you need to be available 8-4:30 or whatever your hours are. You can’t work 2 hours and then run errands.

You should work the minimum number of hours needed todo your job well. If that is two hours a day of real work, all the better.

People who pride themselves on how hard they work are pathetic, as are people that regularly don’t take their full vacation entitlement.

Unless you are doing something like trying to find a cure for cancer, work is a means to an end. The corporation willhave no loyalty to you when the time comes.

I have not worked for the government, but I suspect that the real question is this: are you paid to do a specific amount of work, or are you paid to be "available" during certain hours. In the former case (writer, mechanic, accountant, engineer, etc.), the hours shouldn't matter (much) as long as the necessary work is being done. In the latter case (receiptionist, help desk, librarian, etc.), the hours absolutely do matter.

Anonymous wrote:This was one of the things that bothered me when I worked for the government. I am a rule follower and recognize that “not” working during work hours could be perceived as fraud. The most annoying part was not having enough work to do during the day! As long as you’re getting work done on time and a strong performer, what’s the harm in running errands if you have time? Should be nothing, but I never did that when I worked for the government. I always stayed logged in!

Because if you are running verrands you are not available to your office if they did need to call you into a meeting or ???

This was one of the things that bothered me when I worked for the government. I am a rule follower and recognize that “not” working during work hours could be perceived as fraud. The most annoying part was not having enough work to do during the day! As long as you’re getting work done on time and a strong performer, what’s the harm in running errands if you have time? Should be nothing, but I never did that when I worked for the government. I always stayed logged in!