Anonymous
Post 05/07/2026 08:20     Subject: pointless onsite requirement

Anonymous wrote:It's not pointless at all. After you start working again in the office you will see such a big difference.


When we shifted from no in-person requirement to 2 days minimum after the pandemic there was not much difference. It was nice to see people a bit more but plenty of people came in on their own anyway. The main difference was lots of wasted time commuting. When we shifted from 2 days to 3 days there was absolutely no difference at all.

The main in-person benefit is for boomers and old gen Xers scared of using Teams.
Anonymous
Post 05/07/2026 06:42     Subject: pointless onsite requirement

It's not pointless at all. After you start working again in the office you will see such a big difference.
Anonymous
Post 05/06/2026 05:43     Subject: pointless onsite requirement

Don't complain so much and be grateful you have a job because many don't
Anonymous
Post 05/05/2026 21:29     Subject: Re:pointless onsite requirement

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I realized last week that I could drop dead at my desk and no one would know. The cleaning team would find me laying on the floor that evening.


that happened at the dia hq around 2010
Anonymous
Post 05/05/2026 15:17     Subject: Re:pointless onsite requirement

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:You do a lot of things that are required by your employer, but for some reason you feel like this is optional and ridiculous. You can always feel free to find a fully remote job instead of starting yet another thread about how in office requirement is so unfair. I'm getting tired of these whiny posts.


On the one hand, sure.

On the other hand, these people are talking about something that’s gone seriously wrong with the world economy.

Companies are stuck in a dumb rut and will probably dump their offices. That will make the office meltdown worse.

Then they’ll discover they have no good way to train young employees and will rush to bring in-person offices back. That will suddenly create an office real estate revival.


That is not what is happening. If anything, most companies are requiring more in office time.
Anonymous
Post 05/05/2026 15:14     Subject: pointless onsite requirement

Anonymous wrote:I was forced back into the office by a new boss who lived less than a mile from the company and had small man syndrome - I had a three hour day round trip commute. Was one of three people who regularly came in and the other two, including the boss, spent the day with their doors closed. It sucks and happily I am out of there. The commute was killing me.


You should play that tell him your commute is long, can you stay over, have his wife cook you breakfast every day, make a bagged lunch for work and dinner for you. You be working remote again in a week or two
Anonymous
Post 05/03/2026 01:22     Subject: pointless onsite requirement

Anonymous wrote:we are ALL frustrated, feds and contractors alike....to come into the office just for TEAMS meetings all day with no effort to gather the commuters together for said meetings is dumb but this is where we are until the tide turns, if it ever does.... sigh....


Yes!
Anonymous
Post 04/26/2026 21:43     Subject: Re:pointless onsite requirement

Anonymous wrote:You do a lot of things that are required by your employer, but for some reason you feel like this is optional and ridiculous. You can always feel free to find a fully remote job instead of starting yet another thread about how in office requirement is so unfair. I'm getting tired of these whiny posts.


On the one hand, sure.

On the other hand, these people are talking about something that’s gone seriously wrong with the world economy.

Companies are stuck in a dumb rut and will probably dump their offices. That will make the office meltdown worse.

Then they’ll discover they have no good way to train young employees and will rush to bring in-person offices back. That will suddenly create an office real estate revival.
Anonymous
Post 04/26/2026 13:49     Subject: pointless onsite requirement

I dont know anyone in real life that is required to report to an empty building. I dont think thats common.

My immediate team is spread across offices, so all of my calls and meetings are on video. But there are people on other teams who work in DC, and when Im in the office I chat with them. We dont work together but we do work for the same company. I make a point to get coffee or lunch with another person. It makes me a "good firm citizen", and makes the commute seem worthwhile. We often have lunches or company wide meetings that I will attend just to show face.

I do think there is value to being in person even when its not related to your specific work.
Anonymous
Post 04/26/2026 11:20     Subject: pointless onsite requirement

I was forced back into the office by a new boss who lived less than a mile from the company and had small man syndrome - I had a three hour day round trip commute. Was one of three people who regularly came in and the other two, including the boss, spent the day with their doors closed. It sucks and happily I am out of there. The commute was killing me.
Anonymous
Post 04/24/2026 07:19     Subject: pointless onsite requirement

Anonymous wrote:If no one is there monitoring, why show up? Or go for some convenient time e.g. 11-2


This. If they aren’t enforcing it then don’t go in all day or so often.
Anonymous
Post 04/23/2026 22:27     Subject: pointless onsite requirement

If no one is there monitoring, why show up? Or go for some convenient time e.g. 11-2
Anonymous
Post 04/23/2026 16:26     Subject: pointless onsite requirement

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Yep, it’s stupid and pointing that out isn’t whining (even if some lackeys try to claim it is).


Pointing it out to us is more than stupid and it's most definitely whining. If you feel so certain, go talk to your employer.


I love how you hate hearing what other people have to say and yet you spend your time on a message board.

What a well-adjusted person you are.


Well adjusted enough not to have a need to incessantly whine to strangers on the internet about how unfair it is that I have to show up to work, apparently.
Anonymous
Post 04/23/2026 16:24     Subject: pointless onsite requirement

Anonymous wrote:I'm required to go in 3x a week. I go in one day. My primary supervisor is in a different office from me, and whether I'm home or in the office, all my meetings are remote and from my individual office. I am able to bill way less in the office between the commute and the chitchat.

Because I'm a high biller, I've been able to get away with it. But I know failing to comply with the policy makes me an easy target. I just don't care enough and the policy is incredibly dumb.


+1. We are 3x a week and I probably go in 2. No one cares because there are bigger fish to fry.
Anonymous
Post 04/23/2026 16:23     Subject: pointless onsite requirement

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Yep, it’s stupid and pointing that out isn’t whining (even if some lackeys try to claim it is).


Pointing it out to us is more than stupid and it's most definitely whining. If you feel so certain, go talk to your employer.


I love how you hate hearing what other people have to say and yet you spend your time on a message board.

What a well-adjusted person you are.