Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:my agency is trying to force 6 days PP by taking away our offices if we don't comply.

What are they telling you exactly? If you give up your office, are they allowing you to continue WFH?

You will only have a dedicated workspace (offices, cubicles alike) if you come in 6 days PP, otherwise you have to hotel. They aren't taking away the option to WFH, but if you're a supervisor you are strongly urged to take the 6 days option

I'm already a supervisor in a cubicle (you have to be two levels above me to get an office). So that doesn't sound like much of a threat to me. I'd take that deal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:my agency is trying to force 6 days PP by taking away our offices if we don't comply.

What are they telling you exactly? If you give up your office, are they allowing you to continue WFH?

You will only have a dedicated workspace (offices, cubicles alike) if you come in 6 days PP, otherwise you have to hotel. They aren't taking away the option to WFH, but if you're a supervisor you are strongly urged to take the 6 days option

Yeah, we are getting basically the same message. I personally believe hoteling idea is stupid and, if implemented, we will find out pretty quickly it won't work. I can't imagine multiple team calls while sharing the space with other people. Talk about being counterproductive

Anonymous wrote:I presently work in-person two days a week. If I’m asked to work in person three days a week I’ll accept it. If I’m asked to work four days then I’ll look for another job.

Same. Does anyone have an arrangement where on one of their days they can leave early and resume teleworking at home? My main issue is the 3-5pm timeframe where kids need rides to various activities, etc., which became so easy when we were all working from home and could hop off quickly to drop kids off or whatever. The third day a week will be tough to manage unless I can leave my office around 4 and finish up at home. I luckily have a very very short commute so I can be home in 10 minutes or less. Going in early is an option but realistically not before 7:30am.

I presently work in-person two days a week. If I’m asked to work in person three days a week I’ll accept it. If I’m asked to work four days then I’ll look for another job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:my agency is trying to force 6 days PP by taking away our offices if we don't comply.

What are they telling you exactly? If you give up your office, are they allowing you to continue WFH?

You will only have a dedicated workspace (offices, cubicles alike) if you come in 6 days PP, otherwise you have to hotel. They aren't taking away the option to WFH, but if you're a supervisor you are strongly urged to take the 6 days option

Anonymous wrote:my agency is trying to force 6 days PP by taking away our offices if we don't comply.

What are they telling you exactly? If you give up your office, are they allowing you to continue WFH?

my agency is trying to force 6 days PP by taking away our offices if we don't comply.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s just so crazy how posters have longed bashed/judges/second-guessed school closings, laugh at posters who still wear masks or avoid eating in restaurants indoors or traveling, etc., and scream to the hills “Covid is over!” but still insist that they have a God given right to WFH forever.

Why is the whole world expected to put the pandemic behind them except federal workers?

Argument is no longer about Covid. Feds are asking "why is it necessary" to RTO? I think it's a fair question. If work got done during WFH period, what changed? Yes, it's an endless circle of argument.

It’s a fair question but some of the wfh crowd won’t acknowledge any benefits of being in person. Before the pandemic my whole office was required to be in the office 4 days a week and after the Zients memo we’ve been told we need to be in 2 days a week starting this fall. Seems entirely reasonable to me, generous even, I find my coworkers’ strenuous objections embarrassing.

For you, perhaps. In my office once we receive our assignments everyone works alone. We only need to touch base for procedural questions and we are all in the office in the same day of the week so that works perfectly. It’s not a one size fits all. It’s silly to say that your way applies to everyone.

Anonymous wrote:

I could see it being more important for a trial attorney to be in the office as an in-person deposition is probably more effective than one via Web-Ex.

I somewhat agree with this (I have done both types of depos, some Webex ones have been fine, some have had issues for various reasons). However, I think it will only work if trial attorneys are told they need to be in the office X number of days, but have flexibility to choose which ones. Otherwise, they will be trying to force depos etc. into their set in office days, which is not ideal in terms of scheduling with opposing parties/counsel/agency counsel etc.

PP here and I would suggest that management and the union examine what types of activities are best suited for in-office be they depos or trials or whatever and make a list of in-office activities rather than set it by # of days. Maybe that means more or less days in office but at least make it geared towards the work rather than an arbitrary number. I mean, if we can trust you as an attorney to handle a trial on behalf of the govt surely we can trust you to be responsible about coming in as needed.

Anonymous wrote:

It’s a fair question but some of the wfh crowd won’t acknowledge any benefits of being in person. Before the pandemic my whole office was required to be in the office 4 days a week and after the Zients memo we’ve been told we need to be in 2 days a week starting this fall

Is anyone actually objecting to a proposed 2 days per week? I'd be fine with that.
3 days seems unnecessary to me, and would be tough for my family. DH is a LEO (so 100 percent in person), and having no commute makes it possible for me to better take care of my kids after they get out of aftercare.

My management hasn't offered anything at this point other than "more guidance is coming per COS memo."

Anonymous wrote:

It’s a fair question but some of the wfh crowd won’t acknowledge any benefits of being in person. Before the pandemic my whole office was required to be in the office 4 days a week and after the Zients memo we’ve been told we need to be in 2 days a week starting this fall

Is anyone actually objecting to a proposed 2 days per week? I'd be fine with that.
3 days seems unnecessary to me, and would be tough for my family. DH is a LEO (so 100 percent in person), and having no commute makes it possible for me to better take care of my kids after they get out of aftercare.

Lots of people object to any amount of returning because their jobs are being done satisfactorily from home. Besides silly allusions to nonverbal communication and the like, provide a study showing work isn’t getting done and/or objectives aren’t getting met. Biden could also sign an EO, but I don’t think even he wants to do that.

I could see it being more important for a trial attorney to be in the office as an in-person deposition is probably more effective than one via Web-Ex.

I somewhat agree with this (I have done both types of depos, some Webex ones have been fine, some have had issues for various reasons). However, I think it will only work if trial attorneys are told they need to be in the office X number of days, but have flexibility to choose which ones. Otherwise, they will be trying to force depos etc. into their set in office days, which is not ideal in terms of scheduling with opposing parties/counsel/agency counsel etc.

It’s a fair question but some of the wfh crowd won’t acknowledge any benefits of being in person. Before the pandemic my whole office was required to be in the office 4 days a week and after the Zients memo we’ve been told we need to be in 2 days a week starting this fall

Is anyone actually objecting to a proposed 2 days per week? I'd be fine with that.
3 days seems unnecessary to me, and would be tough for my family. DH is a LEO (so 100 percent in person), and having no commute makes it possible for me to better take care of my kids after they get out of aftercare.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s just so crazy how posters have longed bashed/judges/second-guessed school closings, laugh at posters who still wear masks or avoid eating in restaurants indoors or traveling, etc., and scream to the hills “Covid is over!” but still insist that they have a God given right to WFH forever.

Why is the whole world expected to put the pandemic behind them except federal workers?

Argument is no longer about Covid. Feds are asking "why is it necessary" to RTO? I think it's a fair question. If work got done during WFH period, what changed? Yes, it's an endless circle of argument.

It’s a fair question but some of the wfh crowd won’t acknowledge any benefits of being in person. Before the pandemic my whole office was required to be in the office 4 days a week and after the Zients memo we’ve been told we need to be in 2 days a week starting this fall. Seems entirely reasonable to me, generous even, I find my coworkers’ strenuous objections embarrassing.

NP and I think it really depends on the job. For example, I am a lawyer and my job is research and writing so I am either sitting in my office or sitting at my desk at home. I interact with outside counsel over the phone or via webex. They would never come to meet at the office primarily because it is not cost-effective to travel across town to meet in person. I could see it being more important for a trial attorney to be in the office as an in-person deposition is probably more effective than one via Web-Ex.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s just so crazy how posters have longed bashed/judges/second-guessed school closings, laugh at posters who still wear masks or avoid eating in restaurants indoors or traveling, etc., and scream to the hills “Covid is over!” but still insist that they have a God given right to WFH forever.

Why is the whole world expected to put the pandemic behind them except federal workers?

Argument is no longer about Covid. Feds are asking "why is it necessary" to RTO? I think it's a fair question. If work got done during WFH period, what changed? Yes, it's an endless circle of argument.

It’s a fair question but some of the wfh crowd won’t acknowledge any benefits of being in person. Before the pandemic my whole office was required to be in the office 4 days a week and after the Zients memo we’ve been told we need to be in 2 days a week starting this fall. Seems entirely reasonable to me, generous even, I find my coworkers’ strenuous objections embarrassing.

It’s not helpful everywhere though. My office is currently back at least 1x a week although some went fully remote. We are probably going to be required to come in 2x a week. When I go in, I never have work related interactions with anyone. Why? Because of what we do, most people I work with/advise are already (long-standing) in different geographic locations. The few people in my office I might have occasion to work with may or may not come in on the same days. This is the case for everyone in my office. 2x a week does nothing to improve work product.