Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why is it the banking agency employees always complain the most on this forum?
Ha! They're into money (greedy)!They are best compensated federal employees with the best benefits. They'll say it's because their private employment opportunities are better, thus the agencies must compete. However, the reality is that most people who work for these agencies, particularly the lifers, have no desire to live in NYC or work the hours of private bankers. Yet, the argument is persuasive to outsiders.
You’re clueless. They would likely be attorneys. Not bankers. There is likely not a single board employee qualified to become even a corporate banker.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The argument here seems to be that someone else has it, why can't we. I don't know if that's a good argument. What is everyone else had it worse?
It’s not just about this.
It’s also how the RTO policy limits who the FRB can hire. Surely you can imagine that the FRB may want to consider candidates from reserve banks. Now they have to relocate per the policy. In the past the FRB used to hire people with specific expertise from another region - NY - and they would work remotely. Now this isn’t an option. Positions are being filled with less talented staff because of the policy.
A big problem at the Board is the lack of geo pay. If someone works for the Board, they get the same in Kansas City as in DC. That is unlike any other agency. People in DC resent it. That's why the Board has stopped such hiring. It's divisive. Maybe the Fed should enact geo pay. Again, that's not a telework argument.
Not just geo pay - pay in general. FRB pay is way below our competitors.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why is it the banking agency employees always complain the most on this forum?
Ha! They're into money (greedy)!They are best compensated federal employees with the best benefits. They'll say it's because their private employment opportunities are better, thus the agencies must compete. However, the reality is that most people who work for these agencies, particularly the lifers, have no desire to live in NYC or work the hours of private bankers. Yet, the argument is persuasive to outsiders.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The argument here seems to be that someone else has it, why can't we. I don't know if that's a good argument. What is everyone else had it worse?
It’s not just about this.
It’s also how the RTO policy limits who the FRB can hire. Surely you can imagine that the FRB may want to consider candidates from reserve banks. Now they have to relocate per the policy. In the past the FRB used to hire people with specific expertise from another region - NY - and they would work remotely. Now this isn’t an option. Positions are being filled with less talented staff because of the policy.
A big problem at the Board is the lack of geo pay. If someone works for the Board, they get the same in Kansas City as in DC. That is unlike any other agency. People in DC resent it. That's why the Board has stopped such hiring. It's divisive. Maybe the Fed should enact geo pay. Again, that's not a telework argument.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Here's the RTO policy timeline:
Starting Sept 2022, 6 days a month (so about 1.5 days/week). This policy was announced in early 2022.
Starting April 2023, 4 days per 2 week pay period, so 2 days/week in office, with of course more if required by job type.
Starting Sept 2023, 5 days per 2 week pay period, so 2.5 days/week in office.
Lots of questions about how sick leave, vacation, holidays, and work travel fit into these calculations.
Pre covid most groups had a one-day/week tele option plus flex scheduling. The flex scheduling remains.
--long time Fed employee
Funny about the questions related to in-office days and leave. Are people truly so desperate to avoid the office that they would take sick and vacation leave for scheduled in-office days? That's reaching a new level of pathetic. You all seem like losers.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The argument here seems to be that someone else has it, why can't we. I don't know if that's a good argument. What is everyone else had it worse?
It’s not just about this.
It’s also how the RTO policy limits who the FRB can hire. Surely you can imagine that the FRB may want to consider candidates from reserve banks. Now they have to relocate per the policy. In the past the FRB used to hire people with specific expertise from another region - NY - and they would work remotely. Now this isn’t an option. Positions are being filled with less talented staff because of the policy.
A big problem at the Board is the lack of geo pay. If someone works for the Board, they get the same in Kansas City as in DC. That is unlike any other agency. People in DC resent it. That's why the Board has stopped such hiring. It's divisive. Maybe the Fed should enact geo pay. Again, that's not a telework argument.
Not just geo pay - pay in general. FRB pay is way below our competitors.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The argument here seems to be that someone else has it, why can't we. I don't know if that's a good argument. What is everyone else had it worse?
It’s not just about this.
It’s also how the RTO policy limits who the FRB can hire. Surely you can imagine that the FRB may want to consider candidates from reserve banks. Now they have to relocate per the policy. In the past the FRB used to hire people with specific expertise from another region - NY - and they would work remotely. Now this isn’t an option. Positions are being filled with less talented staff because of the policy.
A big problem at the Board is the lack of geo pay. If someone works for the Board, they get the same in Kansas City as in DC. That is unlike any other agency. People in DC resent it. That's why the Board has stopped such hiring. It's divisive. Maybe the Fed should enact geo pay. Again, that's not a telework argument.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The argument here seems to be that someone else has it, why can't we. I don't know if that's a good argument. What is everyone else had it worse?
It’s not just about this.
It’s also how the RTO policy limits who the FRB can hire. Surely you can imagine that the FRB may want to consider candidates from reserve banks. Now they have to relocate per the policy. In the past the FRB used to hire people with specific expertise from another region - NY - and they would work remotely. Now this isn’t an option. Positions are being filled with less talented staff because of the policy.
Anonymous wrote:Here's the RTO policy timeline:
Starting Sept 2022, 6 days a month (so about 1.5 days/week). This policy was announced in early 2022.
Starting April 2023, 4 days per 2 week pay period, so 2 days/week in office, with of course more if required by job type.
Starting Sept 2023, 5 days per 2 week pay period, so 2.5 days/week in office.
Lots of questions about how sick leave, vacation, holidays, and work travel fit into these calculations.
Pre covid most groups had a one-day/week tele option plus flex scheduling. The flex scheduling remains.
--long time Fed employee
Anonymous wrote:Why is it the banking agency employees always complain the most on this forum?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The writing was on the wall when the Fed invested in new leases and expensive building renovations. Other agencies are reducing their footprint, while the Fed is expanding its footprint.
Good point. But that project started long before COVID and with money already budgeted. If anything, desire for hybrid work might induce the Board to finally offer daycare at the new Constitution Ave bldg. That will bring parents back to the office 5 days/week.
Anonymous wrote:Too many dinosaur boomers in charge.
Hopefully one returns to Treasury soon