Anonymous wrote:How will this impact employees whose positions have been deemed eligible for full remote?

How about the remote employees who have left the area? Will they have to relocate?

I’m a single mom with no help. My position is remote. Kids are teens and don’t need actual childcare, but still. RTO would upend our lives. I will use any card I can to avoid this. There is literally no reason my team needs to be in the office.

If you are fully remote, not just teleworking, my understanding is that this isn’t really about you. But, who knows.

How will this impact employees whose positions have been deemed eligible for full remote?

How about the remote employees who have left the area? Will they have to relocate?

I’m a single mom with no help. My position is remote. Kids are teens and don’t need actual childcare, but still. RTO would upend our lives. I will use any card I can to avoid this. There is literally no reason my team needs to be in the office.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a bad move. I'm a DOJ attorney, and constantly evaluating my private sector options. If WFH is reduced, I'll go with the money, understanding that I am being paid more and going in at least as often.

And the DOJ will replace you in a heartbeat. Bye!

Same, we have all of these people in their 60s and 70s threatening to retire if we return to the office and although I’d rather stay home too I hope we go back just enough for them all to retire from the jobs they’ve been sitting in for decades.

+1. These people need to go.

Why? because they are old?

More so because they are holding the rest of the workforce back from leadership. It’s created a huge huge problem where I work. Too many mid-careers are leaving because they aren’t being given opportunities to build management skills. They have to go somewhere else before they become unmarketable later in their careers and end up unemployed before the reach retirement age. It’s a real fear.

Thos is a real phenomenon (with or without RTO) but it's solved by those mid-levels going to work elsewhere. A healthy organization with good bosses will help people find growth opportunities elsewhere, stay in touch, then invite them back when there's a vacancy.

Uh, no. A healthy organization promotes and retains their talent, instead of pushing them out, hiring young yes men to fill management roles.

It is not healthy to work in the same place your whole career, or to staff with people who have done that. That's stifling for everyone and no new information comes in. I support "promote from within" but my definition of "within" is broad. I don't want people stagnating while they wait for a spot.

You’re probably a decent manager and would help find your quality mid-levels details, or other opportunities to grow in other offices, departments and agencies (or the private sector). Not all people are that lucky! I’m lucky, I worked for a person like you, before they retired.

Anyway, I hope to retire before 70. Need to cash in outside of government to make that happen though! Federal salaries don’t go as far as they did for the current senior generation unfortunately. The new workforce is going to look pretty young and inexperienced when folks in their 40s and 50s bail— but new workplace flexibility will help them. Wish we’d had TW and family leave when I was starting out! Now I don’t really need it, just need the $$$

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a bad move. I'm a DOJ attorney, and constantly evaluating my private sector options. If WFH is reduced, I'll go with the money, understanding that I am being paid more and going in at least as often.

And the DOJ will replace you in a heartbeat. Bye!

Same, we have all of these people in their 60s and 70s threatening to retire if we return to the office and although I’d rather stay home too I hope we go back just enough for them all to retire from the jobs they’ve been sitting in for decades.

+1. These people need to go.

I don't get this hate. You don't even see them often do you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a bad move. I'm a DOJ attorney, and constantly evaluating my private sector options. If WFH is reduced, I'll go with the money, understanding that I am being paid more and going in at least as often.

And the DOJ will replace you in a heartbeat. Bye!

Same, we have all of these people in their 60s and 70s threatening to retire if we return to the office and although I’d rather stay home too I hope we go back just enough for them all to retire from the jobs they’ve been sitting in for decades.

+1. These people need to go.

Why? because they are old?

More so because they are holding the rest of the workforce back from leadership. It’s created a huge huge problem where I work. Too many mid-careers are leaving because they aren’t being given opportunities to build management skills. They have to go somewhere else before they become unmarketable later in their careers and end up unemployed before the reach retirement age. It’s a real fear.

Thos is a real phenomenon (with or without RTO) but it's solved by those mid-levels going to work elsewhere. A healthy organization with good bosses will help people find growth opportunities elsewhere, stay in touch, then invite them back when there's a vacancy.

Uh, no. A healthy organization promotes and retains their talent, instead of pushing them out, hiring young yes men to fill management roles.

I wish it was that easy in the federal government. I work in a federal budget office, there is a set number of GS-14 senior analysts who are almost all aged 60 or above. They are good performers but not exceptional, all of the regular analysts are GS-9-13 and they cannot be promoted unless a senior analyst leaves, nearly all aged 25-60. We lose our best analysts to get promotions at other agencies because there is no upward mobility.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a bad move. I'm a DOJ attorney, and constantly evaluating my private sector options. If WFH is reduced, I'll go with the money, understanding that I am being paid more and going in at least as often.

And the DOJ will replace you in a heartbeat. Bye!

Same, we have all of these people in their 60s and 70s threatening to retire if we return to the office and although I’d rather stay home too I hope we go back just enough for them all to retire from the jobs they’ve been sitting in for decades.

+1. These people need to go.

Why? because they are old?

More so because they are holding the rest of the workforce back from leadership. It’s created a huge huge problem where I work. Too many mid-careers are leaving because they aren’t being given opportunities to build management skills. They have to go somewhere else before they become unmarketable later in their careers and end up unemployed before the reach retirement age. It’s a real fear.

Thos is a real phenomenon (with or without RTO) but it's solved by those mid-levels going to work elsewhere. A healthy organization with good bosses will help people find growth opportunities elsewhere, stay in touch, then invite them back when there's a vacancy.

Uh, no. A healthy organization promotes and retains their talent, instead of pushing them out, hiring young yes men to fill management roles.

It is not healthy to work in the same place your whole career, or to staff with people who have done that. That's stifling for everyone and no new information comes in. I support "promote from within" but my definition of "within" is broad. I don't want people stagnating while they wait for a spot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a bad move. I'm a DOJ attorney, and constantly evaluating my private sector options. If WFH is reduced, I'll go with the money, understanding that I am being paid more and going in at least as often.

And the DOJ will replace you in a heartbeat. Bye!

Same, we have all of these people in their 60s and 70s threatening to retire if we return to the office and although I’d rather stay home too I hope we go back just enough for them all to retire from the jobs they’ve been sitting in for decades.

+1. These people need to go.

Why? because they are old?

More so because they are holding the rest of the workforce back from leadership. It’s created a huge huge problem where I work. Too many mid-careers are leaving because they aren’t being given opportunities to build management skills. They have to go somewhere else before they become unmarketable later in their careers and end up unemployed before the reach retirement age. It’s a real fear.

Thos is a real phenomenon (with or without RTO) but it's solved by those mid-levels going to work elsewhere. A healthy organization with good bosses will help people find growth opportunities elsewhere, stay in touch, then invite them back when there's a vacancy.

Uh, no. A healthy organization promotes and retains their talent, instead of pushing them out, hiring young yes men to fill management roles.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a bad move. I'm a DOJ attorney, and constantly evaluating my private sector options. If WFH is reduced, I'll go with the money, understanding that I am being paid more and going in at least as often.

And the DOJ will replace you in a heartbeat. Bye!

Same, we have all of these people in their 60s and 70s threatening to retire if we return to the office and although I’d rather stay home too I hope we go back just enough for them all to retire from the jobs they’ve been sitting in for decades.

+1. These people need to go.

Why? because they are old?

More so because they are holding the rest of the workforce back from leadership. It’s created a huge huge problem where I work. Too many mid-careers are leaving because they aren’t being given opportunities to build management skills. They have to go somewhere else before they become unmarketable later in their careers and end up unemployed before the reach retirement age. It’s a real fear.

Thos is a real phenomenon (with or without RTO) but it's solved by those mid-levels going to work elsewhere. A healthy organization with good bosses will help people find growth opportunities elsewhere, stay in touch, then invite them back when there's a vacancy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a bad move. I'm a DOJ attorney, and constantly evaluating my private sector options. If WFH is reduced, I'll go with the money, understanding that I am being paid more and going in at least as often.

And the DOJ will replace you in a heartbeat. Bye!

Same, we have all of these people in their 60s and 70s threatening to retire if we return to the office and although I’d rather stay home too I hope we go back just enough for them all to retire from the jobs they’ve been sitting in for decades.

+1. These people need to go.

Why? because they are old?

More so because they are holding the rest of the workforce back from leadership. It’s created a huge huge problem where I work. Too many mid-careers are leaving because they aren’t being given opportunities to build management skills. They have to go somewhere else before they become unmarketable later in their careers and end up unemployed before the reach retirement age. It’s a real fear.

A mid-career federal employee isn’t going to become unemployed before retirement age. The biggest issue I see with those in their 60s/70s is that they’re curmudgeons stuck in their ways who create roadblocks to making decisions.

Yeah, they might. Things change and. It everyone is in career tenured positions. And at that point, they’ll be unmarketable if they’ve never had leadership roles. The curmudgeons are curmudgeoning too. Managing up is my full time job lately. It’s a mess.

Must be hard for you to save the Govt. I clap you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a bad move. I'm a DOJ attorney, and constantly evaluating my private sector options. If WFH is reduced, I'll go with the money, understanding that I am being paid more and going in at least as often.

And the DOJ will replace you in a heartbeat. Bye!

Same, we have all of these people in their 60s and 70s threatening to retire if we return to the office and although I’d rather stay home too I hope we go back just enough for them all to retire from the jobs they’ve been sitting in for decades.

+1. These people need to go.

Why? because they are old?

More so because they are holding the rest of the workforce back from leadership. It’s created a huge huge problem where I work. Too many mid-careers are leaving because they aren’t being given opportunities to build management skills. They have to go somewhere else before they become unmarketable later in their careers and end up unemployed before the reach retirement age. It’s a real fear.

A mid-career federal employee isn’t going to become unemployed before retirement age. The biggest issue I see with those in their 60s/70s is that they’re curmudgeons stuck in their ways who create roadblocks to making decisions.

Yeah, they might. Things change and. It everyone is in career tenured positions. And at that point, they’ll be unmarketable if they’ve never had leadership roles. The curmudgeons are curmudgeoning too. Managing up is my full time job lately. It’s a mess.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a bad move. I'm a DOJ attorney, and constantly evaluating my private sector options. If WFH is reduced, I'll go with the money, understanding that I am being paid more and going in at least as often.

And the DOJ will replace you in a heartbeat. Bye!

Same, we have all of these people in their 60s and 70s threatening to retire if we return to the office and although I’d rather stay home too I hope we go back just enough for them all to retire from the jobs they’ve been sitting in for decades.

+1. These people need to go.

Why? because they are old?

More so because they are holding the rest of the workforce back from leadership. It’s created a huge huge problem where I work. Too many mid-careers are leaving because they aren’t being given opportunities to build management skills. They have to go somewhere else before they become unmarketable later in their careers and end up unemployed before the reach retirement age. It’s a real fear.

A mid-career federal employee isn’t going to become unemployed before retirement age. The biggest issue I see with those in their 60s/70s is that they’re curmudgeons stuck in their ways who create roadblocks to making decisions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love WFH more than anyone, but there’s no question that RTO is much better for the local economy. Lunches, metro rides, parking fees, dry cleaners, etc.

Money that federal workers have to pay out of pocket now. When I worked in DC I brought my own lunch and used dry cleaners near my home. The only thing they will get money on is Metro fees and parking.

And that’s you. But objectively nobody can deny that more goods and services will get moved if people are in the office. Economies grow when money changed hands.

What makes you think WFH means people are not spending money? I spend the same money except in my neighborhood instead of downtown. I get my coffee at the independent coffeshop down the street instead of starbucks. I get last minute groceries at the corner store. I get my prescriptions at the local CVS. My spending has not changed.

Yeah but Bowser doesn’t care about that. This is all about DC’s economy. Bowser has been begging Biden to force federal workers to come back.

Then the solution is to have people come back but offer extremely flexible hours to offset the commute. If commuting is necessary to sustain cities, the 9 hour workday plus 1 hour commute is unsustainable for families. They need to figure something out other than people (women) dropping out of the workforce, and others (men) going for high paying private sector jobs with no life balance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a bad move. I'm a DOJ attorney, and constantly evaluating my private sector options. If WFH is reduced, I'll go with the money, understanding that I am being paid more and going in at least as often.

And the DOJ will replace you in a heartbeat. Bye!

Same, we have all of these people in their 60s and 70s threatening to retire if we return to the office and although I’d rather stay home too I hope we go back just enough for them all to retire from the jobs they’ve been sitting in for decades.

+1. These people need to go.

Why? because they are old?

More so because they are holding the rest of the workforce back from leadership. It’s created a huge huge problem where I work. Too many mid-careers are leaving because they aren’t being given opportunities to build management skills. They have to go somewhere else before they become unmarketable later in their careers and end up unemployed before the reach retirement age. It’s a real fear.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a bad move. I'm a DOJ attorney, and constantly evaluating my private sector options. If WFH is reduced, I'll go with the money, understanding that I am being paid more and going in at least as often.

And the DOJ will replace you in a heartbeat. Bye!

Same, we have all of these people in their 60s and 70s threatening to retire if we return to the office and although I’d rather stay home too I hope we go back just enough for them all to retire from the jobs they’ve been sitting in for decades.

+1. These people need to go.

Why? because they are old?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a bad move. I'm a DOJ attorney, and constantly evaluating my private sector options. If WFH is reduced, I'll go with the money, understanding that I am being paid more and going in at least as often.

And the DOJ will replace you in a heartbeat. Bye!

Same, we have all of these people in their 60s and 70s threatening to retire if we return to the office and although I’d rather stay home too I hope we go back just enough for them all to retire from the jobs they’ve been sitting in for decades.

+1. These people need to go.