Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why people used to live close in. Now they want to live way outside the beltway and also keep a downtown job. It’s a choice.

I live close in. My assigned office for the fully remote job I was hired into is way out. But please, keep talking.

NP. It was not realistic think a fully remote job was a forever thing. Sorry, it stinks having the change up.
What did we do before?? I paid for before care, after care, an after school nanny once kid aged out of regular aftercare. Brought my kid to the office on snow days where school was closed and work was not (or took an annual leave day those times, saved leave just for those occasions).

For real, why was this not realistic? I am not a Fed and work from where and when I want (though travel a ton). But I don't understand why in the age of distributed teams, videoconferencing, and relatively cost-effective travel it's unrealistic to think jobs could be fully remote.

Plenty of jobs are remote, It is just not realistic to expect any single job to be permanently remote. I’ve been remote most of the last 15 years, but every employer I’ve had has made it clear they can change that at any time.

If the only thing you like about your job is that it is/was remote, I think you should find something you like more!

Your argument is akin to it’s not realistic to expect any job to permanently exist. No shit. Explain why it makes sense to arbitrarily decide that a job that has been done well remotely should suddenly no longer be remote.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why people used to live close in. Now they want to live way outside the beltway and also keep a downtown job. It’s a choice.

I live close in. My assigned office for the fully remote job I was hired into is way out. But please, keep talking.

NP. It was not realistic think a fully remote job was a forever thing. Sorry, it stinks having the change up.
What did we do before?? I paid for before care, after care, an after school nanny once kid aged out of regular aftercare. Brought my kid to the office on snow days where school was closed and work was not (or took an annual leave day those times, saved leave just for those occasions).

For real, why was this not realistic? I am not a Fed and work from where and when I want (though travel a ton). But I don't understand why in the age of distributed teams, videoconferencing, and relatively cost-effective travel it's unrealistic to think jobs could be fully remote.

Plenty of jobs are remote, It is just not realistic to expect any single job to be permanently remote. I’ve been remote most of the last 15 years, but every employer I’ve had has made it clear they can change that at any time.

If the only thing you like about your job is that it is/was remote, I think you should find something you like more!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flexibility is better for everyone involved, including employers. However I do not think it helps the dialogue when people are complaining violently about having to be in the office 9 to 5. It just sounds whiny. You either need to do it or find a new job. Acting like being in the office 9 to 5 is some great affront, is just feeding the narrative of entitled workers.

The problem for most people isn't the 9-5, it's the 7-9 and 5-7 commute, including the half an hour just trying to get into and out of the building. Also, this was sprung on us with four days notice. If you think I sound whiny, well, I think you sound stupid, so I guess we're even.

Louder for those in the back.

That 7a - 7p day does sound rough. It's probably time to find a different private sector job closer to you in Loudon, Anne Arundel, Howard or PW counties? That is what people did in olden times. They changed jobs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why people used to live close in. Now they want to live way outside the beltway and also keep a downtown job. It’s a choice.

I live close in. My assigned office for the fully remote job I was hired into is way out. But please, keep talking.

NP. It was not realistic think a fully remote job was a forever thing. Sorry, it stinks having the change up.
What did we do before?? I paid for before care, after care, an after school nanny once kid aged out of regular aftercare. Brought my kid to the office on snow days where school was closed and work was not (or took an annual leave day those times, saved leave just for those occasions).

For real, why was this not realistic? I am not a Fed and work from where and when I want (though travel a ton). But I don't understand why in the age of distributed teams, videoconferencing, and relatively cost-effective travel it's unrealistic to think jobs could be fully remote.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why people used to live close in. Now they want to live way outside the beltway and also keep a downtown job. It’s a choice.

I live close in. My assigned office for the fully remote job I was hired into is way out. But please, keep talking.

NP. It was not realistic think a fully remote job was a forever thing. Sorry, it stinks having the change up.
What did we do before?? I paid for before care, after care, an after school nanny once kid aged out of regular aftercare. Brought my kid to the office on snow days where school was closed and work was not (or took an annual leave day those times, saved leave just for those occasions).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get it. This was what it was like when I had my kids in the late 2000s.

As someone who worked in the late 2000s, we were doing schedule shifts back then to avoid rushes at building entrances.

Sounds like they're just trying to get people to quit.

+1
Also had kids late 2000s. Spent lots of $ on before and aftercare for all of the elementary years, which most of my coworkers haven’t done due to flexible schedules. Also no maternity leave. So there were differences- we didn’t have a set start and end time, and agree that sucks and is punitive- but other things sucked working full time with kids.

But yes I agree a defined start and end time is bad for all of us. I might have to look into other transportation options if we go that way.

I have been in the labor market for 35 years and staggered work start times and AWS has been a major thing for that entire period. There are very few jobs where having everyone in the office at exactly the same hours is beneficial. This is all idiocy.

Huh. My first federal job at DoJ ran from 1997 to 2001. In that position, I worked closely with clients in USFWS, EPA, Energy, USFS, Dept of the Navy and probably some others. I can think of zero, literally zero, of these (non-admin/non-HR) people in all of those agencies (let's say GS12 and above) who worked from home. Like, none. I know because we'd meet all the time in person downtown. I can think of two EPA scientists who weren't there after 3 pm. Literally everyone else was in the office if we needed a 4 pm emergency meeting. Everyone worked between the hours of 8 and 6.

Do I want us to return to that? No. but for the love of god, PLEASE stop the lie that federal RTO is a novelty and WFH or ridiculous AWS like 0600-1400 has been the norm since the Nixon years. Not for the professional class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why people used to live close in. Now they want to live way outside the beltway and also keep a downtown job. It’s a choice.

I live close in. My assigned office for the fully remote job I was hired into is way out. But please, keep talking.

NP. It was not realistic think a fully remote job was a forever thing. Sorry, it stinks having the change up.
What did we do before?? I paid for before care, after care, an after school nanny once kid aged out of regular aftercare. Brought my kid to the office on snow days where school was closed and work was not (or took an annual leave day those times, saved leave just for those occasions).

Jesus. We get it. You are miserable person determined to make everyone miserable and love living in the past. Can you move on now?

Er, it's not DCUMers who are making you miserable, it's this White House. People like PP, me and others wish you would pull up your big boy pants and show a little resilience. Or at least stop the endless whining. You lost this one. Move. On.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why people used to live close in. Now they want to live way outside the beltway and also keep a downtown job. It’s a choice.

I live close in. My assigned office for the fully remote job I was hired into is way out. But please, keep talking.

NP. It was not realistic think a fully remote job was a forever thing. Sorry, it stinks having the change up.
What did we do before?? I paid for before care, after care, an after school nanny once kid aged out of regular aftercare. Brought my kid to the office on snow days where school was closed and work was not (or took an annual leave day those times, saved leave just for those occasions).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get it. This was what it was like when I had my kids in the late 2000s.

As someone who worked in the late 2000s, we were doing schedule shifts back then to avoid rushes at building entrances.

Sounds like they're just trying to get people to quit.

+1
Also had kids late 2000s. Spent lots of $ on before and aftercare for all of the elementary years, which most of my coworkers haven’t done due to flexible schedules. Also no maternity leave. So there were differences- we didn’t have a set start and end time, and agree that sucks and is punitive- but other things sucked working full time with kids.

But yes I agree a defined start and end time is bad for all of us. I might have to look into other transportation options if we go that way.

I have been in the labor market for 35 years and staggered work start times and AWS has been a major thing for that entire period. There are very few jobs where having everyone in the office at exactly the same hours is beneficial. This is all idiocy.

Huh. My first federal job at DoJ ran from 1997 to 2001. In that position, I worked closely with clients in USFWS, EPA, Energy, USFS, Dept of the Navy and probably some others. I can think of zero, literally zero, of these (non-admin/non-HR) people in all of those agencies (let's say GS12 and above) who worked from home. Like, none. I know because we'd meet all the time in person downtown. I can think of two EPA scientists who weren't there after 3 pm. Literally everyone else was in the office if we needed a 4 pm emergency meeting. Everyone worked between the hours of 8 and 6.

Do I want us to return to that? No. but for the love of god, PLEASE stop the lie that federal RTO is a novelty and WFH or ridiculous AWS like 0600-1400 has been the norm since the Nixon years. Not for the professional class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flexibility is better for everyone involved, including employers. However I do not think it helps the dialogue when people are complaining violently about having to be in the office 9 to 5. It just sounds whiny. You either need to do it or find a new job. Acting like being in the office 9 to 5 is some great affront, is just feeding the narrative of entitled workers.

The problem for most people isn't the 9-5, it's the 7-9 and 5-7 commute, including the half an hour just trying to get into and out of the building. Also, this was sprung on us with four days notice. If you think I sound whiny, well, I think you sound stupid, so I guess we're even.

Louder for those in the back.

That 7a - 7p day does sound rough. It's probably time to find a different private sector job closer to you in Loudon, Anne Arundel, Howard or PW counties? That is what people did in olden times. They changed jobs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flexibility is better for everyone involved, including employers. However I do not think it helps the dialogue when people are complaining violently about having to be in the office 9 to 5. It just sounds whiny. You either need to do it or find a new job. Acting like being in the office 9 to 5 is some great affront, is just feeding the narrative of entitled workers.

The problem for most people isn't the 9-5, it's the 7-9 and 5-7 commute, including the half an hour just trying to get into and out of the building. Also, this was sprung on us with four days notice. If you think I sound whiny, well, I think you sound stupid, so I guess we're even.

Louder for those in the back.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why people used to live close in. Now they want to live way outside the beltway and also keep a downtown job. It’s a choice.

I live close in. My assigned office for the fully remote job I was hired into is way out. But please, keep talking.

NP. It was not realistic think a fully remote job was a forever thing. Sorry, it stinks having the change up.
What did we do before?? I paid for before care, after care, an after school nanny once kid aged out of regular aftercare. Brought my kid to the office on snow days where school was closed and work was not (or took an annual leave day those times, saved leave just for those occasions).

Jesus. We get it. You are miserable person determined to make everyone miserable and love living in the past. Can you move on now?