Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government also has an interest in running well, which surpasses DC’s interests. As it should. Federal employees are not going to turn around CRE. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Private sector is hiring and figuring out ways to deal with the labor market that exists. The government needs to follow their lead if they want to retain or hire. Commercial real estate investors can pivot to the burbs. Everyone else did.

+ My private sector DH and neighbors are all still full time WAH. And they make a lot more than me. Making GS level employees like me go into DC even a few days a week isn’t going to save CRE or failing businesses. We don’t collectively make enough to keep DC afloat and the government risks losing good employees to private sector jobs. Even if they land in a private sector job that requires in office days, they’ll make more $ to counteract the commute.

WAH is basically the reason I’m at my job as a working mom of 3. This literally could be the difference of whether I stay in government, possibly even the workforce. (Before you ask, my kids were in daycare before the pandemic so commuting wasn’t as bad). But now that they are school age and their school has an extended day waitlist we haven’t been able to make it off for 3 years (employee shortage due to the post-COVID labor market) and they have early activities beginning around 5 pm, I have really come to rely on WAH. (DH also WAH but can’t start/end his day early like me). I know I’m not alone and collectively the government could lose a lot of qualified employees.

Someone else would happily do your job. None of us are owed or entitled to federal employment.

You are absolutely wrong about this. Yes, someone without my qualifications and experience would be happy to have the money. But they can’t do the job. So there’s the rub.

So move on, if you don’t like the federal government coming back to the office in DC please go do something else. Many of us are glad to be back in the office and think this is good policy.

I will. As Will others. And then you e got a massive problem. Stop putting your head in the sand. A one size fits all solution — everybody back 6 days a PP— is not going to work.

I’ve been a fed for more than 20 years and have listened to so many versions of “if x is elected, if they change this policy, if y happens EVERYONE WILL LEAVE!” Meanwhile federal attrition has been pretty flat over the years and the retirement wave of older feds that I heard about back in grad school never happened. It’s not a bad deal, we have more flexibility than most with decent pay and benefits. Before the pandemic I was required to be in my office 4 days a week, now we’re coming back 2 days a week. Seems like a win to me, we’d be lucky if we had certain people leave but there won’t be a serious exodus over this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government also has an interest in running well, which surpasses DC’s interests. As it should. Federal employees are not going to turn around CRE. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Private sector is hiring and figuring out ways to deal with the labor market that exists. The government needs to follow their lead if they want to retain or hire. Commercial real estate investors can pivot to the burbs. Everyone else did.

+ My private sector DH and neighbors are all still full time WAH. And they make a lot more than me. Making GS level employees like me go into DC even a few days a week isn’t going to save CRE or failing businesses. We don’t collectively make enough to keep DC afloat and the government risks losing good employees to private sector jobs. Even if they land in a private sector job that requires in office days, they’ll make more $ to counteract the commute.

WAH is basically the reason I’m at my job as a working mom of 3. This literally could be the difference of whether I stay in government, possibly even the workforce. (Before you ask, my kids were in daycare before the pandemic so commuting wasn’t as bad). But now that they are school age and their school has an extended day waitlist we haven’t been able to make it off for 3 years (employee shortage due to the post-COVID labor market) and they have early activities beginning around 5 pm, I have really come to rely on WAH. (DH also WAH but can’t start/end his day early like me). I know I’m not alone and collectively the government could lose a lot of qualified employees.

Someone else would happily do your job. None of us are owed or entitled to federal employment.

You are absolutely wrong about this. Yes, someone without my qualifications and experience would be happy to have the money. But they can’t do the job. So there’s the rub.

So move on, if you don’t like the federal government coming back to the office in DC please go do something else. Many of us are glad to be back in the office and think this is good policy.

I will. As Will others. And then you e got a massive problem. Stop putting your head in the sand. A one size fits all solution — everybody back 6 days a PP— is not going to work.

I’ve been a fed for more than 20 years and have listened to so many versions of “if x is elected, if they change this policy, if y happens EVERYONE WILL LEAVE!” Meanwhile federal attrition has been pretty flat over the years and the retirement wave of older feds that I heard about back in grad school never happened. It’s not a bad deal, we have more flexibility than most with decent pay and benefits. Before the pandemic I was required to be in my office 4 days a week, now we’re coming back 2 days a week. Seems like a win to me, we’d be lucky if we had certain people leave but there won’t be a serious exodus over this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government also has an interest in running well, which surpasses DC’s interests. As it should. Federal employees are not going to turn around CRE. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Private sector is hiring and figuring out ways to deal with the labor market that exists. The government needs to follow their lead if they want to retain or hire. Commercial real estate investors can pivot to the burbs. Everyone else did.

+ My private sector DH and neighbors are all still full time WAH. And they make a lot more than me. Making GS level employees like me go into DC even a few days a week isn’t going to save CRE or failing businesses. We don’t collectively make enough to keep DC afloat and the government risks losing good employees to private sector jobs. Even if they land in a private sector job that requires in office days, they’ll make more $ to counteract the commute.

WAH is basically the reason I’m at my job as a working mom of 3. This literally could be the difference of whether I stay in government, possibly even the workforce. (Before you ask, my kids were in daycare before the pandemic so commuting wasn’t as bad). But now that they are school age and their school has an extended day waitlist we haven’t been able to make it off for 3 years (employee shortage due to the post-COVID labor market) and they have early activities beginning around 5 pm, I have really come to rely on WAH. (DH also WAH but can’t start/end his day early like me). I know I’m not alone and collectively the government could lose a lot of qualified employees.

Someone else would happily do your job. None of us are owed or entitled to federal employment.

You are absolutely wrong about this. Yes, someone without my qualifications and experience would be happy to have the money. But they can’t do the job. So there’s the rub.

So move on, if you don’t like the federal government coming back to the office in DC please go do something else. Many of us are glad to be back in the office and think this is good policy.

I will. As Will others. And then you e got a massive problem. Stop putting your head in the sand. A one size fits all solution — everybody back 6 days a PP— is not going to work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government also has an interest in running well, which surpasses DC’s interests. As it should. Federal employees are not going to turn around CRE. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Private sector is hiring and figuring out ways to deal with the labor market that exists. The government needs to follow their lead if they want to retain or hire. Commercial real estate investors can pivot to the burbs. Everyone else did.

+ My private sector DH and neighbors are all still full time WAH. And they make a lot more than me. Making GS level employees like me go into DC even a few days a week isn’t going to save CRE or failing businesses. We don’t collectively make enough to keep DC afloat and the government risks losing good employees to private sector jobs. Even if they land in a private sector job that requires in office days, they’ll make more $ to counteract the commute.

WAH is basically the reason I’m at my job as a working mom of 3. This literally could be the difference of whether I stay in government, possibly even the workforce. (Before you ask, my kids were in daycare before the pandemic so commuting wasn’t as bad). But now that they are school age and their school has an extended day waitlist we haven’t been able to make it off for 3 years (employee shortage due to the post-COVID labor market) and they have early activities beginning around 5 pm, I have really come to rely on WAH. (DH also WAH but can’t start/end his day early like me). I know I’m not alone and collectively the government could lose a lot of qualified employees.

Someone else would happily do your job. None of us are owed or entitled to federal employment.

You are absolutely wrong about this. Yes, someone without my qualifications and experience would be happy to have the money. But they can’t do the job. So there’s the rub.

There is truth to this. We are struggling to hire already because by the time our byzantine hiring process allows us to make an offer, most of the qualified candidates have already taken other jobs. The most qualified candidates are people with graduate degrees and experience who often aren't willing to move to DC for a GS-11 or 12 salary. If you require more than the current minimum of in-office time, you're going to have to replace those experienced people making weekly trips from other locations with people just out of school who don't need to worry about dual careers or the costs that come with having a family.

I agree that recruitment and retention is a challenge with RTO. I also think that the federal government has entire agencies that have all of the data on federal employment, private employment, job markets, and trends. They look at the aggregate and across a lot of dimensions. They know, at least better than all of us, what the impact has been and will be. It isn’t like they aren’t aware when they set policy. Presumably they concluded that the benefit of bringing federal employees back to the office somewhat more frequently outweighs the cons.

Ha! No they didn’t! This is some sort of giveaway to someone and has nothing to do with the benefit to employees or the economy.

I'm not at all sure how to engage with this speculation.

Are you using ChatGPT to have a policy discussion or something? Because welcome to the future of government when all of the brains leave. FFS.

No, I am not.

I'll try this- Why have you concluded that the government's policy position is a "giveaway to someone" and not about anything else? Do you have any data or information?

It’s a wealth tranfser to DC and CRE interests, as everyone in this entire thread explained. Hence the “giveaway” that the PP referred to. If you understood what your were reading, it would make sense.

I will admit I have not read all 51 pages in this thread, however I think the main arguments are that it’s good for DC as a city and lots of federal work is better done in person collaboratively. You may strenuously disagree with these arguments but I think our leadership believes this and is making them in good faith.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government also has an interest in running well, which surpasses DC’s interests. As it should. Federal employees are not going to turn around CRE. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Private sector is hiring and figuring out ways to deal with the labor market that exists. The government needs to follow their lead if they want to retain or hire. Commercial real estate investors can pivot to the burbs. Everyone else did.

+ My private sector DH and neighbors are all still full time WAH. And they make a lot more than me. Making GS level employees like me go into DC even a few days a week isn’t going to save CRE or failing businesses. We don’t collectively make enough to keep DC afloat and the government risks losing good employees to private sector jobs. Even if they land in a private sector job that requires in office days, they’ll make more $ to counteract the commute.

WAH is basically the reason I’m at my job as a working mom of 3. This literally could be the difference of whether I stay in government, possibly even the workforce. (Before you ask, my kids were in daycare before the pandemic so commuting wasn’t as bad). But now that they are school age and their school has an extended day waitlist we haven’t been able to make it off for 3 years (employee shortage due to the post-COVID labor market) and they have early activities beginning around 5 pm, I have really come to rely on WAH. (DH also WAH but can’t start/end his day early like me). I know I’m not alone and collectively the government could lose a lot of qualified employees.

Someone else would happily do your job. None of us are owed or entitled to federal employment.

You are absolutely wrong about this. Yes, someone without my qualifications and experience would be happy to have the money. But they can’t do the job. So there’s the rub.

There is truth to this. We are struggling to hire already because by the time our byzantine hiring process allows us to make an offer, most of the qualified candidates have already taken other jobs. The most qualified candidates are people with graduate degrees and experience who often aren't willing to move to DC for a GS-11 or 12 salary. If you require more than the current minimum of in-office time, you're going to have to replace those experienced people making weekly trips from other locations with people just out of school who don't need to worry about dual careers or the costs that come with having a family.

I agree that recruitment and retention is a challenge with RTO. I also think that the federal government has entire agencies that have all of the data on federal employment, private employment, job markets, and trends. They look at the aggregate and across a lot of dimensions. They know, at least better than all of us, what the impact has been and will be. It isn’t like they aren’t aware when they set policy. Presumably they concluded that the benefit of bringing federal employees back to the office somewhat more frequently outweighs the cons.

Ha! No they didn’t! This is some sort of giveaway to someone and has nothing to do with the benefit to employees or the economy.

I'm not at all sure how to engage with this speculation.

Are you using ChatGPT to have a policy discussion or something? Because welcome to the future of government when all of the brains leave. FFS.

No, I am not.

I'll try this- Why have you concluded that the government's policy position is a "giveaway to someone" and not about anything else? Do you have any data or information?

It’s a wealth tranfser to DC and CRE interests, as everyone in this entire thread explained. Hence the “giveaway” that the PP referred to. If you understood what your were reading, it would make sense.

I will admit I have not read all 51 pages in this thread, however I think the main arguments are that it’s good for DC as a city and lots of federal work is better done in person collaboratively. You may strenuously disagree with these arguments but I think our leadership believes this and is making them in good faith.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government also has an interest in running well, which surpasses DC’s interests. As it should. Federal employees are not going to turn around CRE. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Private sector is hiring and figuring out ways to deal with the labor market that exists. The government needs to follow their lead if they want to retain or hire. Commercial real estate investors can pivot to the burbs. Everyone else did.

+ My private sector DH and neighbors are all still full time WAH. And they make a lot more than me. Making GS level employees like me go into DC even a few days a week isn’t going to save CRE or failing businesses. We don’t collectively make enough to keep DC afloat and the government risks losing good employees to private sector jobs. Even if they land in a private sector job that requires in office days, they’ll make more $ to counteract the commute.

WAH is basically the reason I’m at my job as a working mom of 3. This literally could be the difference of whether I stay in government, possibly even the workforce. (Before you ask, my kids were in daycare before the pandemic so commuting wasn’t as bad). But now that they are school age and their school has an extended day waitlist we haven’t been able to make it off for 3 years (employee shortage due to the post-COVID labor market) and they have early activities beginning around 5 pm, I have really come to rely on WAH. (DH also WAH but can’t start/end his day early like me). I know I’m not alone and collectively the government could lose a lot of qualified employees.

Someone else would happily do your job. None of us are owed or entitled to federal employment.

You are absolutely wrong about this. Yes, someone without my qualifications and experience would be happy to have the money. But they can’t do the job. So there’s the rub.

There is truth to this. We are struggling to hire already because by the time our byzantine hiring process allows us to make an offer, most of the qualified candidates have already taken other jobs. The most qualified candidates are people with graduate degrees and experience who often aren't willing to move to DC for a GS-11 or 12 salary. If you require more than the current minimum of in-office time, you're going to have to replace those experienced people making weekly trips from other locations with people just out of school who don't need to worry about dual careers or the costs that come with having a family.

I agree that recruitment and retention is a challenge with RTO. I also think that the federal government has entire agencies that have all of the data on federal employment, private employment, job markets, and trends. They look at the aggregate and across a lot of dimensions. They know, at least better than all of us, what the impact has been and will be. It isn’t like they aren’t aware when they set policy. Presumably they concluded that the benefit of bringing federal employees back to the office somewhat more frequently outweighs the cons.

Ha! No they didn’t! This is some sort of giveaway to someone and has nothing to do with the benefit to employees or the economy.

I'm not at all sure how to engage with this speculation.

Are you using ChatGPT to have a policy discussion or something? Because welcome to the future of government when all of the brains leave. FFS.

No, I am not.

I'll try this- Why have you concluded that the government's policy position is a "giveaway to someone" and not about anything else? Do you have any data or information?

It’s a wealth tranfser to DC and CRE interests, as everyone in this entire thread explained. Hence the “giveaway” that the PP referred to. If you understood what your were reading, it would make sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever your thoughts on this issue, stop being so cavalier about what’s happening downtown. Lots of small business owners going out of business. Our beloved dry cleaner had to close. Small lunch counters closed. Optometrist struggling. These are human beings trying to make a living like all of us.

Fake business sucking off govt dollars, no sympathy

Yeah, that's quite obvious of you and plenty of others on this thread. Me, me, me, right? Fake business, SMH.

If people lack empathy it’s because they’ve been treated like dogshit for years. Federal employees do a service to the public at a discount, and everyone just wants more more more from them, for nothing.

Ding ding ding!

Let's first restore federal pay to match private sector salaries and then we can talk about filling the cubicle reefs in downtown DC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government also has an interest in running well, which surpasses DC’s interests. As it should. Federal employees are not going to turn around CRE. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Private sector is hiring and figuring out ways to deal with the labor market that exists. The government needs to follow their lead if they want to retain or hire. Commercial real estate investors can pivot to the burbs. Everyone else did.

+ My private sector DH and neighbors are all still full time WAH. And they make a lot more than me. Making GS level employees like me go into DC even a few days a week isn’t going to save CRE or failing businesses. We don’t collectively make enough to keep DC afloat and the government risks losing good employees to private sector jobs. Even if they land in a private sector job that requires in office days, they’ll make more $ to counteract the commute.

WAH is basically the reason I’m at my job as a working mom of 3. This literally could be the difference of whether I stay in government, possibly even the workforce. (Before you ask, my kids were in daycare before the pandemic so commuting wasn’t as bad). But now that they are school age and their school has an extended day waitlist we haven’t been able to make it off for 3 years (employee shortage due to the post-COVID labor market) and they have early activities beginning around 5 pm, I have really come to rely on WAH. (DH also WAH but can’t start/end his day early like me). I know I’m not alone and collectively the government could lose a lot of qualified employees.

Someone else would happily do your job. None of us are owed or entitled to federal employment.

You are absolutely wrong about this. Yes, someone without my qualifications and experience would be happy to have the money. But they can’t do the job. So there’s the rub.

There is truth to this. We are struggling to hire already because by the time our byzantine hiring process allows us to make an offer, most of the qualified candidates have already taken other jobs. The most qualified candidates are people with graduate degrees and experience who often aren't willing to move to DC for a GS-11 or 12 salary. If you require more than the current minimum of in-office time, you're going to have to replace those experienced people making weekly trips from other locations with people just out of school who don't need to worry about dual careers or the costs that come with having a family.

I agree that recruitment and retention is a challenge with RTO. I also think that the federal government has entire agencies that have all of the data on federal employment, private employment, job markets, and trends. They look at the aggregate and across a lot of dimensions. They know, at least better than all of us, what the impact has been and will be. It isn’t like they aren’t aware when they set policy. Presumably they concluded that the benefit of bringing federal employees back to the office somewhat more frequently outweighs the cons.

Ha! No they didn’t! This is some sort of giveaway to someone and has nothing to do with the benefit to employees or the economy.

I'm not at all sure how to engage with this speculation.

Are you using ChatGPT to have a policy discussion or something? Because welcome to the future of government when all of the brains leave. FFS.

No, I am not.

I'll try this- Why have you concluded that the government's policy position is a "giveaway to someone" and not about anything else? Do you have any data or information?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever your thoughts on this issue, stop being so cavalier about what’s happening downtown. Lots of small business owners going out of business. Our beloved dry cleaner had to close. Small lunch counters closed. Optometrist struggling. These are human beings trying to make a living like all of us.

Fake business sucking off govt dollars, no sympathy

Yeah, that's quite obvious of you and plenty of others on this thread. Me, me, me, right? Fake business, SMH.

If people lack empathy it’s because they’ve been treated like dogshit for years. Federal employees do a service to the public at a discount, and everyone just wants more more more from them, for nothing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government also has an interest in running well, which surpasses DC’s interests. As it should. Federal employees are not going to turn around CRE. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Private sector is hiring and figuring out ways to deal with the labor market that exists. The government needs to follow their lead if they want to retain or hire. Commercial real estate investors can pivot to the burbs. Everyone else did.

+ My private sector DH and neighbors are all still full time WAH. And they make a lot more than me. Making GS level employees like me go into DC even a few days a week isn’t going to save CRE or failing businesses. We don’t collectively make enough to keep DC afloat and the government risks losing good employees to private sector jobs. Even if they land in a private sector job that requires in office days, they’ll make more $ to counteract the commute.

WAH is basically the reason I’m at my job as a working mom of 3. This literally could be the difference of whether I stay in government, possibly even the workforce. (Before you ask, my kids were in daycare before the pandemic so commuting wasn’t as bad). But now that they are school age and their school has an extended day waitlist we haven’t been able to make it off for 3 years (employee shortage due to the post-COVID labor market) and they have early activities beginning around 5 pm, I have really come to rely on WAH. (DH also WAH but can’t start/end his day early like me). I know I’m not alone and collectively the government could lose a lot of qualified employees.

Someone else would happily do your job. None of us are owed or entitled to federal employment.

You are absolutely wrong about this. Yes, someone without my qualifications and experience would be happy to have the money. But they can’t do the job. So there’s the rub.

There is truth to this. We are struggling to hire already because by the time our byzantine hiring process allows us to make an offer, most of the qualified candidates have already taken other jobs. The most qualified candidates are people with graduate degrees and experience who often aren't willing to move to DC for a GS-11 or 12 salary. If you require more than the current minimum of in-office time, you're going to have to replace those experienced people making weekly trips from other locations with people just out of school who don't need to worry about dual careers or the costs that come with having a family.

I agree that recruitment and retention is a challenge with RTO. I also think that the federal government has entire agencies that have all of the data on federal employment, private employment, job markets, and trends. They look at the aggregate and across a lot of dimensions. They know, at least better than all of us, what the impact has been and will be. It isn’t like they aren’t aware when they set policy. Presumably they concluded that the benefit of bringing federal employees back to the office somewhat more frequently outweighs the cons.

Ha! No they didn’t! This is some sort of giveaway to someone and has nothing to do with the benefit to employees or the economy.

I'm not at all sure how to engage with this speculation.

Are you using ChatGPT to have a policy discussion or something? Because welcome to the future of government when all of the brains leave. FFS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government also has an interest in running well, which surpasses DC’s interests. As it should. Federal employees are not going to turn around CRE. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Private sector is hiring and figuring out ways to deal with the labor market that exists. The government needs to follow their lead if they want to retain or hire. Commercial real estate investors can pivot to the burbs. Everyone else did.

+ My private sector DH and neighbors are all still full time WAH. And they make a lot more than me. Making GS level employees like me go into DC even a few days a week isn’t going to save CRE or failing businesses. We don’t collectively make enough to keep DC afloat and the government risks losing good employees to private sector jobs. Even if they land in a private sector job that requires in office days, they’ll make more $ to counteract the commute.

WAH is basically the reason I’m at my job as a working mom of 3. This literally could be the difference of whether I stay in government, possibly even the workforce. (Before you ask, my kids were in daycare before the pandemic so commuting wasn’t as bad). But now that they are school age and their school has an extended day waitlist we haven’t been able to make it off for 3 years (employee shortage due to the post-COVID labor market) and they have early activities beginning around 5 pm, I have really come to rely on WAH. (DH also WAH but can’t start/end his day early like me). I know I’m not alone and collectively the government could lose a lot of qualified employees.

Someone else would happily do your job. None of us are owed or entitled to federal employment.

You are absolutely wrong about this. Yes, someone without my qualifications and experience would be happy to have the money. But they can’t do the job. So there’s the rub.

There is truth to this. We are struggling to hire already because by the time our byzantine hiring process allows us to make an offer, most of the qualified candidates have already taken other jobs. The most qualified candidates are people with graduate degrees and experience who often aren't willing to move to DC for a GS-11 or 12 salary. If you require more than the current minimum of in-office time, you're going to have to replace those experienced people making weekly trips from other locations with people just out of school who don't need to worry about dual careers or the costs that come with having a family.

I agree that recruitment and retention is a challenge with RTO. I also think that the federal government has entire agencies that have all of the data on federal employment, private employment, job markets, and trends. They look at the aggregate and across a lot of dimensions. They know, at least better than all of us, what the impact has been and will be. It isn’t like they aren’t aware when they set policy. Presumably they concluded that the benefit of bringing federal employees back to the office somewhat more frequently outweighs the cons.

Ha! No they didn’t! This is some sort of giveaway to someone and has nothing to do with the benefit to employees or the economy.

I'm not at all sure how to engage with this speculation.

Are you using ChatGPT to have a policy discussion or something? Because welcome to the future of government when all of the brains leave. FFS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government also has an interest in running well, which surpasses DC’s interests. As it should. Federal employees are not going to turn around CRE. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Private sector is hiring and figuring out ways to deal with the labor market that exists. The government needs to follow their lead if they want to retain or hire. Commercial real estate investors can pivot to the burbs. Everyone else did.

+ My private sector DH and neighbors are all still full time WAH. And they make a lot more than me. Making GS level employees like me go into DC even a few days a week isn’t going to save CRE or failing businesses. We don’t collectively make enough to keep DC afloat and the government risks losing good employees to private sector jobs. Even if they land in a private sector job that requires in office days, they’ll make more $ to counteract the commute.

WAH is basically the reason I’m at my job as a working mom of 3. This literally could be the difference of whether I stay in government, possibly even the workforce. (Before you ask, my kids were in daycare before the pandemic so commuting wasn’t as bad). But now that they are school age and their school has an extended day waitlist we haven’t been able to make it off for 3 years (employee shortage due to the post-COVID labor market) and they have early activities beginning around 5 pm, I have really come to rely on WAH. (DH also WAH but can’t start/end his day early like me). I know I’m not alone and collectively the government could lose a lot of qualified employees.

Someone else would happily do your job. None of us are owed or entitled to federal employment.

You are absolutely wrong about this. Yes, someone without my qualifications and experience would be happy to have the money. But they can’t do the job. So there’s the rub.

There is truth to this. We are struggling to hire already because by the time our byzantine hiring process allows us to make an offer, most of the qualified candidates have already taken other jobs. The most qualified candidates are people with graduate degrees and experience who often aren't willing to move to DC for a GS-11 or 12 salary. If you require more than the current minimum of in-office time, you're going to have to replace those experienced people making weekly trips from other locations with people just out of school who don't need to worry about dual careers or the costs that come with having a family.

I agree that recruitment and retention is a challenge with RTO. I also think that the federal government has entire agencies that have all of the data on federal employment, private employment, job markets, and trends. They look at the aggregate and across a lot of dimensions. They know, at least better than all of us, what the impact has been and will be. It isn’t like they aren’t aware when they set policy. Presumably they concluded that the benefit of bringing federal employees back to the office somewhat more frequently outweighs the cons.

Ha! No they didn’t! This is some sort of giveaway to someone and has nothing to do with the benefit to employees or the economy.

I'm not at all sure how to engage with this speculation.