Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm so grateful to work for an agency that already allows telework up to 8 days per pay period (since 2010). leadership is considering converting 1/3 of its positions to 100 remote. Very few of us are complaining!
How do they handle locality pay issue for 100% remote staff?
that's what they are working through. The option on the table is for those that volunteer to convert to 100 percent remote AND want to live outside of our 10 field locations will get assigned to "rest of US" locality scale. Legal is doing a lot of work to see if we can do that.
GSA?
I thought they already resolved this- you move out of the DC locality area and you get whatever the "correct" locality is. Your home is your duty station.
I really like this solution and wish others would adopt it, recognizing that some positions may not actually be eligible for fulltime remote work.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm so grateful to work for an agency that already allows telework up to 8 days per pay period (since 2010). leadership is considering converting 1/3 of its positions to 100 remote. Very few of us are complaining!
How do they handle locality pay issue for 100% remote staff?
that's what they are working through. The option on the table is for those that volunteer to convert to 100 percent remote AND want to live outside of our 10 field locations will get assigned to "rest of US" locality scale. Legal is doing a lot of work to see if we can do that.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm so grateful to work for an agency that already allows telework up to 8 days per pay period (since 2010). leadership is considering converting 1/3 of its positions to 100 remote. Very few of us are complaining!
How do they handle locality pay issue for 100% remote staff?
Anonymous wrote:I'm so grateful to work for an agency that already allows telework up to 8 days per pay period (since 2010). leadership is considering converting 1/3 of its positions to 100 remote. Very few of us are complaining!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:January/February is so not happening guys.
Yes it is.
No it isn’t.
It absolutely will because people don't spend as much when they work from home. With that said it shouldn't happen at all. I firmly believe that all business that can be conducted remotely should be done so. I am already dreading the amount of traffic that will be on the roads when everyone goes back.
You think the Administration is willing to force people to back in the office during peak of omicron? I don't think so. Omi/Delta/flu will be everywhere by then. I guess we will know soon enough.
Anonymous wrote:This is so fascinating to me. I work in tech (non-govt), and I think remote is not only here to stay but has given employees MUCH more flexibility to leave a job if they don’t like it, find something that pays better, etc. I know every sector is different, but if you have skills that work well in a virtual setting chances are you can easily quit job A for job B. Federal workers tend to have great retirement benefits and would obviously need to weigh those against non-fed jobs, but given how long it takes to get through a federal hiring process, I would hope agencies would do what they can to retain valuable staff.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If I have to guess a reason, I'd go with 2022 midterm election and how WFH can be turned into politcal weapon by GOP. Obviously, I am hoping I am wrong here.
And then alternately the continuance of working from home could be used as an intervention to the climate crisis and decreasing the use of fossil fuels from the other side. It makes no sense to have people packing the roads.
good and fair point. i guess it's a matter of which message resonates more/better with voters where seats are up for grab.
Anonymous wrote:If I have to guess a reason, I'd go with 2022 midterm election and how WFH can be turned into politcal weapon by GOP. Obviously, I am hoping I am wrong here.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If I have to guess a reason, I'd go with 2022 midterm election and how WFH can be turned into politcal weapon by GOP. Obviously, I am hoping I am wrong here.
And then alternately the continuance of working from home could be used as an intervention to the climate crisis and decreasing the use of fossil fuels from the other side. It makes no sense to have people packing the roads.
Anonymous wrote:If I have to guess a reason, I'd go with 2022 midterm election and how WFH can be turned into politcal weapon by GOP. Obviously, I am hoping I am wrong here.