Return to Office EO
-
wrote on 21 Jan 2025, 13:05 last edited by jon-nyc
This will probably deserve its own thread as it will spawn its own dramas in the coming weeks.
My sister said the Board will comply but take advantage of some wiggle room. What about, she asked, people who were hired remotely with no expectation they’d move to DC? They probably won’t make them move.
What’s interesting is this will increase the concentration of federal workers in the DC area and I’ve been told by republicans on many occasions that that’s a bad thing.
-
This will probably deserve its own thread as it will spawn its own dramas in the coming weeks.
My sister said the Board will comply but take advantage of some wiggle room. What about, she asked, people who were hired remotely with no expectation they’d move to DC? They probably won’t make them move.
What’s interesting is this will increase the concentration of federal workers in the DC area and I’ve been told by republicans on many occasions that that’s a bad thing.
wrote on 21 Jan 2025, 14:38 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Return to Office EO:
This will probably deserve its own thread as it will spawn its own dramas in the coming weeks.
My sister said the Board will comply but take advantage of some wiggle room. What about, she asked, people who were hired remotely with no expectation they’d move to DC? They probably won’t make them move.
What’s interesting is this will increase the concentration of federal workers in the DC area and I’ve been told by republicans on many occasions that that’s a bad thing.
Sorry, not sorry, @89th .
I don’t even understand how/why this is controversial at all.
Yes, employees hired specifically on a telework basis should have an out for the time being. Others? Not so much. As for the concentration of federal employees, that will change as the various departments are moved.
-
@jon-nyc said in Return to Office EO:
This will probably deserve its own thread as it will spawn its own dramas in the coming weeks.
My sister said the Board will comply but take advantage of some wiggle room. What about, she asked, people who were hired remotely with no expectation they’d move to DC? They probably won’t make them move.
What’s interesting is this will increase the concentration of federal workers in the DC area and I’ve been told by republicans on many occasions that that’s a bad thing.
Sorry, not sorry, @89th .
I don’t even understand how/why this is controversial at all.
Yes, employees hired specifically on a telework basis should have an out for the time being. Others? Not so much. As for the concentration of federal employees, that will change as the various departments are moved.
wrote on 21 Jan 2025, 14:48 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in Return to Office EO:
Yes, employees hired specifically on a telework basis should have an out for the time being. Others? Not so much.
Remember the Marc Andreessen interview? He said that if you're required to be "in office" one day a month, you'd schedule that day for the last day of the month, and on the next month, it would be first day.
Fly in, work a day, stay at a hotel, work a day, fly out.
58 or so consecutive days out of the office.
-
wrote on 21 Jan 2025, 15:18 last edited by
And any telework employees should have a reduced salary. At least $10K, likely more.
-
wrote on 21 Jan 2025, 15:42 last edited by
I agree with @LuFins-Dad
-
wrote on 21 Jan 2025, 15:46 last edited by
I don't really have a dog in the fight. Sure I know a bunch of people that work in the office, or hybrid, or fully remote. All of them are doing their duties fine, so I don't see the purpose overall of forcing an unnecessary change.
For example one friend works for the Dept of VA and she interacts with veterans via phone and video chats, so she works from home instead of the office off of I Street. Another person does cybersecurity and all they do is connect virtually to their network and perform cybersecurity monitoring and alerts, also no need to be in a physical office.
I think ultimately this move was more for optics than actual impact. I'd love to see the actual numbers of people who...
- Live near their duty station but work 100% remote
- Live near their duty station but work 2 days remote
- Don't live at all near their duty station or home office
- The above, but who are technically on telework agreements, which is I think most people (not impacted by this EO?)
- Contractors who work remote or hybrid (they aren't federal employees so not impacted by this EO even though they make up over 50% of federal "personnel" in the DC area)
For example, if there is space in the IRS building for a person that lives 30 miles away and just works out of their basement. OK sure.
But most remote or telework or contract or whatever positions that have shifted to "at home" for part or full week have physically LOST their in-office space. Like, for my examples above, if the Dept of VA person went into the office tomorrow, there literally would be no place for them to sit or a computer to work on. It's gone. As are the supporting services such as a parking spot, or needed security, or the cafe they'd get lunch from. It's all changed.
So.... a forced return to the office for no other reason than it's a campaign objective, all it would do is increase of the cost of government (overhead), increase the volume of traffic, increase CO2 emissions, and decrease the ability to hire talent. Doesn't make much sense.
I think ultimately this just impacts a few departments and maybe impacts 10% of the "remote, etc" federal workforce. But... MAGA cheered, so that's all Trump cares about.
-
wrote on 21 Jan 2025, 15:59 last edited by
It's more optics than anything else.
-
wrote on 21 Jan 2025, 16:16 last edited by
It is absolutely not optics. No government work should be done on personal tech devices. Auditors and oversight agencies should be able to have immediate access to those secured tech devices and all paper files, etc… No government employee should be working in a private home with who the fuck knows sitting behind them looking over their shoulders. Security and accountability Trump efficiency.
-
wrote on 21 Jan 2025, 17:29 last edited by
I believe most folks use government-issued equipment like laptops that are fully monitored and audited which can be shut down remotely if needed. If efficiency is the goal, forcing everyone back into an office is the opposite of that. I agree if someone is working on something that requires security they shouldn't be doing it from home. Admittedly I am biased as I work 1,000 miles away from my company. My team of 20 folks are so... two are fully remote (including me) and the rest are in the office 3 days, and home 2 days. There isn't any degradation in our production velocity, if anything we have gotten faster.
-
wrote on 21 Jan 2025, 17:44 last edited by
I think that people who work in offices utilize businesses in the area more, which in turn pay taxes, which in turn pay their salaries.
Now, I understand that this is probably more localized. Government workers help businesses in Wash. DC
-
It is absolutely not optics. No government work should be done on personal tech devices. Auditors and oversight agencies should be able to have immediate access to those secured tech devices and all paper files, etc… No government employee should be working in a private home with who the fuck knows sitting behind them looking over their shoulders. Security and accountability Trump efficiency.
wrote on 21 Jan 2025, 17:44 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in Return to Office EO:
Security and accountability Trump efficiency.
Tell me you capitalized that by accident.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Return to Office EO:
Security and accountability Trump efficiency.
Tell me you capitalized that by accident.
wrote on 21 Jan 2025, 18:14 last edited by@George-K said in Return to Office EO:
@LuFins-Dad said in Return to Office EO:
Security and accountability Trump efficiency.
Tell me you capitalized that by accident.
I actually did, lol.
-
I believe most folks use government-issued equipment like laptops that are fully monitored and audited which can be shut down remotely if needed. If efficiency is the goal, forcing everyone back into an office is the opposite of that. I agree if someone is working on something that requires security they shouldn't be doing it from home. Admittedly I am biased as I work 1,000 miles away from my company. My team of 20 folks are so... two are fully remote (including me) and the rest are in the office 3 days, and home 2 days. There isn't any degradation in our production velocity, if anything we have gotten faster.
wrote on 21 Jan 2025, 18:24 last edited by@89th said in Return to Office EO:
I believe most folks use government-issued equipment like laptops that are fully monitored and audited which can be shut down remotely if needed. If efficiency is the goal, forcing everyone back into an office is the opposite of that. I agree if someone is working on something that requires security they shouldn't be doing it from home. Admittedly I am biased as I work 1,000 miles away from my company. My team of 20 folks are so... two are fully remote (including me) and the rest are in the office 3 days, and home 2 days. There isn't any degradation in our production velocity, if anything we have gotten faster.
As I stated, it’s not about efficiency. It is about oversight, security, and accountability.
-
wrote on 21 Jan 2025, 18:30 last edited by
Sorry I misread that pun.
-
wrote on 21 Jan 2025, 18:31 last edited by
Yeah. The efficiency train left the station long ago. Accountability is waiting for the next train. Security isn't even at the station yet.
-
It is absolutely not optics. No government work should be done on personal tech devices. Auditors and oversight agencies should be able to have immediate access to those secured tech devices and all paper files, etc… No government employee should be working in a private home with who the fuck knows sitting behind them looking over their shoulders. Security and accountability Trump efficiency.
wrote on 21 Jan 2025, 18:48 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in Return to Office EO:
No government employee should be working in a private home with who the fuck knows sitting behind them looking over their shoulders.
Does that include the President?
Because I've got news for you....
-
wrote on 21 Jan 2025, 22:14 last edited by
Oh believe me, I have issues. But it’s the same issues with the last guy as well as the guy from 08-16
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Return to Office EO:
Yes, employees hired specifically on a telework basis should have an out for the time being. Others? Not so much.
Remember the Marc Andreessen interview? He said that if you're required to be "in office" one day a month, you'd schedule that day for the last day of the month, and on the next month, it would be first day.
Fly in, work a day, stay at a hotel, work a day, fly out.
58 or so consecutive days out of the office.
wrote on 21 Jan 2025, 22:55 last edited by@George-K said in Return to Office EO:
@LuFins-Dad said in Return to Office EO:
Yes, employees hired specifically on a telework basis should have an out for the time being. Others? Not so much.
Remember the Marc Andreessen interview? He said that if you're required to be "in office" one day a month, you'd schedule that day for the last day of the month, and on the next month, it would be first day.
Fly in, work a day, stay at a hotel, work a day, fly out.
58 or so consecutive days out of the office.
As long as the work got done right, no one should care whether it's "58 or so consecutive days out of the office."
-
@jon-nyc said in Return to Office EO:
This will probably deserve its own thread as it will spawn its own dramas in the coming weeks.
My sister said the Board will comply but take advantage of some wiggle room. What about, she asked, people who were hired remotely with no expectation they’d move to DC? They probably won’t make them move.
What’s interesting is this will increase the concentration of federal workers in the DC area and I’ve been told by republicans on many occasions that that’s a bad thing.
Sorry, not sorry, @89th .
I don’t even understand how/why this is controversial at all.
Yes, employees hired specifically on a telework basis should have an out for the time being. Others? Not so much. As for the concentration of federal employees, that will change as the various departments are moved.
wrote on 21 Jan 2025, 23:08 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in Return to Office EO:
I don’t even understand how/why this is controversial at all.
Let's see ... no "work from home" means more people driving more which means Elon sells more cars. Get it?
-
@George-K said in Return to Office EO:
@LuFins-Dad said in Return to Office EO:
Yes, employees hired specifically on a telework basis should have an out for the time being. Others? Not so much.
Remember the Marc Andreessen interview? He said that if you're required to be "in office" one day a month, you'd schedule that day for the last day of the month, and on the next month, it would be first day.
Fly in, work a day, stay at a hotel, work a day, fly out.
58 or so consecutive days out of the office.
As long as the work got done right, no one should care whether it's "58 or so consecutive days out of the office."
wrote on 21 Jan 2025, 23:47 last edited by@Axtremus said in Return to Office EO:
@George-K said in Return to Office EO:
@LuFins-Dad said in Return to Office EO:
Yes, employees hired specifically on a telework basis should have an out for the time being. Others? Not so much.
Remember the Marc Andreessen interview? He said that if you're required to be "in office" one day a month, you'd schedule that day for the last day of the month, and on the next month, it would be first day.
Fly in, work a day, stay at a hotel, work a day, fly out.
58 or so consecutive days out of the office.
As long as the work got done right, no one should care whether it's "58 or so consecutive days out of the office."
For me I have to go into the office every 90 days. I usually go every 85 days or so as to not cut it too close.