Agreed.We been 3 days a week since everyone came back. No telework prior to COVID. If we have to go back so be it. But 2 days a week is reasonable for normal people imo
You want to see unmotivated workers, and poor morale. Making everyone in office will be just the ticket. We were miserable prior to COVID lol.....We been 3 days a week since everyone came back. No telework prior to COVID. If we have to go back so be it. But 2 days a week is reasonable for normal people imo
Yeah, I’d view a massive reduction in TW the same as a big pay cut.Agreed.We been 3 days a week since everyone came back. No telework prior to COVID. If we have to go back so be it. But 2 days a week is reasonable for normal people imo
The last almost 5 years have been great for not needing to wear work clothes every day, saving gas, saving time, etc.
We’ve been in 2 days a week. That has been working great imo.
You think we are inefficient now? We can be sooo much more inefficient!You want to see unmotivated workers, and poor morale. Making everyone in office will be just the ticket. We were miserable prior to COVID lol.....We been 3 days a week since everyone came back. No telework prior to COVID. If we have to go back so be it. But 2 days a week is reasonable for normal people imo
Yep. Just doing the math, my drive is between 30-45 minutes each way. Which is probably fairly average. So between 3-4.5 hours extra each week. While not exactly, that’s close to 10% more hours occupied for work purposes, or a 10% pay cut. Not to mention wear and tear on the vehicles, gas, etc.Yeah, I’d view a massive reduction in TW the same as a big pay cut.Agreed.We been 3 days a week since everyone came back. No telework prior to COVID. If we have to go back so be it. But 2 days a week is reasonable for normal people imo
The last almost 5 years have been great for not needing to wear work clothes every day, saving gas, saving time, etc.
We’ve been in 2 days a week. That has been working great imo.
Lol....we aren't in efficient just angryYou think we are inefficient now? We can be sooo much more inefficient!You want to see unmotivated workers, and poor morale. Making everyone in office will be just the ticket. We were miserable prior to COVID lol.....We been 3 days a week since everyone came back. No telework prior to COVID. If we have to go back so be it. But 2 days a week is reasonable for normal people imo
The agency heads recently appointed or soon to be schedule F?Seems like a lot of holes can be reasonably punched in that order, including leaving it to agency heads and following applicable laws
Long play by the union. Negotiating can take years.Oh we already had a CBA in our favor....who knows how that plays out
It's not unionized. However, the warehouse supervisors repeatedly don't appropriately document or share communication about concerns. And then often when they do, it turns out to be a higher up's nephew or a long time employee's kid and the person gets a bunch more chances. Some of the stories are wild what people get away with. And this is an extremely successful company with divisions aroung the globe and consistently high levels of profit over decades.the "same issues"? Nonsense unless maybe you are talking about a heavily unionized private company and even then it's generally not the same in terms of discharging bad employees.Yep, my wife works in private sector HR and they have all the same issues I see in the public sector. The idea that privte companies are so efficient is silly. I don't know why anyone would think that given their own personal experiences working, shopping, accessing insurance, etc.This happens in the private sector as well. Has nothing to do with government.Even if you get a motivated supervisor willing to deal with the burden of initiating the disciplinary process as a public service (because it's certainly easier to let it go), you also can get the next level of the management chain to nix it because they don't want to deal with it. It is a truly bonkers system.We can't fix the "government problem" if we continue to set the bar at timecard fraud or sexual harassment as the only acceptable reasons to let someone go.I haven’t handled a disciplinary case in a few years, but I advise plenty of supervisors. Almost every one of them are reluctant to discipline an employee for anything short of truly egregious stuff. I understand empathy but some of it is ridiculous.
So take that story and make it procedurally impossible to fire the person even if the bad behavior was documented and you’re closer to govt employee management.It's not unionized. However, the warehouse supervisors repeatedly don't appropriately document or share communication about concerns. And then often when they do, it turns out to be a higher up's nephew or a long time employee's kid and the person gets a bunch more chances. Some of the stories are wild what people get away with. And this is an extremely successful company with divisions aroung the globe and consistently high levels of profit over decades.the "same issues"? Nonsense unless maybe you are talking about a heavily unionized private company and even then it's generally not the same in terms of discharging bad employees.Yep, my wife works in private sector HR and they have all the same issues I see in the public sector. The idea that privte companies are so efficient is silly. I don't know why anyone would think that given their own personal experiences working, shopping, accessing insurance, etc.This happens in the private sector as well. Has nothing to do with government.Even if you get a motivated supervisor willing to deal with the burden of initiating the disciplinary process as a public service (because it's certainly easier to let it go), you also can get the next level of the management chain to nix it because they don't want to deal with it. It is a truly bonkers system.We can't fix the "government problem" if we continue to set the bar at timecard fraud or sexual harassment as the only acceptable reasons to let someone go.I haven’t handled a disciplinary case in a few years, but I advise plenty of supervisors. Almost every one of them are reluctant to discipline an employee for anything short of truly egregious stuff. I understand empathy but some of it is ridiculous.
Perhaps, all I have is my own personal experiences. I've seen teachers fired or more likely allowe to quit before they got fired. Not at all impossible. But I am ofc coming from my experiences and you from yours.So take that story and make it procedurally impossible to fire the person even if the bad behavior was documented and you’re closer to govt employee management.It's not unionized. However, the warehouse supervisors repeatedly don't appropriately document or share communication about concerns. And then often when they do, it turns out to be a higher up's nephew or a long time employee's kid and the person gets a bunch more chances. Some of the stories are wild what people get away with. And this is an extremely successful company with divisions aroung the globe and consistently high levels of profit over decades.the "same issues"? Nonsense unless maybe you are talking about a heavily unionized private company and even then it's generally not the same in terms of discharging bad employees.Yep, my wife works in private sector HR and they have all the same issues I see in the public sector. The idea that privte companies are so efficient is silly. I don't know why anyone would think that given their own personal experiences working, shopping, accessing insurance, etc.This happens in the private sector as well. Has nothing to do with government.Even if you get a motivated supervisor willing to deal with the burden of initiating the disciplinary process as a public service (because it's certainly easier to let it go), you also can get the next level of the management chain to nix it because they don't want to deal with it. It is a truly bonkers system.We can't fix the "government problem" if we continue to set the bar at timecard fraud or sexual harassment as the only acceptable reasons to let someone go.I haven’t handled a disciplinary case in a few years, but I advise plenty of supervisors. Almost every one of them are reluctant to discipline an employee for anything short of truly egregious stuff. I understand empathy but some of it is ridiculous.
Not really, but you do add another layer of supervisory review as usually the proposing official is junior to the deciding official. Then add in the MSPB process takes entirely too long and judges often have a different perspective. Then add that the MSPB process can take years and the employee gets backpay if overturned, and you’ll start to understand the aversion to risk which makes attorneys very cautious with anything appealable.So take that story and make it procedurally impossible to fire the person even if the bad behavior was documented and you’re closer to govt employee management.
I’ll expect the same. 30 days is reasonable I guess.Well, my wife said her acting secretary announced ending all telework in 30 days.
Totally understood. Every job has its benefits and trade offs.Sucks people have to show up to the office now, but a lot of us never had an opportunity to telework.
I agree and this really boils down to a downsizing tactic. A certain percentage of people will quit or retire. This lets agencies and the government review manpower quotas.I haven't read really any of this thread, and I don't have a job that can be done from home but........
I would tend to think whether or not someone can work from home should be up to their boss as to what's best for productivity and what's best for the business in general. If things are optimized, not sure why it matters where people work from.
That said, I do think most every job should have at least SOME on location work.
I think we each have to hope we have good agency heads who are willing to make an argument for their agencies within the language of the EO.No direction here yet.
I argued to telework well before COVID.
I'm not an"creative" position. I don't need face to face meetings as I'm not in development. I log in from my desk the same as at home. I support people across the entire country. Me sitting in some designated office space is just bean counting
But I'll go back to 2019 if I have too
Yeah, I think that one is really unlikely. I guess I could see it applying to anyone new, but I don't see something like that passing for people who are so far into their career. If something like that does come about, with 12 years left you are in position to potentially have a lot of stuff reversed back by future administrations.I have 12 years left. I'll do whatever I have to. I'm not leaving willingly
Unless they remove locality pay from pension like they are talking about. That changes things
Or at least 2 to qualify for FERS MRA plus 10I have 12 years left. I'll do whatever I have to. I'm not leaving willingly
Unless they remove locality pay from pension like they are talking about. That changes things
Unless they remove locality pay from pension like they are talking about. That changes things
Interesting. I didn't even know you got locality pay added.Unless they remove locality pay from pension like they are talking about. That changes things
Yep. I'd stay one more year to cover the lifetime difference. Wouldn't do much work, of course.
Yes. The assumption was that most people retired in the same general area that they worked. Now in reality, many flee to Florida, Deleware, etc places with low taxes and once-upon-a-time low cost of living.Interesting. I didn't even know you got locality pay added.Unless they remove locality pay from pension like they are talking about. That changes things
Yep. I'd stay one more year to cover the lifetime difference. Wouldn't do much work, of course.
Thanks for sharing. I've held fed jobs in 3 separate agencies in 3 separate areas. I now live in a conplete separate area. I'm to young to start claiming my FERS so I wait. Wonder how that works when I do file. So I file from where live when I do? File from where I worked? Interesting thought I hadnt considered.Yes. The assumption was that most people retired in the same general area that they worked. Now in reality, many flee to Florida, Deleware, etc places with low taxes and once-upon-a-time low cost of living.Interesting. I didn't even know you got locality pay added.Unless they remove locality pay from pension like they are talking about. That changes things
Yep. I'd stay one more year to cover the lifetime difference. Wouldn't do much work, of course.
I think there was a cottage industry in people getting xferred to a high cost of living area for the last few years of their career to max out their high 3. Seems like a lot of work and stress for an extra $5k-$10k per year.
You get a percentage of the average of your high 3 salary. So, when you retire, they'll look at the three years when you earned the most and calculate your pension based off those years. So, it's not that you get locality pay in retirement as much as it's that your pension benefits from having your high 3 years being in a high-pay locality.Thanks for sharing. I've held fed jobs in 3 separate agencies in 3 separate areas. I now live in a conplete separate area. I'm to young to start claiming my FERS so I wait. Wonder how that works when I do file. So I file from where live when I do? File from where I worked? Interesting thought I hadnt considered.Yes. The assumption was that most people retired in the same general area that they worked. Now in reality, many flee to Florida, Deleware, etc places with low taxes and once-upon-a-time low cost of living.Interesting. I didn't even know you got locality pay added.Unless they remove locality pay from pension like they are talking about. That changes things
Yep. I'd stay one more year to cover the lifetime difference. Wouldn't do much work, of course.
I think there was a cottage industry in people getting xferred to a high cost of living area for the last few years of their career to max out their high 3. Seems like a lot of work and stress for an extra $5k-$10k per year.
Appreciate the clarification. That was my understanding of it and the mention of locality pay sent me down a rabbit hole. Glad my high 3 were in Hawaii. Ha haYou get a percentage of the average of your high 3 salary. So, when you retire, they'll look at the three years when you earned the most and calculate your pension based off those years. So, it's not that you get locality pay in retirement as much as it's that your pension benefits from having your high 3 years being in a high-pay locality.Thanks for sharing. I've held fed jobs in 3 separate agencies in 3 separate areas. I now live in a conplete separate area. I'm to young to start claiming my FERS so I wait. Wonder how that works when I do file. So I file from where live when I do? File from where I worked? Interesting thought I hadnt considered.Yes. The assumption was that most people retired in the same general area that they worked. Now in reality, many flee to Florida, Deleware, etc places with low taxes and once-upon-a-time low cost of living.Interesting. I didn't even know you got locality pay added.Unless they remove locality pay from pension like they are talking about. That changes things
Yep. I'd stay one more year to cover the lifetime difference. Wouldn't do much work, of course.
I think there was a cottage industry in people getting xferred to a high cost of living area for the last few years of their career to max out their high 3. Seems like a lot of work and stress for an extra $5k-$10k per year.
Wouldn't do much work, of course.
There is no "filing from" any given location. Your high-3 is based on what you have actually earned. So if you worked in a high COLA area, your salary and therefore high-3 would be correspondingly elevated relative to "rest of the US".Thanks for sharing. I've held fed jobs in 3 separate agencies in 3 separate areas. I now live in a conplete separate area. I'm to young to start claiming my FERS so I wait. Wonder how that works when I do file. So I file from where live when I do? File from where I worked? Interesting thought I hadnt considered.Yes. The assumption was that most people retired in the same general area that they worked. Now in reality, many flee to Florida, Deleware, etc places with low taxes and once-upon-a-time low cost of living.Interesting. I didn't even know you got locality pay added.Unless they remove locality pay from pension like they are talking about. That changes things
Yep. I'd stay one more year to cover the lifetime difference. Wouldn't do much work, of course.
I think there was a cottage industry in people getting xferred to a high cost of living area for the last few years of their career to max out their high 3. Seems like a lot of work and stress for an extra $5k-$10k per year.
In our fantasies as beat-down FEDs, I'm sure it is 100% at the moment.Wouldn't do much work, of course.
Thanks. How common is this type of thinking do you think for government work?
I work closely with about 25 other federal civilians. We have one who actively doesn't try to do anything. Another 2 or 3 who are bare minimal workers. From my boss, I hear our section has less problems with that than other sections within our command.Wouldn't do much work, of course.
Thanks. How common is this type of thinking do you think?
Yeah so basically your base salary is 50k. You work in OK your locality factored in is say 22% you transfer to say NY and your locality pay is 33%.Appreciate the clarification. That was my understanding of it and the mention of locality pay sent me down a rabbit hole. Glad my high 3 were in Hawaii. Ha haYou get a percentage of the average of your high 3 salary. So, when you retire, they'll look at the three years when you earned the most and calculate your pension based off those years. So, it's not that you get locality pay in retirement as much as it's that your pension benefits from having your high 3 years being in a high-pay locality.Thanks for sharing. I've held fed jobs in 3 separate agencies in 3 separate areas. I now live in a conplete separate area. I'm to young to start claiming my FERS so I wait. Wonder how that works when I do file. So I file from where live when I do? File from where I worked? Interesting thought I hadnt considered.Yes. The assumption was that most people retired in the same general area that they worked. Now in reality, many flee to Florida, Deleware, etc places with low taxes and once-upon-a-time low cost of living.Interesting. I didn't even know you got locality pay added.Unless they remove locality pay from pension like they are talking about. That changes things
Yep. I'd stay one more year to cover the lifetime difference. Wouldn't do much work, of course.
I think there was a cottage industry in people getting xferred to a high cost of living area for the last few years of their career to max out their high 3. Seems like a lot of work and stress for an extra $5k-$10k per year.
1. Thought it was written for 'new' employees. Would be quite the legal conversation if it were for those already receiving (and relying on) or those currently trying to get to retirement, full or MRA.Unless they remove locality pay from pension like they are talking about. That changes things
Yeah, I'd guess under normal circumstances, about 5% of staff aren't producing much of anything. I think that goes up if we truly end up with a cancelation of all telework. Most federal employees are aware how difficult it is to fire them. I've gone through the process of firing someone. I'd guess, conservatively, that accounted for 25% of my time over a 9-month period. And this was a situation that even the union rep agreed that she wasn't doing her job. That was a situation, though, where I just think she wasn't capable for performing the job. If someone is capable yet still not performing, they technically could string their manager along for those 9 months then suddenly show improvement and be saved from being fired. The government bends over backwards to save an employee's job.I work closely with about 25 other federal civilians. We have one who actively doesn't try to do anything. Another 2 or 3 who are bare minimal workers. From my boss, I hear our section has less problems with that than other sections within our command.Wouldn't do much work, of course.
Thanks. How common is this type of thinking do you think?
I'd wager between 10-20% of the federal workforce isn't trying hard.
C'mon, manI also find it interesting that people are being forced back into the office 5 days a week. I thought the idea was to make govt more efficient?!???
Both companies I’ve worked for since the pandemic, and my wife’s company, have successfully integrated telework that has resulted in significant savings for the company, as well as for workers. It’s win-win.C'mon, manI also find it interesting that people are being forced back into the office 5 days a week. I thought the idea was to make govt more efficient?!???
There’s a certain logic to this but military members don’t get locality in their pay, except the tax free BAH.Military pension does not include a locality stipend (would have had to be more of a 1 year location instead of 3). Can definitely see it written to match since it already exists in legislature - and passing.
It is about reducing the federal workforce.Both companies I’ve worked for since the pandemic, and my wife’s company, have successfully integrated telework that has resulted in significant savings for the company, as well as for workers. It’s win-win.C'mon, manI also find it interesting that people are being forced back into the office 5 days a week. I thought the idea was to make govt more efficient?!???