What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Government employee thread! (Being a government employee is sweet) (6 Viewers)

Gally said:
-OZ- said:
Gally said:
Bottom line is if you get your work done why does it matter where you sit?
Click to expand...
“Collaboration”
I say somewhat jokingly, but the line we’ve been given is largely about learning from each other. As it is we communicate almost as often while WFH as in the office. Also my group is all experienced (14s and 15s, I think the most junior person has been an attorney 16 years) so we’re not mentoring junior members of our team.
Click to expand...
I have heard that as a reason for being in the office together and I have no doubt that there are some jobs where that is a benefit and because of that there should be office time together. Again, it's not a once size fits all situation. Just because particular jobs benefit from collaboration or need to be hands on in an office or at a job site doesn't mean all jobs fit that paradigm.
Click to expand...
I think the "good faith" case for RTO is a combination of a few isolated bad apples, certain types of jobs where being in-person is actually an operational benefit (a small minority, in my view, to be sure, but they exist), and the backlash from workers in the private sector who were long ago forced back into the office resenting that their taxpayer dollars are paying people who have a benefit that they no longer have. There are certainly political actors with what I'd consider bad ulterior motives but that's outside the scope of the discussion on this board.
 
Gally said:
-OZ- said:
Gally said:
Bottom line is if you get your work done why does it matter where you sit?
Click to expand...
“Collaboration”
I say somewhat jokingly, but the line we’ve been given is largely about learning from each other. As it is we communicate almost as often while WFH as in the office. Also my group is all experienced (14s and 15s, I think the most junior person has been an attorney 16 years) so we’re not mentoring junior members of our team.
Click to expand...
I have heard that as a reason for being in the office together and I have no doubt that there are some jobs where that is a benefit and because of that there should be office time together. Again, it's not a once size fits all situation. Just because particular jobs benefit from collaboration or need to be hands on in an office or at a job site doesn't mean all jobs fit that paradigm.
Click to expand...
There is truth to this, but to all your points, it's variable. I chuckle because we have a no work-from-home policy, best to my knowledge it is only sometimes passively 'enforced' (suggested), and we support an 8 county region. Given our work, we're at our best when we're all in the office, but it's also not practical. We have an all staff meeting most months, I schedule one-on-one check-in's every 2-3 weeks with the local team, full team meetings about every quarter or so, and I've done a better job organizing quarterly regional team meetings lately. Outside of that, get your stuff done, wherever that may be, tell me where that is, don't tell others, when you anticipate others may need you be present, and regardless be available for a virtual / phone call if **** hits the fan. Do that and be quiet about my habit of scheduling off-sites at either 9:30 am or 1:30 pm, welp no point in going to the office before / after, and we cool.

It ain't hard, but a good working environment also isn't the govt's current motivation.
 
MAC_32 said:
a good working environment.........
Click to expand...
.......can be ruined by one dillweed that complains and ruins the good stuff for everyone. At my old job I had a supervisor that allowed a flex schedule (9/80 with every other Friday off). It was not a company policy but it was something our boss would allow us to do (assuming we got work done and had coverage every day of the week - so we had to alternate who had off so someone was always there). Worked great. Then other départements started complaining because it wasn't fair and instead of them getting the option it was taken away from us. Stupid complainers that can't leave well enough alone.
 
Gally said:
MAC_32 said:
a good working environment.........
Click to expand...
.......can be ruined by one dillweed that complains and ruins the good stuff for everyone. At my old job I had a supervisor that allowed a flex schedule (9/80 with every other Friday off). It was not a company policy but it was something our boss would allow us to do (assuming we got work done and had coverage every day of the week - so we had to alternate who had off so someone was always there). Worked great. Then other départements started complaining because it wasn't fair and instead of them getting the option it was taken away from us. Stupid complainers that can't leave well enough alone.
Click to expand...
How many times have I said 'things I'll say, deny ever saying, and will never put in writing' :lol:

You allow work-from-home flexibility?
Oh, no. Redacted is at _____. Do we need her now? I can text her to see if she can free up for a few mins.

Works every time, but to your point, gotta be careful with who's on the team. One of the many reasons why I first try to develop / maintain relationships then go recruiting when we have an open opportunity.
 
belljr said:
We got the mandate but no formal plan or date yet. I'll go back and be miserable. I did it for 12 years before COVID so.

As mentioned 1000 times. I will go into my cube and remotely log in to our servers exactly like I do at home. To support some one from California..... Heavy sigh.

Guess I'll start taking the longer non toll direction to try and save some $$ a little
Click to expand...
Fwiw, our leadership has been very clear that we’re not changing anything until the bureaucracy does their thing. We’re 2 levels below DA, so 3 from DoD. I figure we’ll probably have 30 days before needing to change anything.
AWS sounds better and better, orncopious comp time if possible.
 
My Department sent a memo. Bargaining units are exempt right now. Everyone else, which includes me, are to cancel TW agreements immediately. Not sure what that means. Does that mean they expect us in office Monday? That's unrealistic. I think we need to wait to hear from our own agency first. It does allow for some exemptions and situational telework. Maybe we'll be brave and approve a decent amount of "situational" time/days. I wonder how high those things are going to be monitored.
 
dgreen said:
My Department sent a memo. Bargaining units are exempt right now. Everyone else, which includes me, are to cancel TW agreements immediately. Not sure what that means. Does that mean they expect us in office Monday? That's unrealistic. I think we need to wait to hear from our own agency first. It does allow for some exemptions and situational telework. Maybe we'll be brave and approve a decent amount of "situational" time/days. I wonder how high those things are going to be monitored.
Click to expand...
That is weird that no date. My wife’s department and others that I’ve seen on Reddit Fednews announced the date in the memo. And there was a 1-2 weeks notice depending on the position.
 
Don Quixote said:
dgreen said:
My Department sent a memo. Bargaining units are exempt right now. Everyone else, which includes me, are to cancel TW agreements immediately. Not sure what that means. Does that mean they expect us in office Monday? That's unrealistic. I think we need to wait to hear from our own agency first. It does allow for some exemptions and situational telework. Maybe we'll be brave and approve a decent amount of "situational" time/days. I wonder how high those things are going to be monitored.
Click to expand...
That is weird that no date. My wife’s department and others that I’ve seen on Reddit Fednews announced the date in the memo. And there was a 1-2 weeks notice depending on the position.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I am definitely waiting until I hear from my chain of command. No chance I’m showing up to the office Monday based on this.
 
Aso hearing reports that Republicans are putting forward bills to force everyone to contribute 4.4% towards FERS.
 
Last edited:
TripItUp said:
CGRdrJoe said:
Our leadership and diversity councils have officially been shut down effective immediately as well as any affinity group celebration/club. I can't help but wonder if our civil rights trainings will be cancelled as well, wild times....
Click to expand...

This is a political comment.
Click to expand...
I don’t think this one is a political comment. That’s a fact. They were all shutdown and personnel put on administrative leave.

I’m not sure the department referred to, but here’s a Department of Education post about them cancelling their diversity councils, cancelling trainings, and placing staff on administrative leave.

www.ed.gov

U.S. Department of Education Takes Action to Eliminate DEI

The U.S. Department of Education has taken action to eliminate harmful Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, including references to them in public-facing communication channels and its associated workforce.
www.ed.gov www.ed.gov
 
TripItUp said:
CGRdrJoe said:
Our leadership and diversity councils have officially been shut down effective immediately as well as any affinity group celebration/club. I can't help but wonder if our civil rights trainings will be cancelled as well, wild times....
Click to expand...

This is a political comment.
Click to expand...
no it’s not, i’m speaking on our coast guard leadership. what are you trying to say here?
 
I just don't want the thread to get shut down with people going into the grey areas. LA fires thread was shut down for similar reasons.
 
TripItUp said:
CGRdrJoe said:
Our leadership and diversity councils have officially been shut down effective immediately as well as any affinity group celebration/club. I can't help but wonder if our civil rights trainings will be cancelled as well, wild times....
Click to expand...

This is a political comment.
Click to expand...
Not everything pertaining to our jobs is political.
The conversation could very easily turn that way. But it’s not there yet.
 
-OZ- said:
Not everything pertaining to our jobs is political.
The conversation could very easily turn that way. But it’s not there yet.
Click to expand...

yeah, I just really don't want to see the thread get shut down. I like hearing he anecdotes in here...I find them informative.
 
Hopefully we can discuss this without being political. What's the Legislative Branch's role with Executive Branch employees? Any role at all? For example, how does something like the Telework Enhancement Act of 2010 play into what the Executive Branch is currently doing?
 
dgreen said:
Hopefully we can discuss this without being political. What's the Legislative Branch's role with Executive Branch employees? Any role at all? For example, how does something like the Telework Enhancement Act of 2010 play into what the Executive Branch is currently doing?
Click to expand...
Money and law making.
There’s nothing an agency can legally do that costs money unless Congress affirmatively says it can - or has left room to say it said so.
 
Some of this is pretty simple isn't it? Especially the lawyers should understand. It is WAY easier and WAY less liability to have blanket policies, especially at a government job. Having no idea how good each of our FBGs are, I kind of assume you're "a-level" employees. MOST people are B and C level employees.

So while "as long as you get your work done" is the ideal policy, it doesn't really work for B and C level employees. And you open yourself up to disparate treatment issues, to general complaints, etc if you let some people have what is then viewed as special treatment. It's hard enough as is to get rid of government employees who aren't doing their jobs, and WFH just makes it harder. It SUCKS that this is also likely to force out some talented people, especially those "a-level" ones that are not easily replaceable.

As to the talent issue...I think this will probably cut both ways. I work with flag officers, military civilians (a lot of SES, but obviously their teams too) and civilian agency SES and 11s-14s. The most common things I hear from them, and from partners at my firm who exited to government and boomeranged back, are that they are saddled with underperformers they can't get rid of. That the other true believers and the mission are huge drivers of meaning, but the laziness/incompetence that basically gets rewarded instead of punished is extremely demotivating.

I just thought long and hard about an offer from DOGE when someone I knew took a senior leadership position there and pinged me. I think if I didn't have 3 more months of pat leave and 4+ months of "search" time after that, I'd have taken it. But that cost is too high. I think it's probably the most exciting place to be right now if you want to make a difference in some of these long-plaguing systemic challenges.
 
Instinctive said:
Some of this is pretty simple isn't it? Especially the lawyers should understand. It is WAY easier and WAY less liability to have blanket policies, especially at a government job. Having no idea how good each of our FBGs are, I kind of assume you're "a-level" employees. MOST people are B and C level employees.

So while "as long as you get your work done" is the ideal policy, it doesn't really work for B and C level employees. And you open yourself up to disparate treatment issues, to general complaints, etc if you let some people have what is then viewed as special treatment. It's hard enough as is to get rid of government employees who aren't doing their jobs, and WFH just makes it harder. It SUCKS that this is also likely to force out some talented people, especially those "a-level" ones that are not easily replaceable.

As to the talent issue...I think this will probably cut both ways. I work with flag officers, military civilians (a lot of SES, but obviously their teams too) and civilian agency SES and 11s-14s. The most common things I hear from them, and from partners at my firm who exited to government and boomeranged back, are that they are saddled with underperformers they can't get rid of. That the other true believers and the mission are huge drivers of meaning, but the laziness/incompetence that basically gets rewarded instead of punished is extremely demotivating.

I just thought long and hard about an offer from DOGE when someone I knew took a senior leadership position there and pinged me. I think if I didn't have 3 more months of pat leave and 4+ months of "search" time after that, I'd have taken it. But that cost is too high. I think it's probably the most exciting place to be right now if you want to make a difference in some of these long-plaguing systemic challenges.
Click to expand...
DOGE's mandate was reduced to improving federal IT systems, if you weren't aware.
 
thecatch said:
Instinctive said:
Some of this is pretty simple isn't it? Especially the lawyers should understand. It is WAY easier and WAY less liability to have blanket policies, especially at a government job. Having no idea how good each of our FBGs are, I kind of assume you're "a-level" employees. MOST people are B and C level employees.

So while "as long as you get your work done" is the ideal policy, it doesn't really work for B and C level employees. And you open yourself up to disparate treatment issues, to general complaints, etc if you let some people have what is then viewed as special treatment. It's hard enough as is to get rid of government employees who aren't doing their jobs, and WFH just makes it harder. It SUCKS that this is also likely to force out some talented people, especially those "a-level" ones that are not easily replaceable.

As to the talent issue...I think this will probably cut both ways. I work with flag officers, military civilians (a lot of SES, but obviously their teams too) and civilian agency SES and 11s-14s. The most common things I hear from them, and from partners at my firm who exited to government and boomeranged back, are that they are saddled with underperformers they can't get rid of. That the other true believers and the mission are huge drivers of meaning, but the laziness/incompetence that basically gets rewarded instead of punished is extremely demotivating.

I just thought long and hard about an offer from DOGE when someone I knew took a senior leadership position there and pinged me. I think if I didn't have 3 more months of pat leave and 4+ months of "search" time after that, I'd have taken it. But that cost is too high. I think it's probably the most exciting place to be right now if you want to make a difference in some of these long-plaguing systemic challenges.
Click to expand...
DOGE's mandate was reduced to improving federal IT systems, if you weren't aware.
Click to expand...
Yeah but that's still a pretty sweeping change isn't it? I think a good operator could make a lot of impact and get away with calling it modernization of systems.
 
Instinctive said:
thecatch said:
Instinctive said:
Some of this is pretty simple isn't it? Especially the lawyers should understand. It is WAY easier and WAY less liability to have blanket policies, especially at a government job. Having no idea how good each of our FBGs are, I kind of assume you're "a-level" employees. MOST people are B and C level employees.

So while "as long as you get your work done" is the ideal policy, it doesn't really work for B and C level employees. And you open yourself up to disparate treatment issues, to general complaints, etc if you let some people have what is then viewed as special treatment. It's hard enough as is to get rid of government employees who aren't doing their jobs, and WFH just makes it harder. It SUCKS that this is also likely to force out some talented people, especially those "a-level" ones that are not easily replaceable.

As to the talent issue...I think this will probably cut both ways. I work with flag officers, military civilians (a lot of SES, but obviously their teams too) and civilian agency SES and 11s-14s. The most common things I hear from them, and from partners at my firm who exited to government and boomeranged back, are that they are saddled with underperformers they can't get rid of. That the other true believers and the mission are huge drivers of meaning, but the laziness/incompetence that basically gets rewarded instead of punished is extremely demotivating.

I just thought long and hard about an offer from DOGE when someone I knew took a senior leadership position there and pinged me. I think if I didn't have 3 more months of pat leave and 4+ months of "search" time after that, I'd have taken it. But that cost is too high. I think it's probably the most exciting place to be right now if you want to make a difference in some of these long-plaguing systemic challenges.
Click to expand...
DOGE's mandate was reduced to improving federal IT systems, if you weren't aware.
Click to expand...
Yeah but that's still a pretty sweeping change isn't it? I think a good operator could make a lot of impact and get away with calling it modernization of systems.
Click to expand...
Would be welcome by everybody but will cost billions (more??) which I thought was against the point.
 
belljr said:
Capella said:
belljr said:
Wait until you see the new email. It's straight from Twitter.....comply or resign
Click to expand...
It doesn’t really say that it’s more of an insane buyout but it’s not really a buyout you still have to work?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Interesting. Probably a decent deal for those who moved away from their office and aren’t too far into their career. Or people who are struggling to figure out child care.
 
I don't want to go into too much detail, but the part about staying requires changes to your status or possibly no guarantees you'll have a job if you want to stay etc
 
belljr said:
I don't want to go into too much detail, but the part about staying requires changes to your status or possibly no guarantees you'll have a job if you want to stay etc
Click to expand...
Nah, they overplayed their hand. They are offering this bc they know they can’t actually fire people. Also, we are under a CR until like March or whatever, they don’t even have the money to make these promises. You could hit the resign button tomorrow and then in 6 weeks they can say oops we don’t have the money kthx.
 
Capella said:
belljr said:
I don't want to go into too much detail, but the part about staying requires changes to your status or possibly no guarantees you'll have a job if you want to stay etc
Click to expand...
Nah, they overplayed their hand. They are offering this bc they know they can’t actually fire people. Also, we are under a CR until like March or whatever, they don’t even have the money to make these promises. You could hit the resign button tomorrow and then in 6 weeks they can say oops we don’t have the money kthx.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I hadn’t thought about the CR. Now I’m wondering if they’ll try to force a long shutdown and even try to not provide back pay.
 
Instinctive said:
It SUCKS that this is also likely to force out some talented people, especially those "a-level" ones that are not easily replaceable.
Click to expand...

Instinctive said:
the laziness/incompetence that basically gets rewarded instead of punished is extremely demotivating.
Click to expand...

That’s the rub. Most likely, the lazier people will stay. You’ll have some true believers and those who value service and some benefits more remain, but the people most likely to leave are the proactive and innovative ones. I mentioned earlier, we’ve already lost two great employees.
 
I have a coworker thinking about taking the offer. He wasn’t eligible to retire until March of 2027. He comes to the office every day so it’s not the work from home part driving his decision. He has 35 years in and wants to retire early and find a part time job and live happily ever after. Says he will still come to work until 30 September also. He asked if I thought there could/would be repercussions from supervisors or command from taking the out. I don’t have those answers. Anyone think this could be frowned upon from supervisory positions when everyone gets into the office tomorrow.
 
I just saw the email on Reddit. So it’s not severance? It’s a “get out of RTO” offer? You agree to quit by 9/30 in exchange for not having to return to the office, but you still are working.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dennis Castro
Am I being catfished?
2 3
Replies
120
Views
2K
BLOCKED_PUNT
BLOCKED_PUNT
SWC
sick of being sick
2
Replies
53
Views
685
Mrs. Rannous
Mrs. Rannous
Corporation
I need help for a friend in a desperate situation in California
Replies
13
Views
585
Major
Major

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 3, guests: 2)
Back
Top