Technically we are not teleworking and we are not working from home. We are working from remote locations. That will still be allowed. Nothing will change for those of us working from remote locations.
Last edited:
Govt Work at Home May Be Over
- Thread starter Sneakers
- Start date
OccamsRazor
Well-Known Member
That's some word gymnastics there....
If you are not in-person/office OR on official orders you are either..
- Teleworking - Local
- Teleworking - Remote
PeoplesElbow
Well-Known Member
Telework is local with the ability to come into the office with little notice (commuting distance).
Remote work can be anywhere with no expectation on ever being able to be in the office, getting the locality pay for wherever it is you live.
Remote work can be anywhere with no expectation on ever being able to be in the office, getting the locality pay for wherever it is you live.
Exactly.
WingsOfGold
Well-Known Member
Exactly my point, more to this. The head of the organization was a frequent flyer to her house. Non profits need to be monitored much closer.
Grumpy
Well-Known Member
Coast Guard Rescue Swimmer Disappointed He Can No Longer Work From Home
SAN DIEGO, CA — As President Trump issued an order requiring all government employees to return to work in person, one rescue swimmer for the United States Coast Guard expressed disappointment that he could no longer work from home.
babylonbee.com
BOP
Well-Known Member
I got out just before the lottery desk thing; I was dreading it if I had to work another 3 years.
PeoplesElbow
Well-Known Member
You are making the assumption building capacity is the number of employees they have.For your consideration ...
For the class:
Here are some real numbers of very low building utilization percentages ...
Total seating capacity for all listed HQ's = 38,433. Actual occupancy usage total for all HQ's = 2,759. Which is an overall occupancy rate of 7.17%. Which means that about 92.83% of federal workers did not go to their offices. 92%, did not go to their offices!!! That is super crazy.
But just think of the economic revitalization of downtown DC with just those 38 thousand plus returning to their offices? In addition, I'm guessing that a whole bunch of those work from home people that bought newer/new low mpg cars/SUV's/trucks/EV's while skimming from home, will be traded in for better gas mileage vehicles. It's an economic win all around.
Correct. That is the definition we use.
Since we were required to add two more agencies to our overcrowded building - we began “hoteling” ten years ago. I have no permanent place at work but until a few years ago, I shared the same desk with three to four others. The fourth depended on an as needed basis.
People don’t all go in the same day.That would be stupid. And impossible. With two MORE agencies moved in, there just isn’t room, and will always be a problem during decennial years (staff increases a lot during those years).
The ones braying the most about this are saying this will result in a reduction in total employment. Not efficiency. That isn’t explained. But the persons MOST likely affected are non bargaining unit people - upper management. The people most likely to be urged out are upper managers, And with the freeze they won’t be replaced. We ALREADY have positions left open -that now won’t be filled.
People don’t all go in the same day.That would be stupid. And impossible. With two MORE agencies moved in, there just isn’t room, and will always be a problem during decennial years (staff increases a lot during those years).
The ones braying the most about this are saying this will result in a reduction in total employment. Not efficiency. That isn’t explained. But the persons MOST likely affected are non bargaining unit people - upper management. The people most likely to be urged out are upper managers, And with the freeze they won’t be replaced. We ALREADY have positions left open -that now won’t be filled.
Callingon these numbers...
I simply cannot follow your reasoning.
Lots of federal workers do not telework at all. They always have a desk. Not all agencies - or federal jobs - CAN be done via telework. You can’t be a groundskeeper or prison guard or border patrol from a desk at home. Those kinds of jobs are the majority.
But there are, say, small agencies where virtually all work is done on a computer. GSA years ago began consolidating these and initiated telework so they didn’t have to pay for office space. In our area, we had several HUNDREDS in nearby offices which we rented. No longer. With shared desks, they’re now with us.
If we have to all be present at once - it WILL mean getting that office space again. And a big expense putting everyone in. Again.
Lots of agencies are geek heavy. It’s all computers. Like the IRS. Others not so much.
We WERE saving money. Now we’ll be wasting it again. I’ve said many times - if the PROBLEM is lazy workers, it doesn’t do anything to make them come in. There were lazy workers BEFORE we had computers. The problem isn’t telework. The problem is no one will get rid of lazy do nothing workers.
To me this is like slapping all the kids in class because one kid is acting up. You’ll piss off the good kids to leave - and you’ll just have the bad kids.
LightRoasted
If I may ...
For your consideration ...
Ok. Account for a 20% error rate, and that is still way too many employees not going to the office.
Ok. Account for a 20% error rate, and that is still way too many employees not going to the office.
Please let us know which bodily orifice you pulled that 20% error rate amount.
22AcaciaAve
Well-Known Member
Why? What difference does it make if someone does their job from their home, any remote location or an office, if the job is done to expected standards? That goes for government workers and private sector workers. As an American taxpayer I want the government to have the smallest possible physical footprint as possible. Why not let your employees pay for their office expenses, the cost to heat their workspaces, even their toilet paper. That's all money that I the taxpayer does not have to pay. Same goes for the private sector. Smaller footprint means less expenses.
As was pointed out, there are many jobs that cannot be done through telework. If telework is a top priority then don't apply for them. Some jobs can be done by telework so why not reap those benefits. If an employees work isn't up to expectations then take actions to correct it or terminate that employee.
I would think a good deal of government jobs are not telework possible since they are customer service type of jobs. But I would also think that some agencies that are IT heavy probably could be done through telework. I don't know why people wouldn't want to stop spending the money to have those people on site.
Seems like that should be something the Department of Government Efficiency should understand.
PeoplesElbow
Well-Known Member
It's as much about personal feelings as anything.
Figure out what work actually needs to get done and go from there.
black dog
Free America
Get ready, the new HNIC will be making changes for the next 4 years.
I just found out this week that a guy I've worked with for YEARS - lives in Tennessee. Possibly the smartest statistician I've yet worked with.
No way he is commuting from Nashville. (Ditto a woman I work with from Atlanta).
These people were HIRED as remote workers. I have no idea how we can replace them, especially with a hiring freeze.
Some people are just simply wedded to the idea you need to do things a certain way. In person meetings - a lot could still be done by Teams EVEN IF THEY ARE ONSITE. A day of meetings for me has always been a day mostly wasted, since the bulk of most meetings deal with things my job or input have no bearing.
A good example is one I've used before - churches, or rather, the church "sanctuary" itself. I've served as a trustee for a church - we spend an ENORMOUS amount of the budget on everything related to upkeep of that part of the church (assuming the church has other classrooms, meeting rooms, maybe a gym). Heat or cooling alone of such a large space is challenging enough. I've long said they should be re-purposed as multi-functional since it is absurd to squander so much of the donor's money on a room used for an hour a week. But far too many people are HORRIFIED at the idea that a room where God is worshipped might function as a daycare the rest of the week. They're locked into the idea that things MUST be done a certain way.
I know I've been there - lots of government agencies now outsource their HR, payroll and travel. Why should the agency's mission be locked up paying people to do something an outside source can do better - faster - and cheaper? I resisted the idea - because - well nothing - convinced that it would be risky to let an outside source use that data.
They SHOULD. I do think if the PURPOSE is efficiency - they should consider finding ways to punish poor performance and reward good performance. I've worked private industry. You get a good review - you get a raise. Maybe a promotion. In the government - you - you get a number. And it might apply to a year end bonus, but in most cases, the budget determines if you're ever awarded ANYTHING. YOU DO NOT GET A PROMOTION EVER from doing a good job. There are rules and procedures and SHOULD a position becomes available, you must apply for it - and management cannot even SUGGEST it to you, much less recommend you.
The government's whole system rewards mediocrity and discourages innovation - although it does happen. I have a plaque my Dad earned for saving jobs that were scheduled to be moved (to PAX). No money. Just an award.
EFFICIENCY involves getting rid of bad workers, rewarding good ones and encouraging innovation and hard work. EVERYTHING because of regulations - DISCOURAGES that. What DOGE is trying to do is get rid of people - but they're using a flamethrower when they need a handgun. Since non bargain unit people - management - are the most likely targets - they will lose talent while keeping the dross they need to expunge.
It is NOT "efficient". It's using a one size fits all answer.
The number of seats a building can hold has no relevance to "number of persons teleworking or remote working". There are lots of buildings in DC - and elsewhere - that have high vacancy for lots of reasons. I know there's one in L'Enfant that keeps getting scheduled for demolition, but it's not empty yet. Others are being gutted and renovated - and the employees are NOT working from home, they're just set up elsewhere in town until the renovation finishes.
When OPM releases a report declaring, this agency has this many people doing telework or remote work - believe them. The agency has signed agreements with employments with expiration dates. Those numbers are KNOWN.
It's scary - but the federal government has THOUSANDS of empty or nearly empty buildings and warehouses - and some have been vacant for decades - or even more incredulously - MAINTAINED. And WE STILL HEAT them and pump electric into them. THAT is waste. THOSE buildings need to be sold or demolished.
PeoplesElbow
Well-Known Member
Ive known a couple empty buildings on base, it has nothing to do with employment or teleworking, they are basically condemned and awaiting the slow government process of approval to be torn down and replaced.
Want to see an unused government facility go to Lakehurst, the government could get a ton for that land, except it would probably be an EPA Superfund site before it could be released by the government. I was told not to drink the water (never do at military bases). It seriously looks like a landscape from The Walking Dead