Govt Work at Home May Be Over

OccamsRazor

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.
If you signed a Telework agreement... ANY telework agreement through PAX (local or remote) there is a stipulation that is agreed to that you can be recalled to PAX for any reason and at any time. At least that is what the SES told me when we were discussing it.
I simply cannot follow your reasoning.
Simple. You posted:
  • Among all federal employees, excluding remote workers that do not have a work-site to
    report to, 79.4% of regular, working hours were spent in-person.
And I asked "If they have no work site to report to, then WHERE ARE THEY SPENDING THEIR TIME "IN PERSON?"

So, non-remote teleworking federal employees are spending almost 80% of their work time reporting in-person to NOWHERE?
 

DaSDGuy

Well-Known Member
If you signed a Telework agreement... ANY telework agreement through PAX (local or remote) there is a stipulation that is agreed to that you can be recalled to PAX for any reason and at any time. At least that is what the SES told me when we were discussing it.

Simple. You posted:
  • Among all federal employees, excluding remote workers that do not have a work-site to
    report to, 79.4% of regular, working hours were spent in-person.
And I asked "If they have no work site to report to, then WHERE ARE THEY SPENDING THEIR TIME "IN PERSON?"

So, non-remote teleworking federal employees are spending almost 80% of their work time reporting in-person to NOWHERE?
They are spending their time working at a remote location. They report at a remote location. Not really difficult to understand that, is it?
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
PREMO 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.

Some years back the entire site of our compound went through asbestos abatement - at any given time, as much as half of the building was empty. But never fear! We were still there - just either in trailers or other offices we rented out - or in a few cases, crammed into another building on site.

Occupancy rate doesn't say anything.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
If you signed a Telework agreement... ANY telework agreement through PAX (local or remote) there is a stipulation that is agreed to that you can be recalled to PAX for any reason and at any time. At least that is what the SES told me when we were discussing it.

I don't work at PAX. I have no knowledge of these.

Simple. You posted:
  • Among all federal employees, excluding remote workers that do not have a work-site to
    report to, 79.4% of regular, working hours were spent in-person.
And I asked "If they have no work site to report to, then WHERE ARE THEY SPENDING THEIR TIME "IN PERSON?"

So, non-remote teleworking federal employees are spending almost 80% of their work time reporting in-person to NOWHERE?
STILL not following you. REMOTE workers don't have a site - non-remote ones - do. I don't see your confusion.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
They are spending their time working at a remote location. They report at a remote location. Not really difficult to understand that, is it?
We have THAT also - usually for those for whom a remote office that isn't home is more convenient. I've never used those.
Some people do NOT have a home setup OR a home suitable for telework, so they report to an office away from HQ.
 

stgislander

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
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.
If I remember correctly, all these expenses can still be charged back to your employer.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
If I remember correctly, all these expenses can still be charged back to your employer.
If that's true I don't know anyone who has ever done that. I suspect I might be missing out on a tax break or two also.
FWIW - all of my telework equipment - laptop, headphones etc - are from work. I agree to take care of them.
 

stgislander

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
If that's true I don't know anyone who has ever done that. I suspect I might be missing out on a tax break or two also.
FWIW - all of my telework equipment - laptop, headphones etc - are from work. I agree to take care of them.
But you can still write them off on your taxes correct?
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
But you can still write them off on your taxes correct?
No I think I can claim an office space on taxes - maybe. I suspect it only pertains to running a home business.
I think the tax laws allow you to deduct the percentage of the home used as an office and deduct accordingly.
AND - I think it just pertains to stuff like rent or mortgage - not toilet paper or heat.

I think I looked years ago and decided I wasn't eligible. I'm on eleven years of working partly from home.
 

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
Simple. You posted:
  • Among all federal employees, excluding remote workers that do not have a work-site to
    report to, 79.4% of regular, working hours were spent in-person.

So, non-remote teleworking federal employees are spending almost 80% of their work time reporting in-person to NOWHERE?
Do you not see the word excluding in there?

 

LtownTaxpayer

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
Depending on why they were condemned, you may see a miraculous resurrection of those buildings. Our mom worked for PW at Pax River. There were multiple buildings that were condemned and later brought back on line. If one board was left of the original, it was repair work. Chiefs Club is the classic example.
 

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
Depending on why they were condemned, you may see a miraculous resurrection of those buildings. Our mom worked for PW at Pax River. There were multiple buildings that were condemned and later brought back on line. If one board was left of the original, it was repair work. Chiefs Club is the classic example.
Oh they are gone now, one is a flat field and another had a parking lot built over it with a new building nearby.
 

OccamsRazor

Well-Known Member
Do you not see the word excluding in there?

Regardless, I still think its BS.

80% of their time was spent in-person? Laughable :killingmeUnless the "in-person" part means they actually were inside their home instead of at Target or building their deck.
 

thurley42

HY;FR
Depending on why they were condemned, you may see a miraculous resurrection of those buildings. Our mom worked for PW at Pax River. There were multiple buildings that were condemned and later brought back on line. If one board was left of the original, it was repair work. Chiefs Club is the classic example.
My office is in a bldg that was formerly condemned. We secured the funding to renovate it and now it only looks condemned from the outside.....can't have people driving by and seeing something nice....
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
For your consideration ...


Please let us know which bodily orifice you pulled that 20% error rate amount.


I was simply saying to reduce the calculable possible building occupancy rate by 20% in response to Prople's Elbow post of me, "making the assumption building capacity is the number of employees they have."

If the total of all those building's occupancy capacity, is a possible 38,433 employees, let's say that instead of the assumption that 38,433 people occupy every available work space, at the total possible capacity, reduce it by 20%, 7,686, to get to 30,746 people working instead. Meaning a more likely number of people that actually fill those seats to account for a more probable occupancy count.
 

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
My office is in a bldg that was formerly condemned. We secured the funding to renovate it and now it only looks condemned from the outside.....can't have people driving by and seeing something nice....
That is so true, we renovated a building and someone more important came along and took it afterward. My boss was sitting in his office and some guy just came in and started measuring it.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
That is so true, we renovated a building and someone more important came along and took it afterward. My boss was sitting in his office and some guy just came in and started measuring it.
Many years ago I got laid off under similar circumstances. A new division head came into my office - never even spoke to me. I had a large corner office to myself because my office mates had retired or relocated. He looked around. The next day I was laid off - and he moved in.
 
Top