Govt Work at Home May Be Over

[Gilligan]

A methodology that is representative of the universe. Kind of why neither completely random selection - or sampling highly biased selection - is going to be accurate.

I was well on my way to my MS focused on statistical methods and data analysis at one point in my life. Life ( wife, baby and need to gain employment immediately) killed it off. I was so close that I always meant to go back and finish. That aside, one of my primary roles over my career was the utilization of advanced analysis methods and interpretation of same.

I claim that all of that gives me wide latitude in pointing and laffing at what mainstream media and talking heads do to massacre or otherwise misuse data and statistics.

Might be genetic, but one of my daughters has a PhD in very advanced data analysis, developing and employing new techniques and proving them out in her 2 years of research and her thesis work. The very cool and useful part of all that is her work/research was focused on the analyses/assessment of causation/correlation. In a nutshell, her methods accurately assess whether action A really had an outcome on B. Her work has debunked a ton of false conclusions reached in various police and service agencies and is becoming a routine part of assessing the effects of any program or activity. Example (won't mention the police dept..not one around here):

PoPo: look, we spent 2 million bucks on this community outreach and intervention program and wow!...the number of domestic violence calls decreased.
Causation Conclusion: Sorry..the decline cannot be attributed to that because of a), b), c)

 

[SamSpade]

Is it seriously your contention that businesses are going to re-invest millions of dollars to bring people back to the office in order to get them to quit?? What kind of hair-brained idea is that??

It is HAIR BRAINED, isn't it? Do you need quotes? That is the precise and repeated reason given by the federal government. By DOGE. This is intended to reduce the federal workforce by - pissing them off.

I have no idea why these other companies might do that - my guess - is that rather than shut down, they went remote work during the pandemic and brought them back. My pther - presumption - is that they performed jobs not well suited to remote work.

- The US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!!

BUT NOT TO SAVE MONEY. They have repeated their reason. They want to reduce the workforce. That's straight from Vivek. THAT is the reason.

There's already reports coming in to the Senate challenging this approach, because it's hair-brained (your words).

That - plus in the case of my agency - impossible - since during the hiatus, they reconfigured 2.5 million square feet of office space to work towards telework. They can't bring everyone back five days a week - because there's no place to sit.

I guess they must have made THAT decision - I don't know - based on output and performance?

I've been teleworking for over ten years - about 80% - before the pandemic.

 

[SamSpade]

Funny how you don't have the same to say about those with the opposing viewpoint. Pick sides much?

When you state you won't ever be convinced, you kind of obviate the need to discuss anything.
That's really the very definition of a CLOSED mind - as in, I won't change my mind no matter what is presented.

 

[SamSpade]

She just gets a queue of work that has to be done and that's it. Bonuses for exceeding the quota so many weeks in a row.

We have a huge project list with every facet of each project broken down into about a thousand smaller tasks, with approximate start times, actual start times and finishes. We go over it weekly with the entire project staff, and then afterward with the smaller staff and report progress - and discuss problems that we encounter. We then have to write up what we do and send it up the chain, and we record each hour of our work.

Even if I wanted to loaf - I can't because my completion of one task is the start of another, for someone else. Think of it like an assembly line - if one person doesn't do their job, everyone down the line gets stymied.

It's been working fine for ten to fifteen years online, and ten years before that.

Frankly - it gets done faster and more people are informed more quickly.

 

[OccamsRazor]

It is HAIR BRAINED, isn't it? Do you need quotes? That is the precise and repeated reason given by the federal government. By DOGE. This is intended to reduce the federal workforce by - pissing them off.

Wouldn't mind seeing where Vivek or anyone else has said "We are going to restructure and invest (YES.. invest as many government and commercial business owned facilities were closed down, shut down, and sold off) in order to "Piss people off into quitting."

Most of the companies that I listed (as requested) are the most profitable in the world. All of them seemed to do quite well during the Flu-demic. So, why do you think THEY are requiring a return to work? To get people to quit like Vivek?? No, it is because they are not seeing the production that they require with the WFH model.

YOU might be kicking a$$ while working at home and you may not be happy with a call to return to office BUT, apparently, many people who make decisions for the largest and most profitable companies IN THE WORLD disagree with you.

When you state you won't ever be convinced, you kind of obviate the need to discuss anything.
That's really the very definition of a CLOSED mind - as in, I won't change my mind no matter what is presented.

So because I actually STATED it, I am the only one with a closed mind??? Seems there are some (cough.. cough) that have proven to be exactly the same with their posted opinions on the contrary.

 

[SamSpade]

Wouldn't mind seeing where Vivek or anyone else has said "We are going to restructure and invest (YES.. invest as many government and commercial business owned facilities were closed down, shut down, and sold off) in order to "Piss people off into quitting."

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/24/politics/federal-workers-remote-telecommute-doge/index.html

I can cite dozens of such articles. THAT - is their reasoning. Reduce the force by getting them to quit. People usually don't quit because they're happy with the arrangement.

Most of the companies that I listed (as requested) are the most profitable in the world. All of them seemed to do quite well during the Flu-demic. So, why do you think THEY are requiring a return to work? To get people to quit like Vivek?? No, it is because they are not seeing the production that they require with the WFH model.

Good for them. More power to them. Doesn't work the same everywhere. I've already stated my agency invested HEAVILY into restructuring 2.5 million square feet into workstations designed for "hoteling" or shared stations, because most would be teleworking. Did Apple make a mistake? Did my agency? How about other companies that are entirely - online?

YOU might be kicking a$$ while working at home and you may not be happy with a call to return to office

Thanks. I am, Been doing it for more than ten years.

BUT, apparently, many people who make decisions for the largest and most profitable companies IN THE WORLD disagree with you.

They disagree - regarding their workforce, and their companies' mission. My brother, prior to his stint as a teacher - sold auto parts - in large batches, to garages and repair outfits. Entirely by phone. Worked well, since he is in a wheelchair. Other sister is a travel agent - all online.

So because I actually STATED it, I am the only one with a closed mind???

I have the weird distinction of actually BEING someone who works from home. I think I have a better perspective. I've stated repeatedly - my job isn't affected by its location. I use my laptop at home. I *take* my laptop into headquarters. Only difference is, I have to use a cable to lock it to the station - but in every other respect, the work I do does not change. The process of accounting for my work - does not change. Since meetings are held online with staff from around the country - data centers, field work - meetings are all online. NOTHING CHANGES.

I work with staff that have been working almost entirely online - for five or more years - sometimes, more than ten years.

I don't usually care for the "appeal to authority" line of argumentation - but simply put - I have a lot more knowledge of OUR situation, than you do. I routinely work with about four or five dozen people who are all online. And we never miss a deadline.

Good for Apple - or whomever else - my situation is entirely of math and computer geeks. One day, all of our jobs will be WFH.
Huge office centers WILL be the Blockbuster Videos of the future.

 

[Czar]

Meetings conducted online not only save time and money but technology can make them vastly better. We’re sharing screens and data much better than using overheads.

True. You can have these meetings in the office.

 

[TPD]

BUT NOT TO SAVE MONEY. They have repeated their reason. They want to reduce the workforce. That's straight from Vivek. THAT is the reason.

ah but in the 3rd paragraph of the CNN article you linked:

Musk and Ramaswamy, whom President-elect Donald Trump named to head the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), made clear in a Wall Street Journal op-edWednesday that they think requiring in-person work will save the US money, which is one of the nongovernmental entity’s central missions.

 

[OccamsRazor]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/24/politics/federal-workers-remote-telecommute-doge/index.html

I can cite dozens of such articles. THAT - is their reasoning. Reduce the force by getting them to quit. People usually don't quit because they're happy with the arrangement.




Good for them. More power to them. Doesn't work the same everywhere. I've already stated my agency invested HEAVILY into restructuring 2.5 million square feet into workstations designed for "hoteling" or shared stations, because most would be teleworking. Did Apple make a mistake? Did my agency? How about other companies that are entirely - online?


Thanks. I am, Been doing it for more than ten years.


They disagree - regarding their workforce, and their companies' mission. My brother, prior to his stint as a teacher - sold auto parts - in large batches, to garages and repair outfits. Entirely by phone. Worked well, since he is in a wheelchair. Other sister is a travel agent - all online.

I have the weird distinction of actually BEING someone who works from home. I think I have a better perspective. I've stated repeatedly - my job isn't affected by its location. I use my laptop at home. I *take* my laptop into headquarters. Only difference is, I have to use a cable to lock it to the station - but in every other respect, the work I do does not change. The process of accounting for my work - does not change. Since meetings are held online with staff from around the country - data centers, field work - meetings are all online. NOTHING CHANGES.

I work with staff that have been working almost entirely online - for five or more years - sometimes, more than ten years.

I don't usually care for the "appeal to authority" line of argumentation - but simply put - I have a lot more knowledge of OUR situation, than you do. I routinely work with about four or five dozen people who are all online. And we never miss a deadline.

Good for Apple - or whomever else - my situation is entirely of math and computer geeks. One day, all of our jobs will be WFH.
Huge office centers WILL be the Blockbuster Videos of the future.

I honestly do not know what else you could be looking for to see or at the very least acknowledge the issue from my perspective. I can understand your view on the micro level but I am speaking of macro.
I have provided personal observations, work related examples from my level, listed large corporations calling for RTO, sound reasoning for decisions to RTO, and on and on.

Apparently, you just seem to know better than the decision makers at Apple, Facebook, Amazon, IBM, etc.

 

[SamSpade]

ah but in the 3rd paragraph of the CNN article you linked:

YEP. Read that. By reducing the workforce.

QUOTE -
"Requiring federal employees to come to the office five days a week would result in a wave of voluntary terminations that we welcome: If federal employees don’t want to show up, American taxpayers shouldn’t pay them for the Covid-era privilege of staying home."

The single reference to telework - the rest of the article deals with the rest of their plan, such as eliminating needless regulations.

I do get tired - of the federal workforce being the thing people like to jab at, when they want to cut costs in government.
We have a six TRILLION DOLLAR budget, approaching seven trillion. The entire cost of federal employees is under 300 billion.
If you fired every single one and gambled the government will run itself - you still don't save hardly anything.

During the Obama era - when the average salary across the nation rose a paltry 3% a year - Obama gave us zero for three years straight, and followed up with 1% for the next four years. Hiring freeze? We're pretty much always under a hiring freeze. They cut our budgets and everyone shouts hurray - but get frustrated when government services slow down - because we have to do the same job with antiquated software, equipment and fewer people.

To ME - if I wanted to save on my budget - yes, I would eliminate stuff we DON'T NEED. But I would then go after the big budget parts - the gas and electric - the cable and Internet - save on mortgage and insurance - and yeah, groceries. I wouldn't futz with turning off the garage light.

 

[TPD]

"Requiring federal employees to come to the office five days a week would result in a wave of voluntary terminations that we welcome: If federal employees don’t want to show up, American taxpayers shouldn’t pay them for the Covid-era privilege of staying home."

Why are you worried about a return to the office - the last sentence spells it out for you. You have stated you have been teleworking for 10+ years, so you are not the target of Vivek and Elon.

 

[SamSpade]

Apparently, you just seem to know better than the decision makers at Apple, Facebook, Amazon, IBM, etc.

And I have never said it, or implied it. YOU are saying that. And you're saying I am saying that. I am talking about my situation. I don't recall speaking even for the rest of government, except to say some of what you've read about it is simply incorrect.

Government IT work is not the same as other companies. Government data processing - is not the same as those companies, which while full of geeks are also full of salespeople, phone support, advertising execs and so on. We don't do that. We crunch data. Some of those companies, I really wouldn't be surprised if they outsource some of their IT or HR work - to people who never come into their office.

I don't know how you believe you can speak on a macro level, except to quote that some other companies have curtailed or ended their remote work. That isn't a trend, it's an observation and a logical one to observe coming off the last few years of a pandemic. LOTS of people are returning to the office and a lot of them were NOT teleworking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[vraiblonde]

So my understanding is:

You worked in the office before covid.
WFH during covid and since.
Don't want to go back to the office, even though that was the agreement when you were hired.

Is that correct?

Regardless, I haven't seen where ALL WFH are going to have to go back to an office. I see no need to flip out about until if/when it happens.

 

[SamSpade]

Why are you worried about a return to the office - the last sentence spells it out for you. You have stated you have been teleworking for 10+ years, so you are not the target of Vivek and Elon.

I've already been back to the office. But I am well aware of how wide a scythe people wield when they target federal employees. Seniority has not been a guarantor of job security. Ask my - former - boss.

 

[Merlin99]

And I have never said it, or implied it. YOU are saying that. And you're saying I am saying that. I am talking about my situation. I don't recall speaking even for the rest of government, except to say some of what you've read about it is simply incorrect.

Government IT work is not the same as other companies. Government data processing - is not the same as those companies, which while full of geeks are also full of salespeople, phone support, advertising execs and so on. We don't do that. We crunch data. Some of those companies, I really wouldn't be surprised if they outsource some of their IT or HR work - to people who never come into their office.

I don't know how you believe you can speak on a macro level, except to quote that some other companies have curtailed or ended their remote work. That isn't a trend, it's an observation and a logical one to observe coming off the last few years of a pandemic. LOTS of people are returning to the office and a lot of them were NOT teleworking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You hung in there for a good long time, eventually they always wear you down because they have unlimited time to argue points that you never made.

 

[SamSpade]

So my understanding is:

You worked in the office before covid.
WFH during covid and since.
Don't want to go back to the office, even though that was the agreement when you were hired.

Is that correct?

Regardless, I haven't seen where ALL WFH are going to have to go back to an office. I see no need to flip out about until if/when it happens.

Assuming you're talking to me.

We already have a requirement of returning. I've already been back a few days this month.

I did NOT work in the office before COVID - i was mostly telework. When COVID hit, it went from 75% to 100%,
I DID have an agreement - a telework agreement.
They were running out of space, and they invited me to consider WFH as alternative to working on site. Surprisingly - it was a tough choice for me.
I didn't regret it.

COVID hit years later. They told us to stay home.
EVERY YEAR I sign a new telework agreement.

There was NEVER an agreement - to "return" - as I wasn't there before COVID. There was never anything - for me and others like me - to "go back" since - I wasn't there.

However -

This - plan - to get everyone back five days a week is already - likely to be halted in some fashion, because way too many work arrangements are 4/10, max flex and so on. It CANNOT be done at my workplace without renting more office space in town, buying up office furniture, securing parking and the like. It is certain that they will have to compromise.

They can't do this anymore than you can pour ten gallons into a five gallon bucket.

But I never put it past the government to do something - really stupid.

A couple years back they made an announcement - prove you got the vaccine, or you can't return to work, even if remotely. Yeah. THAT makes sense. I knew some people who quit. They reneged on that threat.

 

[SamSpade]

You hung in there for a good long time, eventually they always wear you down because they have unlimited time to argue points that you never made.

You mean, like Democrats claiming you will end birth control?

 

[LightRoasted]

For your consideration ...

ah but in the 3rd paragraph of the CNN article you linked:

Yup. Way too many of these supporting articles that are posted here are opinion articles, (or no by-line op-ed's) written trying to sway public "opinion", and lack real hard facts.

Here's my opinion, regarding government workers ...... This will go one of two ways. Either workers, (hopefully a reduced workforce), will be made to return to working in buildings currently being maintained, with rents still being paid, etc., or those buildings will be scuttled out of GOA inventory, and workers will be allowed to continue to work from home.

However, the caveat, some buildings will still be needed, repurposed, because at times these workers may still need to go to an office building for whatever work related reason. Maybe all that would be needed is one multi-departmental use building?

And from the perpetually offended poster here, "If you fired every single one and gambled the government will run itself - you still don't save hardly anything." You can see here that he is only thinking of himself and doesn't care about the effects upon the taxpayer paying his salary. He's saying it not worth the savings because it's just a pittance of a saving. He's saying he's going to buy the $2 apple over another exact similar apple at $1.75, becasue it's "hardly anything." Savings are savings. And to those that do not have such cushy government jobs, saving money on spending/purchases is absolutely a necessity. As it should be for all governments.

The savings of the paltry Billions and Billions from reducing a bloated government workforce, and closing of certain buildings, can be applied to our failing infrastructure rather than the deadwood workers. So see, savings, any savings, is good!

And his last saying, "I've grown tired of discussing this, so - I'm throwing in the towel. You win." Typical. Run and hide when things nitty and gritty.

 

[TPD]

Every government worker I've ever talked to says the same thing - they do their job effectively and efficiently but there are others in their office/workgroup that don't pull their weight and should be let go. If there is so much dead weight in government, why haven't I ever met one?

 

[vraiblonde]

Assuming you're talking to me.

No, I was commenting in general. I don't understand why *you* are so worked up about this when it doesn't appear that it will affect you.