Govt Work at Home May Be Over

[RoseRed]

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?

They rarely are fired. Instead, they get promoted out. Now they are someone else's problem.

 

[Grumpy]

and going and going..

 

[stgislander]

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?

Walk away. You are like a conservative commenting on Reddit.

 

[TPD]

and going and going..

View attachment 181850

As I said in post #36 - this is a hot button topic...

 

[GURPS]

My job is ALREADY remote - as in, I sit in a workstation and click away on a keyboard. What I do has nothing to do with where I do it. I do actually get a LITTLE more done, simply because I can check in on my day off - check a batch job late at night - answer emails when I am off work - and I DO all of these things, because - like a lot of government - staff is down two people. And the collaborative aspect is something I rely on every single day - something that isn't done more easily in person. When I DO that sort of thing on site - I STILL do it remotely using collaborative software. It's just faster and easier.

Yeah and lots of jobs may be done from home just fine

 

[GURPS]

They rarely are fired. Instead, they get promoted out. Now they are someone else's problem.

Peter Principal

 

[Clem72]

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?

Correct me if I am wrong, but you are in the SOUTH SOUTH of the county, right? So most of the government workers you talk to are employed at Pax or St. Inigoes (or whatever the hell they call it now). I would wager most government employees at both of these locations actually do their job.

If you lived next to the VA headquarters in DC or the SSA in Woodlawn you might hear differently.

 

[SamSpade]

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.

It already has. I had to go in last week.

And I am seeing yeah, “return to office” is not a trend that eschews or halts telework. It’s just bringing people BACK - who were sent home.

Because I am reading something else entirely - companies are expanding hybrid work, which is just a euphemism for “telework SOMETIMES “. They learned during the pandemic that offices are vastly UNDERUSED. So most companies - while asking people to return to work- are looking at ways to reduce their office footprint. And they do this by desk sharing.

Sounds contradictory but it’s not. Expanding hybrid work and still asking the greater part of their workforce to “return”.

 

[PeoplesElbow]

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.

The premise of the entire conversation is "government workers working from home are goofing off and are lazy"

Sam: "I work from home"

Make sense now?

As someone that is in the office at least 90% of the time I don't want most people back in the office, I have far less bullshit to deal with when people aren't here. My work will slow down from useless meetings etc.

 

[OccamsRazor]

The premise of the entire conversation is "government workers working from home are goofing off and are lazy"

Sam: "I work from home"

Make sense now?

As someone that is in the office at least 90% of the time I don't want most people back in the office, I have far less bullshit to deal with when people aren't here. My work will slow down from useless meetings etc.

My points to be made initially were:

1) There are FAR more people NOT pulling their weight in workload when WFH than people think. Overall, in the macro, I think it was a failure.
2) All these people that are blaming middle managers for the RTO initiative are idiots.
3) With MANY uber profitable and successful companies pushing the RTO, the only conceivable reason is that they are NOT seeing the amount of work product that they expect from their WFH personnel.

I am 100% on-board with logical WFH positions remaining that way. I am also 100% in agreement with you that going into the office during COVID (I was 100% in office) was AWESOME. Not having to deal with traffic, useless cube inhabitants, etc.

Bottom line is that overall, WFH was only a band-aid to get us through COVID. After that, it has proven to be a liability in the majority and right now there are just too many people who have gotten used to that 'luxury' and that is why you read and hear all the whining about RTO.

 

[GURPS]

the SSA in Woodlawn you might hear differently.

OMG ... my mother worked here in the late 1960's

 

[vraiblonde]

My points to be made initially were:

1) There are FAR more people NOT pulling their weight in workload when WFH than people think. Overall, in the macro, I think it was a failure.
2) All these people that are blaming middle managers for the RTO initiative are idiots.
3) With MANY uber profitable and successful companies pushing the RTO, the only conceivable reason is that they are NOT seeing the amount of work product that they expect from their WFH personnel.

I am 100% on-board with logical WFH positions remaining that way. I am also 100% in agreement with you that going into the office during COVID (I was 100% in office) was AWESOME. Not having to deal with traffic, useless cube inhabitants, etc.

Bottom line is that overall, WFH was only a band-aid to get us through COVID. After that, it has proven to be a liability in the majority and right now there are just too many people who have gotten used to that 'luxury' and that is why you read and hear all the whining about RTO.

If it were up to me, which it isn't, I'd keep productive WFH people at home. Managers know who can work unsupervised and who can't. The slackers would have to show their face every day, and if they grumble they can find a new job. But since it's government and not real humans making decisions, everything has to be a CF.

I never understood why so many government and contractor types were constantly on travel, especially since a lot of it didn't require a physical presence. That's a huge waste of money, not to mention hard on families.

 

[PeoplesElbow]

My points to be made initially were:

1) There are FAR more people NOT pulling their weight in workload when WFH than people think. Overall, in the macro, I think it was a failure.
2) All these people that are blaming middle managers for the RTO initiative are idiots.
3) With MANY uber profitable and successful companies pushing the RTO, the only conceivable reason is that they are NOT seeing the amount of work product that they expect from their WFH personnel.

I am 100% on-board with logical WFH positions remaining that way. I am also 100% in agreement with you that going into the office during COVID (I was 100% in office) was AWESOME. Not having to deal with traffic, useless cube inhabitants, etc.

Bottom line is that overall, WFH was only a band-aid to get us through COVID. After that, it has proven to be a liability in the majority and right now there are just too many people who have gotten used to that 'luxury' and that is why you read and hear all the whining about RTO.

A lot of those companies already had huge capital investments in property or long term leases. If I was paying for that I would want it to be used too.

 

[SamSpade]

My points to be made initially were:

1) There are FAR more people NOT pulling their weight in workload when WFH than people think. Overall, in the macro, I think it was a failure.

Well, for one - this is always the case in government - WFH or not. I have never seen any evidence that WFH created an explosion of loafing on the job. I think if you goof off and fail to work at home - you will do the same in person. Because I have seen it in action - people NOT doing their job in front of God and everyone.

I think this is conjecture not rooted in anything. If the section's work gets done same as before, you're more likely looking at the SAME thing - some people work, some don't - they go home - they do the same thing.

3) With MANY uber profitable and successful companies pushing the RTO, the only conceivable reason is that they are NOT seeing the amount of work product that they expect from their WFH personnel.

This I think is where we part ways because of one thing -

You are equating WFH as some kind of willful experiment done by all the major companies based on some scatter-brained idea that telework was a preferred idea. And it wasn't. It was forced on them because without it, they could not survive. They are not looking at WFH as an expensive but failed experiment. They always saw it as a temporary situation, even sending people to WFH who in any other situation would NEVER EVER be candidates for it.

I remember my kids doing Zoom meetings for school - and my wife's observation - and other teachers - that way too many skills were forfeited and kid's skills were damaged because of remote learning.

By this measure - we should conclude that schools see remote learning as an utter failure and never go to it again - despite the fact that there are scores of online schools that do this, exclusively. For years.

But they did not CHOOSE to go remote - they were compelled, had to make do, did not have adequate training, planning or anything. The at home school stuff failed, because they could NOT plan.

Ditto businesses. They sent pretty much EVERYONE home, including people who now would not be eligible for telework.

Why do I say that?

Because all of the companies you listed OFFER JOBS TO NEW WORKERS as remote or telework jobs.
IF they saw the entire thing as a boondoggle never to be repeated, they sure as hell wouldn't offer hybrid work or telework to NEW hires - or offer hybrid work to some of their incoming staff. And THAT IS happening.

AGAIN - we have two separate but seemingly related issues - RTO - and WFH. They are not mutually exclusive options for business.

They are NOT saying - all of us tech companies for some damned reason or another - we all heavily invested in making our offices remote places for work. No, they didn't. They sent people up and made up a triage of whatever they could cobble together until the time for people to return. They were NEVER going to see production gains, because they didn't plan things for it.

We - DID. Because we were already headed that way. Because it was ALWAYS part of our plan and we were already doing it.

I guarantee - in my office - loafing and goofing off would be CAUGHT. Because accountability is a LOT MORE than someone saying they're working.

Bottom line is that overall, WFH was only a band-aid to get us through COVID. After that, it has proven to be a liability in the majority and right now there are just too many people who have gotten used to that 'luxury' and that is why you read and hear all the whining about RTO.

And on this - we agree. I wouldn't even say a "liability in the majority" because these same companies are offering WFH work. They just aren't making everyone eligible. Look it up. And they are offering it for something you can EASILY Google - majority of companies trying to reduce their office footprint, because it is vastly underused. THAT is accomplished via hybrid work, and they are doing that.

Again - these issues are NOT the same. You can have "ineligible" workers being told to come back - and still have eligible workers stay at home, work from across the country, even hire new people. It by no means says, WFH was a failure. It's obviously not for everyone, but it does work.

 

[PeoplesElbow]

I never understood why so many government and contractor types were constantly on travel, especially since a lot of it didn't require a physical presence. That's a huge waste of money, not to mention hard on families.

Early in my career I was on travel in Yuma to do some flight testing, it was just a bare bones crew that was needed to do the actual flight testing. After a few weeks the aircraft went to Camp Pendleton, just outside San Diego, that's when several program people came out to monitor progress, except I never seen a single one of them the entire time.

 

[OccamsRazor]

If it were up to me, which it isn't, I'd keep productive WFH people at home. Managers know who can work unsupervised and who can't. The slackers would have to show their face every day, and if they grumble they can find a new job. But since it's government and not real humans making decisions, everything has to be a CF.

I never understood why so many government and contractor types were constantly on travel, especially since a lot of it didn't require a physical presence. That's a huge waste of money, not to mention hard on families.

I agree with most of this. One thing I do want to point out is that Supervisors and Managerial types typically do not want to rock the boat. If they have a stellar performer that is knowledgeable and reliable... they don't want them wandering too far. Keeping the status quo is paramount.

On a side note to your post... I work in conjunction with the GOV and I will say that scamming is a thing. We have a guy that travels around to different site for work purposes. This person ALWAYS arranges their travel in conjunction with Holidays. Why? Because he can make extra pay, incentives, etc. when traveling on or scheduling his site visits on a holiday. Does he have to do it... NOPE. But, he does and management lets him do it (give the OK) because he is a stellar performer and they don't want to lose him. Both know what is happening is wrong. Both choose to ignore it.

 

[SamSpade]

If it were up to me, which it isn't, I'd keep productive WFH people at home. Managers know who can work unsupervised and who can't. The slackers would have to show their face every day, and if they grumble they can find a new job. But since it's government and not real humans making decisions, everything has to be a CF.

I never understood why so many government and contractor types were constantly on travel, especially since a lot of it didn't require a physical presence. That's a huge waste of money, not to mention hard on families.

Remember that - CULT - I was in?

They had this - repulsive - habit - of hosting world conferences in wonderful vacation locations - Paris, Rome, Singapore - and so forth - and the churches would send their leaders - and their families - for a week long meeting - even though the meetings were just a few days.

We were paying the top brass to jet around the world on VACATIONS - expensive ones -

When they could do it all for pennies via teleconference. Yeah, they had that in the 90's.
For all their bluster about asking people to hock their jewelry and sell their vehicles to promote the mission of God -
they could NOT give up their expensirve vacations.

It seriously disgusted me. They DID NOT NEED to go everywhere.

My old division used to require physical presence at their division meetings - which consisted ENTIRELY of brief announcements followed by presentations which would later be available via email. Yeah. So why have the meeting? Top boss said, we had to meet every few months. Period. The division meeting was just an EXCUSE.

 

[OccamsRazor]

Well, for one - this is always the case in government - WFH or not. I have never seen any evidence that WFH created an explosion of loafing on the job. I think if you goof off and fail to work at home - you will do the same in person. Because I have seen it in action - people NOT doing their job in front of God and everyone.

I think this is conjecture not rooted in anything. If the section's work gets done same as before, you're more likely looking at the SAME thing - some people work, some don't - they go home - they do the same thing.



This I think is where we part ways because of one thing -

You are equating WFH as some kind of willful experiment done by all the major companies based on some scatter-brained idea that telework was a preferred idea. And it wasn't. It was forced on them because without it, they could not survive. They are not looking at WFH as an expensive but failed experiment. They always saw it as a temporary situation, even sending people to WFH who in any other situation would NEVER EVER be candidates for it.

I remember my kids doing Zoom meetings for school - and my wife's observation - and other teachers - that way too many skills were forfeited and kid's skills were damaged because of remote learning.

By this measure - we should conclude that schools see remote learning as an utter failure and never go to it again - despite the fact that there are scores of online schools that do this, exclusively. For years.

But they did not CHOOSE to go remote - they were compelled, had to make do, did not have adequate training, planning or anything. The at home school stuff failed, because they could NOT plan.

Ditto businesses. They sent pretty much EVERYONE home, including people who now would not be eligible for telework.

Why do I say that?

Because all of the companies you listed OFFER JOBS TO NEW WORKERS as remote or telework jobs.
IF they saw the entire thing as a boondoggle never to be repeated, they sure as hell wouldn't offer hybrid work or telework to NEW hires - or offer hybrid work to some of their incoming staff. And THAT IS happening.

AGAIN - we have two separate but seemingly related issues - RTO - and WFH. They are not mutually exclusive options for business.

They are NOT saying - all of us tech companies for some damned reason or another - we all heavily invested in making our offices remote places for work. No, they didn't. They sent people up and made up a triage of whatever they could cobble together until the time for people to return. They were NEVER going to see production gains, because they didn't plan things for it.

We - DID. Because we were already headed that way. Because it was ALWAYS part of our plan and we were already doing it.

I guarantee - in my office - loafing and goofing off would be CAUGHT. Because accountability is a LOT MORE than someone saying they're working.


And on this - we agree. I wouldn't even say a "liability in the majority" because these same companies are offering WFH work. They just aren't making everyone eligible. Look it up. And they are offering it for something you can EASILY Google - majority of companies trying to reduce their office footprint, because it is vastly underused. THAT is accomplished via hybrid work, and they are doing that.

Again - these issues are NOT the same. You can have "ineligible" workers being told to come back - and still have eligible workers stay at home, work from across the country, even hire new people. It by no means says, WFH was a failure. It's obviously not for everyone, but it does work.

After this entire screed, I still have the same question...

If WFH had no effect on business, then why the push to RTO?

Are you saying this merely applies to those that are STILL sitting home due to COVID protocols?? People literally twiddling their thumbs and collecting a paycheck because they are responsible for working on rack servers but, Google sent them home for the Flu-demic??

I remember my kids doing Zoom meetings for school - and my wife's observation - and other teachers - that way too many skills were forfeited and kid's skills were damaged because of remote learning.

By this measure - we should conclude that schools see remote learning as an utter failure and never go to it again - despite the fact that there are scores of online schools that do this, exclusively. For years.

Good point. Remind me again... where is class being held right now? And for how long has it been that way?? Remote school learning was abysmal. Which is exactly why at the very first chance they could, they brought them back to the classroom.
COVID has been over for quite a while now (over a YEAR.. closer to 2)

 

[SamSpade]

Good point. Remind me again... where is class being held right now? And for how long has it been that way?? Remote school learning was abysmal. Which is exactly why at the very first chance they could, they brought them back to the classroom.
COVID has been over for quite a while now (over a YEAR.. closer to 2)

It failed not because the model is flawed but because they had no plan for implementation.

Several companies RUN online. Entirely. MANY colleges are entirely online. And they work.

You still seem locked into the idea that every tech firm in the country all said at the same time - hey - let’s dump tons of money into this WFH thing. They didn’t and never intended to. It’s like asking why tent villages and refugee camps don’t become permanent cities. They’re not supposed to.

But all of these companies you mention -they OFFER WFH.

Or hybrid.

If it was shown indefatigably to be a colossal failure - why try to go back?

 

[PeoplesElbow]

After this entire screed, I still have the same question...

If WFH had no effect on business, then why the push to RTO?

If you type the question in Google one of the answers it gives us because it allows employees to quit on their own so it prevents having to lay off employees. This saves having to pay a severance, unemployment benefits, and simply looks better not having the layoffs.

Pretty sure Google didn't just make that up.