Return to Office

[Perrin75]

I was reading this article regarding the House Oversight Committee's investigation into Federal Telework. The only thing I could find in this report regarding wasting money was that the Federal Government was spending Billions to lease office space that was going unused. I did not see anything that pointed to a decrease in productivity, concerns about overstaffing, excessive pay and benefits for federal employees above market demands, or any other indicator that would suggest that Telework was somehow a detriment. I also didn't see anything in the proposal that would actually save money.

The solutions that are laid out to help deal with this overspending point towards putting more employees into unused spaces and implementing new costly procedures to monitor employees who have not been identified as being less/unproductive because they telework. This seems insanely counter-productive when the report states that only 228,000 of the 2.28 Million Federal employees are full time remote, which means the rest are still coming into some office space as part of their work. So, we are somehow going to reduce the budget by forcing 228,000 people to start reporting to an office for part of their work? And by implementing new monitoring procedures to address a problem we haven't even identified yet? I will admit I am not great at Math, but I still haven't figured out how any of what they are proposing is going to save Billions of dollars.

So, does anyone have any thoughts on this? Wouldn't it make more sense to get rid of Billions of Dollars in Leases (plus maintenance cost, equipment costs, utility costs, etc), and put exploratory committees in place to measure the impact on productivity to see if Remote Work is successful and if it can be expanded as a way to reduce costs even further, as opposed to putting people into empty spaces that don't appear to be needed? The members of congress who are heading up this committee aren't working from an office full time, so there has to be something about being able to get work done while not being in an office space. Are they going to expand these new measures to themselves?

Personally, I want to see who is holding those leases, and who are they contributing money too, I wouldn't be shocked if there wasn't a correlation here.

 

[JumperJack]

I think there’s a lot of validity in questioning why one has to be in an office to work. If you’re productive and do your job, why does it matter?

On the other hand, if you can do it remotely, why can’t Araav in Mumbai do your job? He’ll do it for far less, especially if you’re not doing anything specialized.

Some people say that the idea that you must drag yourself to an office you hate and slave away is a boomer remnant and is outdated and foolish.

Yet, what kind of successful team or company has ever existed where people didn’t work together in person?

As far as the Feds, I have serious doubts that there is a need for that many employees to begin with. If you cut programs and cut regulations, you cut the need for so many bean counters and so much oversight.

I’d say if we are being honest, there’s not enough work in most of those jobs to even justify a full day in an office, much less remotely.

 

[Ron Mehico]

If we’re spending BILLIONS a year on unused leases for people to work from home, then can we get out of those leases? If not, then making them report to work seems like it would save money since I’m sure there is a cost for remote workers so you’re essentially paying significantly more to have people work from home.

 

[Tskware]

Retired now for two years from a profession. My experience with remote work was very poor, thought it was hard to track down employees, and hard to make sure they were on task and productive. TBH, I was not as productive when we had to work from home in 2020, and I was one of the partners who owned the joint.

Thus, I was not a big fan of remote work at all, although my SIL works remotely part of the time and has held down his position for two years, so I guess for some jobs, it may work better than my experience.

 

[rudd1]

-I'm gen X... I have *no* desire to work from home. Separation of spaces is key. If your office is at home... you're never away from the office. I think it's a bad idea to mingle the two.

-more work gets done face to face. Connecting with people is *key* to human happiness/productivity.

^we're isolated enough as a society. WFH makes that worse.

 

[JumperJack]

Agreed^. When people are separated, they are much weaker in many ways.

 

[Bill Cosby]

Plenty of people can work from home, be productive and provide value to their employer in exchange for the wage they’re paid.

Those people are not federal government employees.

They need to be in the office on January 21 or can resign, which is the intent.

 

[FirewithFire]

The government has an excuse for everything, and it is always a deflection from the truth.

There is such a thing as commercial real estate and it is a big part of the economy (and taxes). If it were to collapse the ripple would take down the economy with it. Remote work is putting a big strain on that market and TPTB are starting to get scared. So back to the office it is.

Making workers miserable is an age old tactic to get them to quit. Back to the office is just the newest tool in the box to downsize without penalty.

Some people like to wake up early, get dressed up, and head off to another place. Some do not want any part of that. I'm somewhere in the middle. Some days it's fine. Some days it is not. Working from home is great if you have a separate space from your actual living space. Otherwise it feels like you are living in your office. Not good.

Also, if you can sit at home and not produce then your job is redundant and it would most likely be terminated sooner rather than later anyway. So I see it as a self correcting problem.

 

[Glenn's take]

When I see a pregnant woman at work I give it about a 50/50 chance I will ever see them again. Even though we are hybrid they quit for fully remote jobs so they don't have to get child care so no. People are not as productive at home.

 

[cole854]

I think there’s a lot of validity in questioning why one has to be in an office to work. If you’re productive and do your job, why does it matter?

This is a shallow point of view, and you're not looking at the big picture when it comes to having people back in offices, especially in cities like NY, LA, DC, etc. There is a community aspect of a company's obligations, and a trickle down effect to local businesses, restaurants, and hotels, for example.

A perfect picture of this is midtown NYC, who lost numerous retail, restaurants, and a few hotels during covid as a result of people working from home. Much of that area is still recovering due to corporations not implementing a back to work stipulation. This doesn't even touch the empty office space where someone is sitting on lost revenue, and the related taxes not being paid.

The work from home time frame should have been short lived, not the "new norm" as some like to label it.

 

[JumperJack]

This is a shallow point of view, and you're not looking at the big picture when it comes to having people back in offices, especially in cities like NY, LA, DC, etc. There is a community aspect of a company's obligations, and a trickle down effect to local businesses, restaurants, and hotels, for example.

A perfect picture of this is midtown NYC, who lost numerous retail, restaurants, and a few hotels during covid as a result of people working from home. Much of that area is still recovering due to corporations not implementing a back to work stipulation. This doesn't even touch the empty office space where someone is sitting on lost revenue, and the related taxes not being paid.

The work from home time frame should have been short lived, not the "new norm" as some like to label it.

Counterpoint- if you live in a small town or suburb and work from home for a big outfit in a city…aren’t you supporting that small town or municipality with your daily business?

I don’t really disagree though. I think I come down on the side of working in person. Technology has done enough to damage us.

Though I cannot blame them, the people who love WFH are able to get in their daily household stuff around the work. When quitting time comes, likely have a whole bunch of free time they never had when dragging in from the office. That’s a great incentive.

 

[ukalumni00]

Have WFH for a while now and am more productive than I ever was in the office when I couldn't fart without someone walking into my office to talk about the kid's ballgame or something. I visit the office on occasions and do a ton of video conference calls but overall it has worked out great for me.

 

[entropy13]

-I'm gen X... I have *no* desire to work from home. Separation of spaces is key. If your office is at home... you're never away from the office. I think it's a bad idea to mingle the two.

-more work gets done face to face. Connecting with people is *key* to human happiness/productivity.

^we're isolated enough as a society. WFH makes that worse.

3 days in, 2 days WFH seems to be what a lot of places are gravitating towards. I think it's a good balance, and it's what I do now, and what my former federal agency did pre-pandemic. That is, 3 in/2 out was the max you could telework.

 

[AmericanDragon]

If we’re spending BILLIONS a year on unused leases for people to work from home, then can we get out of those leases? If not, then making them report to work seems like it would save money since I’m sure there is a cost for remote workers so you’re essentially paying significantly more to have people work from home.

The costs of leasing are going to be the same rather people are there or not. So making them report to work is going to drive up costs more because that’s increasing the usage of variable costs like utilities.

 

[Ron Mehico]

The costs of leasing are going to be the same rather people are there or not. So making them report to work is going to drive up costs more because that’s increasing the usage of variable costs like utilities.

But what about costs associated with work from home? It’s not free for companies to have people work from home. Allowances for laptops, making sure network connections are stable and the costs associated etc etc

 

[AmericanDragon]

The part of my job I could do from home, which is like 90% of what I do, would be able to be done far more productively from home than at the office because I wouldn’t have to deal with using shitty internet and computers (because I’d just use my own instead of whatever shitty computer they would provide) along with all the distractions and inefficiencies that are created by working in an office.

 

[AmericanDragon]

But what about costs associated with work from home? It’s not free for companies to have people work from home. Allowances for laptops, making sure network connections are stable and the costs associated etc etc

Most companies aren’t paying for you to have multiple computers along with your internet service.

 

[ukalum1988]

Have WFH for a while now and am more productive than I ever was in the office when I couldn't fart without someone walking into my office to talk about the kid's ballgame or something. I visit the office on occasions and do a ton of video conference calls but overall it has worked out great for me.

I'm not a fan of WFH but I get the arguments in favor of it. My house is not that well set up for WFH but with both of my sons away for college I can use my older son's BD and make it work. To be truly effective at working from home I would need a quality copier / printer. My employer is a relatively large private regional company, and is generally profitable, but I'm not about to ask for that perk.

 

[Ron Mehico]

Most companies aren’t paying for you to have multiple computers along with your internet service.

My sister works for the federal government and does WFH 2 days a week (currently at least). They provide a lot, as well as stipends for WFH expenses. It’s not free.

 

[Perrin75]

Getting back to the Government Oversite Committee aspect of things, I am still trying to figure out how this return to office, which oddly they are calling return to work. If these people aren't working, regardless of location, then why aren't their supervisors getting involved? And if they aren't getting involved, then where are their supervisors? Looks like there are bigger questions at play here.

What I don't see in any of this is whether or not the work is getting done. Shouldn't that be the first question we should ask? Once we know if that is getting done, then we can get into the arguments about where it is happening. And since only 228,000 people in the entire system are fully remote, why are we spending so much time on a tiny number of employees who aren't already reporting to an office in some capacity? Why do we have billions of dollars in leased space that isn't getting used? Who made a decision to lease this space in the first place?

 

[AmericanDragon]

The part of my job I could do from home, which is like 90% of what I do, would be able to be done far more productively from home than at the office because I wouldn’t have to deal with using shitty internet and computers (because I’d just use my own instead of whatever shitty computer they would provide) along with all the distractions and inefficiencies that are created by working in an office.

And to be honest, I've done WFH for previous jobs in different capacities (fully or hybrid). My preference between in-office or WFH lends more to hybrid, but the it really just depends on the jobs. Some jobs have no business being WFH, some have no business being in the office. Some can work just as easily either way, but the person in the position might be more productive at home or more productive in the office. There's no one size fits all situation in some jobs.

The best part of WFH as far as productivity goes? I don't have to make a concerted effort to avoid getting stuck talking with people who LOVE to talk. Like motherfuc*er I am trying to work, please just STFU for once in your life.

 

[AmericanDragon]

Getting back to the Government Oversite Committee aspect of things, I am still trying to figure out how this return to office, which oddly they are calling return to work. If these people aren't working, regardless of location, then why aren't their supervisors getting involved? And if they aren't getting involved, then where are their supervisors? Looks like there are bigger questions at play here.

What I don't see in any of this is whether or not the work is getting done. Shouldn't that be the first question we should ask? Once we know if that is getting done, then we can get into the arguments about where it is happening. And since only 228,000 people in the entire system are fully remote, why are we spending so much time on a tiny number of employees who aren't already reporting to an office in some capacity? Why do we have billions of dollars in leased space that isn't getting used? Who made a decision to lease this space in the first place?

Also, why did the government lease billions of dollars in space that's not being used if it's only 228,000 people doing WFH? Even if it's only 1 billion in unused leased space, that $4,386 per person they are spending a year just to have a physical place to put them. That seems like a lot considering most of them probably only had small offices or a cubicle.

 

[cole854]

The part of my job I could do from home, which is like 90% of what I do, would be able to be done far more productively from home than at the office because I wouldn’t have to deal with using shitty internet and computers (because I’d just use my own instead of whatever shitty computer they would provide) along with all the distractions and inefficiencies that are created by working in an office.

This makes zero sense.

 

[Bill Cosby]

If your job can be done 100% remotely, your job will be done by a computer in a couple years. That goes for accountants, lawyers, etc. in addition to everyone else.

If there’s no value added by your presence, relationships or personality, you’re going to be the first to go.

I don’t know what percentage of the Indian economy is outsource services for US companies, but I wouldn’t be long that sector, that’s for sure.

 

[Kooky Kats]

For those of us with 1.5 hour commutes EACH WAY to/fro office that costs $250/mo in public transit…

We say, respectfully, “eat me.”

 

[rudd1]

Getting back to the Government Oversite Committee aspect of things, I am still trying to figure out how this return to office, which oddly they are calling return to work. If these people aren't working, regardless of location, then why aren't their supervisors getting involved? And if they aren't getting involved, then where are their supervisors? Looks like there are bigger questions at play here.

What I don't see in any of this is whether or not the work is getting done. Shouldn't that be the first question we should ask? Once we know if that is getting done, then we can get into the arguments about where it is happening. And since only 228,000 people in the entire system are fully remote, why are we spending so much time on a tiny number of employees who aren't already reporting to an office in some capacity? Why do we have billions of dollars in leased space that isn't getting used? Who made a decision to lease this space in the first place?

-bluntly, my gut says it's about culling bloated federal bureaucracy... with the caveat that they are assuming folks will "fire themselves"/retire/quit.

^close supervision of *our* employees is welcome in my eyes.

-not sure if you're being obtuse about leased office space or just don't know that many of these leases predated covid/the WFH boon.

-I'm sorry you have to go back to the office.