Return-To-Office Mandate Is Backfiring On a Key Federal Agency (thehill.com) 101
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Hill: In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the dynamics of the workplace have undergone a seismic shift. While some heralded the return to the office as a sign of normalcy, evidence suggests that for many, this transition has been far from smooth sailing. Nowhere is this struggle more evident than in the case of the U.S. federal government employees, particularly those within the Department of Justice. At the beginning of the year, the Justice Department initiated a return-to-office policy requiring much of its workforce to be present in person for up to six days per pay period or about three days per week. However, there were more stringent requirements for assistant U.S. attorneys. While approximately 70 percent of AUSAs currently enjoy the flexibility of two days per week of telework, recent changes in telework policies within certain offices have left many feeling stranded.
A survey by the National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys (NAAUSA) reveals a stark contrast in job satisfaction between those with telework options and those without. In offices where routine telework has been curtailed, a staggering 81 percent of respondents admitted they were actively seeking alternative employment opportunities. This dissatisfaction stands in contrast to offices where some level of telework is maintained, where only 42 percent of respondents expressed a desire to leave their current positions. NAAUSA Vice President Adam Hanna aptly summarizes the situation as a "workforce revolt." It's a sentiment echoed by employees across various offices, underscoring the critical importance of telework in retaining talent and maintaining morale. This is yet another testament to the value placed on flexibility and work-life balance -- crucial factors in the recruitment and retention of top talent. In response to the survey findings, NAAUSA has urged Justice Department leadership to implement consistent telework policies across all offices. The organization recommends a minimum baseline of two telework days per week, citing the importance of treating employees as responsible professionals capable of balancing in-person and remote work effectively.
The issue extends beyond individual preferences, resonating with broader concerns surrounding recruitment, retention, and workplace culture. Employee organizations within the Justice Department have united in calling for a review of return-to-office mandates, citing potential negative impacts on productivity and workforce retention. These findings align with broader evidence of telework's positive effects, including the Office of Personnel Management's annual report (PDF) about telework in the federal government. That report showed that a staggering 68 percent of teleworking federal government employees intend to remain in their current positions, in contrast to a mere 53 percent of non-telecommuters. This underscores the pivotal role of telework in fostering employee loyalty and commitment.
A survey by the National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys (NAAUSA) reveals a stark contrast in job satisfaction between those with telework options and those without. In offices where routine telework has been curtailed, a staggering 81 percent of respondents admitted they were actively seeking alternative employment opportunities. This dissatisfaction stands in contrast to offices where some level of telework is maintained, where only 42 percent of respondents expressed a desire to leave their current positions. NAAUSA Vice President Adam Hanna aptly summarizes the situation as a "workforce revolt." It's a sentiment echoed by employees across various offices, underscoring the critical importance of telework in retaining talent and maintaining morale. This is yet another testament to the value placed on flexibility and work-life balance -- crucial factors in the recruitment and retention of top talent. In response to the survey findings, NAAUSA has urged Justice Department leadership to implement consistent telework policies across all offices. The organization recommends a minimum baseline of two telework days per week, citing the importance of treating employees as responsible professionals capable of balancing in-person and remote work effectively.
The issue extends beyond individual preferences, resonating with broader concerns surrounding recruitment, retention, and workplace culture. Employee organizations within the Justice Department have united in calling for a review of return-to-office mandates, citing potential negative impacts on productivity and workforce retention. These findings align with broader evidence of telework's positive effects, including the Office of Personnel Management's annual report (PDF) about telework in the federal government. That report showed that a staggering 68 percent of teleworking federal government employees intend to remain in their current positions, in contrast to a mere 53 percent of non-telecommuters. This underscores the pivotal role of telework in fostering employee loyalty and commitment.
Especially one three-letter agency (Score:3, Interesting)
A famous Slashdotter and blogger refused to return to the office and he hasn't been seen since
Re: (Score:2)
Are they working or goofing off (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Are they working or goofing off (Score:4, Insightful)
If they are important enough it doesn't matter. The value they deliver justifies their paycheck, and they have the clout to find an employer who will offer them the work arrangement they want (potential to goof off included).
If they aren't important enough, the the lack of job satisfaction from a work-from-office mandate doesn't matter, because they are easily replaced.
And in any event, the easiest way to make sure that people aren't just wasting time while working from home is to make them part of a team. If they don't pull their own weight their team members notice (since they have to work harder to compensate), and very quickly rat them out.
Re: (Score:2)
The best way to determine people aren't goofing off is to create meaningful metrics of productivity. If the only thing you've got is a glorified Henry Ford era punch card tracking when your physical body shows up at the workplace and leaves, then you've just built an environment for more artful dogf---ing.
Re: (Score:2)
This.
There are also some folks that even without metrics everyone knows who they are and what they do since they are valued resources on every project or maybe they help everyone else get their job done.
Exit plan before the train wreck (Score:3)
Is this just a case of attorneys wanting to exit before a president's second term or before a new president comes into office?
Would like to see the assistant US attorney job turnover number in relation to the presidential election cycle.
Or, is the US and state government one of the places that attorneys seeking an undemanding work schedule, less competition, no partner track politics go to?
We've experienced loss already (Score:2, Offtopic)
These are government workers. Maybe 1 in 100 is a true loss. The rest are seat warmers.
Read this [npr.org], KnowItAll and try to keep arguing with me the US hasn't already experienced serious loss while we undergo climate change. And that's just one citation for you KnowItAll. 'cuz PHD-level soil scientists willing to play by all those silly federal rules in DC, ...nay, Kansas(!) over the course of one single summer are a dime a dozen, right?
Re: (Score:2)
wtf does a 2021 npr hit piece have to do with return to work policy today? All your article says anyway is a bunch of sludge didn't want to leave the DC cocktail party circuit. How many just found other tax leeching DC jobs? You know the two wealthiest and most expensive places to li e in the US? Silicon Valley and the DC area. One of those makes sense. The other screams tax theft, boondoggles, bribes and over pay.
Any of them who actually left government was a benefit not a loss. Leaving government m
Re: (Score:1)
KnowItAll, did my citation touch a nerve much? I sincerely hope so.
Citation to back up your point (Score:1)
If they are important enough it doesn't matter. The value they deliver justifies their paycheck, and they have the clout to find an employer who will offer them the work arrangement they want
Yes. Here's a citation to prove your point. [npr.org] while we/US loses. Collective, national knowledge be damned! As if climate change has no effect on which crops farmers should plant. As if we had no use for people like PHD-level soil scientists now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't goof off in the office?
Re:Are they working or goofing off (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not even just goofing off - I think it's pretty obvious that, when I'm in the office, my productivity is down simply because of personal interaction. For one thing my boss will come to talk about some minor work-related thing but then get a-chatting and just go on and on and on... He's a good guy but man he can go off on a tangent at times!
And there are a handful of other (non-tech) coworkers that like to stop by and chat. I like these people and don't really mind chatting; but none of these people seem to understand the concept of brevity. All I can figure is, they must have a lot less work to do than I do.
When I work from home, as long as I let the boss know - I can turn off the distractions and focus on projects when needed. And that's easy for the boss to check, since the project actually gets DONE.
Re: (Score:2)
No mod points, so I will have to post my agreement. So much of the office kills productivity.
Imagine a backhoe guy trying to do his job, but his manager and some unknown other person keeps interrupting his work. The reason does not matter. When others interfere, the work stops.
I have endured this over the years, but in the last year I have seen it up close and personal. I have plumbing problems to fix in my house, but I can not get into them when I keep getting called into a {expletive} job I blindly accept
Re: (Score:1)
It's not even just goofing off - I think it's pretty obvious that, when I'm in the office, my productivity is down simply because of personal interaction.
Possibly in your case. But I think in general full time telecommuting does lead to lower productivity both in lower engagement, and in worse communication due to the loss of those (sometimes annoying) office interactions, not to mention the weaker bond between co-workers makes retention a bit tougher.
However, it's clear a lot of folks really enjoy and value working from home. Everyone is always talking about finding a proper work/life balance, well, giving up a bit of productivity to work from home and be n
Re: (Score:3)
I guess it depends on your line or work, etc.
I've been working full time remote for going on I'm guessing between 12-15 years now.
Contracting...IT work....server admin, dba, some development work thrown in t
Re:Are they working or goofing off (Score:4, Interesting)
Part of that is just lack of imagination on management's part. Why not set up a chat roulette server for employees and ask that they give it a spin every so often mid-day? Or SMALL video chats every once in a while between team members?
I wonder how much of the lost "productivity" management feels was actually just them not being able to cube farm, which was never a productive activity at all.
Meanwhile, I'll bet that if the employer had to pay for gas, vehicle maintenance, and commute time, the urge to RTO would vanish over-night. Except, that is, in cases where upper management has an investment in the real-estate or a need to make their own long-term leasing decision appear to have been well thought out. Arguably, both of those are actually conflicts of interest that possibly rise to the level of malfeasance that should be investigated.
Re: (Score:2)
Part of that is just lack of imagination on management's part. Why not set up a chat roulette server for employees and ask that they give it a spin every so often mid-day? Or SMALL video chats every once in a while between team members?
Possibly, but I don't think it's as effective as in person.
I wonder how much of the lost "productivity" management feels was actually just them not being able to cube farm, which was never a productive activity at all.
I think there are a lot of people who work better with the feeling that someone is looking over their shoulder.
Meanwhile, I'll bet that if the employer had to pay for gas, vehicle maintenance, and commute time, the urge to RTO would vanish over-night. Except, that is, in cases where upper management has an investment in the real-estate or a need to make their own long-term leasing decision appear to have been well thought out. Arguably, both of those are actually conflicts of interest that possibly rise to the level of malfeasance that should be investigated.
Upper-management personally owning the real estate could be malfeasance, just trying to justify a bad decision wouldn't be.
As for gas & commute time, those are are paid by the employees so not a cost to management, which is the core of my argument.
WFH has a slight productivity loss with a relatively small reduction in expenses (it's har
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people work worse and more error prone if they feel like someone is breathing down their neck.
The company does eventually pay for the commute and gas. WFH is at least a back door way of giving a long overdue raise without increasing costs. They just don't see it as a hard number on the bottom line. The only hard part of downsizing an office is the lease if it's too long term.
Agreed WFH is an over-all positive for both employer and employee.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people work worse and more error prone if they feel like someone is breathing down their neck.
Looking over shoulder != breathing down their neck.
Most people do need a bit of pressure to be at their most productive, that's pretty much the core of a procrastinator, which most people are to some extent.
Sure, there's people who maintain high productivity with no external pressure or close oversight but they're rare.
Agreed WFH is an over-all positive for both employer and employee.
This is the argument that bugs me. WFH is a positive for the employer in the sense that it reduces wages and real estate costs to some extent, but I think the productivity cost is real and ne
Re: (Score:2)
If you do a deep look at chattel slavery, between the poor productivity and outright hostility of a captive and the need to provide food, clothing , and shelter to avoid losing "assets". Imagine, a workforce that will be better off if they burn your house and fields and skedaddle kept in line with bosses ready to destroy your asset should it turn liability.
It was only seen as better by the owners because of limited analysis and vision. The slave owners SHOULD have been glad when slavery was over, but they w
Re: (Score:2)
If you do a deep look at chattel slavery, between the poor productivity and outright hostility of a captive and the need to provide food, clothing , and shelter to avoid losing "assets". Imagine, a workforce that will be better off if they burn your house and fields and skedaddle kept in line with bosses ready to destroy your asset should it turn liability.
Really? Then explain why slavery was so ubiquitous in history? Did the majority of cultures make the exact same mistake?
There's resources needed to keep the slaves in line, but realistically, you just need to treat them well enough so that they're not willing to embrace their own certain deaths through revolt. And the biggest deterrent is local law enforcement that ensures that even if the slaves take over your house they're still screwed.
It was only seen as better by the owners because of limited analysis and vision. The slave owners SHOULD have been glad when slavery was over, but they weren't because they were dinosaurs who couldn't see past next week.
Again, this weird insistence that slave owners must have been deluded
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, I am separating moral/ethical arguments from the practical.
It really isn't that unusual for a lot of people to strongly believe something that turns out to be counterproductive in retrospect. How long was bloodletting prescribed for practically every malady? About the time when slaves were kept in the U.S. medicine had progressed to eating mercury compounds (such as blue mass) to treat illness. Surely they wouldn't do that if it was harmful!/s
Others may have come to realize that slavery was a los
Re: (Score:2)
So economists have studied this and the answer isn't obvious [econlib.org].
It seems (surprisingly to me) as if coercion could significantly improve the productivity of slaves. It's also the case that coercion was expensive, and some slave owners found it was easier to give their slaves relatively high levels of autonomy and even wages.
The economy in the confederate states significantly suffered after the US Civil War, seemingly more than would be expected just from losing the war.
Either way, there seems to be some eviden
Re: (Score:2)
The economy in the confederate states significantly suffered after the US Civil War, seemingly more than would be expected just from losing the war.
That’s because they did not have the free market mindset and were unable to change their minds, so they were put down by those who did and were thus more competitive.
Most honkies down there still have not moved past that mindset.
Also add the fact that the South has significantly less developed infrastructure and you have a perfect recipe for backwardness.
Re: (Score:2)
I think General Sherman burning everything he could reach had a lot to do with the economic downturn in the south. On top of that, the entire basis of the economy, however inefficient it was, was swept away and a new one took time to develop.
Note that there is a difference between providing a negative value and providing a sub-optimal value. Slavery "worked" in the sense that there was a return on investment. That doesn't mean there wasn't a larger return on investment to be had without slavery. But that wo
Re: (Score:2)
I think in general full time telecommuting does lead to lower productivity both in lower engagement, and in worse communication due to the loss of those (sometimes annoying) office interactions, not to mention the weaker bond between co-workers makes retention a bit tougher.
Found the little, petty middle-manager who’s too incompetent to measure work without having his cattle toiling in front of him, and who makes a power trip out of demanding petty, annoying stuff who wants to show he’s the boss!
Re: (Score:2)
I think in general full time telecommuting does lead to lower productivity both in lower engagement, and in worse communication due to the loss of those (sometimes annoying) office interactions, not to mention the weaker bond between co-workers makes retention a bit tougher.
Found the little, petty middle-manager who’s too incompetent to measure work without having his cattle toiling in front of him, and who makes a power trip out of demanding petty, annoying stuff who wants to show he’s the boss!
I'm a fully remote co-founder of a startup who has deliberately avoided grabbing a fancy title and who has zero people reporting to me (and no real desire to change that).
But nice guess though.
Re: Are they working or goofing off (Score:2)
I don't get it. If your manager is chit chatting and you say "okay, I've got to get back to work, talk later" and you turn your back on them, what happens? Does your manager keep talking? Have you no way to extricate yourself?
If they come up and you say, "sorry I'm in deep focus to get this project done" do they still talk?
I've never (in 26 years in computing) had a manager who would distract me through that kind of disengagement.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you haven't, but I've had many managers who would have found that kind of blunt disengagement rude. I'd be reluctant to employ the second tactic anyway since you never know _why_ someone has come to talk until they start to talk. Could be that it's actually more important to the programme than your project, or they are having a really bad day and _need_ to talk.
If you can't tell if they working or goofing off.. (Score:1)
If a manager can't determine if someone is working or goofing off, then either the manager should be fired, or it doesn't matter if someone is working or goofing off, they're producing the necessary results.
Re: (Score:2)
Metrics.
They exist to document the reason for firing you or not giving you a raise or promotion.
They know if you're goofing off. Middle management is not a mutant branch of Homo sapiens oblivious to everything around them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Middle manglement is not a mutant branch of Homo sapiens oblivious to everything around them.
But they are! Middle manglement is too often people promoted beyond their competence
Re: (Score:2)
That is the question.
If you’re talking about the pointless layers of middle management previously infamous for their self-justified job of cube farming, I believe the grown-ass adults representing 80%+ of disgruntled cube farm workers currently looking for other places to work, has already answered that question.
They’re going to continue to answer that question via attrition until pointless layers of middle management run out of self-justified excuses.
At some point the executive staff might just realize who is actu
Re: (Score:2)
True, middle management doesn't have a reason to exist. All 5000 developers should report directly to the CTO.
Re: (Score:1)
They're government employees. It is highly unlikely they're doing anything useful.
Re: (Score:1)
That is the question.
With gub'mint employees it is difficult to tell the difference.
Re: Are they working or goofing off (Score:1)
That's not a troll comment. It's an honest question.
Re: Are they working or goofing off (Score:3)
Re: Are they working or goofing off (Score:2)
Websites like this exist because people have long known how to goof off while at the office. Working from home is mostly orthogonal to that.
I'm far more concerned with the amount of time people spend in the office restrooms now that everyone has smartphones. Some of actually need to use the toilet for it's intended purpose rather than as private seating for playing bejeweled.
Re: (Score:2)
People goofing off remotely are easier to manage. People goofing off at the office are much harder to spot as they're usually outside hanging off vapes or ciggs, or walking around the floors looking for people to gas with.
IMO remote working lets me hit goals that harder to hit when people wanted to "socialise" at my desk.
It was a giveaway by Biden (Score:3, Interesting)
This is the kind of thing that wouldn't be happening if the Dems had more votes in Congress. I think they're done fucking around though. Project 2025 has spooked them, and there are senior Senators (not just libs in the House) talking about ending the Filibuster.
Re:Not sure I would call it a conspiracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Here in the UK, we have Lord Alan Sugar.
Alan is our "guy on The Apprentice". He made his money selling consumer electronics (Amstrad), but what most people don't know is that most of his income now is from his office property empire.
Somewhat predictably, he seems to appear in the papers decrying the awfulness of remote working every other week or so.
You're right, it's not really a conspiracy - it doesn't even need one. Just a bunch of self-interested assholes all acting in their own interest and trying to convert their clout into pressure to return to the office.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, plenty of people have observed the plainly visible evidence that much of the RTO junk is based on management conflicts of interest. More than one "city leader" has openly stated that we "need" RTO to prop up the city. Whole blocks of NYC are going to seed because owners are unwilling to lower rent to meet the actual market and have been for over a decade.
Re: (Score:2)
Whole blocks of NYC are going to seed because owners are unwilling to lower rent to meet the actual market and have been for over a decade.
NYC is notorious for being in the hands of a certain ethnicity (that we can’t name and much less openly critic but has been universally hated throughout History) that is only attracted to money and thus cannot see beyond the next week and unable to look at long term trends
Re: (Score:3)
Do you really think that the DoJ is responsible for commercial real estate vacancies, or that these vacsncies can be ended by forcing DoJ employees to return to work?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, at least to an extent. We're talking about the shops and restaurants around the agency building. Most of these guys' customer traffic are the agency employees. If the agency employees work at home, they have no customers.
Re: (Score:2)
Doubtful. The DoJ employs 115k people nationwide, and only some of those are officr/desk jobs. That is a drop in the bucket.
Re:It was a giveaway by Biden (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the kind of thing that wouldn't be happening if the Dems had more votes in Congress
Right, because the Dems are not just the other side of the same coin, and are not just as corrupt as the other side of the aisle. /s
Seriously?
Congress is corrupt. When I lived in the US, I did see one or two honest people get elected. They never lasted more than a single term. If you aren't willing to sell out to corporate interests, you will be replaced.
A democrat paid for the medicine (Score:1)
You gonna look me in the eye and tell my my family needs to die because "both sides bad"? Didn't think so. Get the fuck out of here with that crap.
Holy s*** you make me sound way cooler (Score:2)
Also I've been posting on slash dot since before the 2008 crash. If I'm a prepubescent homo I guess I was posting here while I was still in the womb or hell f*** that and my dad's balls.
Is that why you guys think life begins before conception? I always had a hard time with that because your holy books say otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Also I've been posting on slash dot since before the 2008 crash.
LOL. Dot com crash, here (look at my #)...
Nice to see none of you had the balls (Score:2)
I hope you're at least getting paid though. It would be sad if you were doing this for free
Re: (Score:2)
This is the kind of thing that wouldn't be happening if the Dems had more votes in Congress.
{spit take}
So, your guys wouldn't do, er, what they do ... if we just doubled down on them?
Re: (Score:2)
It was a giveaway by Biden... This is the kind of thing that wouldn't be happening if the Dems had more votes in Congress.
You, sir, have a fascinating mind.
It is not an exodus until people actually leave (Score:2)
Talk is cheap. Every company that has put on hybrid in the past year will see an uptick in people looking. What I am no seeing is people acting on it. Sure, 2 years ago people acted because they readily were able to. Not so much now from my perch.
Re: (Score:2)
Hiring freezes with no replacement workers policies have put brakes on it. Earlier if one person left from an org, that effectively created 'n' open positions in the market, where 'n' was a large number. Considering they would find a replacement from another org. That cascades until some org down the line refuses to participate in the musical chairs. No replacement worker policies at many companies have cut down 'n' to a very small number.
Once replacement hiring begins, the game of musical chairs begins too
Re: (Score:2)
Replacement hiring won't happen until the economy turns around. Don't hold your breath. They fucked it up badly pumping trillions of non-producing cash into the economy. It'll take years -after- they stop pumping for that cash to get absorbed or inflated away.
Re: (Score:2)
Replacement hiring won't happen until the economy turns around. Don't hold your breath.
By what measure will we know when the economy "turns around"?
Unemployment has been under 4% since August. GDP growth has been positive since Q3 of 2022. S&P 500 has also been "healthy" for quite some time too.
It seems like we should largely feel like things are pretty good, but that is not the common sentiment. Are we all stupid or is there something that the economic indicators are not properly capturing. Is the wealth inequality gap something that we should be tackling with something more radical than
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a real unemployment figure. Go look at the number of adults capable of work (not on disability, etc) vs the working population.
You get a much bigger number.
Also remember even for that fake number they drop people who don't find a job soon enough even if they're still looking. And if they have multiple part time jobs... lol.
How will we know when the economy is recovering? When inflation stops killing normal working people. Prices are still about 20% above where they should be without all the b
Re: (Score:1)
Talk is cheap. Every company that has put on hybrid in the past year will see an uptick in people looking. What I am no seeing is people acting on it. Sure, 2 years ago people acted because they readily were able to. Not so much now from my perch.
Sure is cheep ... like all those folks that threatened to leave the USA when Trump got elected in 2016 ... but they never left.
And in today's you can't question their failure to act upon their motives back in 2016 without being called a racist, mysogynist, pervert, or simply 'cancelled'.
Re:I'm shocked! (Score:4, Insightful)
Working remote is better even for those who do not pretend to work. It is way more convenient and offers superior flexibility. Stress is lower and work-life balance is easier to attain.
Of course there is risk that people might screw around. That can happen right at the office too. Though, if someone is just pretending to work, that will become obvious whey they simply don't deliver (or deliver very little).
Re: (Score:2)
A little bit more than it takes to ignore inconvenient real crimes.
Re: (Score:2)
People pretending to work in the office has been a thing for a long time. It's why back in the day when PCs were single tasking (DOS) games had a "boss key" that paused and displayed a fake spreadsheet.
Re: (Score:2)
The future is now old man.
Re:I have a solution (Score:4, Insightful)
I can see why you posted this comment as anon, given how jackassedly presumptuous it is.
Re: (Score:2)
For me, it's not about wanting to slack off, it's about hating my commute and loving my quiet, private home office where I can make and receive personal phone calls without disturbing my office mates.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Also I respond to e-mails earlier in the morning and later at night.
Re: I have a solution (Score:2)
Did you just rank no showering and getting dressed higher than no commuting as motives for WFH? Are you in a My 600 lb Life kind of situation?
No commute is #1 on my list, the time saved is a no-brainer. Rolling straight out of bed into workout clothes for the first meeting of the day is #2 though, exercise and clean up after work and I still have time left over I would have been commuting. I don't think I could put a dollar value on that to be honest.
How to let the market sort this out. (Score:4, Insightful)
Orgs should offer a salary premium for physical presence, because most employees see it as a reverse fringe benefit. And it's anti-green, creating more car miles.
I can see how a couple of meeting days may be needed to create a sense of comradery, but 5 days is silly unless one must deal directly with equipment often.
Re: (Score:2)
Couple of hanging together days in a year is enough to create a sense of comradery.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
That infrequent would be unpleasant because we'd forget how to bathe.
In their own words (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The Justice Department brags that many attorneys stay for "more than five years". High turnover is clearly nothing new at the Justice Department.
Duh.. They make government pay. Those that can get more lucrative positions, do. Having Asst. US Attorney on your resume is a positive.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a crime or whiney to want to improve your living and working conditions. For many of us WFH is a huge boost to quality of life so we are fighting to retain it because we dont want to see it slip away just because some higher ups are worried about their real estate holdings, tax incentives, or micro managing. Why just roll over and give up to gain 1-4 hours of your life back per day, saved money on commute expenses, and for many being more productive at their job and being able to work in infinitely
Re: (Score:1)
I question the reasons. (Score:2)
From the article:
"These changes will allow us to harness the benefits of enhanced flexibilities that we experienced during the pandemic, while ensuring we have the in-person time we need to build a strong culture, trust and interpersonal connections," Zients wrote in the August 2023 email obtained by Federal News Network, and first reported by Axios. "Newer members of our team — who will be the future leaders of our agencies — will have the face-to-face interaction critical to learning and growing, and all of us will benefit from the increases in morale, teamwork and productivity that come from in-person work."
First off, that "in-person time" cuts both ways. It can build "trust and interpersonal connections", but in my experience it's about equally likely to promote mistrust and interpersonal resentment. And as for the "strong culture", that often seems to be code for indoctrinating and for squelching healthy dissension.
Secondly, I think the statement about "increases in morale, teamwork and productivity that come from in-person work" is totally unsubstantiated. It's presented as what a friend of
A sure sign! (Score:2)