Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Return-To-Office Mandate Is Backfiring On a Key Federal Agency (thehill.com) 101

Posted by BeauHD from the post-pandemic-world dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Return-To-Office Mandate Is Backfiring On a Key Federal Agency More

Return-To-Office Mandate Is Backfiring On a Key Federal Agency

Comments Filter:

  • Especially one three-letter agency (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 50000BTU_barbecue ( 588132 ) on Monday May 20, 2024 @05:18PM (#64486393) Journal

    A famous Slashdotter and blogger refused to return to the office and he hasn't been seen since

  • That is the question.

    • Re:Are they working or goofing off (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Brain-Fu ( 1274756 ) on Monday May 20, 2024 @05:28PM (#64486417) Homepage Journal

      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.

      • 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)

          by Monoman ( 8745 )

          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.

      • 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)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You can't goof off in the office?

      • Re:Are they working or goofing off (Score:5, Insightful)

        by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Monday May 20, 2024 @08:20PM (#64486729)

        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)

          by glitch! ( 57276 )

          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

        • 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

          • 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.

            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)

            by sjames ( 1099 ) on Tuesday May 21, 2024 @11:52AM (#64488075) Homepage Journal

            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.

            • 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)

                by sjames ( 1099 )

                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.

                • 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)

                    by sjames ( 1099 )

                    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

                    • 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)

                      by sjames ( 1099 )

                      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

                    • 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

                    • 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)

                      by sjames ( 1099 )

                      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

          • 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 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.

        • 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.

          • 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 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.

      • 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.

        • "Middle management is not a mutant branch of Homo sapiens oblivious to everything around them." Could have fooled me, so many hours of meetings about meetings about future priorities, that none of them can commit to on a budget request. Multi million dollars of savings avoided because of 30k in software costs. Never reform or refactor a process that everyone looks at shakes their head. 70% of corporate activity is a stage show for the next level higher, and anther 20% is avoidance of the risk pe

        • 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

    • 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

    • They're government employees. It is highly unlikely they're doing anything useful.

    • That is the question.

      With gub'mint employees it is difficult to tell the difference.

    • That's not a troll comment. It's an honest question.

    • Can't speak to anyone else, but for my part, the days when I go into work are by far my least productive. They almost have to be; I waste 3 of those hours when I could be working sitting in a car. When I do get in, I attend a couple of meetings where most of the participants are on a screen anyway. Then I go to my desk, where if I'm really lucky, there might be someone else on my team around. Or not. We usually are too busy doing work to talk much. After a couple of hours of doing things I could have done j

    • 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.

    • 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)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Monday May 20, 2024 @05:26PM (#64486413)
    and one I wasn't happy about. There were a handful of concessions he made to certain lobbyist groups to get the rest of his agenda through Congress, and sending workers back to the office in order to protect commercial real estate property values (remember, it's not just the buildings, it's all the businesses *around* the buildings that saw massive drops in patronage).

    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.

    • 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?

      • 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.

        • 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)

      by bradley13 ( 1118935 ) on Tuesday May 21, 2024 @02:45AM (#64487131) Homepage

      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 close family member of mine needed to live. A Republican fought tirelessly to take that medicine away and kill them, because they wanted to pocket the money for themselves.

        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.

    • 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?

    • 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.

  • 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.

    • 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

      • 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)

          by j-beda ( 85386 )

          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

          • 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)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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'.

  • How to let the market sort this out. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Monday May 20, 2024 @05:45PM (#64486451) Journal

    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.

  • The Justice Department brags that many attorneys stay for "more than five years". High turnover is clearly nothing new at the Justice Department.

    • 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.

  • 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 (usually petty) boss who insists on return to the office is too incompetent to measure work output without having his cattle toiling in front of his eyes.

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Close