All federal agencies ordered to terminate remote work–ideally within 30 days
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
Maybe this is an opportunity for savings instead of a forced RTO?
Then again, I doubt it's worthwhile to reason about this decision; we've seen more controversial ones already (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42785891 ) and I guess this is not the final one.
But why is Stargate controversial? If private companies want to spend $500 billion, why should we care? Yes I know part of it is debt financing.
But back to your point, look at the all of the wasteful military bases in the US and weapons programs that the military brass keeps trying to get rid of but the civilian leadership keeps blocking because of civilian job loss in thier districts.
Follow the money.
Notwithstanding needing a military for geopolitical purposes, the government could also create jobs by repairing/rebuilding infrastructure like bridges, locks, public transit, rail lines, etc.
Is a bunch of tanks more or less useful than replacing a >50 year old bridge?
The good ones have more opportunities, so they don't take the BS and leave for better working conditions.
The good ones already have had the opportunity to leave all along, and if they are good enough, they may be able to set up a home based position. Maybe government roles do not need high performers at scale like the private sector does.
what suggests that's the criteria that will be used for any RIF? seems to me that if you are a low performer but toe the party line that you will be safer than someone that is seen as rocking the boat and constantly pushing back.
Who would pay for a study like that? There's little chance it would yield positive results, and would likely just serve to cause embarrassment for the funder of said study.
If you are good at your job and you are forced to return to office, you have other choices and you get another job.
If you don’t have other choices because you aren’t good at your job, you return to the office.
It’s the ultimate “Dead Sea Effect”.
https://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/11/the-wetware-crisis-the-...
> I think low preformers are going to get RIFed
Has the Trump administration ever made competence a requirement for employment? He wants RFK to be the head of health and human services
As a taxpayer, I respectfully disagree; as someone who wishes the government was more efficient, I disagree; as someone who complains about poorly thought-through red tape and bureaucracy, I disagree; as someone who cares about enforcing regulations that set minimum floors on the safety of our food, transportation, and drugs, I disagree; as someone who cares about the money poured into basic and applied science research without expectation of profit, I disagree.
The larger the organization or more monopoly/monopsony position it has, the more these kind of games can be played.
*if not for money, then sufficient political capital such that you can win the next election. Or maybe you have a goal other than winning the next election.
Especially since the administration is likely to target the IRS especially heavily for headcount reduction. That'll drastically impact revenue.
https://www.investopedia.com/democrats-vs-republicans-who-ha...
Reducing government workers may make things worse, as if you don't have enough internal man power and expertise you often have to rely on external consultants, which often cost much more and have things take longer:
* https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/america-needs-a-bigger-better-...
Why is the discussion so rarely focused on the fact that your boss can demand that you uplift your life or else you're fired, immediately and with impunity, and what you have to say about it means absolutely nothing?
Maybe I am baffled by this because I live and work in Europe where the relationship is a bit better (though I am not sure for how much longer it will remain as such). Americans seem very content to allow this behavior as normal because, obviously, other employees (but not me, I am a great employee!) must serve their stakeholders better so we can gain every bit of efficiency and increase precious income in the economy.
The problem with this characterization is that Americans hold the same kind view for all relationships, not just work-related relationships. For example: Married someone who starts making your life miserable? Too bad. It is your fault for choosing to have a relationship with the wrong person, they will tell you. There is no will to extend special concessions to force the spouse to play nice there either. The public is content to let you grin and bear it or end the relationship.
Other than physical abuse, what entity do you think should be empowered to force a spouse to “play nice”?
Do other countries have government agencies that force wives to be nice to their husbands, or vice versa?
Are you trying to ask me to invent hypotheticals of how things could be if there was some kind of parallel universe where Americans hold different relationship values? I can try to fumble around on that idea, even if it is a little silly.
A previous comment indicates that some people value autonomy in choosing where (as in physical location) to participate in a relationship, even if contrary to the desires of another party in the relationship, without reprisal. Perhaps we can work off that?
What does that mean in practice? Hard to say. I've never been to that parallel universe to truly understand it. But, perhaps, that means something like penalties for a party who chooses to leave a relationship if they are unhappy with how frequently another party is physically present in the relationship?
I'll admit I am too engrossed in the "American way" to go any deeper with that. It seems normal and expected to me that if any party wants to leave a relationship, it is their life to live and other parties should be accepting of their choice. Anything else is foreign to me. I can't offer much here as a result, but maybe someone from a different culture that sees relationships in a different light can chime in?
The only thing that might even begin to resemble a critique that I posted was pointing out that the idea that American relationship norms in the workplace are driven by some kind of quest for economic productivity doesn't work because the same relationship culture is found across all types of relationships in America, even those without economic concern. It is not exclusive to one type of relationship as the original commenter was under the impression of.
But that's akin to noting that 1+1 equals 2 in follow up to someone stating that 1+1 must equal 666. Call that a critique if you want, but I don't see how that could possibly leap into having "some other model" in mind? Consider me even more confused than before.
The election was still pretty close to 50/50. Trump received 49.8% of the popular vote. Harris at 48.3%. Better to say "Americans seem to marginally prefer to allow this behavior as normal..."
My friends that consistently vote for extreme right wing are, perhaps ironically, the ones that will suffer the most if they ever get on power.
Why do they vote for the extreme right wing, you may be wondering? Mostly out of spite. They really hate people on the left, who they see as smug.
I am sort of a centrist, so I can get along with people no matter their political views (and mostly because I don't put politics front snd center of life anyway).
I agree, but I never dug enough to get these answers. I just noticed the pattern of behavior.
I think that the progressive discourse since the turn of the millennium did get increasingly preachy, to the point where even I, who am sympathetic to many of their pleas, find them annoying quite often.
Another friend I have hypothesizes that what is generally seen as "left" during that time frame moved on from class struggle and economic inequality (which used to be major talking points in the 80s and 90s) to more soft social issues. As a result, some of the lower classes started to embrace ideas of those that blamed others for their misfortune (be it immigrants, gays, blacks, etc). I find that an interesting argument, but never took the time to more thoroughly inspect it.
That said, I think what I'm interested in picking at that word, "preachy". It's an inherently subjective sentiment, so what does it really mean, to this person or that one? Are they offended (or maybe angered, or maybe threatened, or maybe repulsed) by the message, or the way the message is conveyed, or real/imagined ramifications of the message, or...
I just don't want to take this feeling for granted without really understanding what it is, you know? Anything like it is rooted both in reality and our interior lives, even when the two are at odds; teasing out how much goes into which is a part of that process of understanding.
Well, as I said, I am not from the US. This blatantly discriminatory discourse was a lot less fashionable back in the day. Not that there was no discrimination, but the political discourse was not as contaminated by it.
> That said, I think what I'm interested in picking at that word, "preachy". It's an inherently subjective sentiment, so what does it really mean
Of course it is subjective. A lot of things in politics are subjective, related to feelings, abstract ideas, concepts.
And I am the first party that used the word "preachy" to describe my perception to more progressive discourse. This word implies an excessive appeal to morality, which used to be a hallmark of reactionary discourse when I was young - homosexuality, videogames, heavy metal, Dungeons & Dragons, et cetera and so forth was rallied against for being evil, moraly abject, satanic, and ao on.
From the turn of the millennium, more or less when progressive discourse shifted from socioeconomic concerns to more purely social issues, the talking points adopted the same tone. You don't fully support affirmative action? You are racist. You don't fully support abortion? You hate women. You like action movies that feature a strong male figure? You are misogynistic. It's all very tiresome.
It's everywhere, this thinking in sides with no ground in between. Someone says something which in their mind it is in support of cause A, so if you contradict them -- even ask them a honest question they can't answer -- you are undermining their effort to support A, therefore you must be anti-A. If you're not in camp A, you're in camp B.
I’m not saying that’s the reason he won this time. It’s entirely the fault of the DNC and them doing the real life version of “Weekend at Bernie’s” with Biden.
This is a very common - and very self-serving - trope: the poor dummies who vote against their economic interests.
Haven't you and I voted for taxes ? Possibly progressive taxes ? Possibly even progressive taxes whose sole purpose was wealth redistribution ?
I have voted for things like that and they are absolutely counter to my own economic interests.
Shouldn't we expect participants in a democracy to consider more than simple economic benefits when casting votes ?
If your own decisions are complex and nuanced why would you assume that's not the case for others ?
I did not call them poor dummies, and I never said anything about economic interests. Are you projecting your own perceived prejudices on me?
> Haven't you and I voted for taxes ? Possibly progressive taxes ? Possibly even progressive taxes whose sole purpose was wealth redistribution ?
> I have voted for things like that and they are absolutely counter to my own economic interests.
Except those things are not counter to my economic interests? I certainly wouldn't suffer with less economic inequality.
> Shouldn't we expect participants in a democracy to consider more than simple economic benefits when casting votes ?
Absolutely. I just mentioned that my friends that vote for the extreme right wing do so out of spite. They put their spite and anger above other interests. That is nuanced on its own right.
> If your own decisions are complex and nuanced why would you assume that's not the case for others ?
Once again you are assuming that I consider my own voting decisions somehow superior - or "complex and nuanced" as you put it. What implies that I consider them to be simpletons.
Except my original reply had no such connotations. I am not a giant my friend, I am just a windmill.
People would rather bear illness (themselves, family) and even die than let the 'wrong people' get some assistance (which would also help themselves):
They would rather vote for politicians that will increase economic inequality by benefitting the upper classes with tax breaks and dismantle every semblance of a safety net for the general population, just because they really hate the people on the left.
I perceive this because whenver their extreme right has any victory (and I say this in the broader sense, for example, if the leftist government gas to withdraw a proposal because it was successfully blocked) they don't celebrate that the proposal that was withdrawn was bad, they celebrate that those assholes in the left got pwned.
This job could be fully remote. I'm actually trying not to puzzle over the reasons it's not, because that would just make me more frustrated. But, gun-to-my-head: it's inertia. People heavily invested - sometimes literally, often overleveraged - in the status quo, and not especially inclined to be open-minded or rational about changing it. You saw that it took a global crisis where employers were suddenly caught on their back foot in order for remote to gain any sort of real foothold (same for rethinking transit policy, etc.). And then they've spent the following years trying to claw everything back. Incumbency is a helluva drug (and the withdrawal is killer).
I mean I get frustration if “I was remote, but my company RTO’d”. Not so sure I understand “I intentionally took a job in the office a hour away but I am disappointed because I could do the job from home” mentality.
Now, I've had worse jobs, but that doesn't mean it's right that this one is arranged the way that it is. Not for me or for the business.
You're saying that no one has standing to criticize a deleterious deal after someone has taken it, and I have to reject that. It's the kind of attitude that excuses all kinds of exploitation because "you knew what you were getting into." In reality, you have people forced into definitively bad situations to avoid potentially worse ones, or ambiguity regarding the conditions that doesn't resolve itself until they're in the thick of it.
Go back to basics: if an employer is made aware that their work conditions are unreasonable, they should strive to make them reasonable, even if they have leeway not to because of a prior agreement. That's just an ethical reality. Such conscientiousness also engenders loyalty and trust; tapping the employment contract instead is why workers are happy to serve out their "term" and then quiet quit or actually quit.
This is a huge step backwards for employees rights and I hope the next presidents reverts this incompetent decision.
Sounds inefficient.
Although, you will need to pay extra for concierge care/direct primary care either way to see a doctor in a timely manner.
[1] https://files.gao.gov/multimedia/Federal_Government_Contract...
In effect, government contracting is a large jobs program.
This also describes working at Amazon, minus the pension. The real difference is really just the pension.
Up through this year a relatively large benefit of being a federal employee is that you're not nearly as susceptible to job loss as your private sector peers. Most new administrations promise to shake a bunch up but don't actually cut jobs in any meaningful way.
This administration may be different, of course, if it delivers what it promised.
Some people would definitely be better off managing their own retirement, but just due to the way these things work my bet is about half of all people (the left of the bell curve) would be better off with a pension.
Where you sit on that bell curve isn’t obvious at age 20, but it’s much clearer at age 40. Benefiting people who have already messed things up and swap.
Thus that single binary choice after college is likely suboptimal.
there is one big advantage of a pension: you cannot outlive them. If you die at 65 (as my dad did) bad luck, but if you live to 109 you still get that income to live on.
Another risk is not having it be sufficiently inflation adjusted. An investment in SP500, however, would protect you from declines in the currency’s purchasing power.
the above is why I tend to oppose employee owned conpanies. Too much risk for the common man to have so much net worth in their job.
Auto manufacturing, teamsters, coal miners, etc. Only question is how much pull your group has in Congress.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/24/business/coal-miner-pensi...
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/08/politics/biden-union-pension-...
The biggest pension (and IRA/401k) bailout, however, is the implicit backstop the US provides the public equity markets. Might as well cut out the middleman and own the inflation protected asset yourself rather than accept a defined benefit in someone else’s control.
But wasn't DOGE created to eliminate some of those jobs? In which case, the question becomes: Will supply be willing to show up for the market price, which may soon become zero or even negative?
The above assumes you have a 401k. Those plans are more available than any previous retirement option (other than social security which nearly everyone has and is mandatory). However even though 401k is available to more people than previous workplace retirement plans, there are still large numbers who don't get a 401k (someone who can have one but chooses not to is also an issue).
The above is US centric. Many people reading this don't live in the US and so have completely different options that I have no idea about.
Yeah, I meant his Nazi salute.
People assume effective bureaucracy is small bureaucracy but ultimately the size and effectiveness aren't correlated - you're just creating queues if it's too small.
people need to adjust their world view, the transition to kleptocracy has already happened. we are in the afterwards now.
It's meant to denote a small number of fifedoms introducing their own rules, forms, processes, approvals, etc into the process.
It is not like the Presidential team has been shy about letting it be known that these jobs are on the chopping block anyway. If people will leave by their own accord then it is a lot easier than forcing them out.
I suspect under the current administration they will sell the buildings to their cronies.
Amazon did not and had to delay RTO and even some start dates for new hires.
The idea that productivity will be improved by increased "supervision" is hilarious. It will cause the higher performers to start looking elsewhere; but perhaps that is the aim.
As someone with ADHD (and who knows what else), I've found it very helpful to have some sort of colleague or peer or "boss"-type supervision or nudging, and I say this as a "high performer" if we want to use that term. This kind of motivation is almost non-existent in a WFH context as check ins and other such regular interactions are very high-pressure.
You're right, each of us have differing motivations. That doesn't give anyone license to promote their own point of view and tar everyone else with the same brush.
Even a 1_000_000_000 monkeys will never realistically write so much as a limerick.
They take jobs like that to stay well, well away from toxic, imperialist crap like the band you see gathered behind Trump in his inauguration photos…
I wish more sensible Americans would see this as the start of a new expansionist initiative that it all is and act accordingly.
Edit: all you who slander humanities reading so much should really spend much more time in history and philosophy beyond the first chapters of “how awesome was Rome you guys”
I really like traditional American band music. It's inspiring and uplifting.
Attacking clean energy, defunding medical research, mass purging federal workers. The Trump administration has done more to harm Americans in a few days than Al-Qaeda, the Soviets, Iran or China could have hoped to do in years.
My condolences to everyone affected by this and my thanks to everyone working to maintain a functioning society through this time.
Yeah that's an opinion alright.
I expect it's mostly shared by managers who are unable or unwilling to really think through the question of how they can monitor their employees' productivity.
If you need to visibly see someone working to measure where their productivity is versus your expectations, you're probably not a very good manager and you don't have a great handle on what your people are doing.