I get your frustration and have no arguments about rampant gov’t waste and needed reform, or even people showing up to the office for work.
Telework and remote work are two different things, however. If you were hired for a physical office duty location and have somehow moved to another location and are claiming telework, there is a serious issue right there. In my agency, telework still requires employees to physically show up to their office at least one day/week, two days/pay period. If supervisors and employees are breaking this protocol, that’s on them and they deserve the possible disciplinary actions owed to them. Removing telework and having employees be at the office everyday of their required tour off duty is not a big deal, from my perspective anyways.
Remote work, on the other hand, allows for residence anywhere. So if an employee is hired under these circumstances and guarantees, how is it fair or legal to pull the rug out from these employees and make them show up to a physical location? This is clearly an adverse action against the employee. If this employee is worth the squeeze, how is this administration retaining employees through merit? So do we remove these folks and rehire someone to replace them to make the blanket agenda work? Sounds like gov’t waste to me…this will vacate positions and cause a bog in hiring. Not to mention, there is a hiring freeze that has no end date.
Further, with the hostile, toxic environment created with this Fork letter, who wants to come to work for the Feds now? If we’re going to get the “best of the best” to work for the Feds, will the Feds pay higher wages to attract these “best of the best” employees? If not, how are you going to fill positions in undesirable or unaffordable locations? Take SoCal for instance, I would like to know how the “best of the best” are hired for entry or professional level positions in an expensive and undesirable (IMO) location.
