Anyone get telework approved at SEC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So does this look like good news?

It seems like this means they are hoping to avoid significant further shrinkage. Whether they get the budget they ask for is a separate issue.

If they keep RTO, good luck with that.

[Anonymous]

I can’t imagine Congress would give LESS than what OMB asks for. If anything, they’d give more. (Though OMB may then impound the excess).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So does this look like good news?

It seems like this means they are hoping to avoid significant further shrinkage. Whether they get the budget they ask for is a separate issue.

If they keep RTO, good luck with that.

No, shrinkage as in being forced to RIF people. If they get this budget and too many people leave, they’ll have the money to hire replacements.

[Anonymous]

Grapevine says the SEC staff reductions so far weren't enough. But the agency isn't RIFfing in a polite way - it's shoulder-tapping selected staff and shoving them out the door one by one in a not-so-nice way. Beware if you're on an SO's 'do not like' list'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Grapevine says the SEC staff reductions so far weren't enough. But the agency isn't RIFfing in a polite way - it's shoulder-tapping selected staff and shoving them out the door one by one in a not-so-nice way. Beware if you're on an SO's 'do not like' list'.

Anyone feel like backing this up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Grapevine says the SEC staff reductions so far weren't enough. But the agency isn't RIFfing in a polite way - it's shoulder-tapping selected staff and shoving them out the door one by one in a not-so-nice way. Beware if you're on an SO's 'do not like' list'.

Anyone feel like backing this up?

Totally false.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So does this look like good news?

It seems like this means they are hoping to avoid significant further shrinkage. Whether they get the budget they ask for is a separate issue.

If they keep RTO, good luck with that.

No, shrinkage as in being forced to RIF people. If they get this budget and too many people leave, they’ll have the money to hire replacements.

And who will want to work under these conditions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Grapevine says the SEC staff reductions so far weren't enough. But the agency isn't RIFfing in a polite way - it's shoulder-tapping selected staff and shoving them out the door one by one in a not-so-nice way. Beware if you're on an SO's 'do not like' list'.

What would this entail? Poor performance reviews followed by PIPs?

Mandatory details to OIT? lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Grapevine says the SEC staff reductions so far weren't enough. But the agency isn't RIFfing in a polite way - it's shoulder-tapping selected staff and shoving them out the door one by one in a not-so-nice way. Beware if you're on an SO's 'do not like' list'.

Troll. This is entirely fabricated.

[Anonymous]

“As a result of attrition following early retirement and buy-out offers, the agency’s FY 2026 request reflects a net reduction of 447 FTEs as compared to the FTE level for FY 2025.”

This sentence seems to indicate that the lower number for FY 2026 is from the buy-outs and attrition?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So does this look like good news?

It seems like this means they are hoping to avoid significant further shrinkage. Whether they get the budget they ask for is a separate issue.

If they keep RTO, good luck with that.

No, shrinkage as in being forced to RIF people. If they get this budget and too many people leave, they’ll have the money to hire replacements.

And who will want to work under these conditions?

I assume you are the same person assuming everyone is going to quit.

Most people still, on the whole, feel like it is a good job, and I highly doubt we will have trouble hiring if there are openings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So does this look like good news?

It seems like this means they are hoping to avoid significant further shrinkage. Whether they get the budget they ask for is a separate issue.

If they keep RTO, good luck with that.

No, shrinkage as in being forced to RIF people. If they get this budget and too many people leave, they’ll have the money to hire replacements.

And who will want to work under these conditions?

I assume you are the same person assuming everyone is going to quit.

Most people still, on the whole, feel like it is a good job, and I highly doubt we will have trouble hiring if there are openings.

I assume that the omission of the qualifier “good people” after the word “hiring” in your sentence above was intentional. As it should be. Bc it’s true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So does this look like good news?

It seems like this means they are hoping to avoid significant further shrinkage. Whether they get the budget they ask for is a separate issue.

If they keep RTO, good luck with that.

No, shrinkage as in being forced to RIF people. If they get this budget and too many people leave, they’ll have the money to hire replacements.

And who will want to work under these conditions?

I assume you are the same person assuming everyone is going to quit.

Most people still, on the whole, feel like it is a good job, and I highly doubt we will have trouble hiring if there are openings.

I assume that the omission of the qualifier “good people” after the word “hiring” in your sentence above was intentional. As it should be. Bc it’s true.

No, we’ll still get tons of apps from people at other agencies who want that finreg pay bump. The’ll still be plenty of people who will have served their time in Biglaw and will be happy for the job. Maybe the number of qualified people per slot will go down somewhat, but you can only hire one person for one slot and I doubt there will be trouble finding good people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So does this look like good news?

It seems like this means they are hoping to avoid significant further shrinkage. Whether they get the budget they ask for is a separate issue.

If they keep RTO, good luck with that.

No, shrinkage as in being forced to RIF people. If they get this budget and too many people leave, they’ll have the money to hire replacements.

And who will want to work under these conditions?

I assume you are the same person assuming everyone is going to quit.

Most people still, on the whole, feel like it is a good job, and I highly doubt we will have trouble hiring if there are openings.

I assume that the omission of the qualifier “good people” after the word “hiring” in your sentence above was intentional. As it should be. Bc it’s true.

No, we’ll still get tons of apps from people at other agencies who want that finreg pay bump. The’ll still be plenty of people who will have served their time in Biglaw and will be happy for the job. Maybe the number of qualified people per slot will go down somewhat, but you can only hire one person for one slot and I doubt there will be trouble finding good people.

You’re probably right. There’s a sucker born every minute.

But what will they include in their 5 bullets the first week? And how long until they’re eligible for ad hoc?

I wonder if the rockstar union will still give their hard sell presentation during orientation.

So sad and depressing to think about.

[Anonymous]

Across the government telework restrictions will be lifted once RIFs are completed.