CDC employees losing RA telework

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s amazing how much meaner people are on DCUM than on other parts of the internet

It’s because people don’t use the report button. Jeff deletes mean people like a flash.

The anti-fed trolling has increased dramatically this year.

There's very little trolling, just a lot of people (probably many of them feds) pointing out that telework doesn't need to be provided.

If you don’t have an RA, why is someone else’s accommodation your problem? Just a bunch of busybodies.

Because it’s not being fairly applied. Many of us don’t want to lie and get doctors to sign off on it.

I like RTO. I think if they gave us all 1-2 days of telework everyone would be happy. My agency had a lot of issues with remote work. Employees were not available when needed and of course fed supervisors couldn’t do anything about it. I had one where I had pages and pages of documentation of someone not doing work and not being available (missing meetings) and HR couldn’t do anything more than give warnings.

Then instead of ruining it for everyone, how about fixing what was wrong?

My proposal:
Eliminate AWS - people working 4 10s are not as productive as 5 8s because they get fewer core/productive hours
Institute and enforce daily core hours
Get rid of G phones that allowed telework abuse (like “attending meetings” while in the car line or at the dentist or whatever)
Enforce locality pay, no one should be living in Richmond and collecting a DC salary.
Make sure people are actually working where they are living and say they are living.
For a start.

Why should someone with a full time telework RA be collecting a DC salary in the first place?

Agreed. Full time remote shouldn’t get a COLA. They should get the base salary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Telework is very helpful for people who need a lot of ongoing therapy/treatments. It allows them to minimize time off which allows them to continue working instead of taking sick leave. With telework they can take 2 hrs of sick leave then work 6 hours; with no telework they may have to take almost a full day of sick leave and not work at all. I have colleagues who will probably have to quit or go on FMLA if their RA is removed … and then we will be royally screwed because we are very short handed.

In the past, a lot of people would choose appointment locations close to where they work, rather than close to where they live.

Plenty of reasons for why that's not a great option.

a) there's a shortage of doctors right now in many fields - it can take months or longer to get an appointment with a practice as a new patient. And what happens when you finally make that switch, and then you get RIF-ed or your office is relocated and that practice is no longer close to where you work?

b) depending on where your office is, there may not be many options for medical care in the immediate area, especially if you are looking for a specialist.

c) I've personally noted that more and more doctors are practicing in the suburbs, rather than downtown. Doctors that I used to regularly see at their K St. offices are now at those offices one day a week or less, with the balance of their time at an office in Montgomery County. This makes it far easier to get an appointment at their Chevy Chase or Gaithersburg location than in DC.

d) Doctors aren't interchangeable. If you have a significant medical condition and need to see a specialist, and you find a good specialist, you want to stay with that doctor rather than switch to someone whose primary selling point is that they are the closest to your office. In my experience, many specialists are in locations not easily accessible by public transportation - Inova, Suburban Hospital, VHC, Sibley, etc. Assuming that one has a car but metros into work due to a lack of available parking (common for many in my office) it's a lot easier and quicker to get to those specialists by car from home than by public transportation from work.

How did they manage before?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Telework is very helpful for people who need a lot of ongoing therapy/treatments. It allows them to minimize time off which allows them to continue working instead of taking sick leave. With telework they can take 2 hrs of sick leave then work 6 hours; with no telework they may have to take almost a full day of sick leave and not work at all. I have colleagues who will probably have to quit or go on FMLA if their RA is removed … and then we will be royally screwed because we are very short handed.

In the past, a lot of people would choose appointment locations close to where they work, rather than close to where they live.

Plenty of reasons for why that's not a great option.

a) there's a shortage of doctors right now in many fields - it can take months or longer to get an appointment with a practice as a new patient. And what happens when you finally make that switch, and then you get RIF-ed or your office is relocated and that practice is no longer close to where you work?

b) depending on where your office is, there may not be many options for medical care in the immediate area, especially if you are looking for a specialist.

c) I've personally noted that more and more doctors are practicing in the suburbs, rather than downtown. Doctors that I used to regularly see at their K St. offices are now at those offices one day a week or less, with the balance of their time at an office in Montgomery County. This makes it far easier to get an appointment at their Chevy Chase or Gaithersburg location than in DC.

d) Doctors aren't interchangeable. If you have a significant medical condition and need to see a specialist, and you find a good specialist, you want to stay with that doctor rather than switch to someone whose primary selling point is that they are the closest to your office. In my experience, many specialists are in locations not easily accessible by public transportation - Inova, Suburban Hospital, VHC, Sibley, etc. Assuming that one has a car but metros into work due to a lack of available parking (common for many in my office) it's a lot easier and quicker to get to those specialists by car from home than by public transportation from work.

How did they manage before?

At least for me I have always had some form of TW so I would TW on days when I had appointments and either work later or take sick leave for part of the day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s amazing how much meaner people are on DCUM than on other parts of the internet

It’s because people don’t use the report button. Jeff deletes mean people like a flash.

The anti-fed trolling has increased dramatically this year.

There's very little trolling, just a lot of people (probably many of them feds) pointing out that telework doesn't need to be provided.

If you don’t have an RA, why is someone else’s accommodation your problem? Just a bunch of busybodies.

Because it’s not being fairly applied. Many of us don’t want to lie and get doctors to sign off on it.

I like RTO. I think if they gave us all 1-2 days of telework everyone would be happy. My agency had a lot of issues with remote work. Employees were not available when needed and of course fed supervisors couldn’t do anything about it. I had one where I had pages and pages of documentation of someone not doing work and not being available (missing meetings) and HR couldn’t do anything more than give warnings.

Why should I accept your bad faith assumption that not only are employees lying, but that people with medical licenses are willing to risk their livelihoods by lying?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s amazing how much meaner people are on DCUM than on other parts of the internet

It’s because people don’t use the report button. Jeff deletes mean people like a flash.

The anti-fed trolling has increased dramatically this year.

There's very little trolling, just a lot of people (probably many of them feds) pointing out that telework doesn't need to be provided.

If you don’t have an RA, why is someone else’s accommodation your problem? Just a bunch of busybodies.

Because it’s not being fairly applied. Many of us don’t want to lie and get doctors to sign off on it.

I like RTO. I think if they gave us all 1-2 days of telework everyone would be happy. My agency had a lot of issues with remote work. Employees were not available when needed and of course fed supervisors couldn’t do anything about it. I had one where I had pages and pages of documentation of someone not doing work and not being available (missing meetings) and HR couldn’t do anything more than give warnings.

Why should I accept your bad faith assumption that not only are employees lying, but that people with medical licenses are willing to risk their livelihoods by lying?

That PP thinks they should be taken seriously but claims they were too incompetent to fire someone who was not doing any work, even with documented proof. A lot of lazy supervisors make this claim but aren't actually willing to put in the work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Telework is very helpful for people who need a lot of ongoing therapy/treatments. It allows them to minimize time off which allows them to continue working instead of taking sick leave. With telework they can take 2 hrs of sick leave then work 6 hours; with no telework they may have to take almost a full day of sick leave and not work at all. I have colleagues who will probably have to quit or go on FMLA if their RA is removed … and then we will be royally screwed because we are very short handed.

In the past, a lot of people would choose appointment locations close to where they work, rather than close to where they live.

Plenty of reasons for why that's not a great option.

a) there's a shortage of doctors right now in many fields - it can take months or longer to get an appointment with a practice as a new patient. And what happens when you finally make that switch, and then you get RIF-ed or your office is relocated and that practice is no longer close to where you work?

b) depending on where your office is, there may not be many options for medical care in the immediate area, especially if you are looking for a specialist.

c) I've personally noted that more and more doctors are practicing in the suburbs, rather than downtown. Doctors that I used to regularly see at their K St. offices are now at those offices one day a week or less, with the balance of their time at an office in Montgomery County. This makes it far easier to get an appointment at their Chevy Chase or Gaithersburg location than in DC.

d) Doctors aren't interchangeable. If you have a significant medical condition and need to see a specialist, and you find a good specialist, you want to stay with that doctor rather than switch to someone whose primary selling point is that they are the closest to your office. In my experience, many specialists are in locations not easily accessible by public transportation - Inova, Suburban Hospital, VHC, Sibley, etc. Assuming that one has a car but metros into work due to a lack of available parking (common for many in my office) it's a lot easier and quicker to get to those specialists by car from home than by public transportation from work.

How did they manage before?

Work from home for part or all of the day that had the medical appointment. 20 years ago, when I was an associate at a large law firm, it was common for people to work from home before or after medical/dental appointments, including partners, associates, and staff. And we had nowhere near the collaborative tools that we have now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s amazing how much meaner people are on DCUM than on other parts of the internet

It’s because people don’t use the report button. Jeff deletes mean people like a flash.

The anti-fed trolling has increased dramatically this year.

There's very little trolling, just a lot of people (probably many of them feds) pointing out that telework doesn't need to be provided.

If you don’t have an RA, why is someone else’s accommodation your problem? Just a bunch of busybodies.

Because it’s not being fairly applied. Many of us don’t want to lie and get doctors to sign off on it.

I like RTO. I think if they gave us all 1-2 days of telework everyone would be happy. My agency had a lot of issues with remote work. Employees were not available when needed and of course fed supervisors couldn’t do anything about it. I had one where I had pages and pages of documentation of someone not doing work and not being available (missing meetings) and HR couldn’t do anything more than give warnings.

Then instead of ruining it for everyone, how about fixing what was wrong?

My proposal:
Eliminate AWS - people working 4 10s are not as productive as 5 8s because they get fewer core/productive hours
Institute and enforce daily core hours
Get rid of G phones that allowed telework abuse (like “attending meetings” while in the car line or at the dentist or whatever)
Enforce locality pay, no one should be living in Richmond and collecting a DC salary.
Make sure people are actually working where they are living and say they are living.
For a start.

Why should someone with a full time telework RA be collecting a DC salary in the first place?

Agreed. Full time remote shouldn’t get a COLA. They should get the base salary.

My agency was fully remote before COVID and they always adjusted locality pay to where someone lived.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s amazing how much meaner people are on DCUM than on other parts of the internet

It’s because people don’t use the report button. Jeff deletes mean people like a flash.

The anti-fed trolling has increased dramatically this year.

There's very little trolling, just a lot of people (probably many of them feds) pointing out that telework doesn't need to be provided.

If you don’t have an RA, why is someone else’s accommodation your problem? Just a bunch of busybodies.

Because it’s not being fairly applied. Many of us don’t want to lie and get doctors to sign off on it.

I like RTO. I think if they gave us all 1-2 days of telework everyone would be happy. My agency had a lot of issues with remote work. Employees were not available when needed and of course fed supervisors couldn’t do anything about it. I had one where I had pages and pages of documentation of someone not doing work and not being available (missing meetings) and HR couldn’t do anything more than give warnings.

Then instead of ruining it for everyone, how about fixing what was wrong?

My proposal:
Eliminate AWS - people working 4 10s are not as productive as 5 8s because they get fewer core/productive hours
Institute and enforce daily core hours
Get rid of G phones that allowed telework abuse (like “attending meetings” while in the car line or at the dentist or whatever)
Enforce locality pay, no one should be living in Richmond and collecting a DC salary.
Make sure people are actually working where they are living and say they are living.
For a start.

Why should someone with a full time telework RA be collecting a DC salary in the first place?

Agreed. Full time remote shouldn’t get a COLA. They should get the base salary.

My agency was fully remote before COVID and they always adjusted locality pay to where someone lived.

Cool. They should stop. I the taxpayer have no interest in subsidizing your location when it’s not part of your job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s amazing how much meaner people are on DCUM than on other parts of the internet

It’s because people don’t use the report button. Jeff deletes mean people like a flash.

The anti-fed trolling has increased dramatically this year.

There's very little trolling, just a lot of people (probably many of them feds) pointing out that telework doesn't need to be provided.

If you don’t have an RA, why is someone else’s accommodation your problem? Just a bunch of busybodies.

Because it’s not being fairly applied. Many of us don’t want to lie and get doctors to sign off on it.

I like RTO. I think if they gave us all 1-2 days of telework everyone would be happy. My agency had a lot of issues with remote work. Employees were not available when needed and of course fed supervisors couldn’t do anything about it. I had one where I had pages and pages of documentation of someone not doing work and not being available (missing meetings) and HR couldn’t do anything more than give warnings.

Why should I accept your bad faith assumption that not only are employees lying, but that people with medical licenses are willing to risk their livelihoods by lying?

One doctor I see advertises on his website that he will write telework letters. I think you’re making a silly and naive assumption that this isn’t incredibly common. Or, you know that, and are yourself making a bad faith argument (which I think is more likely).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s amazing how much meaner people are on DCUM than on other parts of the internet

It’s because people don’t use the report button. Jeff deletes mean people like a flash.

The anti-fed trolling has increased dramatically this year.

There's very little trolling, just a lot of people (probably many of them feds) pointing out that telework doesn't need to be provided.

If you don’t have an RA, why is someone else’s accommodation your problem? Just a bunch of busybodies.

Because it’s not being fairly applied. Many of us don’t want to lie and get doctors to sign off on it.

I like RTO. I think if they gave us all 1-2 days of telework everyone would be happy. My agency had a lot of issues with remote work. Employees were not available when needed and of course fed supervisors couldn’t do anything about it. I had one where I had pages and pages of documentation of someone not doing work and not being available (missing meetings) and HR couldn’t do anything more than give warnings.

Then instead of ruining it for everyone, how about fixing what was wrong?

My proposal:
Eliminate AWS - people working 4 10s are not as productive as 5 8s because they get fewer core/productive hours
Institute and enforce daily core hours
Get rid of G phones that allowed telework abuse (like “attending meetings” while in the car line or at the dentist or whatever)
Enforce locality pay, no one should be living in Richmond and collecting a DC salary.
Make sure people are actually working where they are living and say they are living.
For a start.

Why should someone with a full time telework RA be collecting a DC salary in the first place?

Agreed. Full time remote shouldn’t get a COLA. They should get the base salary.

Agree there could be an adjusted pay scale for full time remote, but the base salary is too low. Highly skilled people generally don’t want to be forced to live in extremely rural WV or Oklahoma, so you would have a hard time attracting and keeping highly skilled people at the “rest of U.S.” salary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s amazing how much meaner people are on DCUM than on other parts of the internet

It’s because people don’t use the report button. Jeff deletes mean people like a flash.

The anti-fed trolling has increased dramatically this year.

There's very little trolling, just a lot of people (probably many of them feds) pointing out that telework doesn't need to be provided.

If you don’t have an RA, why is someone else’s accommodation your problem? Just a bunch of busybodies.

Because it’s not being fairly applied. Many of us don’t want to lie and get doctors to sign off on it.

I like RTO. I think if they gave us all 1-2 days of telework everyone would be happy. My agency had a lot of issues with remote work. Employees were not available when needed and of course fed supervisors couldn’t do anything about it. I had one where I had pages and pages of documentation of someone not doing work and not being available (missing meetings) and HR couldn’t do anything more than give warnings.

Then instead of ruining it for everyone, how about fixing what was wrong?

My proposal:
Eliminate AWS - people working 4 10s are not as productive as 5 8s because they get fewer core/productive hours
Institute and enforce daily core hours
Get rid of G phones that allowed telework abuse (like “attending meetings” while in the car line or at the dentist or whatever)
Enforce locality pay, no one should be living in Richmond and collecting a DC salary.
Make sure people are actually working where they are living and say they are living.
For a start.

Why should someone with a full time telework RA be collecting a DC salary in the first place?

Agreed. Full time remote shouldn’t get a COLA. They should get the base salary.

My agency was fully remote before COVID and they always adjusted locality pay to where someone lived.

Cool. They should stop. I the taxpayer have no interest in subsidizing your location when it’s not part of your job.

We might want to think about that a little bit. You aren’t subsidizing their location, you are gaining access to a higher skilled labor market.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It also appears HHS is no longer considering FMLA requests which seems downright illegal. Curious how that will play out. Feel bad for anyone who is pregnant or would need to apply for FMLA.

I doubt that’s true. I think the issue is that people who didn’t want to RTO are requesting 3 months of FMLA for stress or depression.

My OPDIV which I’m not going to disclose said FMLA requests are no longer being accepted. Pending ones are still being reviewed. So if one needed to request FMLA, there seems to be no way to do that now. This is the new normal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s amazing how much meaner people are on DCUM than on other parts of the internet

It’s because people don’t use the report button. Jeff deletes mean people like a flash.

The anti-fed trolling has increased dramatically this year.

There's very little trolling, just a lot of people (probably many of them feds) pointing out that telework doesn't need to be provided.

If you don’t have an RA, why is someone else’s accommodation your problem? Just a bunch of busybodies.

Because it’s not being fairly applied. Many of us don’t want to lie and get doctors to sign off on it.

I like RTO. I think if they gave us all 1-2 days of telework everyone would be happy. My agency had a lot of issues with remote work. Employees were not available when needed and of course fed supervisors couldn’t do anything about it. I had one where I had pages and pages of documentation of someone not doing work and not being available (missing meetings) and HR couldn’t do anything more than give warnings.

Why should I accept your bad faith assumption that not only are employees lying, but that people with medical licenses are willing to risk their livelihoods by lying?

One doctor I see advertises on his website that he will write telework letters. I think you’re making a silly and naive assumption that this isn’t incredibly common. Or, you know that, and are yourself making a bad faith argument (which I think is more likely).

Again, how is this some sort of proof that doctors are willing to commit outright fraud? If this person actually advertises this, surely you can give us a link, right? And if they do, they should be aware that they are walking on a thin line and possibly committing fraud that will cost them their license. I don't see what incentive a doctor would have to do such a thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s amazing how much meaner people are on DCUM than on other parts of the internet

It’s because people don’t use the report button. Jeff deletes mean people like a flash.

The anti-fed trolling has increased dramatically this year.

There's very little trolling, just a lot of people (probably many of them feds) pointing out that telework doesn't need to be provided.

If you don’t have an RA, why is someone else’s accommodation your problem? Just a bunch of busybodies.

Because it’s not being fairly applied. Many of us don’t want to lie and get doctors to sign off on it.

I like RTO. I think if they gave us all 1-2 days of telework everyone would be happy. My agency had a lot of issues with remote work. Employees were not available when needed and of course fed supervisors couldn’t do anything about it. I had one where I had pages and pages of documentation of someone not doing work and not being available (missing meetings) and HR couldn’t do anything more than give warnings.

Why should I accept your bad faith assumption that not only are employees lying, but that people with medical licenses are willing to risk their livelihoods by lying?

One doctor I see advertises on his website that he will write telework letters. I think you’re making a silly and naive assumption that this isn’t incredibly common. Or, you know that, and are yourself making a bad faith argument (which I think is more likely).

Again, how is this some sort of proof that doctors are willing to commit outright fraud? If this person actually advertises this, surely you can give us a link, right? And if they do, they should be aware that they are walking on a thin line and possibly committing fraud that will cost them their license. I don't see what incentive a doctor would have to do such a thing.

DP. The letters I've seen don't lie. They identify a medical condition or two, and then either say that they recommend telework or that'll identify benefits of telework. And they don't say what the person is unable to do.

The more legitimate ones generally do identify specific things the person cannot do (safely). Unfortunately, many of those we can't do anymore, like temporary telework after surgeries while someone is recovering and has significantly impaired mobility. Unless it's a long-term condition, their only option is to take sick leave or unpaid FMLA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s amazing how much meaner people are on DCUM than on other parts of the internet

It’s because people don’t use the report button. Jeff deletes mean people like a flash.

The anti-fed trolling has increased dramatically this year.

There's very little trolling, just a lot of people (probably many of them feds) pointing out that telework doesn't need to be provided.

If you don’t have an RA, why is someone else’s accommodation your problem? Just a bunch of busybodies.

Because it’s not being fairly applied. Many of us don’t want to lie and get doctors to sign off on it.

I like RTO. I think if they gave us all 1-2 days of telework everyone would be happy. My agency had a lot of issues with remote work. Employees were not available when needed and of course fed supervisors couldn’t do anything about it. I had one where I had pages and pages of documentation of someone not doing work and not being available (missing meetings) and HR couldn’t do anything more than give warnings.

Why should I accept your bad faith assumption that not only are employees lying, but that people with medical licenses are willing to risk their livelihoods by lying?

One doctor I see advertises on his website that he will write telework letters. I think you’re making a silly and naive assumption that this isn’t incredibly common. Or, you know that, and are yourself making a bad faith argument (which I think is more likely).

Again, how is this some sort of proof that doctors are willing to commit outright fraud? If this person actually advertises this, surely you can give us a link, right? And if they do, they should be aware that they are walking on a thin line and possibly committing fraud that will cost them their license. I don't see what incentive a doctor would have to do such a thing.

DP. The letters I've seen don't lie. They identify a medical condition or two, and then either say that they recommend telework or that'll identify benefits of telework. And they don't say what the person is unable to do.

The more legitimate ones generally do identify specific things the person cannot do (safely). Unfortunately, many of those we can't do anymore, like temporary telework after surgeries while someone is recovering and has significantly impaired mobility. Unless it's a long-term condition, their only option is to take sick leave or unpaid FMLA.

This is total BS. I have an RA for a medical condition. I submitted a letter that was not specific enough and it was promptly refused. I had to go back to my doctor to have them revise it to be more specific.

If your agency does not follow an appropriate legal protocol that is not the fault of people who need an RA.