Realignment for SEC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m hearing many many unqualified people are getting elevated into seniority roles to fill the many many vacancies… what a shame. There’s no re-org that will fix these issues

The better question is, why on earth would anyone want those senior roles??

They pay better than junior roles. Plus easier to get a private sector job if you’re in a senior role.

Not by much. And all you do these days is (a) approve timesheets and leave requests, (b) deny ad hoc telework requests, then spend 2 hours explaining why, (c) doing all the work bc half your staff (the best ones) took Vera/drp. Sounds fun.

And good luck with that private sector work. If there are no enf actions, law firms don’t want you. But at least you get a window office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m hearing many many unqualified people are getting elevated into seniority roles to fill the many many vacancies… what a shame. There’s no re-org that will fix these issues

The better question is, why on earth would anyone want those senior roles??

They pay better than junior roles. Plus easier to get a private sector job if you’re in a senior role.

Not by much. And all you do these days is (a) approve timesheets and leave requests, (b) deny ad hoc telework requests, then spend 2 hours explaining why, (c) doing all the work bc half your staff (the best ones) took Vera/drp. Sounds fun.

And good luck with that private sector work. If there are no enf actions, law firms don’t want you. But at least you get a window office.

It depends on your role. In the last couple of weeks, law 360 has had a bunch of articles about people leaving for firm jobs.

And the pay, it depends on where you are. 16s and 17s top out at the same point, but if you are a 14 you are looking at a non-nominal raise. And SOs make more than 17s.

I agree that some of the administrative tasks of a supervisor suck, and they probably suck more now than they do normally, but I don’t know how much of a reason that is to not pursue a promotion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m hearing many many unqualified people are getting elevated into seniority roles to fill the many many vacancies… what a shame. There’s no re-org that will fix these issues

The better question is, why on earth would anyone want those senior roles??

They pay better than junior roles. Plus easier to get a private sector job if you’re in a senior role.

Not by much. And all you do these days is (a) approve timesheets and leave requests, (b) deny ad hoc telework requests, then spend 2 hours explaining why, (c) doing all the work bc half your staff (the best ones) took Vera/drp. Sounds fun.

And good luck with that private sector work. If there are no enf actions, law firms don’t want you. But at least you get a window office.

It depends on your role. In the last couple of weeks, law 360 has had a bunch of articles about people leaving for firm jobs.

And the pay, it depends on where you are. 16s and 17s top out at the same point, but if you are a 14 you are looking at a non-nominal raise. And SOs make more than 17s.

I agree that some of the administrative tasks of a supervisor suck, and they probably suck more now than they do normally, but I don’t know how much of a reason that is to not pursue a promotion.

The SO positions are a ONE YEAR term. (with possibility of conversion, but do you trust anyone here? those positions are a good way to get unceremoniously booted quickly.)

Also a SEC 14 jumping to a 15 or a 17 or an SO position still only gets a 10% raise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The SO positions are a ONE YEAR term. (with possibility of conversion, but do you trust anyone here? those positions are a good way to get unceremoniously booted quickly.)

Does this happen?

I.e., is someone actually fired during the term, or not offered any position to return to upon completion of the role?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m hearing many many unqualified people are getting elevated into seniority roles to fill the many many vacancies… what a shame. There’s no re-org that will fix these issues

The better question is, why on earth would anyone want those senior roles??

They pay better than junior roles. Plus easier to get a private sector job if you’re in a senior role.

Not by much. And all you do these days is (a) approve timesheets and leave requests, (b) deny ad hoc telework requests, then spend 2 hours explaining why, (c) doing all the work bc half your staff (the best ones) took Vera/drp. Sounds fun.

And good luck with that private sector work. If there are no enf actions, law firms don’t want you. But at least you get a window office.

It depends on your role. In the last couple of weeks, law 360 has had a bunch of articles about people leaving for firm jobs.

And the pay, it depends on where you are. 16s and 17s top out at the same point, but if you are a 14 you are looking at a non-nominal raise. And SOs make more than 17s.

I agree that some of the administrative tasks of a supervisor suck, and they probably suck more now than they do normally, but I don’t know how much of a reason that is to not pursue a promotion.

The SO positions are a ONE YEAR term. (with possibility of conversion, but do you trust anyone here? those positions are a good way to get unceremoniously booted quickly.)

Also a SEC 14 jumping to a 15 or a 17 or an SO position still only gets a 10% raise.

Your cap increases, though, so the raise will become more significant over time since.

[Anonymous]

Can anyone confirm the rumor that they are giving up SP2 and moving everyone to SP1 with all non-managers sharing offices?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone confirm the rumor that they are giving up SP2 and moving everyone to SP1 with all non-managers sharing offices?

Surprised you have a single, almost everyone in my group is sharing an office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone confirm the rumor that they are giving up SP2 and moving everyone to SP1 with all non-managers sharing offices?

closing SP2 was on the table, but I think think the lease goes through FY 2027 or 2028. the physical constraints of retiring the space mean that we need at least a years notice (i think closing SP3 took 9 months of work, SP2 is larger).

Given they keep saying no RIFs, i don't see how they can close SP2 and still disallow telework. if they moved to 50% telework then everything could move to a shared space model.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone confirm the rumor that they are giving up SP2 and moving everyone to SP1 with all non-managers sharing offices?

closing SP2 was on the table, but I think think the lease goes through FY 2027 or 2028. the physical constraints of retiring the space mean that we need at least a years notice (i think closing SP3 took 9 months of work, SP2 is larger).

Given they keep saying no RIFs, i don't see how they can close SP2 and still disallow telework. if they moved to 50% telework then everything could move to a shared space model.

I think the only way it could work is if we moved to bench seating similar to how the contractors are arranged and even then it would be pretty tight. That would be a significant construction project to undertake for all of SP1 though, particularly if they need to work around everyone working in the office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone confirm the rumor that they are giving up SP2 and moving everyone to SP1 with all non-managers sharing offices?

Surprised you have a single, almost everyone in my group is sharing an office.

We have a lot of empty offices with the departures and some more people are leaving soon-ish.

[Anonymous]

Yes, all attorneys / accountants in SP1 (or, at least, my floor) have their own offices. A lot of empty offices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, all attorneys / accountants in SP1 (or, at least, my floor) have their own offices. A lot of empty offices.

Interesting. I suspect we have a much higher density in CF because they didn't really change our footprint when they brought back all the remote people who didn't have offices as compared to all the other divisions that were still coming in 2x per pay period.

[Anonymous]

I hear it is happening. And soon. And any thoughts about seating and lease terms and wondering how it will work and how can they do this with no telework are irrelevant. The agency doesn’t have control anymore. And even if they did this Chairman has no clue or doesn’t even ponder how this or anything else would impact staff.

While we had all thought things may have finally stabilized, this will throw DC into chaos and worry. No one realizes that nothing will get done while all the moving and shuffling is going on. Cleaning out offices. Moving your own stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hear it is happening. And soon. And any thoughts about seating and lease terms and wondering how it will work and how can they do this with no telework are irrelevant. The agency doesn’t have control anymore. And even if they did this Chairman has no clue or doesn’t even ponder how this or anything else would impact staff.

While we had all thought things may have finally stabilized, this will throw DC into chaos and worry. No one realizes that nothing will get done while all the moving and shuffling is going on. Cleaning out offices. Moving your own stuff.

If any of this is true, losing SP2 maybe be a good thing long term, even if there is some short term pain.

Once there is an administration that is not so hostile telework (possible even under a non-Trump Republican administration) it will be easier to demonstrate the need with the lower footprint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear it is happening. And soon. And any thoughts about seating and lease terms and wondering how it will work and how can they do this with no telework are irrelevant. The agency doesn’t have control anymore. And even if they did this Chairman has no clue or doesn’t even ponder how this or anything else would impact staff.

While we had all thought things may have finally stabilized, this will throw DC into chaos and worry. No one realizes that nothing will get done while all the moving and shuffling is going on. Cleaning out offices. Moving your own stuff.

If any of this is true, losing SP2 maybe be a good thing long term, even if there is some short term pain.

Once there is an administration that is not so hostile telework (possible even under a non-Trump Republican administration) it will be easier to demonstrate the need with the lower footprint.

Everyone keep saying in three years . . . In three years. But it could be seven. And even if a more reasonable or humane person is chairman, this isn’t something they will change day 1.