OPM Guidance on COVID-19

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.chcoc.gov/content/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-additional-guidance

Highlights:

In the event of school and building closure, agencies could decide to suspend the no telework with kids in the house rule. You would be required to work and account for your time caregiving through use of leave.

If you catch this virus you have to use leave.

Basically it puts a lot of the burden on the employee if this thing hits hard.

+1 - this is a public health emergency. Fed gov't should set the example by giving USG employees leave in case of quarantine or schools closing and passing legislation to extend same to private sector.

Federal employee here. We aren't asking for leave! We're asking for flexible arrangements: telework (currently just if your boss allows) and a flexible schedule more like a maxi flex schedule (instead of just 8-4:30, which may not work if young children are at home due to school closures).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I carefully saved my leave for years and took advanced sick leave so that I could have two children and take two paid maternity leaves. I finally got my sick leave balance back to zero, after having to use annual leave almost as fast as I accrued it for my children's daycare sicknesses. I think that Feds like me who have very young children should get a break if both schools and offices close, as we didn't benefit from the forthcoming paid parental leave program and are still in the hole leave-wise.

Loosening rules around telework, including telework with kids at home, is one thing. Creating broad additional leave for people with empty balances is another.

Just call it quarantine related admin leave. If you are forced to take leave due to government mandate (school closure, office closure, or quarantine due to illness) then you are placed on admin leave.

It’s simple. The government is the one calling the shots on closures and who needs to be quarantined. So why should people lose money because the government’s decisions?

This seems like a no-brainer and the people that have hoarded their leave and the people that haven't are all on the same playing field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.chcoc.gov/content/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-additional-guidance

Highlights:

In the event of school and building closure, agencies could decide to suspend the no telework with kids in the house rule. You would be required to work and account for your time caregiving through use of leave.

If you catch this virus you have to use leave.

Basically it puts a lot of the burden on the employee if this thing hits hard.

+1 - this is a public health emergency. Fed gov't should set the example by giving USG employees leave in case of quarantine or schools closing and passing legislation to extend same to private sector.

Federal employee here. We aren't asking for leave! We're asking for flexible arrangements: telework (currently just if your boss allows) and a flexible schedule more like a maxi flex schedule (instead of just 8-4:30, which may not work if young children are at home due to school closures).

PP - and a federal employee here. I am asking for leave for this. I can't telework and due to circumstance beyond my control have two minor children at home that I am solely responsible for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would everyone who can't possible take any sick leave do if they were sick with something else? Wouldn't you have to take an advance, LWOP, vacation?

Honestly, probably apply for for the voluntary leave transfer program, but now the program is going to get flooded with requests.

Also, it?s one thing to use up my leave (or advance leave) for my own and my children?s health. But being essentially forced to use leave because of quarantines in order to save older people seems unfair. Why should I burn up my accrued leave because of a virus that isn?t even likely to harm my family? The older people can use their leave to stay home, they have use or lose any way

It?s not just to save older white collar workers. It?s to save the 60 year old admin who is raising her grandkids or the 60 year old cleaner whose family abroad is dependent on her remitting her wages.

The lack of understanding of public health measures is really troubling here, and shows the need for much, much better communication. Mandatory telework and school closures are NOT quarantines. They are social distancing measures to slow the spread of the virus. The reason to slow the spread of the virus is not "just" for 60+ year olds. It's to keep the medical system from being completely overwhelmed ... which would mean that NOBODY could get ANY emergency care. Break your leg? Get cancer? Kid has a bad croup attack and needs medicines? Good luck with that while the hospitals are dealing with thousands of COVID19 patients.

But what is the end goal? It will be months before a vaccine is available- say you implement all these draconian measures to slow the spread- for how long? And who's to say as soon as you turn everyone loose again that the transmissions doesn't just resume again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would everyone who can't possible take any sick leave do if they were sick with something else? Wouldn't you have to take an advance, LWOP, vacation?

Honestly, probably apply for for the voluntary leave transfer program, but now the program is going to get flooded with requests.

Also, it?s one thing to use up my leave (or advance leave) for my own and my children?s health. But being essentially forced to use leave because of quarantines in order to save older people seems unfair. Why should I burn up my accrued leave because of a virus that isn?t even likely to harm my family? The older people can use their leave to stay home, they have use or lose any way

NP. I had exactly -24 hours left after my second maternity (you have to burn them all before LWOP...). I came to work sick and Dh stayed home with the kids that year. I tried to avoid people and washed my hands a lot. It is what it is. My boss doesn?t allow telework more than 1 day a pay period. I would have loved to have teleworked. One time I threw up at work. Sure I?m evil but I couldn?t afford LWOP with 2 in daycare. I burned through annual leave too. I have some leave now, but not more than a weeks worth.

Not to hijack, but I took LWOP with plenty of leave left. No one checked my hours as I was approved for LWOP. It really helped when I went back to work to not be in the negative. Like everything else, it seems like the response is dependent on the individual HR person or supervisor you?re dealing with. Sigh.

Did you not read the part where PP said she couldn't afford LWOP?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would everyone who can't possible take any sick leave do if they were sick with something else? Wouldn't you have to take an advance, LWOP, vacation?

Honestly, probably apply for for the voluntary leave transfer program, but now the program is going to get flooded with requests.

Also, it?s one thing to use up my leave (or advance leave) for my own and my children?s health. But being essentially forced to use leave because of quarantines in order to save older people seems unfair. Why should I burn up my accrued leave because of a virus that isn?t even likely to harm my family? The older people can use their leave to stay home, they have use or lose any way

It?s not just to save older white collar workers. It?s to save the 60 year old admin who is raising her grandkids or the 60 year old cleaner whose family abroad is dependent on her remitting her wages.

The lack of understanding of public health measures is really troubling here, and shows the need for much, much better communication. Mandatory telework and school closures are NOT quarantines. They are social distancing measures to slow the spread of the virus. The reason to slow the spread of the virus is not "just" for 60+ year olds. It's to keep the medical system from being completely overwhelmed ... which would mean that NOBODY could get ANY emergency care. Break your leg? Get cancer? Kid has a bad croup attack and needs medicines? Good luck with that while the hospitals are dealing with thousands of COVID19 patients.

But what is the end goal? It will be months before a vaccine is available- say you implement all these draconian measures to slow the spread- for how long? And who's to say as soon as you turn everyone loose again that the transmissions doesn't just resume again?

NP: The goal is to flatten the infection rate curve. If *everyone* gets this at the same time, our hospitals will be completely overrun with the serious cases. If we can spread out the infections until there is a vaccine and we know more about the virus and treatment, the hospitals are much less likely to have to turn people away. This will also lower the mortality rate.

Also, "Draconian?" Seriously? Working from home is Draconian?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would everyone who can't possible take any sick leave do if they were sick with something else? Wouldn't you have to take an advance, LWOP, vacation?

Honestly, probably apply for for the voluntary leave transfer program, but now the program is going to get flooded with requests.

Also, it?s one thing to use up my leave (or advance leave) for my own and my children?s health. But being essentially forced to use leave because of quarantines in order to save older people seems unfair. Why should I burn up my accrued leave because of a virus that isn?t even likely to harm my family? The older people can use their leave to stay home, they have use or lose any way

It?s not just to save older white collar workers. It?s to save the 60 year old admin who is raising her grandkids or the 60 year old cleaner whose family abroad is dependent on her remitting her wages.

The lack of understanding of public health measures is really troubling here, and shows the need for much, much better communication. Mandatory telework and school closures are NOT quarantines. They are social distancing measures to slow the spread of the virus. The reason to slow the spread of the virus is not "just" for 60+ year olds. It's to keep the medical system from being completely overwhelmed ... which would mean that NOBODY could get ANY emergency care. Break your leg? Get cancer? Kid has a bad croup attack and needs medicines? Good luck with that while the hospitals are dealing with thousands of COVID19 patients.

But what is the end goal? It will be months before a vaccine is available- say you implement all these draconian measures to slow the spread- for how long? And who's to say as soon as you turn everyone loose again that the transmissions doesn't just resume again?

NP: The goal is to flatten the infection rate curve. If *everyone* gets this at the same time, our hospitals will be completely overrun with the serious cases. If we can spread out the infections until there is a vaccine and we know more about the virus and treatment, the hospitals are much less likely to have to turn people away. This will also lower the mortality rate.

Also, "Draconian?" Seriously? Working from home is Draconian?

Sure for you, not a big deal.. You get to work in your PJs and eat ice cream. But everything has consequences. Feds work from home ----> small businesses that depend on their business lay off workers. So now people are out of jobs just to slow the spread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would everyone who can't possible take any sick leave do if they were sick with something else? Wouldn't you have to take an advance, LWOP, vacation?

Honestly, probably apply for for the voluntary leave transfer program, but now the program is going to get flooded with requests.

Also, it?s one thing to use up my leave (or advance leave) for my own and my children?s health. But being essentially forced to use leave because of quarantines in order to save older people seems unfair. Why should I burn up my accrued leave because of a virus that isn?t even likely to harm my family? The older people can use their leave to stay home, they have use or lose any way

It?s not just to save older white collar workers. It?s to save the 60 year old admin who is raising her grandkids or the 60 year old cleaner whose family abroad is dependent on her remitting her wages.

The lack of understanding of public health measures is really troubling here, and shows the need for much, much better communication. Mandatory telework and school closures are NOT quarantines. They are social distancing measures to slow the spread of the virus. The reason to slow the spread of the virus is not "just" for 60+ year olds. It's to keep the medical system from being completely overwhelmed ... which would mean that NOBODY could get ANY emergency care. Break your leg? Get cancer? Kid has a bad croup attack and needs medicines? Good luck with that while the hospitals are dealing with thousands of COVID19 patients.

But what is the end goal? It will be months before a vaccine is available- say you implement all these draconian measures to slow the spread- for how long? And who's to say as soon as you turn everyone loose again that the transmissions doesn't just resume again?

NP: The goal is to flatten the infection rate curve. If *everyone* gets this at the same time, our hospitals will be completely overrun with the serious cases. If we can spread out the infections until there is a vaccine and we know more about the virus and treatment, the hospitals are much less likely to have to turn people away. This will also lower the mortality rate.

Also, "Draconian?" Seriously? Working from home is Draconian?

Sure for you, not a big deal.. You get to work in your PJs and eat ice cream. But everything has consequences. Feds work from home ----> small businesses that depend on their business lay off workers. So now people are out of jobs just to slow the spread.

Are you trolling? Health and safety is a higher priority than jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would everyone who can't possible take any sick leave do if they were sick with something else? Wouldn't you have to take an advance, LWOP, vacation?

Honestly, probably apply for for the voluntary leave transfer program, but now the program is going to get flooded with requests.

Also, it?s one thing to use up my leave (or advance leave) for my own and my children?s health. But being essentially forced to use leave because of quarantines in order to save older people seems unfair. Why should I burn up my accrued leave because of a virus that isn?t even likely to harm my family? The older people can use their leave to stay home, they have use or lose any way

It?s not just to save older white collar workers. It?s to save the 60 year old admin who is raising her grandkids or the 60 year old cleaner whose family abroad is dependent on her remitting her wages.

The lack of understanding of public health measures is really troubling here, and shows the need for much, much better communication. Mandatory telework and school closures are NOT quarantines. They are social distancing measures to slow the spread of the virus. The reason to slow the spread of the virus is not "just" for 60+ year olds. It's to keep the medical system from being completely overwhelmed ... which would mean that NOBODY could get ANY emergency care. Break your leg? Get cancer? Kid has a bad croup attack and needs medicines? Good luck with that while the hospitals are dealing with thousands of COVID19 patients.

But what is the end goal? It will be months before a vaccine is available- say you implement all these draconian measures to slow the spread- for how long? And who's to say as soon as you turn everyone loose again that the transmissions doesn't just resume again?

NP: The goal is to flatten the infection rate curve. If *everyone* gets this at the same time, our hospitals will be completely overrun with the serious cases. If we can spread out the infections until there is a vaccine and we know more about the virus and treatment, the hospitals are much less likely to have to turn people away. This will also lower the mortality rate.

Also, "Draconian?" Seriously? Working from home is Draconian?

Sure for you, not a big deal.. You get to work in your PJs and eat ice cream. But everything has consequences. Feds work from home ----> small businesses that depend on their business lay off workers. So now people are out of jobs just to slow the spread.

Exactly. Those claiming everyone should weather this on their own are in a privileged position of being able to telework and/or having ample leave, and not having to worry about having to BOTH provide childcare during a possibly extended school closure and continue to provide financially for their families. Sure there are a few people out there who blew all their leave on all day dental appointments, but I don’t think that is the norm. And even if that person did squander their leave, now is not the time to spite them in the face of a medical endemic.

This post is about fed employees, but there are a lot of others outside the government who will suffer economic hardship because of this. As a PP mentioned, the government should be setting the example for how this outbreak should be handled.

Instead we’re getting vague OPM guidance telling us to basically hope to God we have enough leave to get through this thing or that we can somehow keep our small children alive during a closure while also working 40 hours/week.

[Anonymous]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/03/09/trump-coronavirus-paid-sick-leave/

[Anonymous]

The government was shut for 35 days for some nonsense in 2018-2019. We have a pandemic on our hands and no one will even mandate telework with flexible options??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would everyone who can't possible take any sick leave do if they were sick with something else? Wouldn't you have to take an advance, LWOP, vacation?

Honestly, probably apply for for the voluntary leave transfer program, but now the program is going to get flooded with requests.

Also, it?s one thing to use up my leave (or advance leave) for my own and my children?s health. But being essentially forced to use leave because of quarantines in order to save older people seems unfair. Why should I burn up my accrued leave because of a virus that isn?t even likely to harm my family? The older people can use their leave to stay home, they have use or lose any way

It?s not just to save older white collar workers. It?s to save the 60 year old admin who is raising her grandkids or the 60 year old cleaner whose family abroad is dependent on her remitting her wages.

The lack of understanding of public health measures is really troubling here, and shows the need for much, much better communication. Mandatory telework and school closures are NOT quarantines. They are social distancing measures to slow the spread of the virus. The reason to slow the spread of the virus is not "just" for 60+ year olds. It's to keep the medical system from being completely overwhelmed ... which would mean that NOBODY could get ANY emergency care. Break your leg? Get cancer? Kid has a bad croup attack and needs medicines? Good luck with that while the hospitals are dealing with thousands of COVID19 patients.

But what is the end goal? It will be months before a vaccine is available- say you implement all these draconian measures to slow the spread- for how long? And who's to say as soon as you turn everyone loose again that the transmissions doesn't just resume again?

NP: The goal is to flatten the infection rate curve. If *everyone* gets this at the same time, our hospitals will be completely overrun with the serious cases. If we can spread out the infections until there is a vaccine and we know more about the virus and treatment, the hospitals are much less likely to have to turn people away. This will also lower the mortality rate.

Also, "Draconian?" Seriously? Working from home is Draconian?

Sure for you, not a big deal.. You get to work in your PJs and eat ice cream. But everything has consequences. Feds work from home ----> small businesses that depend on their business lay off workers. So now people are out of jobs just to slow the spread.

Are you trolling? Health and safety is a higher priority than jobs.

You'd really be ok losing YOUR job over this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would everyone who can't possible take any sick leave do if they were sick with something else? Wouldn't you have to take an advance, LWOP, vacation?

Honestly, probably apply for for the voluntary leave transfer program, but now the program is going to get flooded with requests.

Also, it?s one thing to use up my leave (or advance leave) for my own and my children?s health. But being essentially forced to use leave because of quarantines in order to save older people seems unfair. Why should I burn up my accrued leave because of a virus that isn?t even likely to harm my family? The older people can use their leave to stay home, they have use or lose any way

It?s not just to save older white collar workers. It?s to save the 60 year old admin who is raising her grandkids or the 60 year old cleaner whose family abroad is dependent on her remitting her wages.

The lack of understanding of public health measures is really troubling here, and shows the need for much, much better communication. Mandatory telework and school closures are NOT quarantines. They are social distancing measures to slow the spread of the virus. The reason to slow the spread of the virus is not "just" for 60+ year olds. It's to keep the medical system from being completely overwhelmed ... which would mean that NOBODY could get ANY emergency care. Break your leg? Get cancer? Kid has a bad croup attack and needs medicines? Good luck with that while the hospitals are dealing with thousands of COVID19 patients.

But what is the end goal? It will be months before a vaccine is available- say you implement all these draconian measures to slow the spread- for how long? And who's to say as soon as you turn everyone loose again that the transmissions doesn't just resume again?

NP: The goal is to flatten the infection rate curve. If *everyone* gets this at the same time, our hospitals will be completely overrun with the serious cases. If we can spread out the infections until there is a vaccine and we know more about the virus and treatment, the hospitals are much less likely to have to turn people away. This will also lower the mortality rate.

Also, "Draconian?" Seriously? Working from home is Draconian?

Sure for you, not a big deal.. You get to work in your PJs and eat ice cream. But everything has consequences. Feds work from home ----> small businesses that depend on their business lay off workers. So now people are out of jobs just to slow the spread.

It's *social distancing* not a quarantine. Even if a good percentage of people work from home and avoid large gatherings, it will slow the spread and lessen the impact on our economy. I'm sure you act like a slob when you work from home, but most of us are perfectly productive while teleworking and should be allowed to do it. It's 2020 and there's a pandemic affecting everyone in the world; this is a no-brainer.

By doing nothing, hospitals could be overwhelmed, we could see a higher mortality rate and far greater consequences for the economy. But it sounds like you just want to let the world burn because you're convinced it won't really affect you. Hey, you might even come out ahead, right? Such a troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for fed workers -- is there a sick leave bank you guys can use if you are out of paid sick leave (like the woman who just came back from maternity leave, or the new hires)? Maybe they should also remove restrictions on the use of the sick leave borrowing bank.

There is, but you have to burn through all of your sick and annual leave first. A lot of people, if healthy enough to work, will continue to come in sick rather than be forced to burn up all their leave. And who is going to donate leave if they’re in fear of a virus getting them sick?

This is going to create an interesting dynamic between younger workers (who tend to have less leave than more senior employees) who may have mild symptoms and not want to burn their little leave balance vs. older employees who have more leave, but lower immunity. We should be in this all together like other countries that are guaranteeing pay in case of quarantine or illness. But instead it’s every man for himself in the fed gov.

Coming in because you refuse to burn your leave is selfish when you have a leave bank you can draw on.

Agree.
Use your leave. If you have to leave but decide to come in sick, it is you who is selfish.
I am a fed. My leave balance is low - two kids (10 & 13) and I’m always using it. But if I’m sick, I use it.
There aren’t that many women who literally just came off maternity leave. Plus part of planning and having a child is keeping enough leave for when your child has to go to the doctor or us sick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would everyone who can't possible take any sick leave do if they were sick with something else? Wouldn't you have to take an advance, LWOP, vacation?

Honestly, probably apply for for the voluntary leave transfer program, but now the program is going to get flooded with requests.

Also, it?s one thing to use up my leave (or advance leave) for my own and my children?s health. But being essentially forced to use leave because of quarantines in order to save older people seems unfair. Why should I burn up my accrued leave because of a virus that isn?t even likely to harm my family? The older people can use their leave to stay home, they have use or lose any way

It?s not just to save older white collar workers. It?s to save the 60 year old admin who is raising her grandkids or the 60 year old cleaner whose family abroad is dependent on her remitting her wages.

The lack of understanding of public health measures is really troubling here, and shows the need for much, much better communication. Mandatory telework and school closures are NOT quarantines. They are social distancing measures to slow the spread of the virus. The reason to slow the spread of the virus is not "just" for 60+ year olds. It's to keep the medical system from being completely overwhelmed ... which would mean that NOBODY could get ANY emergency care. Break your leg? Get cancer? Kid has a bad croup attack and needs medicines? Good luck with that while the hospitals are dealing with thousands of COVID19 patients.

But what is the end goal? It will be months before a vaccine is available- say you implement all these draconian measures to slow the spread- for how long? And who's to say as soon as you turn everyone loose again that the transmissions doesn't just resume again?

NP: The goal is to flatten the infection rate curve. If *everyone* gets this at the same time, our hospitals will be completely overrun with the serious cases. If we can spread out the infections until there is a vaccine and we know more about the virus and treatment, the hospitals are much less likely to have to turn people away. This will also lower the mortality rate.

Also, "Draconian?" Seriously? Working from home is Draconian?

Sure for you, not a big deal.. You get to work in your PJs and eat ice cream. But everything has consequences. Feds work from home ----> small businesses that depend on their business lay off workers. So now people are out of jobs just to slow the spread.

It's *social distancing* not a quarantine. Even if a good percentage of people work from home and avoid large gatherings, it will slow the spread and lessen the impact on our economy. I'm sure you act like a slob when you work from home, but most of us are perfectly productive while teleworking and should be allowed to do it. It's 2020 and there's a pandemic affecting everyone in the world; this is a no-brainer.

By doing nothing, hospitals could be overwhelmed, we could see a higher mortality rate and far greater consequences for the economy. But it sounds like you just want to let the world burn because you're convinced it won't really affect you. Hey, you might even come out ahead, right? Such a troll.

DP but pretty sure there are some actual experts (not just those who play one on the internet) evaluating the costs/benefits of various policy measures.