New OPM memo on RTO

[Anonymous]

https://chcoc.gov/sites/default/files/OPM%20Return%20to%20Office%20Memorandum%201-22-2025.pdf

[Edit by Admin: ] I am updating this with a link that works (at least works for now):

https://chcoc.gov/sites/default/files/OPM%20Return%20to%20Office%20Guidance%20Memorandum%201-22-25.pdf

BTW, DCUM policy prohibits posts that contain nothing more than a link. Had I see this thread earlier, I would have removed it. Please include some discussion in your posts. This post became particularly useless when the link quit working.

[Anonymous]

This is written like a poorly researched and written high school report, not Federal policy. Wow.

[Anonymous]

This will prompt several people to quit or retire, and reduce the amount of severance the government will need to pay out.

[Anonymous]

"If an employee’s official duty station is more than 50 miles from any existing agency office, the agency should take steps to move the employee’s duty station to the most appropriate agency office based on the employee’s duties and job function."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"If an employee’s official duty station is more than 50 miles from any existing agency office, the agency should take steps to move the employee’s duty station to the most appropriate agency office based on the employee’s duties and job function."

What does this part mean? Can someone please translate?

[Anonymous]

Interesting that it mentions CBAs at the end so if you have TW in your CBA you will probably be ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"If an employee’s official duty station is more than 50 miles from any existing agency office, the agency should take steps to move the employee’s duty station to the most appropriate agency office based on the employee’s duties and job function."

What does this part mean? Can someone please translate?

Sounds like if you are more than 50 miles away they will move you to any agency office provided it is most appropriate to your duties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"If an employee’s official duty station is more than 50 miles from any existing agency office, the agency should take steps to move the employee’s duty station to the most appropriate agency office based on the employee’s duties and job function."

What does this part mean? Can someone please translate?

It means you have to work out of your agency HQ unless you were working remote for a field office. Again, they are going for maximum pain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"If an employee’s official duty station is more than 50 miles from any existing agency office, the agency should take steps to move the employee’s duty station to the most appropriate agency office based on the employee’s duties and job function."

What does this part mean? Can someone please translate?

I think it's meant to ferret out people who are getting paid DC rates but moved to like, Western PA during Covid and have been working remotely ever since. No more locality bump if you're not in the locality.

Of all the proposed legislation targeting feds, this aspect seems the least unjust.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"If an employee’s official duty station is more than 50 miles from any existing agency office, the agency should take steps to move the employee’s duty station to the most appropriate agency office based on the employee’s duties and job function."

What does this part mean? Can someone please translate?

Remote workers duty stations are at their residence. So if they live more than 50 miles from an existing office in their agency they’ll have to figure something out. Because at over 50 miles they get TDY to the office location and get commuting money, hotel and per diem. How funny would that be to have to pay per diem for thousands of former remote federal employees just to get their butt in a seat in an office somewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that it mentions CBAs at the end so if you have TW in your CBA you will probably be ok.

I think even if telework is not specifically in your collective bargaining agreement, changes to your working conditions are, so the union might be able to negotiate additional time for compliance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is written like a poorly researched and written high school report, not Federal policy. Wow.

It is so casual and aggressive in tone. Not saying that because I disagree with it, even with its subject matter it could have been written better.

--A govt editor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is written like a poorly researched and written high school report, not Federal policy. Wow.

It is so casual and aggressive in tone. Not saying that because I disagree with it, even with its subject matter it could have been written better.

--A govt editor

I’m heartened by the fact that like last time, Trump has to scrape the bottom of the barrel for lackeys. They aren’t smart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is written like a poorly researched and written high school report, not Federal policy. Wow.

I completely agree, this is horribly written. I still don’t understand the need to make a blanket policy when agencies have so many different functions. I’m pretty sure at least one of my teammates is going to quit. She lives about two hours away from the office but was hired because we support industry in her area so she’s close by to our industry partners. If she quits they will have to TDY us when we visit those facilities.

[Anonymous]

Page not found now.