CDC employees losing RA telework

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Good for your agency.

There's only one person left in our accommodations office. She doesn't care as along as the letter 1) identifies a medical condition, and 2) references the desired accommodation.

Sure babe

The latest RA request is from someone with ADHD and anxiety, where the doctor noted that telework would reduce the stress of his long commute.

I'll be curious to see if the the RA office still recommends that we accept that one.

Are you the supervisor? It's on you to negotiate with the employee on what is reasonable. There's no reason to accept a doctor's nonspecific recommendation except you and HR being incompetent at your jobs. A lot of problems with federal employment come down to this- incompetent management.

I have zero confidence that my agency will support me in a lawsuit. I will do whatever HR recommends in writing.

Again… this is on HR and your agency. You are making it so clear. Why should people with disabilities suffer?

Someone above mentioned back pain as if that is a fake disability… do you know how monstrously debilitating back pain can be? It can ruin someone’s life. That’s why it’s not up to you- it’s up to the doctor to determine medical need.

That person should move closer to work if the commute is challenging.

Who are you to make that decision? Why should an employer make that decision for someone if telework is available as a reasonable accommodation?

The employer doesn't need to accomodate the employee's preferred home location.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Good for your agency.

There's only one person left in our accommodations office. She doesn't care as along as the letter 1) identifies a medical condition, and 2) references the desired accommodation.

Sure babe

The latest RA request is from someone with ADHD and anxiety, where the doctor noted that telework would reduce the stress of his long commute.

I'll be curious to see if the the RA office still recommends that we accept that one.

Are you the supervisor? It's on you to negotiate with the employee on what is reasonable. There's no reason to accept a doctor's nonspecific recommendation except you and HR being incompetent at your jobs. A lot of problems with federal employment come down to this- incompetent management.

I have zero confidence that my agency will support me in a lawsuit. I will do whatever HR recommends in writing.

Again… this is on HR and your agency. You are making it so clear. Why should people with disabilities suffer?

Someone above mentioned back pain as if that is a fake disability… do you know how monstrously debilitating back pain can be? It can ruin someone’s life. That’s why it’s not up to you- it’s up to the doctor to determine medical need.

That person should move closer to work if the commute is challenging.

Who are you to make that decision? Why should an employer make that decision for someone if telework is available as a reasonable accommodation?

Just because telework is available doesn’t mean that employers are legally obligated to provide telework as an accommodation. They can if they want, but they also have the option of providing alternate accommodations. The only requirement is that the provided accommodation must be effective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Good for your agency.

There's only one person left in our accommodations office. She doesn't care as along as the letter 1) identifies a medical condition, and 2) references the desired accommodation.

Sure babe

The latest RA request is from someone with ADHD and anxiety, where the doctor noted that telework would reduce the stress of his long commute.

I'll be curious to see if the the RA office still recommends that we accept that one.

Are you the supervisor? It's on you to negotiate with the employee on what is reasonable. There's no reason to accept a doctor's nonspecific recommendation except you and HR being incompetent at your jobs. A lot of problems with federal employment come down to this- incompetent management.

I have zero confidence that my agency will support me in a lawsuit. I will do whatever HR recommends in writing.

Again… this is on HR and your agency. You are making it so clear. Why should people with disabilities suffer?

Someone above mentioned back pain as if that is a fake disability… do you know how monstrously debilitating back pain can be? It can ruin someone’s life. That’s why it’s not up to you- it’s up to the doctor to determine medical need.

That person should move closer to work if the commute is challenging.

Who are you to make that decision? Why should an employer make that decision for someone if telework is available as a reasonable accommodation?

Just because telework is available doesn’t mean that employers are legally obligated to provide telework as an accommodation. They can if they want, but they also have the option of providing alternate accommodations. The only requirement is that the provided accommodation must be effective.

This is why we are all finding religion. The religious accommodation the admin put out is much more generous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Good for your agency.

There's only one person left in our accommodations office. She doesn't care as along as the letter 1) identifies a medical condition, and 2) references the desired accommodation.

Sure babe

The latest RA request is from someone with ADHD and anxiety, where the doctor noted that telework would reduce the stress of his long commute.

I'll be curious to see if the the RA office still recommends that we accept that one.

Are you the supervisor? It's on you to negotiate with the employee on what is reasonable. There's no reason to accept a doctor's nonspecific recommendation except you and HR being incompetent at your jobs. A lot of problems with federal employment come down to this- incompetent management.

I have zero confidence that my agency will support me in a lawsuit. I will do whatever HR recommends in writing.

Again… this is on HR and your agency. You are making it so clear. Why should people with disabilities suffer?

Someone above mentioned back pain as if that is a fake disability… do you know how monstrously debilitating back pain can be? It can ruin someone’s life. That’s why it’s not up to you- it’s up to the doctor to determine medical need.

That person should move closer to work if the commute is challenging.

Who are you to make that decision? Why should an employer make that decision for someone if telework is available as a reasonable accommodation?

Just because telework is available doesn’t mean that employers are legally obligated to provide telework as an accommodation. They can if they want, but they also have the option of providing alternate accommodations. The only requirement is that the provided accommodation must be effective.

Ok, and? People are arguing the system is being abused. How? How is it being abused if doctors are documenting a medical need and the employer is agreeing to it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Good for your agency.

There's only one person left in our accommodations office. She doesn't care as along as the letter 1) identifies a medical condition, and 2) references the desired accommodation.

Sure babe

The latest RA request is from someone with ADHD and anxiety, where the doctor noted that telework would reduce the stress of his long commute.

I'll be curious to see if the the RA office still recommends that we accept that one.

Are you the supervisor? It's on you to negotiate with the employee on what is reasonable. There's no reason to accept a doctor's nonspecific recommendation except you and HR being incompetent at your jobs. A lot of problems with federal employment come down to this- incompetent management.

I have zero confidence that my agency will support me in a lawsuit. I will do whatever HR recommends in writing.

Again… this is on HR and your agency. You are making it so clear. Why should people with disabilities suffer?

Someone above mentioned back pain as if that is a fake disability… do you know how monstrously debilitating back pain can be? It can ruin someone’s life. That’s why it’s not up to you- it’s up to the doctor to determine medical need.

That person should move closer to work if the commute is challenging.

Who are you to make that decision? Why should an employer make that decision for someone if telework is available as a reasonable accommodation?

The employer doesn't need to accomodate the employee's preferred home location.

DP. We are talking about reasonable accommodations. Telework is a reasonable accommodation for people who do their work using computers. It costs the employer nothing. Forcing someone to move for this is unreasonable, especially if they were hired as a fully remote employee.

Also, I was hired as a fully remote employee. There was no way I could have reasonably predicted that RTO would happen in this manner, 5 days a week, to a location 45 miles through DMV traffic away from my home. I never would have taken the job. And If in-person work really is necessary, then that onus should be on the employer to prove that.

But we all know it isn’t necessary, not when the rest of my team is working out of offices spread across the country. We are still effectively remote. Not to mention the exemptions for military spouses, religious RAs, and what seems to be some type of favoritism in my agency where a few folks are WFH with infinitely pending RA applications, without really any explanation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Good for your agency.

There's only one person left in our accommodations office. She doesn't care as along as the letter 1) identifies a medical condition, and 2) references the desired accommodation.

Sure babe

The latest RA request is from someone with ADHD and anxiety, where the doctor noted that telework would reduce the stress of his long commute.

I'll be curious to see if the the RA office still recommends that we accept that one.

Are you the supervisor? It's on you to negotiate with the employee on what is reasonable. There's no reason to accept a doctor's nonspecific recommendation except you and HR being incompetent at your jobs. A lot of problems with federal employment come down to this- incompetent management.

I have zero confidence that my agency will support me in a lawsuit. I will do whatever HR recommends in writing.

Again… this is on HR and your agency. You are making it so clear. Why should people with disabilities suffer?

Someone above mentioned back pain as if that is a fake disability… do you know how monstrously debilitating back pain can be? It can ruin someone’s life. That’s why it’s not up to you- it’s up to the doctor to determine medical need.

That person should move closer to work if the commute is challenging.

Who are you to make that decision? Why should an employer make that decision for someone if telework is available as a reasonable accommodation?

Just because telework is available doesn’t mean that employers are legally obligated to provide telework as an accommodation. They can if they want, but they also have the option of providing alternate accommodations. The only requirement is that the provided accommodation must be effective.

This is why we are all finding religion. The religious accommodation the admin put out is much more generous.

EEOC recently asked the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel for advice on the interplay between the in person work directives and religious accommodations. According to OLC, agencies may grant situational telework for specific, discrete religious circumstances. I don’t think OPM’s guidance on religious accommodation is as broad as you think.

https://www.justice.gov/olc/media/1414536/dl

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Good for your agency.

There's only one person left in our accommodations office. She doesn't care as along as the letter 1) identifies a medical condition, and 2) references the desired accommodation.

Sure babe

The latest RA request is from someone with ADHD and anxiety, where the doctor noted that telework would reduce the stress of his long commute.

I'll be curious to see if the the RA office still recommends that we accept that one.

Are you the supervisor? It's on you to negotiate with the employee on what is reasonable. There's no reason to accept a doctor's nonspecific recommendation except you and HR being incompetent at your jobs. A lot of problems with federal employment come down to this- incompetent management.

I have zero confidence that my agency will support me in a lawsuit. I will do whatever HR recommends in writing.

Again… this is on HR and your agency. You are making it so clear. Why should people with disabilities suffer?

Someone above mentioned back pain as if that is a fake disability… do you know how monstrously debilitating back pain can be? It can ruin someone’s life. That’s why it’s not up to you- it’s up to the doctor to determine medical need.

That person should move closer to work if the commute is challenging.

Who are you to make that decision? Why should an employer make that decision for someone if telework is available as a reasonable accommodation?

The employer doesn't need to accomodate the employee's preferred home location.

DP. We are talking about reasonable accommodations. Telework is a reasonable accommodation for people who do their work using computers. It costs the employer nothing. Forcing someone to move for this is unreasonable, especially if they were hired as a fully remote employee.

Also, I was hired as a fully remote employee. There was no way I could have reasonably predicted that RTO would happen in this manner, 5 days a week, to a location 45 miles through DMV traffic away from my home. I never would have taken the job. And If in-person work really is necessary, then that onus should be on the employer to prove that.

But we all know it isn’t necessary, not when the rest of my team is working out of offices spread across the country. We are still effectively remote. Not to mention the exemptions for military spouses, religious RAs, and what seems to be some type of favoritism in my agency where a few folks are WFH with infinitely pending RA applications, without really any explanation.

Exactly. And employers are not obligated to provide reasonable accommodations for the employee's choice of home. They don't need to say in-person work is essential. They don't need to provide anything if the issue is based on the length of the person's commute. Although, if the back pain continues during the workday, perhaps they would provide a better chair or a standing desk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Good for your agency.

There's only one person left in our accommodations office. She doesn't care as along as the letter 1) identifies a medical condition, and 2) references the desired accommodation.

Sure babe

The latest RA request is from someone with ADHD and anxiety, where the doctor noted that telework would reduce the stress of his long commute.

I'll be curious to see if the the RA office still recommends that we accept that one.

Are you the supervisor? It's on you to negotiate with the employee on what is reasonable. There's no reason to accept a doctor's nonspecific recommendation except you and HR being incompetent at your jobs. A lot of problems with federal employment come down to this- incompetent management.

By incompetent management you mean the political appointees in charge? Regular federal supervisors have no say over these things.

Frankly I wish doge had changed HR practices and made it easier to hire and fire. But nope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Good for your agency.

There's only one person left in our accommodations office. She doesn't care as along as the letter 1) identifies a medical condition, and 2) references the desired accommodation.

Sure babe

The latest RA request is from someone with ADHD and anxiety, where the doctor noted that telework would reduce the stress of his long commute.

I'll be curious to see if the the RA office still recommends that we accept that one.

Are you the supervisor? It's on you to negotiate with the employee on what is reasonable. There's no reason to accept a doctor's nonspecific recommendation except you and HR being incompetent at your jobs. A lot of problems with federal employment come down to this- incompetent management.

I have zero confidence that my agency will support me in a lawsuit. I will do whatever HR recommends in writing.

Again… this is on HR and your agency. You are making it so clear. Why should people with disabilities suffer?

Someone above mentioned back pain as if that is a fake disability… do you know how monstrously debilitating back pain can be? It can ruin someone’s life. That’s why it’s not up to you- it’s up to the doctor to determine medical need.

That person should move closer to work if the commute is challenging.

Who are you to make that decision? Why should an employer make that decision for someone if telework is available as a reasonable accommodation?

Just because telework is available doesn’t mean that employers are legally obligated to provide telework as an accommodation. They can if they want, but they also have the option of providing alternate accommodations. The only requirement is that the provided accommodation must be effective.

This is why we are all finding religion. The religious accommodation the admin put out is much more generous.

You bet we’re all getting religious telework for Christmas Eve and Good Friday. Previously we needed office coverage but my entire office is Christian. Too bad the Friday after Thanksgiving isn’t religious

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will say that it was horrible for me losing telework, but I didn't think it was fair that coworkers got RAs approved for made up reasons. I know that RAs are often legitimate, but the ones I saw and know personally (I am in the approval chain for these) were bogus. Anxiety and back pain from a long commute were popular.

I don't get this argument at all. The claims either meet the standard for an RA or they don't. If the HR people aren't doing their jobs and properly vetting claims the answer is they should be disciplined or trained better, not remove the RA from everyone.

But what is an appropriate RA? I have a few disabled coworkers who were in electric wheelchairs and they worked in person with me for 15 years. We even put in van accessible parking spots just for them.

Maybe immunocompromised in an RA?

Yes, and various autoimmune disorders, and people under going cancer treatment for example. They can still work, but it might be deadly to come into the office and catch flu or Covid.

Treatment for cancer isn’t permanent. They should and do get a temporary RA. I know several people with autoimmune diseases that work in person. A few are teachers.

NP - The fact that you know several people with autoimmune diseases who work in-person is irrelevant. It depends on the specific autoimmune disease and the specific person.

Moreover, some cancers are incurable, but treatable, i.e., people are on treatments for the rest of their lives to keep the cancer at bay. In many of those instances, the treatments are immunosuppressive. So, yes, for people who are on those kinds of cancer treatments and are severely immunocompromised as a result, full-time telework is a very appropriate RA.

Or providing a respirator or maybe a private office.

Why would you twist yourself into pretzels to defend making this person come in to the office. Ghoul.

[Anonymous]

All of this is stupid. There are many jobs, esp. administrative, that don't require people to come to an office to do their job well.

As someone who has to come in to work to do my job, I hate this. It was so nice to have less traffic and more available parking spaces when people who can quite effectively telework were allowed to do so.

This is all BS jerk-moves from this cruel administration to make people quit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Good for your agency.

There's only one person left in our accommodations office. She doesn't care as along as the letter 1) identifies a medical condition, and 2) references the desired accommodation.

Sure babe

The latest RA request is from someone with ADHD and anxiety, where the doctor noted that telework would reduce the stress of his long commute.

I'll be curious to see if the the RA office still recommends that we accept that one.

Are you the supervisor? It's on you to negotiate with the employee on what is reasonable. There's no reason to accept a doctor's nonspecific recommendation except you and HR being incompetent at your jobs. A lot of problems with federal employment come down to this- incompetent management.

I have zero confidence that my agency will support me in a lawsuit. I will do whatever HR recommends in writing.

Again… this is on HR and your agency. You are making it so clear. Why should people with disabilities suffer?

Someone above mentioned back pain as if that is a fake disability… do you know how monstrously debilitating back pain can be? It can ruin someone’s life. That’s why it’s not up to you- it’s up to the doctor to determine medical need.

That person should move closer to work if the commute is challenging.

Who are you to make that decision? Why should an employer make that decision for someone if telework is available as a reasonable accommodation?

The employer doesn't need to accomodate the employee's preferred home location.

DP. We are talking about reasonable accommodations. Telework is a reasonable accommodation for people who do their work using computers. It costs the employer nothing. Forcing someone to move for this is unreasonable, especially if they were hired as a fully remote employee.

Also, I was hired as a fully remote employee. There was no way I could have reasonably predicted that RTO would happen in this manner, 5 days a week, to a location 45 miles through DMV traffic away from my home. I never would have taken the job. And If in-person work really is necessary, then that onus should be on the employer to prove that.

But we all know it isn’t necessary, not when the rest of my team is working out of offices spread across the country. We are still effectively remote. Not to mention the exemptions for military spouses, religious RAs, and what seems to be some type of favoritism in my agency where a few folks are WFH with infinitely pending RA applications, without really any explanation.

Exactly. And employers are not obligated to provide reasonable accommodations for the employee's choice of home. They don't need to say in-person work is essential. They don't need to provide anything if the issue is based on the length of the person's commute. Although, if the back pain continues during the workday, perhaps they would provide a better chair or a standing desk.

NP and this is an incorrect statement as commuting is considered a major life activity under the Rehabilitation Act.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will say that it was horrible for me losing telework, but I didn't think it was fair that coworkers got RAs approved for made up reasons. I know that RAs are often legitimate, but the ones I saw and know personally (I am in the approval chain for these) were bogus. Anxiety and back pain from a long commute were popular.

I don't get this argument at all. The claims either meet the standard for an RA or they don't. If the HR people aren't doing their jobs and properly vetting claims the answer is they should be disciplined or trained better, not remove the RA from everyone.

But what is an appropriate RA? I have a few disabled coworkers who were in electric wheelchairs and they worked in person with me for 15 years. We even put in van accessible parking spots just for them.

Maybe immunocompromised in an RA?

Yes, and various autoimmune disorders, and people under going cancer treatment for example. They can still work, but it might be deadly to come into the office and catch flu or Covid.

Treatment for cancer isn’t permanent. They should and do get a temporary RA. I know several people with autoimmune diseases that work in person. A few are teachers.

NP - The fact that you know several people with autoimmune diseases who work in-person is irrelevant. It depends on the specific autoimmune disease and the specific person.

Moreover, some cancers are incurable, but treatable, i.e., people are on treatments for the rest of their lives to keep the cancer at bay. In many of those instances, the treatments are immunosuppressive. So, yes, for people who are on those kinds of cancer treatments and are severely immunocompromised as a result, full-time telework is a very appropriate RA.

Or providing a respirator or maybe a private office.

Why would you twist yourself into pretzels to defend making this person come in to the office. Ghoul.

What do you mean? I think it's reasonable for employers to provide respirators and masks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Good for your agency.

There's only one person left in our accommodations office. She doesn't care as along as the letter 1) identifies a medical condition, and 2) references the desired accommodation.

Sure babe

The latest RA request is from someone with ADHD and anxiety, where the doctor noted that telework would reduce the stress of his long commute.

I'll be curious to see if the the RA office still recommends that we accept that one.

Are you the supervisor? It's on you to negotiate with the employee on what is reasonable. There's no reason to accept a doctor's nonspecific recommendation except you and HR being incompetent at your jobs. A lot of problems with federal employment come down to this- incompetent management.

I have zero confidence that my agency will support me in a lawsuit. I will do whatever HR recommends in writing.

Again… this is on HR and your agency. You are making it so clear. Why should people with disabilities suffer?

Someone above mentioned back pain as if that is a fake disability… do you know how monstrously debilitating back pain can be? It can ruin someone’s life. That’s why it’s not up to you- it’s up to the doctor to determine medical need.

That person should move closer to work if the commute is challenging.

Who are you to make that decision? Why should an employer make that decision for someone if telework is available as a reasonable accommodation?

The employer doesn't need to accomodate the employee's preferred home location.

DP. We are talking about reasonable accommodations. Telework is a reasonable accommodation for people who do their work using computers. It costs the employer nothing. Forcing someone to move for this is unreasonable, especially if they were hired as a fully remote employee.

Also, I was hired as a fully remote employee. There was no way I could have reasonably predicted that RTO would happen in this manner, 5 days a week, to a location 45 miles through DMV traffic away from my home. I never would have taken the job. And If in-person work really is necessary, then that onus should be on the employer to prove that.

But we all know it isn’t necessary, not when the rest of my team is working out of offices spread across the country. We are still effectively remote. Not to mention the exemptions for military spouses, religious RAs, and what seems to be some type of favoritism in my agency where a few folks are WFH with infinitely pending RA applications, without really any explanation.

Exactly. And employers are not obligated to provide reasonable accommodations for the employee's choice of home. They don't need to say in-person work is essential. They don't need to provide anything if the issue is based on the length of the person's commute. Although, if the back pain continues during the workday, perhaps they would provide a better chair or a standing desk.

NP and this is an incorrect statement as commuting is considered a major life activity under the Rehabilitation Act.

There's a lot of case law on this. Employers don't need to accomodate your decision to live far from the workplace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Good for your agency.

There's only one person left in our accommodations office. She doesn't care as along as the letter 1) identifies a medical condition, and 2) references the desired accommodation.

Sure babe

The latest RA request is from someone with ADHD and anxiety, where the doctor noted that telework would reduce the stress of his long commute.

I'll be curious to see if the the RA office still recommends that we accept that one.

Are you the supervisor? It's on you to negotiate with the employee on what is reasonable. There's no reason to accept a doctor's nonspecific recommendation except you and HR being incompetent at your jobs. A lot of problems with federal employment come down to this- incompetent management.

I have zero confidence that my agency will support me in a lawsuit. I will do whatever HR recommends in writing.

Again… this is on HR and your agency. You are making it so clear. Why should people with disabilities suffer?

Someone above mentioned back pain as if that is a fake disability… do you know how monstrously debilitating back pain can be? It can ruin someone’s life. That’s why it’s not up to you- it’s up to the doctor to determine medical need.

That person should move closer to work if the commute is challenging.

Who are you to make that decision? Why should an employer make that decision for someone if telework is available as a reasonable accommodation?

The employer doesn't need to accomodate the employee's preferred home location.

DP. We are talking about reasonable accommodations. Telework is a reasonable accommodation for people who do their work using computers. It costs the employer nothing. Forcing someone to move for this is unreasonable, especially if they were hired as a fully remote employee.

Also, I was hired as a fully remote employee. There was no way I could have reasonably predicted that RTO would happen in this manner, 5 days a week, to a location 45 miles through DMV traffic away from my home. I never would have taken the job. And If in-person work really is necessary, then that onus should be on the employer to prove that.

But we all know it isn’t necessary, not when the rest of my team is working out of offices spread across the country. We are still effectively remote. Not to mention the exemptions for military spouses, religious RAs, and what seems to be some type of favoritism in my agency where a few folks are WFH with infinitely pending RA applications, without really any explanation.

Exactly. And employers are not obligated to provide reasonable accommodations for the employee's choice of home. They don't need to say in-person work is essential. They don't need to provide anything if the issue is based on the length of the person's commute. Although, if the back pain continues during the workday, perhaps they would provide a better chair or a standing desk.

NP and this is an incorrect statement as commuting is considered a major life activity under the Rehabilitation Act.

There's a lot of case law on this. Employers don't need to accomodate your decision to live far from the workplace.

Show us the case law.