Feds: Bogus WFH RAs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was in this exact situation. Not only did she game the system she also got others to do it - and was very very successful.

This individual also claimed she could not do the commute to the office due to her "condition" but had no problem going on cruise vacations, swimming with stingrays, babysitting grandchildren, tent camping with family and most importantly, running an on-line business out of her home during work hours.

What eventually happened is she proved to be such a role model that two other employees got notes from their respective "Dr. Quacks" saying they had some sort of condition and needed to work from home full time. No details on condition or what was needed to accommodate them - just that they "needed to work from home full-time as a reasonable accommodation."

Then, following the instigator's guidance, they all were unavailable by phone, all had repeated and regular "connectivity problems" so couldn't answer e-mail nor submit work projects (despite Help Desk finding no reason for these repeated problems) AND literally went silent for several days per week. Three of them.

This went on for more than two years. Guess who wound up doing the work of three GS-13s? Yes, all the rest of the team.

One of them was a gentleman farmer who spent his days out in his barn and fields working with his animals. Yet he did not answer the phone when we called, did not respond to emails nor did he submit projects. And was pissed as hell when we finally got him on the phone one day, telling us we interrupted him tending to one of his animals.

Another had a husband who had his own medical practice and she spent her days doing his books, making appointments for him, and had the gall to tell others in the office she was doing it.

After repeatedly dealing with the incompetent HR director who claimed that anyone with a RA was completely "hands off" (and was also friends with the instigator) the three of them were encouraged to file EEO complaints against me because I insisted there had to be a way to get these three GS-13s to actually perform their duties. That was considered discriminatory and harassment.

Guess who was shoved into early retirement? And guess who went on "teleworking" for the next couple of years?

I wonder what the statute of limitations is for these kinds of crimes, as it constitutes defrauding the government of hundreds of thousands of dollars in wages. American taxpayers should recoup every dime of their salaries.

It sounds like you went after disabled people without evidence and failed your EEO interview spectacularly. Not something I would brag about online or use as an example of RA abuse.

Expecting people to do their job, even if actually disabled, is hardly going after someone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was in this exact situation. Not only did she game the system she also got others to do it - and was very very successful.

This individual also claimed she could not do the commute to the office due to her "condition" but had no problem going on cruise vacations, swimming with stingrays, babysitting grandchildren, tent camping with family and most importantly, running an on-line business out of her home during work hours.

What eventually happened is she proved to be such a role model that two other employees got notes from their respective "Dr. Quacks" saying they had some sort of condition and needed to work from home full time. No details on condition or what was needed to accommodate them - just that they "needed to work from home full-time as a reasonable accommodation."

Then, following the instigator's guidance, they all were unavailable by phone, all had repeated and regular "connectivity problems" so couldn't answer e-mail nor submit work projects (despite Help Desk finding no reason for these repeated problems) AND literally went silent for several days per week. Three of them.

This went on for more than two years. Guess who wound up doing the work of three GS-13s? Yes, all the rest of the team.

One of them was a gentleman farmer who spent his days out in his barn and fields working with his animals. Yet he did not answer the phone when we called, did not respond to emails nor did he submit projects. And was pissed as hell when we finally got him on the phone one day, telling us we interrupted him tending to one of his animals.

Another had a husband who had his own medical practice and she spent her days doing his books, making appointments for him, and had the gall to tell others in the office she was doing it.

After repeatedly dealing with the incompetent HR director who claimed that anyone with a RA was completely "hands off" (and was also friends with the instigator) the three of them were encouraged to file EEO complaints against me because I insisted there had to be a way to get these three GS-13s to actually perform their duties. That was considered discriminatory and harassment.

Guess who was shoved into early retirement? And guess who went on "teleworking" for the next couple of years?

I wonder what the statute of limitations is for these kinds of crimes, as it constitutes defrauding the government of hundreds of thousands of dollars in wages. American taxpayers should recoup every dime of their salaries.

I'm confused -- if these people were not getting their work done, why did you not put them on a performance improvement plan? Everyone likes to claim it's impossible to fire people in government, but it's not; it just requires following a process. Don't make it about whether their RA request is legitimate; make it about not getting the work done.

Tried to. Multiple people did including other supervisors who were ultimately affected. I sat in the room while another supervisor point-blank told HR that farmer-boy said he was doing farm work while on duty. Another employee stated the other said she was doing her husband's business on duty.

HR chief didn't blink. She said their so-called technology problems were circumstantial and not employee's fault and not a performance problem, not answering phone calls wasn't a performance problem, and dividing up their work projects among others was not unreasonable in order to support accommodations and was not a performance problem. Therefore what was the justification for a PIP? According to her, none.

As to other people's claims, well ... that was just their word against the other employees wasn't it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was in this exact situation. Not only did she game the system she also got others to do it - and was very very successful.

This individual also claimed she could not do the commute to the office due to her "condition" but had no problem going on cruise vacations, swimming with stingrays, babysitting grandchildren, tent camping with family and most importantly, running an on-line business out of her home during work hours.

What eventually happened is she proved to be such a role model that two other employees got notes from their respective "Dr. Quacks" saying they had some sort of condition and needed to work from home full time. No details on condition or what was needed to accommodate them - just that they "needed to work from home full-time as a reasonable accommodation."

Then, following the instigator's guidance, they all were unavailable by phone, all had repeated and regular "connectivity problems" so couldn't answer e-mail nor submit work projects (despite Help Desk finding no reason for these repeated problems) AND literally went silent for several days per week. Three of them.

This went on for more than two years. Guess who wound up doing the work of three GS-13s? Yes, all the rest of the team.

One of them was a gentleman farmer who spent his days out in his barn and fields working with his animals. Yet he did not answer the phone when we called, did not respond to emails nor did he submit projects. And was pissed as hell when we finally got him on the phone one day, telling us we interrupted him tending to one of his animals.

Another had a husband who had his own medical practice and she spent her days doing his books, making appointments for him, and had the gall to tell others in the office she was doing it.

After repeatedly dealing with the incompetent HR director who claimed that anyone with a RA was completely "hands off" (and was also friends with the instigator) the three of them were encouraged to file EEO complaints against me because I insisted there had to be a way to get these three GS-13s to actually perform their duties. That was considered discriminatory and harassment.

Guess who was shoved into early retirement? And guess who went on "teleworking" for the next couple of years?

I wonder what the statute of limitations is for these kinds of crimes, as it constitutes defrauding the government of hundreds of thousands of dollars in wages. American taxpayers should recoup every dime of their salaries.

I'm confused -- if these people were not getting their work done, why did you not put them on a performance improvement plan? Everyone likes to claim it's impossible to fire people in government, but it's not; it just requires following a process. Don't make it about whether their RA request is legitimate; make it about not getting the work done.

Tried to. Multiple people did including other supervisors who were ultimately affected. I sat in the room while another supervisor point-blank told HR that farmer-boy said he was doing farm work while on duty. Another employee stated the other said she was doing her husband's business on duty.

HR chief didn't blink. She said their so-called technology problems were circumstantial and not employee's fault and not a performance problem, not answering phone calls wasn't a performance problem, and dividing up their work projects among others was not unreasonable in order to support accommodations and was not a performance problem. Therefore what was the justification for a PIP? According to her, none.

As to other people's claims, well ... that was just their word against the other employees wasn't it?

I’m a fed manager and I don’t even believe this one bit. When I’ve had any trouble with employees, HR really stepped up. Not only did they get out on a PIP but also had disciplinary measures taken. Similarly another supervisor had work time issues and they docked her emoloyee’s pay.

Work connectivity happens but were they getting their work done? Was it measurable? Then why not put them on a PIP? Remote employees can be made to call their manager every morning or email when they’re on a PIP.

[Anonymous]

It sounds like no one agrees with you this employee is a problem. You’re the only one who finds her problematic.

I’d either accept that she isn’t a problem or I’d find a new job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was in this exact situation. Not only did she game the system she also got others to do it - and was very very successful.

This individual also claimed she could not do the commute to the office due to her "condition" but had no problem going on cruise vacations, swimming with stingrays, babysitting grandchildren, tent camping with family and most importantly, running an on-line business out of her home during work hours.

What eventually happened is she proved to be such a role model that two other employees got notes from their respective "Dr. Quacks" saying they had some sort of condition and needed to work from home full time. No details on condition or what was needed to accommodate them - just that they "needed to work from home full-time as a reasonable accommodation."

Then, following the instigator's guidance, they all were unavailable by phone, all had repeated and regular "connectivity problems" so couldn't answer e-mail nor submit work projects (despite Help Desk finding no reason for these repeated problems) AND literally went silent for several days per week. Three of them.

This went on for more than two years. Guess who wound up doing the work of three GS-13s? Yes, all the rest of the team.

One of them was a gentleman farmer who spent his days out in his barn and fields working with his animals. Yet he did not answer the phone when we called, did not respond to emails nor did he submit projects. And was pissed as hell when we finally got him on the phone one day, telling us we interrupted him tending to one of his animals.

Another had a husband who had his own medical practice and she spent her days doing his books, making appointments for him, and had the gall to tell others in the office she was doing it.

After repeatedly dealing with the incompetent HR director who claimed that anyone with a RA was completely "hands off" (and was also friends with the instigator) the three of them were encouraged to file EEO complaints against me because I insisted there had to be a way to get these three GS-13s to actually perform their duties. That was considered discriminatory and harassment.

Guess who was shoved into early retirement? And guess who went on "teleworking" for the next couple of years?

I wonder what the statute of limitations is for these kinds of crimes, as it constitutes defrauding the government of hundreds of thousands of dollars in wages. American taxpayers should recoup every dime of their salaries.

I'm confused -- if these people were not getting their work done, why did you not put them on a performance improvement plan? Everyone likes to claim it's impossible to fire people in government, but it's not; it just requires following a process. Don't make it about whether their RA request is legitimate; make it about not getting the work done.

Tried to. Multiple people did including other supervisors who were ultimately affected. I sat in the room while another supervisor point-blank told HR that farmer-boy said he was doing farm work while on duty. Another employee stated the other said she was doing her husband's business on duty.

HR chief didn't blink. She said their so-called technology problems were circumstantial and not employee's fault and not a performance problem, not answering phone calls wasn't a performance problem, and dividing up their work projects among others was not unreasonable in order to support accommodations and was not a performance problem. Therefore what was the justification for a PIP? According to her, none.

As to other people's claims, well ... that was just their word against the other employees wasn't it?

I’m a fed manager and I don’t even believe this one bit. When I’ve had any trouble with employees, HR really stepped up. Not only did they get out on a PIP but also had disciplinary measures taken. Similarly another supervisor had work time issues and they docked her emoloyee’s pay.

Work connectivity happens but were they getting their work done? Was it measurable? Then why not put them on a PIP? Remote employees can be made to call their manager every morning or email when they’re on a PIP.

Believe it. I had worked for several other agencies where this would never have occurred, nor would I have believed it. Until I worked for this place. Not all agencies are alike. Nor are all HR managers or agency attorneys. Do you believe in corruption and malfeasance, in general? If you do then believe it happens at federal agencies.

FWIW, when I said employees were not reachable by phone they (HR and attorney) stated their personal phones were their own property and we (supervisors) could not dictate how they used their personal phones. Therefore, we could have no expectation of contacting them via a personal device. If they CHOSE to call us via their phone and let us know they could not connect to the agency's system, that was their prerogative but we could not make it a requirement. One of the employees blocked calls from our office and we were told she had the right to do so.

Yes, it sounds insane. And it was. And still is since this continues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was in this exact situation. Not only did she game the system she also got others to do it - and was very very successful.

This individual also claimed she could not do the commute to the office due to her "condition" but had no problem going on cruise vacations, swimming with stingrays, babysitting grandchildren, tent camping with family and most importantly, running an on-line business out of her home during work hours.

What eventually happened is she proved to be such a role model that two other employees got notes from their respective "Dr. Quacks" saying they had some sort of condition and needed to work from home full time. No details on condition or what was needed to accommodate them - just that they "needed to work from home full-time as a reasonable accommodation."

Then, following the instigator's guidance, they all were unavailable by phone, all had repeated and regular "connectivity problems" so couldn't answer e-mail nor submit work projects (despite Help Desk finding no reason for these repeated problems) AND literally went silent for several days per week. Three of them.

This went on for more than two years. Guess who wound up doing the work of three GS-13s? Yes, all the rest of the team.

One of them was a gentleman farmer who spent his days out in his barn and fields working with his animals. Yet he did not answer the phone when we called, did not respond to emails nor did he submit projects. And was pissed as hell when we finally got him on the phone one day, telling us we interrupted him tending to one of his animals.

Another had a husband who had his own medical practice and she spent her days doing his books, making appointments for him, and had the gall to tell others in the office she was doing it.

After repeatedly dealing with the incompetent HR director who claimed that anyone with a RA was completely "hands off" (and was also friends with the instigator) the three of them were encouraged to file EEO complaints against me because I insisted there had to be a way to get these three GS-13s to actually perform their duties. That was considered discriminatory and harassment.

Guess who was shoved into early retirement? And guess who went on "teleworking" for the next couple of years?

I wonder what the statute of limitations is for these kinds of crimes, as it constitutes defrauding the government of hundreds of thousands of dollars in wages. American taxpayers should recoup every dime of their salaries.

I'm confused -- if these people were not getting their work done, why did you not put them on a performance improvement plan? Everyone likes to claim it's impossible to fire people in government, but it's not; it just requires following a process. Don't make it about whether their RA request is legitimate; make it about not getting the work done.

Tried to. Multiple people did including other supervisors who were ultimately affected. I sat in the room while another supervisor point-blank told HR that farmer-boy said he was doing farm work while on duty. Another employee stated the other said she was doing her husband's business on duty.

HR chief didn't blink. She said their so-called technology problems were circumstantial and not employee's fault and not a performance problem, not answering phone calls wasn't a performance problem, and dividing up their work projects among others was not unreasonable in order to support accommodations and was not a performance problem. Therefore what was the justification for a PIP? According to her, none.

As to other people's claims, well ... that was just their word against the other employees wasn't it?

I’m a fed manager and I don’t even believe this one bit. When I’ve had any trouble with employees, HR really stepped up. Not only did they get out on a PIP but also had disciplinary measures taken. Similarly another supervisor had work time issues and they docked her emoloyee’s pay.

Work connectivity happens but were they getting their work done? Was it measurable? Then why not put them on a PIP? Remote employees can be made to call their manager every morning or email when they’re on a PIP.

I totally believe a fed manager is too incompetent to understand performance vs conduct issues and gets pushed into early retirement. Likely PP sat in front of HR repeating all the office gossip and then had a bad day in front of the EEO investigator.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was in this exact situation. Not only did she game the system she also got others to do it - and was very very successful.

This individual also claimed she could not do the commute to the office due to her "condition" but had no problem going on cruise vacations, swimming with stingrays, babysitting grandchildren, tent camping with family and most importantly, running an on-line business out of her home during work hours.

What eventually happened is she proved to be such a role model that two other employees got notes from their respective "Dr. Quacks" saying they had some sort of condition and needed to work from home full time. No details on condition or what was needed to accommodate them - just that they "needed to work from home full-time as a reasonable accommodation."

Then, following the instigator's guidance, they all were unavailable by phone, all had repeated and regular "connectivity problems" so couldn't answer e-mail nor submit work projects (despite Help Desk finding no reason for these repeated problems) AND literally went silent for several days per week. Three of them.

This went on for more than two years. Guess who wound up doing the work of three GS-13s? Yes, all the rest of the team.

One of them was a gentleman farmer who spent his days out in his barn and fields working with his animals. Yet he did not answer the phone when we called, did not respond to emails nor did he submit projects. And was pissed as hell when we finally got him on the phone one day, telling us we interrupted him tending to one of his animals.

Another had a husband who had his own medical practice and she spent her days doing his books, making appointments for him, and had the gall to tell others in the office she was doing it.

After repeatedly dealing with the incompetent HR director who claimed that anyone with a RA was completely "hands off" (and was also friends with the instigator) the three of them were encouraged to file EEO complaints against me because I insisted there had to be a way to get these three GS-13s to actually perform their duties. That was considered discriminatory and harassment.

Guess who was shoved into early retirement? And guess who went on "teleworking" for the next couple of years?

I wonder what the statute of limitations is for these kinds of crimes, as it constitutes defrauding the government of hundreds of thousands of dollars in wages. American taxpayers should recoup every dime of their salaries.

I'm confused -- if these people were not getting their work done, why did you not put them on a performance improvement plan? Everyone likes to claim it's impossible to fire people in government, but it's not; it just requires following a process. Don't make it about whether their RA request is legitimate; make it about not getting the work done.

Tried to. Multiple people did including other supervisors who were ultimately affected. I sat in the room while another supervisor point-blank told HR that farmer-boy said he was doing farm work while on duty. Another employee stated the other said she was doing her husband's business on duty.

HR chief didn't blink. She said their so-called technology problems were circumstantial and not employee's fault and not a performance problem, not answering phone calls wasn't a performance problem, and dividing up their work projects among others was not unreasonable in order to support accommodations and was not a performance problem. Therefore what was the justification for a PIP? According to her, none.

As to other people's claims, well ... that was just their word against the other employees wasn't it?

I’m a fed manager and I don’t even believe this one bit. When I’ve had any trouble with employees, HR really stepped up. Not only did they get out on a PIP but also had disciplinary measures taken. Similarly another supervisor had work time issues and they docked her emoloyee’s pay.

Work connectivity happens but were they getting their work done? Was it measurable? Then why not put them on a PIP? Remote employees can be made to call their manager every morning or email when they’re on a PIP.

Believe it. I had worked for several other agencies where this would never have occurred, nor would I have believed it. Until I worked for this place. Not all agencies are alike. Nor are all HR managers or agency attorneys. Do you believe in corruption and malfeasance, in general? If you do then believe it happens at federal agencies.

FWIW, when I said employees were not reachable by phone they (HR and attorney) stated their personal phones were their own property and we (supervisors) could not dictate how they used their personal phones. Therefore, we could have no expectation of contacting them via a personal device. If they CHOSE to call us via their phone and let us know they could not connect to the agency's system, that was their prerogative but we could not make it a requirement. One of the employees blocked calls from our office and we were told she had the right to do so.

Yes, it sounds insane. And it was. And still is since this continues.

Different pp and I believe you, this is common. You should have left or transferred to another agency after your employees jumped ship. Fighting a RA is a losing battle.