RTO EO is up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It clearly also applies to telework. How else do you interpret "employees to return to work in-person at their respective duty stations on a full-time basis"?

If you take the words at face value, it requires remote work agreements to terminate and those workers must report in person. So if I am remote (residence outside the 50 mile radius) then I’m required to report daily in the office once my remote agreement is terminated. I would likely have to relocate. But this says nothing about all the teleworkers who live within the 59 mile radius. Methinks DOGE is even dumber (and less educated on their jurisdiction) than I thought. Sweet!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone have any insight on what’s going to happen at FDA?

Which center? Nothing from CDER but we are already in the office 2x per PP.

We don’t even have an acting commissioner yet so who knows.

Radio silence still at FDA.

[Anonymous]

This reminds me of the lady who went viral after Obama won; jumping up and down and screaming “I won’t have to pay my rent anymore!” That’s the equivalent of the MAGA idiot that this EO is written to pacify.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It clearly also applies to telework. How else do you interpret "employees to return to work in-person at their respective duty stations on a full-time basis"?

If you take the words at face value, it requires remote work agreements to terminate and those workers must report in person. So if I am remote (residence outside the 50 mile radius) then I’m required to report daily in the office once my remote agreement is terminated. I would likely have to relocate. But this says nothing about all the teleworkers who live within the 59 mile radius. Methinks DOGE is even dumber (and less educated on their jurisdiction) than I thought. Sweet!

Yeah, in Executive Orders wording orders. It seems like those agencies who wanted people back in the office will use the EO to make that happen, but this order, along with many of the others, are worded extremely poorly and as such will not be nearly as effective as they could have been. Thank God for small favors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not entirely opposed to return to work, but there needs to be some limit on how far you have to travel. Our office moved way out to Maryland, so via public transportation it would take 1.5 to 2 hours to get there.

Why would there be a limit? If private businesses are forcing rto and it came from the government, government employees should rto too. It it a 60-90 minute drive each way for my spouse on a good day. There is no close public transportation so that would be a few hours including an uber or cab.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've got nothing in my inbox. Given my office is gone, they're going to have to give instructions.

There’s a lot to figure out, it’s not going to be instantaneous and communication initially will be vague.

[Anonymous]

This is the equivalent of "drill baby drill." It means nothing except pandering to MAGA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It clearly also applies to telework. How else do you interpret "employees to return to work in-person at their respective duty stations on a full-time basis"?

If you take the words at face value, it requires remote work agreements to terminate and those workers must report in person. So if I am remote (residence outside the 50 mile radius) then I’m required to report daily in the office once my remote agreement is terminated. I would likely have to relocate. But this says nothing about all the teleworkers who live within the 59 mile radius. Methinks DOGE is even dumber (and less educated on their jurisdiction) than I thought. Sweet!

Yeah, in Executive Orders wording orders. It seems like those agencies who wanted people back in the office will use the EO to make that happen, but this order, along with many of the others, are worded extremely poorly and as such will not be nearly as effective as they could have been. Thank God for small favors.

Yes, of course that's right. The agency heads *who Trump appointed* and who know exactly what he (or Elon) wants will simply shrug their shoulders and say, "I'm sorry, Mr. President, and also Mr. Trump, but since this is poorly worded, I am stymied from doing what you want. No, I won't just take the actions you want me to take."

Come on. They know what to do. And if for some reason they are truly hamstrung, there will be a new EO.

You all are grasping at straws, and looking pretty silly doing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It clearly also applies to telework. How else do you interpret "employees to return to work in-person at their respective duty stations on a full-time basis"?

If you take the words at face value, it requires remote work agreements to terminate and those workers must report in person. So if I am remote (residence outside the 50 mile radius) then I’m required to report daily in the office once my remote agreement is terminated. I would likely have to relocate. But this says nothing about all the teleworkers who live within the 59 mile radius. Methinks DOGE is even dumber (and less educated on their jurisdiction) than I thought. Sweet!

Yeah, in Executive Orders wording orders. It seems like those agencies who wanted people back in the office will use the EO to make that happen, but this order, along with many of the others, are worded extremely poorly and as such will not be nearly as effective as they could have been. Thank God for small favors.

Nah, I don't agree. The EO orders agencies to do two things -- (1) terminate remote work agreements and (2) return employees to work full time at their assigned work stations. The text does not limit "employees" to "those employees that were formerly remote". It says "employees". And to limit it to "those employees that were formerly remote" of course makes no sense because their station was their home. Even if its arguably ambiguous, an interpretation that makes zero sense is not the one that will prevail. The reasonable interpretation, supported by the text, is all employees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It clearly also applies to telework. How else do you interpret "employees to return to work in-person at their respective duty stations on a full-time basis"?

If you take the words at face value, it requires remote work agreements to terminate and those workers must report in person. So if I am remote (residence outside the 50 mile radius) then I’m required to report daily in the office once my remote agreement is terminated. I would likely have to relocate. But this says nothing about all the teleworkers who live within the 59 mile radius. Methinks DOGE is even dumber (and less educated on their jurisdiction) than I thought. Sweet!

Yeah, in Executive Orders wording orders. It seems like those agencies who wanted people back in the office will use the EO to make that happen, but this order, along with many of the others, are worded extremely poorly and as such will not be nearly as effective as they could have been. Thank God for small favors.

Yes, of course that's right. The agency heads *who Trump appointed* and who know exactly what he (or Elon) wants will simply shrug their shoulders and say, "I'm sorry, Mr. President, and also Mr. Trump, but since this is poorly worded, I am stymied from doing what you want. No, I won't just take the actions you want me to take."

Come on. They know what to do. And if for some reason they are truly hamstrung, there will be a new EO.

You all are grasping at straws, and looking pretty silly doing it.

NP and I think that's probably right. Also, seems like OPM could issue further more detailed guidance to agencies about the order. Permissible exceptions, how to deal with space issues, whether it applies to remote and TW (probably), etc.

I also agree agency heads are probably going to do what they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This reminds me of the lady who went viral after Obama won; jumping up and down and screaming “I won’t have to pay my rent anymore!” That’s the equivalent of the MAGA idiot that this EO is written to pacify.

lol! I'd like the MAGA faithful to report in on how cheap their groceries are today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think GSA has the bandwidth to get all the additional office space needed and most agencies can’t get their own leases.

And if they need to lease space, they have to go through competitive bidding, which takes a while.

Before they can even do that, they need to get the lease into their budget request. Wonder how that will go over with a congressional republicans looking for budget cuts

[Anonymous]

Even the DHS memo telling people to report back full time provided for a report to be sent within 30 days if employees can’t comply because they don’t have an office. I’m sure this will be a mess but there seems to be some awareness that there are groups of people who literally have no office to go to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Could it be that Trump does understand this EO is toothless and nothing willl change for federal employees? Could it be that Trump isn’t as monstrous as some say? He’s obviously a terrible human being but maybe not a terrible president. We can hope…

If you think Trump understands the difference between remote work and telework, I have some Trump crypto to sell you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not entirely opposed to return to work, but there needs to be some limit on how far you have to travel. Our office moved way out to Maryland, so via public transportation it would take 1.5 to 2 hours to get there.

Why would there be a limit? If private businesses are forcing rto and it came from the government, government employees should rto too. It it a 60-90 minute drive each way for my spouse on a good day. There is no close public transportation so that would be a few hours including an uber or cab.

I don’t have problem with RTO but if you are going to treat me the same as a private business than I want the same level of pay (which is $40k more a year!).