RTO EO is up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s all just MAGA schadenfreude. They’re miserable and just want to see others they think are “the enemy” suffer in some way.

[Anonymous]

My duty workstation is my home address. Not worrying here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!).

Sure just as soon as we eliminate your pension and superior healthcare benefits. Actually why don’t you just go ahead and take that job for $40,000 more than you make now and call it and even trade?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!).

Sure just as soon as we eliminate your pension and superior healthcare benefits. Actually why don’t you just go ahead and take that job for $40,000 more than you make now and call it and even trade?

Take another look at the federal employee health insurance plans and cost-sharing levels. They're not bad, but they're not great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My duty workstation is my home address. Not worrying here.

Not if your remote agreement is terminated. That's why the EO orders two separate things: terminate remote agreements and return all employees to work full-time.

I'm not sure why folks think the wording of this EO is helpful. Are you being willfully obtuse? It's actually crafted to cover the largest swath of people. There is no exception for fully-remote, no mention of pre-covid levels, etc.

The only beneficial part, in terms of wording, is the allowance for exemptions, applicable with law, etc.

[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.

Agree a limit would not make sense. I already think the whole thing doesn’t make sense. I’m a GS-14. My superior a GS-15 is remote. I have to already come in. How does this make sense? I have to pay for parking, gas, extended care and boss isn’t even here.

[Anonymous]

What are we thinking at SEC?

My view is this EO is cover for the agency heads who want staff back full time - and want to please the WH - to do so. Some obviously really really want to please Trump - see Marco Rubio and make Maga happy. But what about outsiders like Atkins? I mean he's a Trump appointee so I can see wanting to play ball. But he's not looking to run for political office either and may not be interested in engaging in a ongoing fight with the union over every little thing. Are the financial regulators going to run with the "applicable law" part - i.e. we have a CBA in place?

I live close to the office so NBD for me but I def have colleagues who are worried who bought houses as far as Richmond.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree a limit would not make sense. I already think the whole thing doesn’t make sense. I’m a GS-14. My superior a GS-15 is remote. I have to already come in. How does this make sense? I have to pay for parking, gas, extended care and boss isn’t even here.

So, neither of you should have to go in person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My duty workstation is my home address. Not worrying here.

Not if your remote agreement is terminated. That's why the EO orders two separate things: terminate remote agreements and return all employees to work full-time.

I'm not sure why folks think the wording of this EO is helpful. Are you being willfully obtuse? It's actually crafted to cover the largest swath of people. There is no exception for fully-remote, no mention of pre-covid levels, etc.

The only beneficial part, in terms of wording, is the allowance for exemptions, applicable with law, etc.

Yes, people are being willfully obtuse. It's a big change and we don't want it to be true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My duty workstation is my home address. Not worrying here.

Not if your remote agreement is terminated. That's why the EO orders two separate things: terminate remote agreements and return all employees to work full-time.

I'm not sure why folks think the wording of this EO is helpful. Are you being willfully obtuse? It's actually crafted to cover the largest swath of people. There is no exception for fully-remote, no mention of pre-covid levels, etc.

The only beneficial part, in terms of wording, is the allowance for exemptions, applicable with law, etc.

Yes, people are being willfully obtuse. It's a big change and we don't want it to be true.

+1. But it doesn’t say “telework!”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are we thinking at SEC?

My view is this EO is cover for the agency heads who want staff back full time - and want to please the WH - to do so. Some obviously really really want to please Trump - see Marco Rubio and make Maga happy. But what about outsiders like Atkins? I mean he's a Trump appointee so I can see wanting to play ball. But he's not looking to run for political office either and may not be interested in engaging in a ongoing fight with the union over every little thing. Are the financial regulators going to run with the "applicable law" part - i.e. we have a CBA in place?

I live close to the office so NBD for me but I def have colleagues who are worried who bought houses as far as Richmond.

Dumb move on their part!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My duty workstation is my home address. Not worrying here.

Not if your remote agreement is terminated. That's why the EO orders two separate things: terminate remote agreements and return all employees to work full-time.

I'm not sure why folks think the wording of this EO is helpful. Are you being willfully obtuse? It's actually crafted to cover the largest swath of people. There is no exception for fully-remote, no mention of pre-covid levels, etc.

The only beneficial part, in terms of wording, is the allowance for exemptions, applicable with law, etc.

because words have meaning? “Remote” is not the same thing as “telework.”

[Anonymous]

Ha ha what a joke. Not happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are we thinking at SEC?

My view is this EO is cover for the agency heads who want staff back full time - and want to please the WH - to do so. Some obviously really really want to please Trump - see Marco Rubio and make Maga happy. But what about outsiders like Atkins? I mean he's a Trump appointee so I can see wanting to play ball. But he's not looking to run for political office either and may not be interested in engaging in a ongoing fight with the union over every little thing. Are the financial regulators going to run with the "applicable law" part - i.e. we have a CBA in place?

I live close to the office so NBD for me but I def have colleagues who are worried who bought houses as far as Richmond.

Dumb move on their part!

How are these people meeting the current office requirements of 2x/PP

[Anonymous]

Not a Trump supporter but enough is enough. Time to get back to the office. Sorry folks.