RTO EO is up

[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.

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

This has been explained multiple times. The directive to terminate remote work arrangements is separate from the directive to order employees to report to their duty stations in-person on a full time basis. The latter directive is not limited to fully remote workers. You just read that limitation in.

Are you an "employee"? If so, it says your agency should take steps to have you work in person full-time at your duty station.

[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!

So one who is remote but lives 20 miles away can just be switched to telework and go in the office once per week or per pay period?

[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.

The SEC will promulgate a policy with as much wiggle room as the EO. Managerial discretion, exemptions, ad hoc, blah blah blah. I don’t envy managers who will be dealing with this as their full time job now.

[Anonymous]

That is hilariously meaningless. No one has to change anything. One's "respective duty station" can be anywhere, and exemptions can be made at will.

Classic: make a meaningless gesture and declare "Victory! Promise kept!"

So tired of dishonesty.

[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.

The SEC will promulgate a policy with as much wiggle room as the EO. Managerial discretion, exemptions, ad hoc, blah blah blah. I don’t envy managers who will be dealing with this as their full time job now.

But will it try to apply it to bargaining unit employees and rescind the CBA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The SEC will promulgate a policy with as much wiggle room as the EO. Managerial discretion, exemptions, ad hoc, blah blah blah. I don’t envy managers who will be dealing with this as their full time job now.

But will it try to apply it to bargaining unit employees and rescind the CBA

They'll try but the CBA is a contract - it's not like you can rescind it without litigation which drags it out a number of years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This EO is so dumb. It’s almost too vague. OPM will have to issue guidance in order for agencies to implement otherwise there will be disparate ways in which this is interpreted. The only thing I’m hinging on in retaining even 1 day of TW is that this doesn’t seem to override the TW Act of 2010 but perhaps and agency head could decide to bypass it and abolish TW.

Yes. Department and agency heads will do what they want to do. What they will do depends on a lot of factors--allegiance to Trump, but also some have wanted to bring people back for a long time and the EO gives them a pretense, even if they are not Trump fans. Others will not make changes and EO allows for that.

Some agency heads may want to avoid rocking the boat assuming things are running smoothly and agendas can be carried out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The SEC will promulgate a policy with as much wiggle room as the EO. Managerial discretion, exemptions, ad hoc, blah blah blah. I don’t envy managers who will be dealing with this as their full time job now.

But will it try to apply it to bargaining unit employees and rescind the CBA

They'll try but the CBA is a contract - it's not like you can rescind it without litigation which drags it out a number of years.

And in the meantime employees are coming into the office five days per week!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The SEC will promulgate a policy with as much wiggle room as the EO. Managerial discretion, exemptions, ad hoc, blah blah blah. I don’t envy managers who will be dealing with this as their full time job now.

But will it try to apply it to bargaining unit employees and rescind the CBA

They'll try but the CBA is a contract - it's not like you can rescind it without litigation which drags it out a number of years.

And in the meantime employees are coming into the office five days per week!

You clearly don’t understand labor law, contracts or injunctions, so please step aside.

[Anonymous]

Meh. No one is going to actually do this. I don’t and they can fire me if they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The SEC will promulgate a policy with as much wiggle room as the EO. Managerial discretion, exemptions, ad hoc, blah blah blah. I don’t envy managers who will be dealing with this as their full time job now.

But will it try to apply it to bargaining unit employees and rescind the CBA

They'll try but the CBA is a contract - it's not like you can rescind it without litigation which drags it out a number of years.

And in the meantime employees are coming into the office five days per week!

Huh? SEC employees are coming in 5 days a week? Funny it doesn't look full to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Meh. No one is going to actually do this. I don’t and they can fire me if they want.

THIS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The SEC will promulgate a policy with as much wiggle room as the EO. Managerial discretion, exemptions, ad hoc, blah blah blah. I don’t envy managers who will be dealing with this as their full time job now.

But will it try to apply it to bargaining unit employees and rescind the CBA

They'll try but the CBA is a contract - it's not like you can rescind it without litigation which drags it out a number of years.

And in the meantime employees are coming into the office five days per week!

You clearly don’t understand labor law, contracts or injunctions, so please step aside.

You seem awfully confident a judge would issue an injunction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Still nothing. I really thought the union would make a statement.

Radio silence still at FDA.

[Anonymous]

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

Are you back in the office? If so, why do you think its ok to post here constantly instead of working?