Will SEC escape RIFs due to large number of exits?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, that’s not correct. 42.5 hours in the office per week, with rare telework in limited circumstances.

They can’t force you to eat lunch “in the office.” Time cards merely ask you to verify 40 hours of work. Period. As long as you eat lunch before 3:00.

Not sure where everyone comes up with all these extraneous supposed rules that are neither written nor enforceable.

If you look at the CBA, it says you can’t use your lunch to shorten your day or not take lunch one day to take a longer one another day.

So, if you are in the office from 9-5, there is no way you can properly record 8 hours of work.

https://www.secunion.org/article-7-work-schedules

Well, first off, the agency has thrown the CBA out the window. They can’t pick and choose which provisions they like or don’t. Second, the CBA isn’t policy anyway (as we’ve seen with telework).

Third, I can work from 630 - 230. Then go to lunch (wherever I want). 8 hours of work done. Timecard is perfectly accurate.

Wrong. See FLSA.

They’re corresponding badge swipes to time cards. You’re required to have an unpaid lunch in the office. Swiping for only 8 hours means you’re defrauding the government of 0.5 hours/day.

You do you, but seems like a sure fire way to be on the future RIF list.

You’re just making stuff up. Nothing says that you can’t take your lunch outside the office. So you’re saying I can’t go to a nearby restaurant for lunch? Isn’t that Bowser’s whole rationale for loving RTO??

Sure you can. But you’re making stuff up if you think you can take “lunch” at 2:30 and pretend you worked 8 hours after being in the office from 6:30am (as though you didn’t eat). I suggest you reach out to OHR or OGC. Guarantee they’ll tell you it’s 8.5 hours in the office inclusive of unpaid lunch (wherever you want to take it), and you can’t use the unpaid lunch to shorten your work day by 30 min.

Nobody’s pretending. I did work from 630-2:30. Why the hell does it matter when or where I eat lunch?? The government got 8 hrs of work from me, and I was paid for 8 hrs.

You are LITERALLY saving your lunch (and breakfast?) to shorten your work day. Good luck to you!

My “work day” isn’t shortened. It’s 8 hours. It would have been very easy to write a rule to say what you think it says or what you WANT it to say or what you WISH it said. They didn’t.

Then what do you think the provision that says you can’t save your lunch to shorten your day means?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I heard that they’re installing badge swipes in restrooms and will deduct time taking a dump from your 8 hrs. Can’t take a dump to shorten your workday!

A ton of us came from firms, so knocking off .1 for a dump should be pretty familiar.

[Anonymous]

The sad thing is, all these draconian rules are really targeted at admin level staff. But they can’t say that and must “apply” them to the accountants, lawyers, etc too, even if they’d prefer not to. And many many of those people will leave as a result. Very sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, that’s not correct. 42.5 hours in the office per week, with rare telework in limited circumstances.

They can’t force you to eat lunch “in the office.” Time cards merely ask you to verify 40 hours of work. Period. As long as you eat lunch before 3:00.

Not sure where everyone comes up with all these extraneous supposed rules that are neither written nor enforceable.

If you look at the CBA, it says you can’t use your lunch to shorten your day or not take lunch one day to take a longer one another day.

So, if you are in the office from 9-5, there is no way you can properly record 8 hours of work.

https://www.secunion.org/article-7-work-schedules

Well, first off, the agency has thrown the CBA out the window. They can’t pick and choose which provisions they like or don’t. Second, the CBA isn’t policy anyway (as we’ve seen with telework).

Third, I can work from 630 - 230. Then go to lunch (wherever I want). 8 hours of work done. Timecard is perfectly accurate.

Wrong. See FLSA.

They’re corresponding badge swipes to time cards. You’re required to have an unpaid lunch in the office. Swiping for only 8 hours means you’re defrauding the government of 0.5 hours/day.

You do you, but seems like a sure fire way to be on the future RIF list.

You’re just making stuff up. Nothing says that you can’t take your lunch outside the office. So you’re saying I can’t go to a nearby restaurant for lunch? Isn’t that Bowser’s whole rationale for loving RTO??

Sure you can. But you’re making stuff up if you think you can take “lunch” at 2:30 and pretend you worked 8 hours after being in the office from 6:30am (as though you didn’t eat). I suggest you reach out to OHR or OGC. Guarantee they’ll tell you it’s 8.5 hours in the office inclusive of unpaid lunch (wherever you want to take it), and you can’t use the unpaid lunch to shorten your work day by 30 min.

Nobody’s pretending. I did work from 630-2:30. Why the hell does it matter when or where I eat lunch?? The government got 8 hrs of work from me, and I was paid for 8 hrs.

You are LITERALLY saving your lunch (and breakfast?) to shorten your work day. Good luck to you!

My “work day” isn’t shortened. It’s 8 hours. It would have been very easy to write a rule to say what you think it says or what you WANT it to say or what you WISH it said. They didn’t.

Then what do you think the provision that says you can’t save your lunch to shorten your day means?

That you can’t forgo lunch and only work 7.5 hours? No idea.

Where is this “provision” written anyway? Just the CBA? The CBA isn’t HR policy. Obviously. Or are you saying I’ll be fired for violating the CBA? That’d be ironic, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, that’s not correct. 42.5 hours in the office per week, with rare telework in limited circumstances.

They can’t force you to eat lunch “in the office.” Time cards merely ask you to verify 40 hours of work. Period. As long as you eat lunch before 3:00.

Not sure where everyone comes up with all these extraneous supposed rules that are neither written nor enforceable.

If you look at the CBA, it says you can’t use your lunch to shorten your day or not take lunch one day to take a longer one another day.

So, if you are in the office from 9-5, there is no way you can properly record 8 hours of work.

https://www.secunion.org/article-7-work-schedules

Well, first off, the agency has thrown the CBA out the window. They can’t pick and choose which provisions they like or don’t. Second, the CBA isn’t policy anyway (as we’ve seen with telework).

Third, I can work from 630 - 230. Then go to lunch (wherever I want). 8 hours of work done. Timecard is perfectly accurate.

I don’t see how your first and second points differ, and the agency would not agree that the CBA isn’t still in effect, and you probably wouldn’t want that because plenty of other things would also go out the window.

Your time card might be accurate, but you would be violating the CBA lunch provision (and at least theoretically could face some sort of discipline) if you took your lunch outside the building, as in you were only in the office for 8 hours. If you took it in the office, they’d have no way to know since you’d have 8.5 hours in the office.

You can do whatever you like, but it seems like they are going to be looking at badge records to make sure people are complying with RTO, and if they consistently see you in the office only 8 hours, you are taking a risk.

Nobody is going to be fired for working 8 hours. It’s idiotic on its face.

Nor will anyone be fired for violating the CBA, which the agency has already violated. How would that even work? Mgmt files a grievance against the employee? Too funny.

[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:Yes, that’s not correct. 42.5 hours in the office per week, with rare telework in limited circumstances.

They can’t force you to eat lunch “in the office.” Time cards merely ask you to verify 40 hours of work. Period. As long as you eat lunch before 3:00.

Not sure where everyone comes up with all these extraneous supposed rules that are neither written nor enforceable.

If you look at the CBA, it says you can’t use your lunch to shorten your day or not take lunch one day to take a longer one another day.

So, if you are in the office from 9-5, there is no way you can properly record 8 hours of work.

https://www.secunion.org/article-7-work-schedules

Well, first off, the agency has thrown the CBA out the window. They can’t pick and choose which provisions they like or don’t. Second, the CBA isn’t policy anyway (as we’ve seen with telework).

Third, I can work from 630 - 230. Then go to lunch (wherever I want). 8 hours of work done. Timecard is perfectly accurate.

Wrong. See FLSA.

They’re corresponding badge swipes to time cards. You’re required to have an unpaid lunch in the office. Swiping for only 8 hours means you’re defrauding the government of 0.5 hours/day.

You do you, but seems like a sure fire way to be on the future RIF list.

You’re just making stuff up. Nothing says that you can’t take your lunch outside the office. So you’re saying I can’t go to a nearby restaurant for lunch? Isn’t that Bowser’s whole rationale for loving RTO??

Sure you can. But you’re making stuff up if you think you can take “lunch” at 2:30 and pretend you worked 8 hours after being in the office from 6:30am (as though you didn’t eat). I suggest you reach out to OHR or OGC. Guarantee they’ll tell you it’s 8.5 hours in the office inclusive of unpaid lunch (wherever you want to take it), and you can’t use the unpaid lunch to shorten your work day by 30 min.

Nobody’s pretending. I did work from 630-2:30. Why the hell does it matter when or where I eat lunch?? The government got 8 hrs of work from me, and I was paid for 8 hrs.

You are LITERALLY saving your lunch (and breakfast?) to shorten your work day. Good luck to you!

My “work day” isn’t shortened. It’s 8 hours. It would have been very easy to write a rule to say what you think it says or what you WANT it to say or what you WISH it said. They didn’t.

Then what do you think the provision that says you can’t save your lunch to shorten your day means?

That you can’t forgo lunch and only work 7.5 hours? No idea.

Where is this “provision” written anyway? Just the CBA? The CBA isn’t HR policy. Obviously. Or are you saying I’ll be fired for violating the CBA? That’d be ironic, no?

Right, the fact that you can’t come up for an alternative meaning that makes any sense shows that the CBA provision does mean what you are desperately trying to fight against. A contract isn’t going to be interpreted in a way that completely writes out a provision.

I’m not sure the CBA wouldn’t be viewed as hr policy, but that’s kind of a semantic difference. Yeah, you could view getting fired for violating the CBA as ironic. That won’t put bread on your table.

[Anonymous]

“Your Honor, the employee committed clear time card fraud. She attested to working 8 hours. But she only worked 8 hours. Move for summary judgment.”

Good luck.

[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:Yes, that’s not correct. 42.5 hours in the office per week, with rare telework in limited circumstances.

They can’t force you to eat lunch “in the office.” Time cards merely ask you to verify 40 hours of work. Period. As long as you eat lunch before 3:00.

Not sure where everyone comes up with all these extraneous supposed rules that are neither written nor enforceable.

If you look at the CBA, it says you can’t use your lunch to shorten your day or not take lunch one day to take a longer one another day.

So, if you are in the office from 9-5, there is no way you can properly record 8 hours of work.

https://www.secunion.org/article-7-work-schedules

Well, first off, the agency has thrown the CBA out the window. They can’t pick and choose which provisions they like or don’t. Second, the CBA isn’t policy anyway (as we’ve seen with telework).

Third, I can work from 630 - 230. Then go to lunch (wherever I want). 8 hours of work done. Timecard is perfectly accurate.

Wrong. See FLSA.

They’re corresponding badge swipes to time cards. You’re required to have an unpaid lunch in the office. Swiping for only 8 hours means you’re defrauding the government of 0.5 hours/day.

You do you, but seems like a sure fire way to be on the future RIF list.

You’re just making stuff up. Nothing says that you can’t take your lunch outside the office. So you’re saying I can’t go to a nearby restaurant for lunch? Isn’t that Bowser’s whole rationale for loving RTO??

Sure you can. But you’re making stuff up if you think you can take “lunch” at 2:30 and pretend you worked 8 hours after being in the office from 6:30am (as though you didn’t eat). I suggest you reach out to OHR or OGC. Guarantee they’ll tell you it’s 8.5 hours in the office inclusive of unpaid lunch (wherever you want to take it), and you can’t use the unpaid lunch to shorten your work day by 30 min.

Nobody’s pretending. I did work from 630-2:30. Why the hell does it matter when or where I eat lunch?? The government got 8 hrs of work from me, and I was paid for 8 hrs.

You are LITERALLY saving your lunch (and breakfast?) to shorten your work day. Good luck to you!

My “work day” isn’t shortened. It’s 8 hours. It would have been very easy to write a rule to say what you think it says or what you WANT it to say or what you WISH it said. They didn’t.

Then what do you think the provision that says you can’t save your lunch to shorten your day means?

That you can’t forgo lunch and only work 7.5 hours? No idea.

Where is this “provision” written anyway? Just the CBA? The CBA isn’t HR policy. Obviously. Or are you saying I’ll be fired for violating the CBA? That’d be ironic, no?

Right, the fact that you can’t come up for an alternative meaning that makes any sense shows that the CBA provision does mean what you are desperately trying to fight against. A contract isn’t going to be interpreted in a way that completely writes out a provision.

I’m not sure the CBA wouldn’t be viewed as hr policy, but that’s kind of a semantic difference. Yeah, you could view getting fired for violating the CBA as ironic. That won’t put bread on your table.

Point me to anything on this earth that says (or even implies) that an employee may be terminated for violating the CBA. That she didn’t even voluntarily agree to, btw.

[Anonymous]

A contract isn’t going to be interpreted in a way that completely writes out a provision.

Very well done! (What about 0% TW?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

A contract isn’t going to be interpreted in a way that completely writes out a provision.

Very well done! (What about 0% TW?)

+10000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A contract isn’t going to be interpreted in a way that completely writes out a provision.

Very well done! (What about 0% TW?)

+10000

This thread is equal parts DOGE apologists ("just a reorg not a RIF"), management shills ("Mark's doing his best to avoid drawing a bigger target"), hopium addicts ("RTO will be reversed by summer"), and totally unqualified fossils who are frozen in place by fear since they know they couldn't hack it elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

EO and OPM memo just dropped clarifying all this. 2 hour required lunch. Must be in middle of work day, straddled between 4 hours on each side.

[Anonymous]

I'm not SEC, but another office with lots of lawyers, and we are having the same 8 hours versus 8.5 hours argument. We collectively hate ourselves for this.

[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:Yes, that’s not correct. 42.5 hours in the office per week, with rare telework in limited circumstances.

They can’t force you to eat lunch “in the office.” Time cards merely ask you to verify 40 hours of work. Period. As long as you eat lunch before 3:00.

Not sure where everyone comes up with all these extraneous supposed rules that are neither written nor enforceable.

If you look at the CBA, it says you can’t use your lunch to shorten your day or not take lunch one day to take a longer one another day.

So, if you are in the office from 9-5, there is no way you can properly record 8 hours of work.

https://www.secunion.org/article-7-work-schedules

Well, first off, the agency has thrown the CBA out the window. They can’t pick and choose which provisions they like or don’t. Second, the CBA isn’t policy anyway (as we’ve seen with telework).

Third, I can work from 630 - 230. Then go to lunch (wherever I want). 8 hours of work done. Timecard is perfectly accurate.

Wrong. See FLSA.

They’re corresponding badge swipes to time cards. You’re required to have an unpaid lunch in the office. Swiping for only 8 hours means you’re defrauding the government of 0.5 hours/day.

You do you, but seems like a sure fire way to be on the future RIF list.

You’re just making stuff up. Nothing says that you can’t take your lunch outside the office. So you’re saying I can’t go to a nearby restaurant for lunch? Isn’t that Bowser’s whole rationale for loving RTO??

Sure you can. But you’re making stuff up if you think you can take “lunch” at 2:30 and pretend you worked 8 hours after being in the office from 6:30am (as though you didn’t eat). I suggest you reach out to OHR or OGC. Guarantee they’ll tell you it’s 8.5 hours in the office inclusive of unpaid lunch (wherever you want to take it), and you can’t use the unpaid lunch to shorten your work day by 30 min.

Nobody’s pretending. I did work from 630-2:30. Why the hell does it matter when or where I eat lunch?? The government got 8 hrs of work from me, and I was paid for 8 hrs.

You are LITERALLY saving your lunch (and breakfast?) to shorten your work day. Good luck to you!

My “work day” isn’t shortened. It’s 8 hours. It would have been very easy to write a rule to say what you think it says or what you WANT it to say or what you WISH it said. They didn’t.

Then what do you think the provision that says you can’t save your lunch to shorten your day means?

That you can’t forgo lunch and only work 7.5 hours? No idea.

Where is this “provision” written anyway? Just the CBA? The CBA isn’t HR policy. Obviously. Or are you saying I’ll be fired for violating the CBA? That’d be ironic, no?

Right, the fact that you can’t come up for an alternative meaning that makes any sense shows that the CBA provision does mean what you are desperately trying to fight against. A contract isn’t going to be interpreted in a way that completely writes out a provision.

I’m not sure the CBA wouldn’t be viewed as hr policy, but that’s kind of a semantic difference. Yeah, you could view getting fired for violating the CBA as ironic. That won’t put bread on your table.

Point me to anything on this earth that says (or even implies) that an employee may be terminated for violating the CBA. That she didn’t even voluntarily agree to, btw.

I wouldn’t assume employee obligations in the CBA aren’t incorporated into hr policies. For example, the CBA has something on dress code. If someone came in every day in a bathing suit, they’d probably be fired. Whether that would be for violating the CBA, or violating an hr policy that incorporated a CBA provision, I don’t know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not SEC, but another office with lots of lawyers, and we are having the same 8 hours versus 8.5 hours argument. We collectively hate ourselves for this.

I am SEC and someone asked this at an all group meeting discussing RTO.

We were explicitly told that you could NOT take your lunch at the end of the day, so you had to there 8.5 hours.

That extra half hour can really make a difference when people are trying to figure out much more complicated school logistics with RTO, but there was no ambiguity in their response.

Whether anyone would really enforce this, who knows.