RTO EO is up

[Anonymous]

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

But that's because you have a RWA, which the EO separately advises agency heads to terminate. It's just a badly drafted EO, which shouldn't be surprising to anyone who dealt with interpreting Trump EOs the first time around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Despite talking about Remote Work Agreements, this EO by its terms only affects teleworkers. Remote Workers' houses are their duty stations; they *do* work there in person. It's teleworkers who don't.

Say that's true. There is nothing that stops the agency leadership from independently ordering a return to work for remote workers. As others have pointed out, there is substantial latitude in each contract to do just that.

Anyone who is parsing out the language of his order and arguing that what will happen over the next 4 years is somehow constrained by the language is engaged in wishful thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP. This is honestly incredibly outdated. The healthcare benefits are really very mediocre. I have a spouse in biglaw, a sibling in tech, and a sibling who is a firefighter and they all have superior health insurance. There are MANY private companies with much better benefits. The pension is also not what it used to be. No way the pension and healthcare benefits are worth an additional $40k over what you would get in the private sector. And this is the same old nonsense how can you compare salary plus benefits of one place to just salary at another?

Clearly your biglaw spouse isn't a partner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Despite talking about Remote Work Agreements, this EO by its terms only affects teleworkers. Remote Workers' houses are their duty stations; they *do* work there in person. It's teleworkers who don't.

I don’t think so. They use “remote work” instead of “telework”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP. This is honestly incredibly outdated. The healthcare benefits are really very mediocre. I have a spouse in biglaw, a sibling in tech, and a sibling who is a firefighter and they all have superior health insurance. There are MANY private companies with much better benefits. The pension is also not what it used to be. No way the pension and healthcare benefits are worth an additional $40k over what you would get in the private sector. And this is the same old nonsense how can you compare salary plus benefits of one place to just salary at another?

This means nothing as there are tons of tech companies, law firms and county governments and all health care varies. Ours sucks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry everyone, but check out the DHS memo if you want to see how things are going to shake out. Basically going to be two kinds of people in the fed gov, those who ride out in office and those who quit. Doing away with remote work is a policy initiative that is being pushed with the same fervor as putting a man on the moon, so best prepare for how you are going to proceed in the next 30 days. In 2 years you will all be in a conference room watching your agency head emphatically congratulating you all for finally returning to work, except for the 2% of people with telework RAs on the conference call.

You forgot a third group: those who stick around and make them actually fire us if that's what they really want to do. I'm not quitting. I like my job, I'm good at it, and I genuinely believe I'm contributing to the betterment of humanity. But I'm also not returning 5 days per week.

THIS. I mean I hate my job so it ain't that but it's the SEC so it pays well. I'm not quitting it but I'm also not coming back 5 days a week - let them make the move.

Similar to the private sector, you actually get severance checks if you get fired for not RTO from remote

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP. This is honestly incredibly outdated. The healthcare benefits are really very mediocre. I have a spouse in biglaw, a sibling in tech, and a sibling who is a firefighter and they all have superior health insurance. There are MANY private companies with much better benefits. The pension is also not what it used to be. No way the pension and healthcare benefits are worth an additional $40k over what you would get in the private sector. And this is the same old nonsense how can you compare salary plus benefits of one place to just salary at another?

Clearly your biglaw spouse isn't a partner.

Assuming you are a partner or related to one and are aware of the differences in pay (PEP at V30 is close to 4 mil and NEP still make 600-800k on the low end) this is a ridiculous comparison. Of course the previous poster is comparing an associate to fed employee. Most people who make 4-6 mil are not worried about a few thousand in insurance a month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If they are following the law, they most certainly will.

NP to this discussion but that's not my understanding of how this process works. My understanding is that the union has to grieve the breach of the CBA to the agency first (probably a mass grievance since it will affect many people and it's easier for everyone to deal with this all together). Obviously, in this case where the action initiated from the agency they are not going to reverse management's decision. The union can then appeal to the FSIP. The FSIP decision as I understand it is not appealable to the court.

The tough part is that while all of this is pending employees are required to RTO as ordered and the whole process can take about a year to play out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If they are following the law, they most certainly will.

NP to this discussion but that's not my understanding of how this process works. My understanding is that the union has to grieve the breach of the CBA to the agency first (probably a mass grievance since it will affect many people and it's easier for everyone to deal with this all together). Obviously, in this case where the action initiated from the agency they are not going to reverse management's decision. The union can then appeal to the FSIP. The FSIP decision as I understand it is not appealable to the court.

The tough part is that while all of this is pending employees are required to RTO as ordered and the whole process can take about a year to play out.

There are also processes for calling remote workers back such as approving travel orders to reimburse them for selling their house, packing up, and moving. It's not possible to do in 30 days

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP. This is honestly incredibly outdated. The healthcare benefits are really very mediocre. I have a spouse in biglaw, a sibling in tech, and a sibling who is a firefighter and they all have superior health insurance. There are MANY private companies with much better benefits. The pension is also not what it used to be. No way the pension and healthcare benefits are worth an additional $40k over what you would get in the private sector. And this is the same old nonsense how can you compare salary plus benefits of one place to just salary at another?

Clearly your biglaw spouse isn't a partner.

A partner would be getting a heck of a lot more than $40k above government salary.

[Anonymous]

I am a fed who teleworkers 50% of the time
(Basically I only telework Mondays and Fridays). I’m surprised people are saying they don’t have space. My large cabinet level Department has ample space.

I’m in a science and technology role. Most of the telework has been driven by GSA minimizing our cubicle and office space. I work with so many introverted scientists and engineers who weren’t able to work in cubicles with noise all around them. They also got rid of much of our meeting spaces in our building and we all fought over them. By the time COVID happened, everyone was ready to telework because gsa had made it so miserable to be in the office. I get that gsa just wants to save on leases, but ours is way too small per person and there’s zero privacy in cubicle farms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If they are following the law, they most certainly will.

NP to this discussion but that's not my understanding of how this process works. My understanding is that the union has to grieve the breach of the CBA to the agency first (probably a mass grievance since it will affect many people and it's easier for everyone to deal with this all together). Obviously, in this case where the action initiated from the agency they are not going to reverse management's decision. The union can then appeal to the FSIP. The FSIP decision as I understand it is not appealable to the court.

The tough part is that while all of this is pending employees are required to RTO as ordered and the whole process can take about a year to play out.

There are also processes for calling remote workers back such as approving travel orders to reimburse them for selling their house, packing up, and moving. It's not possible to do in 30 days

It’s written into our remote work agreements that they need to return back to DC within 60 days and moving will not be paid for.

[Anonymous]

Technically you can quit and qualify for unemployment if you were hired as remote or telework and “conditions changed”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP. This is honestly incredibly outdated. The healthcare benefits are really very mediocre. I have a spouse in biglaw, a sibling in tech, and a sibling who is a firefighter and they all have superior health insurance. There are MANY private companies with much better benefits. The pension is also not what it used to be. No way the pension and healthcare benefits are worth an additional $40k over what you would get in the private sector. And this is the same old nonsense how can you compare salary plus benefits of one place to just salary at another?

Clearly your biglaw spouse isn't a partner.

Sure is! An equity partner at that. You sound like a bitter Kirkland “partner.” Didn’t mention the cost of the insurance just that it’s better, which it is. His retirement package is also way better than the Fed government one but didn’t even seem worth mentioning.

Don’t worry though I’m going to be sure not to leave the government until Trump’s term is up!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If they are following the law, they most certainly will.

NP to this discussion but that's not my understanding of how this process works. My understanding is that the union has to grieve the breach of the CBA to the agency first (probably a mass grievance since it will affect many people and it's easier for everyone to deal with this all together). Obviously, in this case where the action initiated from the agency they are not going to reverse management's decision. The union can then appeal to the FSIP. The FSIP decision as I understand it is not appealable to the court.

The tough part is that while all of this is pending employees are required to RTO as ordered and the whole process can take about a year to play out.

There are also processes for calling remote workers back such as approving travel orders to reimburse them for selling their house, packing up, and moving. It's not possible to do in 30 days

PP here and I wasn't really getting into timing. I actually think agencies will allow some reasonable amount of time. I was just addressing the point that I don't think a preliminary injunction is applicable here.