RTO EO is up

[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.

[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 is why our agency hires a lot of non citizens on short term contracts for certain roles. Most of our fed positions don't pay enough and have poor benefits, so it's hard to attract American citizens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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”.

Anecdotally from other threads posted here, it does seem that both remote workers and teleworkers are being asked to come back to the office.

[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?

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

+1. All of these sectors have tremendous variation. My healthcare was horrible when I worked at an health insurance company. My current tech company employer has decent comp although base and bonus have been stagnant and a $600 “health” reimbursement, but benefits are bad - healthcare is barely subsidized (my husband works in finance and carries our healthcare) and my company matches our 401K contributions up to $6K (just raised after years at $5K).

[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!

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?

Then wouldn’t the trio of bills from Ernst apply?

[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.

The FSIP is for impasses in negotiations of the CBA, not for grievances. Grievances are generally arbitrated and the arbitrator has the power to order a stay pending arbitration. The arbitration result can then be appealed to federal court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Awfully quiet from the union no? NTEU?

Honestly I think NTEU is trying to stay under the radar while working through this.

They represent bargaining units in a number of agencies - they probably are working on coming up with one consistent message here. I'm kind of surprised that wasn't done in advance but like most of this thread I'm guessing they've got their lawyers debating the words of the order, checking CBAs etc.

We got an email from our Chaoter president saying they met with management this morning and told them it would be unlawful to breach the union contract. So, we will see.

[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.

The FSIP is for impasses in negotiations of the CBA, not for grievances. Grievances are generally arbitrated and the arbitrator has the power to order a stay pending arbitration. The arbitration result can then be appealed to federal court.

PP here and interesting, perhaps I misunderstood what was explained to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wow! Are you non-bue? If so then you have other worries. Otherwise, your union needs to do better if they wrote out moving reimbursement as remote work is way too risky with only a 60 day period to move. My agreement provides for reimbursement if brought in unless it's for conduct etc.

[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: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.

Wow! Are you non-bue? If so then you have other worries. Otherwise, your union needs to do better if they wrote out moving reimbursement as remote work is way too risky with only a 60 day period to move. My agreement provides for reimbursement if brought in unless it's for conduct etc.

Maybe pp and I are at the same agency but that is the way it is where I work too

[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: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.

Wow! Are you non-bue? If so then you have other worries. Otherwise, your union needs to do better if they wrote out moving reimbursement as remote work is way too risky with only a 60 day period to move. My agreement provides for reimbursement if brought in unless it's for conduct etc.

Maybe pp and I are at the same agency but that is the way it is where I work too

Wow, well I'm not sure what leverage you have against an edgelord appointee simply revoking remote work.