RTO EO is up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The Biden administration breached a DOL CBA last year by ordering staff to the office 50 percent of the time.

Didn't they end up not going in because there wasn't room?

[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.

That's how federal law is written. l

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It would be, but your CBA almost certainly includes language that would allow managers to determine in-person work is necessary.

[Anonymous]

Biden should have returned the gov to pre-COVID TW and enforced it and we wouldn’t be in this mess. Instead he let agencies take different approaches which then invited scrutiny and here we are. Swung completely in the other direction with TW eliminated (except situational so we can keep working when it snows). it was nice while it lasted but now we’re paying the price. He should have come down harder on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Biden should have returned the gov to pre-COVID TW and enforced it and we wouldn’t be in this mess. Instead he let agencies take different approaches which then invited scrutiny and here we are. Swung completely in the other direction with TW eliminated (except situational so we can keep working when it snows). it was nice while it lasted but now we’re paying the price. He should have come down harder on it.

Huh? Our agency has already been working under more restrictive telework policies than what we had before covid.

[Anonymous]

In 2020 everyone at my agency was given the option of going remote or teleworking. Most of us chose teleworking and enjoyed coming in 2 days a week. Instead of being rewarded for not choosing remote, we’ve been getting in trouble and being forced to come in 5 days a week now. It’s seriously not fair. Remote people are getting all the benefits and I doubt they’ll have to return to the office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In 2020 everyone at my agency was given the option of going remote or teleworking. Most of us chose teleworking and enjoyed coming in 2 days a week. Instead of being rewarded for not choosing remote, we’ve been getting in trouble and being forced to come in 5 days a week now. It’s seriously not fair. Remote people are getting all the benefits and I doubt they’ll have to return to the office.

Local remote workers will probably have their agreements terminated since relocation expenses wouldn't be an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden should have returned the gov to pre-COVID TW and enforced it and we wouldn’t be in this mess. Instead he let agencies take different approaches which then invited scrutiny and here we are. Swung completely in the other direction with TW eliminated (except situational so we can keep working when it snows). it was nice while it lasted but now we’re paying the price. He should have come down harder on it.

Huh? Our agency has already been working under more restrictive telework policies than what we had before covid.

Same. Except it was unenforced. People just didn’t come in and their middle managers did nothing about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 2020 everyone at my agency was given the option of going remote or teleworking. Most of us chose teleworking and enjoyed coming in 2 days a week. Instead of being rewarded for not choosing remote, we’ve been getting in trouble and being forced to come in 5 days a week now. It’s seriously not fair. Remote people are getting all the benefits and I doubt they’ll have to return to the office.

Local remote workers will probably have their agreements terminated since relocation expenses wouldn't be an issue.

Yes local remote should be low hanging fruit for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden should have returned the gov to pre-COVID TW and enforced it and we wouldn’t be in this mess. Instead he let agencies take different approaches which then invited scrutiny and here we are. Swung completely in the other direction with TW eliminated (except situational so we can keep working when it snows). it was nice while it lasted but now we’re paying the price. He should have come down harder on it.

Huh? Our agency has already been working under more restrictive telework policies than what we had before covid.

Yours may have but others have not and have implemented more liberal policies, hence the scrutiny by Congress that led this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden should have returned the gov to pre-COVID TW and enforced it and we wouldn’t be in this mess. Instead he let agencies take different approaches which then invited scrutiny and here we are. Swung completely in the other direction with TW eliminated (except situational so we can keep working when it snows). it was nice while it lasted but now we’re paying the price. He should have come down harder on it.

Huh? Our agency has already been working under more restrictive telework policies than what we had before covid.

Yours may have but others have not and have implemented more liberal policies, hence the scrutiny by Congress that led this.

This was an executive action by Trump, not Congress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 2020 everyone at my agency was given the option of going remote or teleworking. Most of us chose teleworking and enjoyed coming in 2 days a week. Instead of being rewarded for not choosing remote, we’ve been getting in trouble and being forced to come in 5 days a week now. It’s seriously not fair. Remote people are getting all the benefits and I doubt they’ll have to return to the office.

Local remote workers will probably have their agreements terminated since relocation expenses wouldn't be an issue.

Yes local remote should be low hanging fruit for them.

My agency got rid of local remote last year. Now just remote or telework agreements

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Biden should have returned the gov to pre-COVID TW and enforced it and we wouldn’t be in this mess. Instead he let agencies take different approaches which then invited scrutiny and here we are. Swung completely in the other direction with TW eliminated (except situational so we can keep working when it snows). it was nice while it lasted but now we’re paying the price. He should have come down harder on it.

They would have made the policy more restrictive regardless. The scrutiny is not genuine. It’s only occurring because they want people to quit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In 2020 everyone at my agency was given the option of going remote or teleworking. Most of us chose teleworking and enjoyed coming in 2 days a week. Instead of being rewarded for not choosing remote, we’ve been getting in trouble and being forced to come in 5 days a week now. It’s seriously not fair. Remote people are getting all the benefits and I doubt they’ll have to return to the office.

I don't think you have actually read the EO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 2020 everyone at my agency was given the option of going remote or teleworking. Most of us chose teleworking and enjoyed coming in 2 days a week. Instead of being rewarded for not choosing remote, we’ve been getting in trouble and being forced to come in 5 days a week now. It’s seriously not fair. Remote people are getting all the benefits and I doubt they’ll have to return to the office.

Local remote workers will probably have their agreements terminated since relocation expenses wouldn't be an issue.

Yes local remote should be low hanging fruit for them.

That’s also not “fair”, when some people doing the same job get to stay remote and others have to come in just because of where they live. I know that no one cares about fairness, just venting.