Anyone get telework approved at SEC?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
100% this. The SEC was known to be a place where many brilliant ambitious women who didn’t want to work biglae hours would go. This has changed so many rapidly, it’s a tragedy. |
Anonymous
There are countless ambitious women across corporate America who successfully manage the demanding hours of BigLaw and executive roles while raising children. There are countless women in government agencies who successfully manage the demanding hours of an SES or senior management position while raising children. They may not be present for every moment in their children’s lives, but they make it work—with the support of partners, childcare arrangements, and deliberate prioritization. Many of these women hold C-level positions and are responsible for significant organizational decisions, attending high-level meetings in person every day with limited flexibility around remote work. The reality is, this level of balance requires trade-offs. It’s not that it can’t be done—it’s that choices must be made about what to take on and what to let go of. The notion that working mothers in demanding roles deserve special telework accommodations not broadly available across similar sectors doesn’t align with the standards set by many high-performing organizations. If we, as the largest market regulator in the world, want to be taken seriously and model the rigor of private-sector leadership, we need to set a tone consistent with that standard. Watch speeches from women like Indra Noori, Sheryl Sandberg, Mary Barra, Julie Sweet and a host of other women from mid level leadership positions to the top of their organizations—all of whom speak candidly about the compromises and commitments they’ve made as mothers in leadership. Their examples show it’s possible—with intention, support, and structure. If someone is seeking a remote-first job, there are certainly opportunities that offer that. But framing return-to-office expectations as a gender equity issue risks mischaracterizing the broader challenge. I say this as a woman working full-time, five days a week, at the SEC, raising three kids between the ages of 8 and 13—and having been back in person since 2022. |
Anonymous
Your smug comments about prioritization miss the point, which is that people DO prioritize. That's why they chose the jobs they did: they prioritized certain flexibilities. Now their priorities will cause them to leave, or to stay but decline to step forward and fully use their talents. It affects everybody including men, but you will see the most constriction among women and disabled people. Basically, a lot of people dont want to be like Sheryl Sandberg, and most jobs don't need them to be (or pay that way) so pretending that's a goal is nonsense. |
Anonymous
Blah blah blah. The fact that you did it without the benefit of flexibility doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea. Also if you have been at the SEC through out your Children’s’ lives you have benefitted from the flexibility when your kids were little and now want to pull up the ladder. |
Anonymous
To be clear, the point isn’t that anyone should aspire to be Sheryl Sandberg or any other high-profile executive. Everyone should define success on their own terms—whether that’s based on career goals, family priorities, or the kind of parent they want to be. But that kind of prioritization starts with choosing a job that aligns with those values. When organizations—whether in corporate America or government—shift their expectations, those changes affect everyone. If your current priorities no longer align with the direction your organization is taking, the responsible and empowered thing to do is to seek out a role that better suits your needs and lifestyle. That’s what it means to actively own your choices, rather than passively resist change or complain when the conditions around you evolve. |
Anonymous
You are one of those people who think you have it all figure out don't you? News flash, you just lucked out in that the RTO lifestyle works for you. With a robust support system, a spouse that probably earns a lot of money, some luck with timing of your home purchase, manageable kids and home life, good health, and a certain personality. There are many women who lack one or more of what you have, who cannot just make it magically appear overnight, who who don't want something of what you have, but who nonetheless can do a great job and contribute at the SEC. Why NOT give the flexibility so that more women who don't fit into that narrow band you are in, can make this work? I am not seeing you list anything we as an agency are failing at when we allow some telework flexibility. Until someone points out something concrete about our failing, everything else you say is just white noise. What reasonable people hear is that you just want other people to live and suffer like you. |
Anonymous
In my own division, I’ve seen women make thoughtful, proactive decisions when faced with these organizational shifts. Some chose to take the original fork offer after having honest conversations with their spouses about what the change in work expectations would mean for their lifestyle. They recognized that the new direction would significantly alter their day-to-day, and they made the deliberate choice to step away—some with other roles lined up, others without, but all confident they would navigate the transition on their own terms. That’s what real prioritization looks like. It’s not about pushing back against the organization’s evolving goals or trying to reshape its desired future state to match individual preferences. It’s about recognizing when your personal priorities no longer align with your current environment—and making the empowered decision to move toward something that does. |
Anonymous
A sizeable portion of us left biglaw and c-suite tracks because we wanted to be physically around our families more. We made the trade-offs. The SEC had far far more flexibility pre-COVID than the current situation. Post-COVID, we had a contract in place that secured our right to telework. Also, Sharyl Sandberg herself realized that her Lean In bullshit doesn’t work for everyone when her husband died. Life happens and not everyone makes the same choices. That's the idea behind having flexibility in the workplace. I have actually watched plenty of interviews of Indra Nooyi and she is a strong advocate for flexibility in the workplace. Here’s a quote from her interview with Adam Grant: “And I never wanted to be viewed as anything but a very positive force in the United States, which welcomed me. So I had the weight of all three, and that's why I said I'm wired differently, Adam. All of these things weighed heavily on me. And so, yes, I had a lot of guilt. I had a lot of tug of heartstrings and, uh, in retrospect, um, I wish I'd had more time with my kids, especially some ability to work remotely and job flexibility. If we have, if we had, then the tools we have today, I would have gone home a few times earlier to meet my kids off the bus. So, you know, I hope today's young people can balance all this better with some combination of flexible working or remote working and the ability to have families.” It’s a great interview. I recommend listening to it on your commute. |
Anonymous
| Lots of gaslighting here about “evolving goals” and “change[s] in work expectations.” That’s nonsense. The purpose of RTO is to force people to quit. It’s not “making an empowered decision.” It’s succumbing to their campaign of traumatizing the federal workforce. They’ve said as much, publicly. |
Anonymous
This is very common in the private sector, especially in companies where profit matters and a high performer can demand special treatment. You’re clueless. |
Anonymous
There’s also stupidity involved. |
Anonymous
+10000. If you want something different, leave. There are jobs out there. Companies and organizations change and no one is required to work for the SEC for life. It sounds like it is now a miserable place with inefficient policies, and if this bothers you, start interviewing. Outside of DC, plenty of companies are hiring. There is somewhat of an unnecessary fear of the private sector in DC, which isn’t based on reality. Kind of like how leadership tells us everyone is in the office 5 days a week, which simply is not true. Perhaps at Google, but not your average corporate job. |
Anonymous
| When will the union rockstar update everyone on the arbitration? |
Anonymous
Actually, it’s not very common. Certain roles come with telework flexibility, and that flexibility is generally applied consistently. Employees who don’t perform under those conditions are typically let go. High performers, on the other hand, earn special consideration through their annual incentive pay, which is determined by a rigorous performance review process. This is how most Fortune 100 companies operate, largely because the underlying model stems from the same source. |
Anonymous
The empowered decision is derivative of creating conditions that force people to quit. Those unable to adapt to the changes should, and often do, choose to leave. |