Anyone get telework approved at SEC?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A friend at state dept was put on admin leave 3 weeks ago and was told their last day is Friday. Figure it out and go to work if you have to. Try looking with the many thousands of others who are looking now.

+ 1- parents need to figure out how to manage their families and get help.

You do realize for generations women didn’t work or they worked part time have two parents working outside the home is difficult and not what many of us signed up for when we stayed in the government. We have figured out how to manage. But like hell if I’m not going to complain. And in time will likely look for another job.

100% I resent people that tell women to “buck up” and deal. Working moms are disproportionately impacted by this.

Then that’s a problem between you and your husband, not you and your job.

This is the standard response of somebody who resents the progress women made during the pandemic. Working moms are statistically among the most efficient and motivated workers, but as a group they opt out of leadership roles and/or full time work because of family obligations like afterschool care. The pandemic telework situation created a surge in these women working more hours and seeking promotions, purely because they didn't have to commute. It was a net positive for employers.

Not at all. It only affects women more than men if the women don’t insist on men doing their equal share around the house and with kids.

This sucks for everybody, but there need not be a gender divide.

Thanks. I’ll let my husband know he needs to start breastfeeding our infant.

PP don’t respond to these trolls. They will never change. It’s not even about breastfeeding, which last for a relatively short period of time. We actually want to raise our kids and spend time with them, while also having a career. It’s hard to do that when you are out for such a long part of the day due to commuting back and fourth. Ppl like PP will never understand.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

+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.

Um you are so clueless. For most people, it is not easy to just leave. Why not stay and fight for our rights back? Especially since they were taken away not for any real reason but to torture us. I am not leaving. I am keep complaining and pushing for my old schedule back.

Anyone at the SEC should be able to find gainful employment elsewhere. You may think you’re special and entitled to work at the same place your entire life, but you’re not. This line of thinking disadvantages you. Everyone has their limit as to what they will accept and it sounds like you’re still comfortable. Personally, I’d be looking for a new job instead of “pushing for my old schedule,” which isn’t happening anytime soon. If you keep “pushing” you’ll end up looking for a new job while you’re unemployed.

DP - we are in a recession. The economy, and specifically the local job market, has been deliberately crashed. I am not one who expects telework to return anytime soon, but "just get another job" is a clueless response. It's the kind of thing people say when they don't want to acknowledge the harm being caused. I think some of the PPs are clueless in their expectations (understatement) but that doesn't negate the lasting harm being done. You shouldn't shrug it off and pretend that harm is legitimate organizational goal of public servants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then that’s your choice! The SEC decides the terms of employment, and employees decide whether to accept those terms or not. Simple as that! Where an employer is actively trying to get people to leave (breaking union contracts, DRP, VSIP/VERA), without regard to who leaves or who goes, you can fight all you want, but you’re not getting your pre-Trump/DOGE job back. This is out of SEC management hands, frankly. This is coming from POTUS, and we all know how reasonable he is…

You’re clueless. Oh sure — POTUS is so steeped in the details of SEC telework policy. I’m sure he gets briefed on it daily.

Here’s how it would play out:

RV: “Mr President, I’m hearing that SEC staff aren’t RTO full time. They’re ignoring your EO.”

POTUS: “Ok, what are they doing exactly?”

RV: “They’re allowing TW 2-3 x a week!!”

POTUS: “But didn’t they do that during my first term?”

RV: “Yeah, but…”

POTUS:”OK, what do you want me to do about it?”

RV: “Tell PA to require full RTO! Or fire him if he refuses.”

POTUS: “Ok, I’ll look into it. I have another meeting.”

End of story.

Not too different from when my 6 yo tattle tales on his sibling for “teasing” him.

You are very naive if you think refusing to come back to the office full time would have been shrugged off by the administration, especially given how much press the agency gets.

Again, why don’t you tell us how YOU think it would have played out if the agency had simply reverted back to 2019 policies?

The EO/memo clearly gave agency heads wide discretion to “make exemptions they deem necessary.” And said that it should be implemented “consistent with applicable law.” Also said “as soon as practicable.”

Those are two (possibly 3) HUGE outs. Yet the agency chose to throw out the CBA and go all-in by mid April. That was a CHOICE. You may agree with it, but don’t pretend it wasn’t a choice.

The EO very easily could have instead simply said, “require all employees to return to in-person work for ALL working hours, unless an employee has a reasonable accommodation under applicable law.” Period. Why didn’t it? Just poor drafting? Didn’t think of it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yep, it's this and only this. They want people to quit and that's all it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then that’s your choice! The SEC decides the terms of employment, and employees decide whether to accept those terms or not. Simple as that! Where an employer is actively trying to get people to leave (breaking union contracts, DRP, VSIP/VERA), without regard to who leaves or who goes, you can fight all you want, but you’re not getting your pre-Trump/DOGE job back. This is out of SEC management hands, frankly. This is coming from POTUS, and we all know how reasonable he is…

You’re clueless. Oh sure — POTUS is so steeped in the details of SEC telework policy. I’m sure he gets briefed on it daily.

Here’s how it would play out:

RV: “Mr President, I’m hearing that SEC staff aren’t RTO full time. They’re ignoring your EO.”

POTUS: “Ok, what are they doing exactly?”

RV: “They’re allowing TW 2-3 x a week!!”

POTUS: “But didn’t they do that during my first term?”

RV: “Yeah, but…”

POTUS:”OK, what do you want me to do about it?”

RV: “Tell PA to require full RTO! Or fire him if he refuses.”

POTUS: “Ok, I’ll look into it. I have another meeting.”

End of story.

Not too different from when my 6 yo tattle tales on his sibling for “teasing” him.

You seem to like using “clueless” a lot. I think you should look into using it as an adjective for yourself. If anyone is clueless, it’s you! You’re the employee they actually want to get rid of because you’re the one on spa day, massages, laundry, cooking and everything else inbetween the real hours you work. And hence, can’t get over the fact that it is now gone and will come up with all sorts of absurd scenarios about DT hoping management and leadership takes one for employees like you. Guess what—they’ve decided and they don’t care to. They want people like you out. So please leave! You’re just not that important! Go find a job that will give you that flexibility with this pay.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]A country that doesn't support high performing working parents doesn't have the morals to create an intelligent, functioning society. No wonder we see school shootings, people are anxious, depressed, this country will prioritize everything over working parents. BTW, I am not a fed but I did a 1.5 hr each way commute when my kids were between 2 yrs to 8yrs old, after that we moved inside the beltway 20 mins from my work and also Covid happened, now I WFH 3 days a week and my kids are also rising high schoolers so yes, I lucked out in the sense that between 9 yr - 13 yr of their age I WFH completely. I can't express how helpful it was to be able to earn and be present at home.

I know firsthand how families struggle to provide financially, do long commutes and then take out time for their children. If possible, I don't want other moms to go through what I did for 6 yrs, I want better for other moms, I want better for my own daughter. Yes, I am aware there are certain professions where WFH accommodations are not possible but just because we can't do it for some doesn't mean we shouldn't do it for the rest, it is important that as a society we provide working parents as much support as possible. I am looking at you, the party of "family values"[/quote]

[phone]

You put into words exactly how I feel. I feel floored to see women snapping at other women in this thread. Shouldn’t we want to help each generation progress and have greater ability to find fulfillment through work, family, and personal interests? I also hope it is better for the next generation. I feel like a failure to have this happen during my lifetime. [/quote]

Yep thank you! I posted before in response to the breastfeeding comment. Many of us just want to be present for our children as much as possible while also working. Telework, even the two day hybrid schedule we had during covid allowed for that. I have a 10 year old, 8 year old and 3 year old. Thankfully my husband works from home most of the time so is able to do drop off and pick up. My older two finish at 3 pm three days a week. Other than picking them up at the bus stop which takes my husband 5 minutes, they are pretty much self sufficient. They come home, prepare their own snacks and entertain each other. They have a tutor come in at 4 pm to teach them my mother tongue so they are pretty busy until I come back. Two days a week they are enrolled in an after school program and are done at 4:30 pm. My youngest is in daycare and her daycare closes at 6 pm. Before returning to the office full time, I would drop all three kids off at the morning and be home by 8 am to start my work day. I woke them up and prepared breakfast and we all ate together. My husband would get an early start at work and was responsible for pick up. Now I leave at 6:30 am so that I can be in the office at 7:30 am so they see me for 5 minutes in the morning, if at all. I leave the office at 4 pm and I am in the house at around 5 pm. My husband still does the daycare pick up because I am rushing to prepare dinner (we split our duties… I cook and he does laundry). My three year old is now super clingy because she barely sees me. My older two miss me. I miss out on their random conversations and discussions in the morning. Sure we have dinner together but it’s less time than before. I love my job and felt like I could balance being a good mother and a parent. Now I am seeing my children less and I don’t think that’s a good thing. We were advancing so much when it came to balancing work life and home life. Now we are going backwards. I am lucky that I don’t have the child care issues that many people have, and if my husband has to go to the office we tons of support. [/quote]

ALL of this. I only want to add that we are also living through an adolescent mental health crisis. Allowing families flexibility is crucial for the future of the generations we are raising.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A friend at state dept was put on admin leave 3 weeks ago and was told their last day is Friday. Figure it out and go to work if you have to. Try looking with the many thousands of others who are looking now.

+ 1- parents need to figure out how to manage their families and get help.

You do realize for generations women didn’t work or they worked part time have two parents working outside the home is difficult and not what many of us signed up for when we stayed in the government. We have figured out how to manage. But like hell if I’m not going to complain. And in time will likely look for another job.

100% I resent people that tell women to “buck up” and deal. Working moms are disproportionately impacted by this.

Then that’s a problem between you and your husband, not you and your job.

This is the standard response of somebody who resents the progress women made during the pandemic. Working moms are statistically among the most efficient and motivated workers, but as a group they opt out of leadership roles and/or full time work because of family obligations like afterschool care. The pandemic telework situation created a surge in these women working more hours and seeking promotions, purely because they didn't have to commute. It was a net positive for employers.

Not at all. It only affects women more than men if the women don’t insist on men doing their equal share around the house and with kids.

This sucks for everybody, but there need not be a gender divide.

Thanks. I’ll let my husband know he needs to start breastfeeding our infant.

PP don’t respond to these trolls. They will never change. It’s not even about breastfeeding, which last for a relatively short period of time. We actually want to raise our kids and spend time with them, while also having a career. It’s hard to do that when you are out for such a long part of the day due to commuting back and fourth. Ppl like PP will never understand.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

+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.

Um you are so clueless. For most people, it is not easy to just leave. Why not stay and fight for our rights back? Especially since they were taken away not for any real reason but to torture us. I am not leaving. I am keep complaining and pushing for my old schedule back.

Anyone at the SEC should be able to find gainful employment elsewhere. You may think you’re special and entitled to work at the same place your entire life, but you’re not. This line of thinking disadvantages you. Everyone has their limit as to what they will accept and it sounds like you’re still comfortable. Personally, I’d be looking for a new job instead of “pushing for my old schedule,” which isn’t happening anytime soon. If you keep “pushing” you’ll end up looking for a new job while you’re unemployed.

DP - we are in a recession. The economy, and specifically the local job market, has been deliberately crashed. I am not one who expects telework to return anytime soon, but "just get another job" is a clueless response. It's the kind of thing people say when they don't want to acknowledge the harm being caused. I think some of the PPs are clueless in their expectations (understatement) but that doesn't negate the lasting harm being done. You shouldn't shrug it off and pretend that harm is legitimate organizational goal of public servants.

PP here. Understood. I’m not shrugging it off but being pragmatic. I’ve known quite a few people who have recently found new jobs. I think it’s a bit defeatist to just assume you must continue working at the SEC. Jobs and industries and even cities change and people typically fare the best when they accept this and take action.

[Anonymous]

^Yes finding another job is an option but the reality is for most people it won't be quick. YMMV but everyone I know that's been able to leave and be gainfully employed - so not leaving to retire or be a stay home parent - is either very senior/like SO level or very young, as in can go to any biglaw firm as a 2nd-4th yr associate. That leaves a ton of 30-50 somethings all looking for the same opportunities. Not saying one should be defeatist and say oh well it'll never happen but the reality is everyone could be here a while - so I see why people are trying to figure out the boundaries/stretch the boundaries etc to make this workable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^Yes finding another job is an option but the reality is for most people it won't be quick. YMMV but everyone I know that's been able to leave and be gainfully employed - so not leaving to retire or be a stay home parent - is either very senior/like SO level or very young, as in can go to any biglaw firm as a 2nd-4th yr associate. That leaves a ton of 30-50 somethings all looking for the same opportunities. Not saying one should be defeatist and say oh well it'll never happen but the reality is everyone could be here a while - so I see why people are trying to figure out the boundaries/stretch the boundaries etc to make this workable.

I think there’s also an attitude that the SEC is the only place they can work, and they can’t accept that the terms of employment have changed and it’s time to move on. Many government employees are risk adverse and the prospect of changing jobs is scary. There is also a certain entitlement about what they deserve working for the SEC.

I’d guarantee that most SEC employees complaining and trying to stretch boundaries haven’t even worked on their resume.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^Yes finding another job is an option but the reality is for most people it won't be quick. YMMV but everyone I know that's been able to leave and be gainfully employed - so not leaving to retire or be a stay home parent - is either very senior/like SO level or very young, as in can go to any biglaw firm as a 2nd-4th yr associate. That leaves a ton of 30-50 somethings all looking for the same opportunities. Not saying one should be defeatist and say oh well it'll never happen but the reality is everyone could be here a while - so I see why people are trying to figure out the boundaries/stretch the boundaries etc to make this workable.

I think there’s also an attitude that the SEC is the only place they can work, and they can’t accept that the terms of employment have changed and it’s time to move on. Many government employees are risk adverse and the prospect of changing jobs is scary. There is also a certain entitlement about what they deserve working for the SEC.

I’d guarantee that most SEC employees complaining and trying to stretch boundaries haven’t even worked on their resume.

Omg yes. I’ve worked here for a long time but not as long as most of my coworkers - 8 yrs. In my mind you always keep your resume sharp, keep networking bc you never know when you’ll need or want to leave a place. And even with all that there’s no guarantee of a job ASAP unless you’re an SO or 2nd year associate. My colleagues maybe they are working on resumes, networking etc, I obviously don’t know what anyone is doing. But on the surface it looks like a TON of time and energy is being spent complaining about RTO, worrying about how much telework they can get away with, planning days off etc.

[Anonymous]

Spa days, massages, laundry, cooking and everything else inbetween the real hours you work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^Yes finding another job is an option but the reality is for most people it won't be quick. YMMV but everyone I know that's been able to leave and be gainfully employed - so not leaving to retire or be a stay home parent - is either very senior/like SO level or very young, as in can go to any biglaw firm as a 2nd-4th yr associate. That leaves a ton of 30-50 somethings all looking for the same opportunities. Not saying one should be defeatist and say oh well it'll never happen but the reality is everyone could be here a while - so I see why people are trying to figure out the boundaries/stretch the boundaries etc to make this workable.

I think there’s also an attitude that the SEC is the only place they can work, and they can’t accept that the terms of employment have changed and it’s time to move on. Many government employees are risk adverse and the prospect of changing jobs is scary. There is also a certain entitlement about what they deserve working for the SEC.

I’d guarantee that most SEC employees complaining and trying to stretch boundaries haven’t even worked on their resume.

Omg yes. I’ve worked here for a long time but not as long as most of my coworkers - 8 yrs. In my mind you always keep your resume sharp, keep networking bc you never know when you’ll need or want to leave a place. And even with all that there’s no guarantee of a job ASAP unless you’re an SO or 2nd year associate. My colleagues maybe they are working on resumes, networking etc, I obviously don’t know what anyone is doing. But on the surface it looks like a TON of time and energy is being spent complaining about RTO, worrying about how much telework they can get away with, planning days off etc.

Yes. I can empathize as I lost my job with the financial crisis. I had to move cities and practically start a new career. Plenty of people have done something similar. To sit back and insist you must live in DC and work for the SEC is likely a bad decision.

If you want to come out of this ahead, you work on your resume, network and interview for any good job with a salary you can accept. This includes in any metro in the US.

For whatever reason there seem to be hoards of government employees (I am including SEC) who are too good to look for a new job or consider relocating. Just read the post going in about how challenging it is to find a new job. Of course it is! But millions of Americans start new jobs every year. SEC employees are not so special that they can’t also do so.

My prediction is that next on the list will be heavily monitoring employee computer usage, badge swipes and massive RIFs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^Yes finding another job is an option but the reality is for most people it won't be quick. YMMV but everyone I know that's been able to leave and be gainfully employed - so not leaving to retire or be a stay home parent - is either very senior/like SO level or very young, as in can go to any biglaw firm as a 2nd-4th yr associate. That leaves a ton of 30-50 somethings all looking for the same opportunities. Not saying one should be defeatist and say oh well it'll never happen but the reality is everyone could be here a while - so I see why people are trying to figure out the boundaries/stretch the boundaries etc to make this workable.

I think there’s also an attitude that the SEC is the only place they can work, and they can’t accept that the terms of employment have changed and it’s time to move on. Many government employees are risk adverse and the prospect of changing jobs is scary. There is also a certain entitlement about what they deserve working for the SEC.

I’d guarantee that most SEC employees complaining and trying to stretch boundaries haven’t even worked on their resume.

Omg yes. I’ve worked here for a long time but not as long as most of my coworkers - 8 yrs. In my mind you always keep your resume sharp, keep networking bc you never know when you’ll need or want to leave a place. And even with all that there’s no guarantee of a job ASAP unless you’re an SO or 2nd year associate. My colleagues maybe they are working on resumes, networking etc, I obviously don’t know what anyone is doing. But on the surface it looks like a TON of time and energy is being spent complaining about RTO, worrying about how much telework they can get away with, planning days off etc.

Yes. I can empathize as I lost my job with the financial crisis. I had to move cities and practically start a new career. Plenty of people have done something similar. To sit back and insist you must live in DC and work for the SEC is likely a bad decision.

If you want to come out of this ahead, you work on your resume, network and interview for any good job with a salary you can accept. This includes in any metro in the US.

For whatever reason there seem to be hoards of government employees (I am including SEC) who are too good to look for a new job or consider relocating. Just read the post going in about how challenging it is to find a new job. Of course it is! But millions of Americans start new jobs every year. SEC employees are not so special that they can’t also do so.

My prediction is that next on the list will be heavily monitoring employee computer usage, badge swipes and massive RIFs.

I assumed badge swipes are already being monitored? At least my group is functioning that way - very nervous to be out of the building for 31 minutes. But in any event yeah few years after the recession, I didn’t get promoted at an up and out company and got pushed out so I’ve always been of the - nothing is forever, be prepared to move or start over - view of the world, even in a “good” government job like SEC. That is not at all my coworkers’ view as best I can tell.

[Anonymous]

I am not at the SEC but a different agency and my attitude is when the current working conditions get too annoying I will look for another job but to say people should be ready to relocate anywhere in the US at the drop of a hat and anything else is silly is a bit much. If someone is single perhaps. But for people with mortgages, spouses who have a job in the area, kids who might be finishing up high school etc it’s not really tenable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^Yes finding another job is an option but the reality is for most people it won't be quick. YMMV but everyone I know that's been able to leave and be gainfully employed - so not leaving to retire or be a stay home parent - is either very senior/like SO level or very young, as in can go to any biglaw firm as a 2nd-4th yr associate. That leaves a ton of 30-50 somethings all looking for the same opportunities. Not saying one should be defeatist and say oh well it'll never happen but the reality is everyone could be here a while - so I see why people are trying to figure out the boundaries/stretch the boundaries etc to make this workable.

I think there’s also an attitude that the SEC is the only place they can work, and they can’t accept that the terms of employment have changed and it’s time to move on. Many government employees are risk adverse and the prospect of changing jobs is scary. There is also a certain entitlement about what they deserve working for the SEC.

I’d guarantee that most SEC employees complaining and trying to stretch boundaries haven’t even worked on their resume.

Omg yes. I’ve worked here for a long time but not as long as most of my coworkers - 8 yrs. In my mind you always keep your resume sharp, keep networking bc you never know when you’ll need or want to leave a place. And even with all that there’s no guarantee of a job ASAP unless you’re an SO or 2nd year associate. My colleagues maybe they are working on resumes, networking etc, I obviously don’t know what anyone is doing. But on the surface it looks like a TON of time and energy is being spent complaining about RTO, worrying about how much telework they can get away with, planning days off etc.

Yes. I can empathize as I lost my job with the financial crisis. I had to move cities and practically start a new career. Plenty of people have done something similar. To sit back and insist you must live in DC and work for the SEC is likely a bad decision.

If you want to come out of this ahead, you work on your resume, network and interview for any good job with a salary you can accept. This includes in any metro in the US.

For whatever reason there seem to be hoards of government employees (I am including SEC) who are too good to look for a new job or consider relocating. Just read the post going in about how challenging it is to find a new job. Of course it is! But millions of Americans start new jobs every year. SEC employees are not so special that they can’t also do so.

My prediction is that next on the list will be heavily monitoring employee computer usage, badge swipes and massive RIFs.

I assumed badge swipes are already being monitored? At least my group is functioning that way - very nervous to be out of the building for 31 minutes. But in any event yeah few years after the recession, I didn’t get promoted at an up and out company and got pushed out so I’ve always been of the - nothing is forever, be prepared to move or start over - view of the world, even in a “good” government job like SEC. That is not at all my coworkers’ view as best I can tell.

It’s not. They thought they were set for life with a cushy $250k job with WFH 3x a week and you can’t get fired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not at the SEC but a different agency and my attitude is when the current working conditions get too annoying I will look for another job but to say people should be ready to relocate anywhere in the US at the drop of a hat and anything else is silly is a bit much. If someone is single perhaps. But for people with mortgages, spouses who have a job in the area, kids who might be finishing up high school etc it’s not really tenable.

It is if you want to pay your bills and keep saving for retirement. Right now people are still delusional about employment in DC and the future state.

The challenge that very few people at the SEC have lived through true trauma. They don’t have the grit or drive to find a new job in Dallas or New York or wherever. But their mortgage! But their kids in HS! So they stay put and pester their manager about WFH.