Reasonable Accommodation Abuse?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just about EVERYONE can find a reason to work from home full time. And they will find it.

Pre-COVID I was a fed manager and I can attest that WFH is not sustainable long-term if there are major duties that absolutely must be done in-house, particularly for security reasons.

I had one employee who figured out a way to get a WFH based on RA 5 days a week. The reality is employee had purchased a country home 2 hours away from office and didn't want to commute anymore. Employee used a common health condition (I was told what it was) as the basis for RA and HR told us they must be accommodated. So be it.

Once this happened there were 3 more employees who used the same tactics to get WFH 5 days per week. It amounted to more than 50% of the team who could not do a majority of their critical/secure duties because they were at home.

Guess who wound up going to all the in-person required meetings, doing all the secure work, etc. Everyone else. There was no additional pay for these additional duties, however.

We had documented evidence that the WFH employees were NOT working, they were outside doing construction work on their country home, running an Ebay resale business out of their home, and doing the admin work for their spouse's business.

Went to HR and asked about getting job descriptions rewritten based on actual duties employees were performing and it would have reduced their grades substantially (Eg. GS-13s were ACTUALLY doing work at the GS-7 or 9 level.) So HR didn't want to go down that rat hole.

Once we tried for several days to get ahold of the country bumpkin who refused to answer personal phone and wasn't responding to e-mails. Bumpkin was actually annoyed that we were reaching out and considered it an "interruption" to the work they were doing around their country home.

Bottom line: HR didn't care and management didn't want to take it on because they feared accusations of discrimination.

What wound up happening is that these employees "worked" from home FOR YEARS because of RA and the American people paid their salaries for virtually nothing.

Sounds like YOU committed timecard fraud every time you approved at least some of these folks' timecards. Better watch your back!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone I work with has an RA for “severe pain” yet is all over FB posting all her activities every weekend.

How do you know what her RA is for?

She told me.

It is highly likely that she did not share all of the details about her condition.

That’s fine but if you have chronic pain and con’t come to the office at all you can’t be out partying every weekend. Or at least be smart enough not to post pictures of it. Or unfriend your co workers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just about EVERYONE can find a reason to work from home full time. And they will find it.

Pre-COVID I was a fed manager and I can attest that WFH is not sustainable long-term if there are major duties that absolutely must be done in-house, particularly for security reasons.

I had one employee who figured out a way to get a WFH based on RA 5 days a week. The reality is employee had purchased a country home 2 hours away from office and didn't want to commute anymore. Employee used a common health condition (I was told what it was) as the basis for RA and HR told us they must be accommodated. So be it.

Once this happened there were 3 more employees who used the same tactics to get WFH 5 days per week. It amounted to more than 50% of the team who could not do a majority of their critical/secure duties because they were at home.

Guess who wound up going to all the in-person required meetings, doing all the secure work, etc. Everyone else. There was no additional pay for these additional duties, however.

We had documented evidence that the WFH employees were NOT working, they were outside doing construction work on their country home, running an Ebay resale business out of their home, and doing the admin work for their spouse's business.

Went to HR and asked about getting job descriptions rewritten based on actual duties employees were performing and it would have reduced their grades substantially (Eg. GS-13s were ACTUALLY doing work at the GS-7 or 9 level.) So HR didn't want to go down that rat hole.

Once we tried for several days to get ahold of the country bumpkin who refused to answer personal phone and wasn't responding to e-mails. Bumpkin was actually annoyed that we were reaching out and considered it an "interruption" to the work they were doing around their country home.

Bottom line: HR didn't care and management didn't want to take it on because they feared accusations of discrimination.

What wound up happening is that these employees "worked" from home FOR YEARS because of RA and the American people paid their salaries for virtually nothing.

Sounds like YOU committed timecard fraud every time you approved at least some of these folks' timecards. Better watch your back!

I'm not stupid. I told my manager I would not sign timecards due to obvious fraud. They said they were fine with doing it and did.

[Anonymous]

Op, I empathize. Our agency has been really generous with RAs and really hard a** with situational telework. It’s frustrating, and hard not to resent your coworkers. But ultimately I’ve concluded they’re just better at playing the game. It’s not like I’m getting any brownie points for waking up at the crack of dawn and dragging myself in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your management cannot share the details of her RA and she has no obligation to share it with you.

Her RA is not why you have no flexibility.

If the conditions of your job are bad, I'm sorry. A lot of people have left federal jobs because they can't make it work, and it sucks.

This.

I learned a long time ago that most of time you have little idea what people are going through and they don’t owe you an explanation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How, specifically, is it affecting your work? You said she performs menial, low priority tasks. How does that affect you?

Maybe most people posting are the people staying at home. It obviously affects OP because instead of having a mix of high priority /stress/ concentration tasks mixed in with low priority tasks all those low priority/low stress tasks are given to stay at home worker. So as a result OP’s job becomes harder yet OP is getting the same pay as stay at home worker.

Most people wouldn’t care if 19 people were showing up to work and one person works from home. It changes when under 7-10 people are showing up and there are 1-2 at home getting the easy tasks.

Push back OP. That’s what I started doing. I complain each and every time I am given a task that stay at home worker should be doing. I say give it to stay at home worker or pay me extra.

The government can't just pay you extra because one of your coworkers has an RA and works from home. If OP says that, they will come across as clueless and entitled.

Of course they don’t pay extra so I hold out on I am not doing the task stay at home worker should be doing. I don’t care if I am seen as clueless and entitled. I know I am not a doormat. And guess what? I make such a fuss that I no longer get that extra work passed on to me. Someone else gets dumped on.

I go to work to do my job and go home to my family. I don’t care what people think of me. I’m not staying late or working extra so a co-worker can do 1/3 of the work they should be doing while staying home. I have no problem with any coworker who does 100% of their job at home. If they are efficient and can do it in less time then that’s great.. What I won’t put up with is do someone else’s work because they can only manage to do 1/3 to 1/2 of the work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How, specifically, is it affecting your work? You said she performs menial, low priority tasks. How does that affect you?

Maybe most people posting are the people staying at home. It obviously affects OP because instead of having a mix of high priority /stress/ concentration tasks mixed in with low priority tasks all those low priority/low stress tasks are given to stay at home worker. So as a result OP’s job becomes harder yet OP is getting the same pay as stay at home worker.

Most people wouldn’t care if 19 people were showing up to work and one person works from home. It changes when under 7-10 people are showing up and there are 1-2 at home getting the easy tasks.

Push back OP. That’s what I started doing. I complain each and every time I am given a task that stay at home worker should be doing. I say give it to stay at home worker or pay me extra.

The government can't just pay you extra because one of your coworkers has an RA and works from home. If OP says that, they will come across as clueless and entitled.

Of course they don’t pay extra so I hold out on I am not doing the task stay at home worker should be doing. I don’t care if I am seen as clueless and entitled. I know I am not a doormat. And guess what? I make such a fuss that I no longer get that extra work passed on to me. Someone else gets dumped on.

I go to work to do my job and go home to my family. I don’t care what people think of me. I’m not staying late or working extra so a co-worker can do 1/3 of the work they should be doing while staying home. I have no problem with any coworker who does 100% of their job at home. If they are efficient and can do it in less time then that’s great.. What I won’t put up with is do someone else’s work because they can only manage to do 1/3 to 1/2 of the work.

This is exactly what happens. When others wind up doing the work that being on-site necessitates, the WFH employees are essentially taking money out of their coworkers' pockets because they are not being compensated for the work they are doing.

IMO, if a RA/WFH request means some of the job duties must be done by others then those actually doing that work should be compensated for it and salaries adjusted (up or down) accordingly.

Why should someone assume 20-30 percent more work without compensation, so others can work from home even though their duties may require on-site presence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How, specifically, is it affecting your work? You said she performs menial, low priority tasks. How does that affect you?

Maybe most people posting are the people staying at home. It obviously affects OP because instead of having a mix of high priority /stress/ concentration tasks mixed in with low priority tasks all those low priority/low stress tasks are given to stay at home worker. So as a result OP’s job becomes harder yet OP is getting the same pay as stay at home worker.

Most people wouldn’t care if 19 people were showing up to work and one person works from home. It changes when under 7-10 people are showing up and there are 1-2 at home getting the easy tasks.

Push back OP. That’s what I started doing. I complain each and every time I am given a task that stay at home worker should be doing. I say give it to stay at home worker or pay me extra.

The government can't just pay you extra because one of your coworkers has an RA and works from home. If OP says that, they will come across as clueless and entitled.

Of course they don’t pay extra so I hold out on I am not doing the task stay at home worker should be doing. I don’t care if I am seen as clueless and entitled. I know I am not a doormat. And guess what? I make such a fuss that I no longer get that extra work passed on to me. Someone else gets dumped on.

I go to work to do my job and go home to my family. I don’t care what people think of me. I’m not staying late or working extra so a co-worker can do 1/3 of the work they should be doing while staying home. I have no problem with any coworker who does 100% of their job at home. If they are efficient and can do it in less time then that’s great.. What I won’t put up with is do someone else’s work because they can only manage to do 1/3 to 1/2 of the work.

This is exactly what happens. When others wind up doing the work that being on-site necessitates, the WFH employees are essentially taking money out of their coworkers' pockets because they are not being compensated for the work they are doing.

IMO, if a RA/WFH request means some of the job duties must be done by others then those actually doing that work should be compensated for it and salaries adjusted (up or down) accordingly.

Why should someone assume 20-30 percent more work without compensation, so others can work from home even though their duties may require on-site presence?

If that's what you believe then find Jesus and get a telework RA like all the other Evangelicals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Report the slacking worker to doge it's a scam and unfair

Agree with this. People scamming the system ruin it for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How, specifically, is it affecting your work? You said she performs menial, low priority tasks. How does that affect you?

Maybe most people posting are the people staying at home. It obviously affects OP because instead of having a mix of high priority /stress/ concentration tasks mixed in with low priority tasks all those low priority/low stress tasks are given to stay at home worker. So as a result OP’s job becomes harder yet OP is getting the same pay as stay at home worker.

Most people wouldn’t care if 19 people were showing up to work and one person works from home. It changes when under 7-10 people are showing up and there are 1-2 at home getting the easy tasks.

Push back OP. That’s what I started doing. I complain each and every time I am given a task that stay at home worker should be doing. I say give it to stay at home worker or pay me extra.

The government can't just pay you extra because one of your coworkers has an RA and works from home. If OP says that, they will come across as clueless and entitled.

Of course they don’t pay extra so I hold out on I am not doing the task stay at home worker should be doing. I don’t care if I am seen as clueless and entitled. I know I am not a doormat. And guess what? I make such a fuss that I no longer get that extra work passed on to me. Someone else gets dumped on.

I go to work to do my job and go home to my family. I don’t care what people think of me. I’m not staying late or working extra so a co-worker can do 1/3 of the work they should be doing while staying home. I have no problem with any coworker who does 100% of their job at home. If they are efficient and can do it in less time then that’s great.. What I won’t put up with is do someone else’s work because they can only manage to do 1/3 to 1/2 of the work.

This is exactly what happens. When others wind up doing the work that being on-site necessitates, the WFH employees are essentially taking money out of their coworkers' pockets because they are not being compensated for the work they are doing.

IMO, if a RA/WFH request means some of the job duties must be done by others then those actually doing that work should be compensated for it and salaries adjusted (up or down) accordingly.

Why should someone assume 20-30 percent more work without compensation, so others can work from home even though their duties may require on-site presence?

The government cannot just raise your salary because you're working more than your coworkers.

By all means push back if you're being given more work than your can complete. But what your coworkers' roles require is not your business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How, specifically, is it affecting your work? You said she performs menial, low priority tasks. How does that affect you?

Maybe most people posting are the people staying at home. It obviously affects OP because instead of having a mix of high priority /stress/ concentration tasks mixed in with low priority tasks all those low priority/low stress tasks are given to stay at home worker. So as a result OP’s job becomes harder yet OP is getting the same pay as stay at home worker.

Most people wouldn’t care if 19 people were showing up to work and one person works from home. It changes when under 7-10 people are showing up and there are 1-2 at home getting the easy tasks.

Push back OP. That’s what I started doing. I complain each and every time I am given a task that stay at home worker should be doing. I say give it to stay at home worker or pay me extra.

The government can't just pay you extra because one of your coworkers has an RA and works from home. If OP says that, they will come across as clueless and entitled.

Of course they don’t pay extra so I hold out on I am not doing the task stay at home worker should be doing. I don’t care if I am seen as clueless and entitled. I know I am not a doormat. And guess what? I make such a fuss that I no longer get that extra work passed on to me. Someone else gets dumped on.

I go to work to do my job and go home to my family. I don’t care what people think of me. I’m not staying late or working extra so a co-worker can do 1/3 of the work they should be doing while staying home. I have no problem with any coworker who does 100% of their job at home. If they are efficient and can do it in less time then that’s great.. What I won’t put up with is do someone else’s work because they can only manage to do 1/3 to 1/2 of the work.

This is exactly what happens. When others wind up doing the work that being on-site necessitates, the WFH employees are essentially taking money out of their coworkers' pockets because they are not being compensated for the work they are doing.

IMO, if a RA/WFH request means some of the job duties must be done by others then those actually doing that work should be compensated for it and salaries adjusted (up or down) accordingly.

Why should someone assume 20-30 percent more work without compensation, so others can work from home even though their duties may require on-site presence?

The government cannot just raise your salary because you're working more than your coworkers.

By all means push back if you're being given more work than your can complete. But what your coworkers' roles require is not your business.

It sure as hell is my business if I'm doing their work.

Employee A's duties: They are to review classified XYZ information daily and attend daily meetings in a secure location. One a week they are required to complete an analysis of information and is responsible for presenting it to XYZ managers during a classified meeting. These are on job description as critical duties.

Employee B's duties: They are to review classified ABC information, etc. These are also critical duties.

Because Employee A has a "WFH" accommodation, Employee B now has to review A.B.C, and X, Y, Z info daily, do TWO reports every week and make two presentations each week. It has increased their time required to be in office and the agency only offers comp time, no paid overtime.

If Employee B is ill they need to use sick leave. If they have a home repair scheduled they need to take annual leave. Employee A does not need to do so since they are at home. The employees' leave balances show that Employee A rarely takes sick leave and their annual leave is always at the max.

Tell me why Employee B should be fine with this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How, specifically, is it affecting your work? You said she performs menial, low priority tasks. How does that affect you?

Maybe most people posting are the people staying at home. It obviously affects OP because instead of having a mix of high priority /stress/ concentration tasks mixed in with low priority tasks all those low priority/low stress tasks are given to stay at home worker. So as a result OP’s job becomes harder yet OP is getting the same pay as stay at home worker.

Most people wouldn’t care if 19 people were showing up to work and one person works from home. It changes when under 7-10 people are showing up and there are 1-2 at home getting the easy tasks.

Push back OP. That’s what I started doing. I complain each and every time I am given a task that stay at home worker should be doing. I say give it to stay at home worker or pay me extra.

The government can't just pay you extra because one of your coworkers has an RA and works from home. If OP says that, they will come across as clueless and entitled.

Of course they don’t pay extra so I hold out on I am not doing the task stay at home worker should be doing. I don’t care if I am seen as clueless and entitled. I know I am not a doormat. And guess what? I make such a fuss that I no longer get that extra work passed on to me. Someone else gets dumped on.

I go to work to do my job and go home to my family. I don’t care what people think of me. I’m not staying late or working extra so a co-worker can do 1/3 of the work they should be doing while staying home. I have no problem with any coworker who does 100% of their job at home. If they are efficient and can do it in less time then that’s great.. What I won’t put up with is do someone else’s work because they can only manage to do 1/3 to 1/2 of the work.

This is exactly what happens. When others wind up doing the work that being on-site necessitates, the WFH employees are essentially taking money out of their coworkers' pockets because they are not being compensated for the work they are doing.

IMO, if a RA/WFH request means some of the job duties must be done by others then those actually doing that work should be compensated for it and salaries adjusted (up or down) accordingly.

Why should someone assume 20-30 percent more work without compensation, so others can work from home even though their duties may require on-site presence?

The government cannot just raise your salary because you're working more than your coworkers.

By all means push back if you're being given more work than your can complete. But what your coworkers' roles require is not your business.

It sure as hell is my business if I'm doing their work.

Employee A's duties: They are to review classified XYZ information daily and attend daily meetings in a secure location. One a week they are required to complete an analysis of information and is responsible for presenting it to XYZ managers during a classified meeting. These are on job description as critical duties.

Employee B's duties: They are to review classified ABC information, etc. These are also critical duties.

Because Employee A has a "WFH" accommodation, Employee B now has to review A.B.C, and X, Y, Z info daily, do TWO reports every week and make two presentations each week. It has increased their time required to be in office and the agency only offers comp time, no paid overtime.

If Employee B is ill they need to use sick leave. If they have a home repair scheduled they need to take annual leave. Employee A does not need to do so since they are at home. The employees' leave balances show that Employee A rarely takes sick leave and their annual leave is always at the max.

Tell me why Employee B should be fine with this?

According to your own post, Employee B’s duties are only to review ABC information, not XYZ. If B’s manager is assigning B duties beyond their job description, B should have a conversation about this or request a desk audit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How, specifically, is it affecting your work? You said she performs menial, low priority tasks. How does that affect you?

Maybe most people posting are the people staying at home. It obviously affects OP because instead of having a mix of high priority /stress/ concentration tasks mixed in with low priority tasks all those low priority/low stress tasks are given to stay at home worker. So as a result OP’s job becomes harder yet OP is getting the same pay as stay at home worker.

Most people wouldn’t care if 19 people were showing up to work and one person works from home. It changes when under 7-10 people are showing up and there are 1-2 at home getting the easy tasks.

Push back OP. That’s what I started doing. I complain each and every time I am given a task that stay at home worker should be doing. I say give it to stay at home worker or pay me extra.

The government can't just pay you extra because one of your coworkers has an RA and works from home. If OP says that, they will come across as clueless and entitled.

Of course they don’t pay extra so I hold out on I am not doing the task stay at home worker should be doing. I don’t care if I am seen as clueless and entitled. I know I am not a doormat. And guess what? I make such a fuss that I no longer get that extra work passed on to me. Someone else gets dumped on.

I go to work to do my job and go home to my family. I don’t care what people think of me. I’m not staying late or working extra so a co-worker can do 1/3 of the work they should be doing while staying home. I have no problem with any coworker who does 100% of their job at home. If they are efficient and can do it in less time then that’s great.. What I won’t put up with is do someone else’s work because they can only manage to do 1/3 to 1/2 of the work.

This is exactly what happens. When others wind up doing the work that being on-site necessitates, the WFH employees are essentially taking money out of their coworkers' pockets because they are not being compensated for the work they are doing.

IMO, if a RA/WFH request means some of the job duties must be done by others then those actually doing that work should be compensated for it and salaries adjusted (up or down) accordingly.

Why should someone assume 20-30 percent more work without compensation, so others can work from home even though their duties may require on-site presence?

The government cannot just raise your salary because you're working more than your coworkers.

By all means push back if you're being given more work than your can complete. But what your coworkers' roles require is not your business.

It sure as hell is my business if I'm doing their work.

Employee A's duties: They are to review classified XYZ information daily and attend daily meetings in a secure location. One a week they are required to complete an analysis of information and is responsible for presenting it to XYZ managers during a classified meeting. These are on job description as critical duties.

Employee B's duties: They are to review classified ABC information, etc. These are also critical duties.

Because Employee A has a "WFH" accommodation, Employee B now has to review A.B.C, and X, Y, Z info daily, do TWO reports every week and make two presentations each week. It has increased their time required to be in office and the agency only offers comp time, no paid overtime.

If Employee B is ill they need to use sick leave. If they have a home repair scheduled they need to take annual leave. Employee A does not need to do so since they are at home. The employees' leave balances show that Employee A rarely takes sick leave and their annual leave is always at the max.

Tell me why Employee B should be fine with this?

According to your own post, Employee B’s duties are only to review ABC information, not XYZ. If B’s manager is assigning B duties beyond their job description, B should have a conversation about this or request a desk audit.

Why should Employee A get paid at their current rate/salary indefinitely if they are no longer performing their essential job duties? NP, and not a fed. Just genuinely curious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How, specifically, is it affecting your work? You said she performs menial, low priority tasks. How does that affect you?

Maybe most people posting are the people staying at home. It obviously affects OP because instead of having a mix of high priority /stress/ concentration tasks mixed in with low priority tasks all those low priority/low stress tasks are given to stay at home worker. So as a result OP’s job becomes harder yet OP is getting the same pay as stay at home worker.

Most people wouldn’t care if 19 people were showing up to work and one person works from home. It changes when under 7-10 people are showing up and there are 1-2 at home getting the easy tasks.

Push back OP. That’s what I started doing. I complain each and every time I am given a task that stay at home worker should be doing. I say give it to stay at home worker or pay me extra.

The government can't just pay you extra because one of your coworkers has an RA and works from home. If OP says that, they will come across as clueless and entitled.

Of course they don’t pay extra so I hold out on I am not doing the task stay at home worker should be doing. I don’t care if I am seen as clueless and entitled. I know I am not a doormat. And guess what? I make such a fuss that I no longer get that extra work passed on to me. Someone else gets dumped on.

I go to work to do my job and go home to my family. I don’t care what people think of me. I’m not staying late or working extra so a co-worker can do 1/3 of the work they should be doing while staying home. I have no problem with any coworker who does 100% of their job at home. If they are efficient and can do it in less time then that’s great.. What I won’t put up with is do someone else’s work because they can only manage to do 1/3 to 1/2 of the work.

This is exactly what happens. When others wind up doing the work that being on-site necessitates, the WFH employees are essentially taking money out of their coworkers' pockets because they are not being compensated for the work they are doing.

IMO, if a RA/WFH request means some of the job duties must be done by others then those actually doing that work should be compensated for it and salaries adjusted (up or down) accordingly.

Why should someone assume 20-30 percent more work without compensation, so others can work from home even though their duties may require on-site presence?

The government cannot just raise your salary because you're working more than your coworkers.

By all means push back if you're being given more work than your can complete. But what your coworkers' roles require is not your business.

It sure as hell is my business if I'm doing their work.

Employee A's duties: They are to review classified XYZ information daily and attend daily meetings in a secure location. One a week they are required to complete an analysis of information and is responsible for presenting it to XYZ managers during a classified meeting. These are on job description as critical duties.

Employee B's duties: They are to review classified ABC information, etc. These are also critical duties.

Because Employee A has a "WFH" accommodation, Employee B now has to review A.B.C, and X, Y, Z info daily, do TWO reports every week and make two presentations each week. It has increased their time required to be in office and the agency only offers comp time, no paid overtime.

If Employee B is ill they need to use sick leave. If they have a home repair scheduled they need to take annual leave. Employee A does not need to do so since they are at home. The employees' leave balances show that Employee A rarely takes sick leave and their annual leave is always at the max.

Tell me why Employee B should be fine with this?

According to your own post, Employee B’s duties are only to review ABC information, not XYZ. If B’s manager is assigning B duties beyond their job description, B should have a conversation about this or request a desk audit.

Why should Employee A get paid at their current rate/salary indefinitely if they are no longer performing their essential job duties? NP, and not a fed. Just genuinely curious.

How does that affect Employee B?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How, specifically, is it affecting your work? You said she performs menial, low priority tasks. How does that affect you?

Maybe most people posting are the people staying at home. It obviously affects OP because instead of having a mix of high priority /stress/ concentration tasks mixed in with low priority tasks all those low priority/low stress tasks are given to stay at home worker. So as a result OP’s job becomes harder yet OP is getting the same pay as stay at home worker.

Most people wouldn’t care if 19 people were showing up to work and one person works from home. It changes when under 7-10 people are showing up and there are 1-2 at home getting the easy tasks.

Push back OP. That’s what I started doing. I complain each and every time I am given a task that stay at home worker should be doing. I say give it to stay at home worker or pay me extra.

The government can't just pay you extra because one of your coworkers has an RA and works from home. If OP says that, they will come across as clueless and entitled.

Of course they don’t pay extra so I hold out on I am not doing the task stay at home worker should be doing. I don’t care if I am seen as clueless and entitled. I know I am not a doormat. And guess what? I make such a fuss that I no longer get that extra work passed on to me. Someone else gets dumped on.

I go to work to do my job and go home to my family. I don’t care what people think of me. I’m not staying late or working extra so a co-worker can do 1/3 of the work they should be doing while staying home. I have no problem with any coworker who does 100% of their job at home. If they are efficient and can do it in less time then that’s great.. What I won’t put up with is do someone else’s work because they can only manage to do 1/3 to 1/2 of the work.

This is exactly what happens. When others wind up doing the work that being on-site necessitates, the WFH employees are essentially taking money out of their coworkers' pockets because they are not being compensated for the work they are doing.

IMO, if a RA/WFH request means some of the job duties must be done by others then those actually doing that work should be compensated for it and salaries adjusted (up or down) accordingly.

Why should someone assume 20-30 percent more work without compensation, so others can work from home even though their duties may require on-site presence?

The government cannot just raise your salary because you're working more than your coworkers.

By all means push back if you're being given more work than your can complete. But what your coworkers' roles require is not your business.

It sure as hell is my business if I'm doing their work.

Employee A's duties: They are to review classified XYZ information daily and attend daily meetings in a secure location. One a week they are required to complete an analysis of information and is responsible for presenting it to XYZ managers during a classified meeting. These are on job description as critical duties.

Employee B's duties: They are to review classified ABC information, etc. These are also critical duties.

Because Employee A has a "WFH" accommodation, Employee B now has to review A.B.C, and X, Y, Z info daily, do TWO reports every week and make two presentations each week. It has increased their time required to be in office and the agency only offers comp time, no paid overtime.

If Employee B is ill they need to use sick leave. If they have a home repair scheduled they need to take annual leave. Employee A does not need to do so since they are at home. The employees' leave balances show that Employee A rarely takes sick leave and their annual leave is always at the max.

Tell me why Employee B should be fine with this?

According to your own post, Employee B’s duties are only to review ABC information, not XYZ. If B’s manager is assigning B duties beyond their job description, B should have a conversation about this or request a desk audit.

Why should Employee A get paid at their current rate/salary indefinitely if they are no longer performing their essential job duties? NP, and not a fed. Just genuinely curious.

How does that affect Employee B?

That doesn't answer the question, it's just another question. Employee B is doing Employee A's job in the above scenario, and it's certainly unfair to them to be paid (presumably) the same amount of money for a very uneven workload. Are you dim or just argumentative?