CDC employees losing RA telework

[Anonymous]

Labor is now hiring for select positions, has allowed individuals who they asked to return after DRP to negotiate full time remote (no RA needed), has allowed spouses of disabled veterans to remote work, is allowing situational telework for things like doctor appointments, and has left existing RA remote accommodations in place.

Our neighbor who works at FDA is now allowed to telework three days per week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will happen for all of HHS. Too many people abused it and now it’s revoked for everyone. What is going to happen is that the agency will accommodate the condition but in the office. So for instance if the disability is anxiety or difficulty concentrating then the employee could be accommodated by a private office or work space, noise cancelling headphones or a sound machine. Things like that.

That’s the kind of BS they are pulling in my office. Different agency. There aren’t enough private workspaces or offices and the noise canceling headphones and sound machines do not help.
My commute is 2.5 -3 hours a day. I miss my kids. I want to die.

This is normal. My spouse is in private. They are looking for another job. It sucks but the higher ups don't care as they either live close or work from home.

What’s ‘normal’? Not having enough workspaces? The long commute? What exactly?

Yes, my spouse keeps a chair and portable desk in the car. It is what it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does “abuse” mean? If you can do your job 100% at home, why do it in the office if you have a health condition? Telework used to be a lot less viable and the technology is totally ingrained into daily processes now. Not sure why so many people on this thread are buying this “abuse” narrative and miserably policing other people.

Well because “having a health condition” is not legally a per se entitlement to telework. telework has to be a “reasonable accommodation.” If you can do your job in the office but telework is nicer, that’s not it. If there is a different accommodation that is also reasonable the office can require that.

+1 People are only entitled to effective accommodations and not their accommodations of choice.

I was just privy to a case at the RA office recently at my agency and I will say this - the employee cannot request a specific accommodation such as telework. They have to list out their limitations as approved by a doctor and the office will then provide accommodations to assist with these limitations. In order to try to abide by the return to office executive order the agencies will now find ways to accommodate these disabilities in the office. This is for long term situations. There will still be short term approvals for things like chemo treatment or a broken leg. There will be no more indefinite remote work.

So another agency getting rid of full time remote work? Interesting bc our remote workers have been left in place while the rest of us are in full time. Not clear how that’s possible when other agencies have been making changes like this.

A lot of full time remote workers 50+ miles away from the office have been left alone because it costs money to move them unless they can find office space near them within 50 miles.

[Anonymous]

On Reddit they said CDC has paused this until further guidance is given.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On Reddit they said CDC has paused this until further guidance is given.

My center has not disseminated this information...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On Reddit they said CDC has paused this until further guidance is given.

lol they figured out the ADA actually exists? What absolute dumb*sses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don’t see why anxiety would be granted an RA.

Me either. Most of the population has anxiety.

This is such an ignorant and gross comment. I’m sure there are people that have been abusing the system. But it seems like you do not understand the issues people face who suffer from severe anxiety disorder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On Reddit they said CDC has paused this until further guidance is given.

lol they figured out the ADA actually exists? What absolute dumb*sses.

Not to be pedantic but feds are actually covered by the Rehabilitation Act rather than the ADA. They are admittedly very similar but there are some distinctions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On Reddit they said CDC has paused this until further guidance is given.

lol they figured out the ADA actually exists? What absolute dumb*sses.

Not to be pedantic but feds are actually covered by the Rehabilitation Act rather than the ADA. They are admittedly very similar but there are some distinctions.

Huh, maybe the HHS appointees ran their idea through AI which told them the ADA does not apply. They don't bother with attorney review so wouldn't be surprised if a lawsuit threat got them to pause this policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On Reddit they said CDC has paused this until further guidance is given.

lol they figured out the ADA actually exists? What absolute dumb*sses.

Not to be pedantic but feds are actually covered by the Rehabilitation Act rather than the ADA. They are admittedly very similar but there are some distinctions.

No I welcome your pedantry. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On Reddit they said CDC has paused this until further guidance is given.

lol they figured out the ADA actually exists? What absolute dumb*sses.

Not to be pedantic but feds are actually covered by the Rehabilitation Act rather than the ADA. They are admittedly very similar but there are some distinctions.

Huh, maybe the HHS appointees ran their idea through AI which told them the ADA does not apply. They don't bother with attorney review so wouldn't be surprised if a lawsuit threat got them to pause this policy.

Lolol!!’ That would be so funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On Reddit they said CDC has paused this until further guidance is given.

lol they figured out the ADA actually exists? What absolute dumb*sses.

Not to be pedantic but feds are actually covered by the Rehabilitation Act rather than the ADA. They are admittedly very similar but there are some distinctions.

Huh, maybe the HHS appointees ran their idea through AI which told them the ADA does not apply. They don't bother with attorney review so wouldn't be surprised if a lawsuit threat got them to pause this policy.

I’m sure the aerospace lawyer they decided to make the general counsel looked at it and used his vast, relevant expertise to determine it was fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will say that it was horrible for me losing telework, but I didn't think it was fair that coworkers got RAs approved for made up reasons. I know that RAs are often legitimate, but the ones I saw and know personally (I am in the approval chain for these) were bogus. Anxiety and back pain from a long commute were popular.

I don't get this argument at all. The claims either meet the standard for an RA or they don't. If the HR people aren't doing their jobs and properly vetting claims the answer is they should be disciplined or trained better, not remove the RA from everyone.

But what is an appropriate RA? I have a few disabled coworkers who were in electric wheelchairs and they worked in person with me for 15 years. We even put in van accessible parking spots just for them.

Maybe immunocompromised in an RA?

Yes, and various autoimmune disorders, and people under going cancer treatment for example. They can still work, but it might be deadly to come into the office and catch flu or Covid.

Treatment for cancer isn’t permanent. They should and do get a temporary RA. I know several people with autoimmune diseases that work in person. A few are teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will say that it was horrible for me losing telework, but I didn't think it was fair that coworkers got RAs approved for made up reasons. I know that RAs are often legitimate, but the ones I saw and know personally (I am in the approval chain for these) were bogus. Anxiety and back pain from a long commute were popular.

I don't get this argument at all. The claims either meet the standard for an RA or they don't. If the HR people aren't doing their jobs and properly vetting claims the answer is they should be disciplined or trained better, not remove the RA from everyone.

But what is an appropriate RA? I have a few disabled coworkers who were in electric wheelchairs and they worked in person with me for 15 years. We even put in van accessible parking spots just for them.

Maybe immunocompromised in an RA?

Yes, and various autoimmune disorders, and people under going cancer treatment for example. They can still work, but it might be deadly to come into the office and catch flu or Covid.

Treatment for cancer isn’t permanent. They should and do get a temporary RA. I know several people with autoimmune diseases that work in person. A few are teachers.

Okay but we are talking about federal employees here. They’re more delicate than private sector employees.

[Anonymous]

Would love to see the overlap between feds that took the vax and are now disabled…