Anyone get telework approved at SEC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some posters need to realize that the people working at the SEC and complaining are making the same complaints I see or hear other government workers making. Maybe this forum is SEC heavy, but these complaints about WFH, RTO, CBAs, applying for jobs, etc. all seem inline with what others are complaining about.

The difference is that many of you sound entitled, privileged, and completely tone-deaf. And frankly, some of you come off as outright delusional—which makes me question just how intelligent you really are, despite being the highest-paid attorneys in the federal government.
This isn’t a “SEC-heavy” board, no matter how much you’d like to pretend it is. If you actually read the other posts, you'd see participation from employees across a wide range of agencies—financial regulators, independents, big and small. And unlike the SEC employees on this thread, they’re not flaunting arrogance or spending 30-odd pages complaining about the injustice of the current SEC situation. People are upset for good reason: they’re losing telework, dealing with CBAs in flux, watching their work-life balance collapse, and commuting two-plus hours to perform jobs they were hired to do remotely—while managing kids, breastfeeding infants, and making far less than the average SEC salary. But they aren’t writing long screeds elevating their own discomfort as though it’s uniquely catastrophic. That kind of self-aggrandizing is quite revealing. Frankly, like others here, I hope the SEC gets exactly what’s coming. I hope the IT guy turns you in. And if a RIF hits? So be it. There are plenty of qualified, grounded attorneys at CFPB, FDIC, FRB, OCC, and elsewhere who are more than ready to take your place—without the ego, the theatrics, or the martyr complex.

I never thought I’d say this about fellow federal employees, but if the axe falls on SEC, it may actually be a step toward restoring some humility and sanity in this workforce.

Burn! You are awesome! Hugs and kisses to you whoever you are!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, but DOGE does have an email address they've made public. Maybe it's high time I anonymously send over the link for this thread. I think SEC needs some "large scale RIFs" to happen since so many of you are struggling with the new norm.

What a nasty little toad you are. I feel sorry for the people in your life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some posters need to realize that the people working at the SEC and complaining are making the same complaints I see or hear other government workers making. Maybe this forum is SEC heavy, but these complaints about WFH, RTO, CBAs, applying for jobs, etc. all seem inline with what others are complaining about.

The difference is that many of you sound entitled, privileged, and completely tone-deaf. And frankly, some of you come off as outright delusional—which makes me question just how intelligent you really are, despite being the highest-paid attorneys in the federal government.
This isn’t a “SEC-heavy” board, no matter how much you’d like to pretend it is. If you actually read the other posts, you'd see participation from employees across a wide range of agencies—financial regulators, independents, big and small. And unlike the SEC employees on this thread, they’re not flaunting arrogance or spending 30-odd pages complaining about the injustice of the current SEC situation. People are upset for good reason: they’re losing telework, dealing with CBAs in flux, watching their work-life balance collapse, and commuting two-plus hours to perform jobs they were hired to do remotely—while managing kids, breastfeeding infants, and making far less than the average SEC salary. But they aren’t writing long screeds elevating their own discomfort as though it’s uniquely catastrophic. That kind of self-aggrandizing is quite revealing. Frankly, like others here, I hope the SEC gets exactly what’s coming. I hope the IT guy turns you in. And if a RIF hits? So be it. There are plenty of qualified, grounded attorneys at CFPB, FDIC, FRB, OCC, and elsewhere who are more than ready to take your place—without the ego, the theatrics, or the martyr complex.

I never thought I’d say this about fellow federal employees, but if the axe falls on SEC, it may actually be a step toward restoring some humility and sanity in this workforce.

It's like you haven't met lawyers. As a group, we like to complain and rationalize our complaints. There absolutely are a lot of SEC folks on this board as evidenced by so many threads specific to this agency (even before Trump), and the vast majority of SEC employees are lawyers. You do the math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some posters need to realize that the people working at the SEC and complaining are making the same complaints I see or hear other government workers making. Maybe this forum is SEC heavy, but these complaints about WFH, RTO, CBAs, applying for jobs, etc. all seem inline with what others are complaining about.

The difference is that many of you sound entitled, privileged, and completely tone-deaf. And frankly, some of you come off as outright delusional—which makes me question just how intelligent you really are, despite being the highest-paid attorneys in the federal government.
This isn’t a “SEC-heavy” board, no matter how much you’d like to pretend it is. If you actually read the other posts, you'd see participation from employees across a wide range of agencies—financial regulators, independents, big and small. And unlike the SEC employees on this thread, they’re not flaunting arrogance or spending 30-odd pages complaining about the injustice of the current SEC situation. People are upset for good reason: they’re losing telework, dealing with CBAs in flux, watching their work-life balance collapse, and commuting two-plus hours to perform jobs they were hired to do remotely—while managing kids, breastfeeding infants, and making far less than the average SEC salary. But they aren’t writing long screeds elevating their own discomfort as though it’s uniquely catastrophic. That kind of self-aggrandizing is quite revealing. Frankly, like others here, I hope the SEC gets exactly what’s coming. I hope the IT guy turns you in. And if a RIF hits? So be it. There are plenty of qualified, grounded attorneys at CFPB, FDIC, FRB, OCC, and elsewhere who are more than ready to take your place—without the ego, the theatrics, or the martyr complex.

I never thought I’d say this about fellow federal employees, but if the axe falls on SEC, it may actually be a step toward restoring some humility and sanity in this workforce.

You're just hanging out in the wrong venues to see other complaints. There are no SEC threads on the fednews reddit, for example, but much complaining. You happen to be seeing the SEC thread on DCUM instead of the FAA reddit or IRS facebook group or whatever.

I think this thread is whiny, but your level of anger about it is disproportionate. Voluntarily reading a long thread about an agency where you don't work, and getting so mad at the "tone" that you hope those strangers get fired, is pretty weird.

[Anonymous]

I’m sorry. But some $250K a year lawyer from the SEC had an imaginary conversation between Russ Vought and POTUS as if she could possibly know what occurs inside the Oval Office. And you think the poster above is weird????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m sorry. But some $250K a year lawyer from the SEC had an imaginary conversation between Russ Vought and POTUS as if she could possibly know what occurs inside the Oval Office. And you think the poster above is weird????

It's not a championship bracket: they can both be weirdos. You're weird too.
Not me, I'm normal

[Anonymous]

I’m pretty sure that many of the whiney posts on here are trolls who don’t even work for the government, or are intended to be satire/sarcasm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m sorry. But some $250K a year lawyer from the SEC had an imaginary conversation between Russ Vought and POTUS as if she could possibly know what occurs inside the Oval Office. And you think the poster above is weird????

The true “weirdo” is the dude who takes the time to go on DCUM and comment on the posts that he thinks are “weird.”

[Anonymous]

This thread is hilarious. Esp the weirdo who’s going to “report it” to doge. As if an anonymous internet thread (or even a non-anonymous one) would influence what they’re going to do one way or the other.

[Anonymous]

What’s “weird” and “stupid” is the notion that a president would fire his chief market regulator bc he tweaked working hours or allowed a little telework.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What’s “weird” and “stupid” is the notion that a president would fire his chief market regulator bc he tweaked working hours or allowed a little telework.

We could try that. How about we flip the script—1x day per pay period of telework. Done! I know it’ll make all the difference in the world for the “chief market regulator”. Be sure to send this to your DOGE guy who asked for feedback.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What’s “weird” and “stupid” is the notion that a president would fire his chief market regulator bc he tweaked working hours or allowed a little telework.

I don’t care about the chairman getting fired. I care about deeper cuts at the agency, which I do think become more likely if we are thumbing our nose at the President’s directive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s “weird” and “stupid” is the notion that a president would fire his chief market regulator bc he tweaked working hours or allowed a little telework.

I don’t care about the chairman getting fired. I care about deeper cuts at the agency, which I do think become more likely if we are thumbing our nose at the President’s directive.

Once again — and not sure why you can’t grasp this — nothing in the president’s directive requires 5 days in the office. Nothing. If that’s what was intended, it easily could have just unambiguously said that. So sorry you’re reading things into it and super imposing your preferences on to it.

It was actually a very reasonable EO that gave plenty of discretion and latitude to agency heads, whom the administration trusts to carry out its policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s “weird” and “stupid” is the notion that a president would fire his chief market regulator bc he tweaked working hours or allowed a little telework.

I don’t care about the chairman getting fired. I care about deeper cuts at the agency, which I do think become more likely if we are thumbing our nose at the President’s directive.

I think we are all learning that with this administration, the more you give in, the more emboldened they get. So, backing down on anything, including telework, does not earn us any good graces.

[Anonymous]

I mean, you kind of want the type of arrogant, completely dogged, completely confident lawyers in this thread to be representing the country. Hats off to them. I mean that sincerely.