Anyone get telework approved at SEC?

[Anonymous]

Agree!!!
I don’t need any apologist lawyers on my side

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m interposing my preferences? Ha, pot meet kettle.

I’d much prefer to be able to telework. RTO has been a real pain in the rear.

But, I’m not letting my personal preference delude myself into thinking the administration gave lots of flexibility to agencies. The message was quite clear that they wanted people back in the office full time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I don’t know about this. This group of SEC lawyers seem particularly delusional; they like to have imaginary conversations about people they have never met or conversations they have never been privy to because even with their $250K a year salary they’re probably still pretty low on the SEC totem pole. Sounds like the ambulance chaser who is so confident they’ll get you $10M dollars for a fender bender because they are confident that the judge doesn’t care about the facts and you end up paying the legal filing fees for nothing in return.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. They are going to cut what they want to cut regardless of what the agency does on TW.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. They are going to cut what they want to cut regardless of what the agency does on TW.

Absolutely. Also the news cycle under this administration moves so quickly. Has anyone cared about FDA going back to two days a week telework?

The only people who care are some insanely jealous people who must be very unhappy with their own lives and careers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m interposing my preferences? Ha, pot meet kettle.

I’d much prefer to be able to telework. RTO has been a real pain in the rear.

But, I’m not letting my personal preference delude myself into thinking the administration gave lots of flexibility to agencies. The message was quite clear that they wanted people back in the office full time.

j

Then why are there so many exemptions?? If the EO said 80 hours per PP, then why isnt it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m interposing my preferences? Ha, pot meet kettle.

I’d much prefer to be able to telework. RTO has been a real pain in the rear.

But, I’m not letting my personal preference delude myself into thinking the administration gave lots of flexibility to agencies. The message was quite clear that they wanted people back in the office full time.

j

Then why are there so many exemptions?? If the EO said 80 hours per PP, then why isnt it?

What are these many exemptions you speak of?

You can, occasionally, do ad hoc telework if you have a good reason, e.g., a midday doctor’s appointment where you wouldn’t have time to commute either before. And of course if you have a reasonable accommodation for a medical issue.

But what else are you referring to? My understanding is you can’t do anything that looks like regular telework. So, for example, if your kid has therapy at 4 pm every Tuesday, you would not be allowed to even telework for two hours Tuesday to fit that in, since that would be regular telework, even just for part of the day on one day a week.

Doesn’t seem like a ton of flexibility or exceptions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. They are going to cut what they want to cut regardless of what the agency does on TW.

Absolutely. Also the news cycle under this administration moves so quickly. Has anyone cared about FDA going back to two days a week telework?

The only people who care are some insanely jealous people who must be very unhappy with their own lives and careers.

My relative is at FDA. They were provided that “flexibility” because they didn’t have enough space to house everyone. I think there are some agencies where regular telework is being allowed and that is because of the lack of space to accommodate everyone. PTO examiners are one such group. The whole lot of them were exempt from the telework requirement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m interposing my preferences? Ha, pot meet kettle.

I’d much prefer to be able to telework. RTO has been a real pain in the rear.

But, I’m not letting my personal preference delude myself into thinking the administration gave lots of flexibility to agencies. The message was quite clear that they wanted people back in the office full time.

j

Then why are there so many exemptions?? If the EO said 80 hours per PP, then why isnt it?

What are these many exemptions you speak of?

You can, occasionally, do ad hoc telework if you have a good reason, e.g., a midday doctor’s appointment where you wouldn’t have time to commute either before. And of course if you have a reasonable accommodation for a medical issue.

But what else are you referring to? My understanding is you can’t do anything that looks like regular telework. So, for example, if your kid has therapy at 4 pm every Tuesday, you would not be allowed to even telework for two hours Tuesday to fit that in, since that would be regular telework, even just for part of the day on one day a week.

Doesn’t seem like a ton of flexibility or exceptions.

Make up your mind. You keep saying that the EO allowed for NO exemptions, discretion, or flexibility. But then you say there’s some flexibility and exemptions. Which is it? Or are you just making it up as you go along, to fit whatever narrative you want?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m interposing my preferences? Ha, pot meet kettle.

I’d much prefer to be able to telework. RTO has been a real pain in the rear.

But, I’m not letting my personal preference delude myself into thinking the administration gave lots of flexibility to agencies. The message was quite clear that they wanted people back in the office full time.

j

Then why are there so many exemptions?? If the EO said 80 hours per PP, then why isnt it?

What are these many exemptions you speak of?

You can, occasionally, do ad hoc telework if you have a good reason, e.g., a midday doctor’s appointment where you wouldn’t have time to commute either before. And of course if you have a reasonable accommodation for a medical issue.

But what else are you referring to? My understanding is you can’t do anything that looks like regular telework. So, for example, if your kid has therapy at 4 pm every Tuesday, you would not be allowed to even telework for two hours Tuesday to fit that in, since that would be regular telework, even just for part of the day on one day a week.

Doesn’t seem like a ton of flexibility or exceptions.

Make up your mind. You keep saying that the EO allowed for NO exemptions, discretion, or flexibility. But then you say there’s some flexibility and exemptions. Which is it? Or are you just making it up as you go along, to fit whatever narrative you want?

Good question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. They are going to cut what they want to cut regardless of what the agency does on TW.

Absolutely. Also the news cycle under this administration moves so quickly. Has anyone cared about FDA going back to two days a week telework?

The only people who care are some insanely jealous people who must be very unhappy with their own lives and careers.

My relative is at FDA. They were provided that “flexibility” because they didn’t have enough space to house everyone. I think there are some agencies where regular telework is being allowed and that is because of the lack of space to accommodate everyone. PTO examiners are one such group. The whole lot of them were exempt from the telework requirement.

This FDA info is inaccurate (at least in part); although the space constraints and parking problems at White Oak are real, they would not have been sufficient to cause this more or less immediate walk-back. They restored two days of telework per week for drug and device reviewers because: (1) they had already lost too many people and the exitflow was not abating; and (2) reviewers -- per agency guidance -- were taking entire days off for minor appointments & etc. Pharma raised the alarm because they actually pay for the drug and device review programs (which are subject to statutory deadlines that were going to quickly become infeasible (and probably already have)).

At the risk of triggering our hard-core hall monitor, there are some analogies (albeit imperfect) to the SEC here that are likely -- in conjunction with all of the other common sense considerations -- to exert pressure on the maximalist 5-day TW position, at least in the medium to long term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. They are going to cut what they want to cut regardless of what the agency does on TW.

Absolutely. Also the news cycle under this administration moves so quickly. Has anyone cared about FDA going back to two days a week telework?

The only people who care are some insanely jealous people who must be very unhappy with their own lives and careers.

My relative is at FDA. They were provided that “flexibility” because they didn’t have enough space to house everyone. I think there are some agencies where regular telework is being allowed and that is because of the lack of space to accommodate everyone. PTO examiners are one such group. The whole lot of them were exempt from the telework requirement.

This FDA info is inaccurate (at least in part); although the space constraints and parking problems at White Oak are real, they would not have been sufficient to cause this more or less immediate walk-back. They restored two days of telework per week for drug and device reviewers because: (1) they had already lost too many people and the exitflow was not abating; and (2) reviewers -- per agency guidance -- were taking entire days off for minor appointments & etc. Pharma raised the alarm because they actually pay for the drug and device review programs (which are subject to statutory deadlines that were going to quickly become infeasible (and probably already have)).

At the risk of triggering our hard-core hall monitor, there are some analogies (albeit imperfect) to the SEC here that are likely -- in conjunction with all of the other common sense considerations -- to exert pressure on the maximalist 5-day TW position, at least in the medium to long term.

Such as? FWIW ppl are already taking full days off for appointments and 4 weeks in no one seems to care. It’s only going to continue bc ppl aren’t going to cancel some specialist they or their kid need who books 6 months out bc the only opening happens to be 11 AM - they’ll just take the whole day for a 45 min appointment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. They are going to cut what they want to cut regardless of what the agency does on TW.

Absolutely. Also the news cycle under this administration moves so quickly. Has anyone cared about FDA going back to two days a week telework?

The only people who care are some insanely jealous people who must be very unhappy with their own lives and careers.

My relative is at FDA. They were provided that “flexibility” because they didn’t have enough space to house everyone. I think there are some agencies where regular telework is being allowed and that is because of the lack of space to accommodate everyone. PTO examiners are one such group. The whole lot of them were exempt from the telework requirement.

This FDA info is inaccurate (at least in part); although the space constraints and parking problems at White Oak are real, they would not have been sufficient to cause this more or less immediate walk-back. They restored two days of telework per week for drug and device reviewers because: (1) they had already lost too many people and the exitflow was not abating; and (2) reviewers -- per agency guidance -- were taking entire days off for minor appointments & etc. Pharma raised the alarm because they actually pay for the drug and device review programs (which are subject to statutory deadlines that were going to quickly become infeasible (and probably already have)).

At the risk of triggering our hard-core hall monitor, there are some analogies (albeit imperfect) to the SEC here that are likely -- in conjunction with all of the other common sense considerations -- to exert pressure on the maximalist 5-day TW position, at least in the medium to long term.

I doubt it. The SEC is permitting situational telework to accommodate appointments, which is more flexible than the stringent policies we’re seeing elsewhere—HHS, for example, has far stricter telework limitations. Treasury and its bureaus, including the independent ones, cap situational telework for appointments at five days per year—anything beyond that requires leave. For every reason someone cites as to why the SEC should be treated as a special case, there are likely just as many counterexamples showing that similar flexibility isn’t being granted elsewhere. The Fed, for instance, just implemented its five-day a week effective September 2.

The reality is that policies are tightening, not loosening. If you’re getting flexibility now, it’s wise to use it strategically—without drawing unnecessary attention. That said, it seems like many at the SEC are eager to test the boundaries. To each their own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. They are going to cut what they want to cut regardless of what the agency does on TW.

Absolutely. Also the news cycle under this administration moves so quickly. Has anyone cared about FDA going back to two days a week telework?

The only people who care are some insanely jealous people who must be very unhappy with their own lives and careers.

My relative is at FDA. They were provided that “flexibility” because they didn’t have enough space to house everyone. I think there are some agencies where regular telework is being allowed and that is because of the lack of space to accommodate everyone. PTO examiners are one such group. The whole lot of them were exempt from the telework requirement.

This FDA info is inaccurate (at least in part); although the space constraints and parking problems at White Oak are real, they would not have been sufficient to cause this more or less immediate walk-back. They restored two days of telework per week for drug and device reviewers because: (1) they had already lost too many people and the exitflow was not abating; and (2) reviewers -- per agency guidance -- were taking entire days off for minor appointments & etc. Pharma raised the alarm because they actually pay for the drug and device review programs (which are subject to statutory deadlines that were going to quickly become infeasible (and probably already have)).

At the risk of triggering our hard-core hall monitor, there are some analogies (albeit imperfect) to the SEC here that are likely -- in conjunction with all of the other common sense considerations -- to exert pressure on the maximalist 5-day TW position, at least in the medium to long term.

Such as? FWIW ppl are already taking full days off for appointments and 4 weeks in no one seems to care. It’s only going to continue bc ppl aren’t going to cancel some specialist they or their kid need who books 6 months out bc the only opening happens to be 11 AM - they’ll just take the whole day for a 45 min appointment.

PP 12:46 here. This is entirely consistent with what I said. The fact that "no one seems to care" right now (which is not actually true btw) does not mean that the cumulative effect over time won't lead to the same result as FDA. Not likely in the short-term, but quite possible in the medium to long term IMO (again, when added to all of the other considerations). From a Bayesian perspective, I would guess that there is a ~65% chance that SEC moves to something more flexible within 18 months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. They are going to cut what they want to cut regardless of what the agency does on TW.

Absolutely. Also the news cycle under this administration moves so quickly. Has anyone cared about FDA going back to two days a week telework?

The only people who care are some insanely jealous people who must be very unhappy with their own lives and careers.

My relative is at FDA. They were provided that “flexibility” because they didn’t have enough space to house everyone. I think there are some agencies where regular telework is being allowed and that is because of the lack of space to accommodate everyone. PTO examiners are one such group. The whole lot of them were exempt from the telework requirement.

This FDA info is inaccurate (at least in part); although the space constraints and parking problems at White Oak are real, they would not have been sufficient to cause this more or less immediate walk-back. They restored two days of telework per week for drug and device reviewers because: (1) they had already lost too many people and the exitflow was not abating; and (2) reviewers -- per agency guidance -- were taking entire days off for minor appointments & etc. Pharma raised the alarm because they actually pay for the drug and device review programs (which are subject to statutory deadlines that were going to quickly become infeasible (and probably already have)).

At the risk of triggering our hard-core hall monitor, there are some analogies (albeit imperfect) to the SEC here that are likely -- in conjunction with all of the other common sense considerations -- to exert pressure on the maximalist 5-day TW position, at least in the medium to long term.

I doubt it. The SEC is permitting situational telework to accommodate appointments, which is more flexible than the stringent policies we’re seeing elsewhere—HHS, for example, has far stricter telework limitations. Treasury and its bureaus, including the independent ones, cap situational telework for appointments at five days per year—anything beyond that requires leave. For every reason someone cites as to why the SEC should be treated as a special case, there are likely just as many counterexamples showing that similar flexibility isn’t being granted elsewhere. The Fed, for instance, just implemented its five-day a week effective September 2.

The reality is that policies are tightening, not loosening. If you’re getting flexibility now, it’s wise to use it strategically—without drawing unnecessary attention. That said, it seems like many at the SEC are eager to test the boundaries. To each their own.

PP 12:46 here. I grant you that the analogies aren't perfect (I said as much in my post), and I hear you on the rest of your points. A lot depends on how situational TW plays out in practice, etc. But the dynamic is similar: at some point you hit bedrock and there are better approaches readily available.