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: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.

Awesome 17.25 more months to go.

Are you actually seeing evidence that anyone cares or is bothered by the sheer amount of leave being used? In my circle if they’re bothered or even noticing they aren’t saying a word yet. Only way anything improves is if the powers that be get inconvenienced by key workers being out for whole days every time a contractor needs to stop by or their kid has speech therapy for 30 min. Yet key players seem so interested in staying at the SEC for life I don’t see them doing that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Awesome 17.25 more months to go.

Are you actually seeing evidence that anyone cares or is bothered by the sheer amount of leave being used? In my circle if they’re bothered or even noticing they aren’t saying a word yet. Only way anything improves is if the powers that be get inconvenienced by key workers being out for whole days every time a contractor needs to stop by or their kid has speech therapy for 30 min. Yet key players seem so interested in staying at the SEC for life I don’t see them doing that.

With the caveat that this is only my perspective, it's a big building, and people's experiences are undoubtedly varying, etc., I am seeing three things: (1) managers supporting use of flexibility tools; (2) staff using those tools reasonably; and (3) headcount issues being exacerbated in real time by the clunky (but totally appropriate) use of whole-day leave to deal with what used to be 1-2 hour issues. YMMV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Awesome 17.25 more months to go.

Are you actually seeing evidence that anyone cares or is bothered by the sheer amount of leave being used? In my circle if they’re bothered or even noticing they aren’t saying a word yet. Only way anything improves is if the powers that be get inconvenienced by key workers being out for whole days every time a contractor needs to stop by or their kid has speech therapy for 30 min. Yet key players seem so interested in staying at the SEC for life I don’t see them doing that.

With the caveat that this is only my perspective, it's a big building, and people's experiences are undoubtedly varying, etc., I am seeing three things: (1) managers supporting use of flexibility tools; (2) staff using those tools reasonably; and (3) headcount issues being exacerbated in real time by the clunky (but totally appropriate) use of whole-day leave to deal with what used to be 1-2 hour issues. YMMV.

Hey I hope you’re right. In my small corner of this place I’ve seeing very very few ppl ask for any kind of ad hoc. Instead they’re taking whole days off for their kids Dr appt or to go to the DMV for 2 hrs for a RealID or whatever other life thing. That’s leaving mgmt in a good spot for now if someone does ask because they don’t have to feel like I’ve approved 10 ad hoc requests this pay period, someone is going to come down on me — so no. #3 is the only thing I think that’ll move the needle - when people repeatedly aren’t on calls they’re expected to be on bc they had to take a whole day off for a 1 hr engagement.

[Anonymous]

So do we think Paul takes questions tomorrow? Noticeably no link for question submission which I don't think has ever happened before. Do we think anyone gets up to a mic and just let's loose? I'm guessing no as everyone is always on good behavior and will be too scared of Doge in the audience etc. I'm in the regions or else I feel like I would.

[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?

You are intentionally being obtuse. I never said there were NO exceptions.

More importantly, there is a huge difference between being allowed to occasionally telework for something like a midday doctor’s appointment and being able to regularly telework one to three days a week.

Since you couldn’t come up either any other flexibilities, I take it that you agree that, other than those very limited circumstances, telework is not allowed.

If you think allowing this very limited flexibility means they could have permitted regular telework without creating other problems, I simply disagree.

[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.

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?

You are intentionally being obtuse. I never said there were NO exceptions.

More importantly, there is a huge difference between being allowed to occasionally telework for something like a midday doctor’s appointment and being able to regularly telework one to three days a week.

Since you couldn’t come up either any other flexibilities, I take it that you agree that, other than those very limited circumstances, telework is not allowed.

If you think allowing this very limited flexibility means they could have permitted regular telework without creating other problems, I simply disagree.

Ah, I see. On the one hand, you insist that the EO is strict and does not permit telework, period. At the same time, you say that various flexibilities exist and are permissible (I spy at least 5 exceptions).

You’re obviously comfortable being very inconsistent and incoherent. But most staff and true leaders are not as comfortable as you are.

So since you apparently see some implicit language in the EO (beyond its plain language), for those of us without your secret decoder ring, why don’t you lay out what the EO *really* allows and doesn’t allow? Enlighten us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Awesome 17.25 more months to go.

Are you actually seeing evidence that anyone cares or is bothered by the sheer amount of leave being used? In my circle if they’re bothered or even noticing they aren’t saying a word yet. Only way anything improves is if the powers that be get inconvenienced by key workers being out for whole days every time a contractor needs to stop by or their kid has speech therapy for 30 min. Yet key players seem so interested in staying at the SEC for life I don’t see them doing that.

Well, everyone is inconvenienced by this. managers have to take 1/2 day leave for a dr ap and cannot telework.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

You are intentionally being obtuse. I never said there were NO exceptions.

More importantly, there is a huge difference between being allowed to occasionally telework for something like a midday doctor’s appointment and being able to regularly telework one to three days a week.

Since you couldn’t come up either any other flexibilities, I take it that you agree that, other than those very limited circumstances, telework is not allowed.

If you think allowing this very limited flexibility means they could have permitted regular telework without creating other problems, I simply disagree.

Ah, I see. On the one hand, you insist that the EO is strict and does not permit telework, period. At the same time, you say that various flexibilities exist and are permissible (I spy at least 5 exceptions).

You’re obviously comfortable being very inconsistent and incoherent. But most staff and true leaders are not as comfortable as you are.

So since you apparently see some implicit language in the EO (beyond its plain language), for those of us without your secret decoder ring, why don’t you lay out what the EO *really* allows and doesn’t allow? Enlighten us.

Thanks for the offer, but I’ll move on with my life rather than continuing with this nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So do we think Paul takes questions tomorrow? Noticeably no link for question submission which I don't think has ever happened before. Do we think anyone gets up to a mic and just let's loose? I'm guessing no as everyone is always on good behavior and will be too scared of Doge in the audience etc. I'm in the regions or else I feel like I would.

Stream it. Imagine how salty he will be showing up to a mostly empty room instead of getting to act like the big man on campus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

You are intentionally being obtuse. I never said there were NO exceptions.

More importantly, there is a huge difference between being allowed to occasionally telework for something like a midday doctor’s appointment and being able to regularly telework one to three days a week.

Since you couldn’t come up either any other flexibilities, I take it that you agree that, other than those very limited circumstances, telework is not allowed.

If you think allowing this very limited flexibility means they could have permitted regular telework without creating other problems, I simply disagree.

Ah, I see. On the one hand, you insist that the EO is strict and does not permit telework, period. At the same time, you say that various flexibilities exist and are permissible (I spy at least 5 exceptions).

You’re obviously comfortable being very inconsistent and incoherent. But most staff and true leaders are not as comfortable as you are.

So since you apparently see some implicit language in the EO (beyond its plain language), for those of us without your secret decoder ring, why don’t you lay out what the EO *really* allows and doesn’t allow? Enlighten us.

The employee on this thread who imagined that whole conversation with Russ Vought and the President (likely the PP above) absolutely must be the one to ask PA the telework question. Seriously—find out why he didn’t use the “flexibilities” you saw baked into the EO. This is YOUR moment. Ask the question. Claim your destiny!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

You are intentionally being obtuse. I never said there were NO exceptions.

More importantly, there is a huge difference between being allowed to occasionally telework for something like a midday doctor’s appointment and being able to regularly telework one to three days a week.

Since you couldn’t come up either any other flexibilities, I take it that you agree that, other than those very limited circumstances, telework is not allowed.

If you think allowing this very limited flexibility means they could have permitted regular telework without creating other problems, I simply disagree.

Ah, I see. On the one hand, you insist that the EO is strict and does not permit telework, period. At the same time, you say that various flexibilities exist and are permissible (I spy at least 5 exceptions).

You’re obviously comfortable being very inconsistent and incoherent. But most staff and true leaders are not as comfortable as you are.

So since you apparently see some implicit language in the EO (beyond its plain language), for those of us without your secret decoder ring, why don’t you lay out what the EO *really* allows and doesn’t allow? Enlighten us.

The employee on this thread who imagined that whole conversation with Russ Vought and the President (likely the PP above) absolutely must be the one to ask PA the telework question. Seriously—find out why he didn’t use the “flexibilities” you saw baked into the EO. This is YOUR moment. Ask the question. Claim your destiny!

So what you don't have to keep coming back here and whining about they "WHY" and arguing. You could set the record straight, once and for all.

[Anonymous]

[img]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

You are intentionally being obtuse. I never said there were NO exceptions.

More importantly, there is a huge difference between being allowed to occasionally telework for something like a midday doctor’s appointment and being able to regularly telework one to three days a week.

Since you couldn’t come up either any other flexibilities, I take it that you agree that, other than those very limited circumstances, telework is not allowed.

If you think allowing this very limited flexibility means they could have permitted regular telework without creating other problems, I simply disagree.

Ah, I see. On the one hand, you insist that the EO is strict and does not permit telework, period. At the same time, you say that various flexibilities exist and are permissible (I spy at least 5 exceptions).

You’re obviously comfortable being very inconsistent and incoherent. But most staff and true leaders are not as comfortable as you are.

So since you apparently see some implicit language in the EO (beyond its plain language), for those of us without your secret decoder ring, why don’t you lay out what the EO *really* allows and doesn’t allow? Enlighten us.

The employee on this thread who imagined that whole conversation with Russ Vought and the President (likely the PP above) absolutely must be the one to ask PA the telework question. Seriously—find out why he didn’t use the “flexibilities” you saw baked into the EO. This is YOUR moment. Ask the question. Claim your destiny!

So what you don't have to keep coming back here and whining about they "WHY" and arguing. You could set the record straight, once and for all.

You’re becoming very emotional and unhinged. Likely from the dissonance of harboring and spewing so many incoherent and inconsistent views on telework and what the EO permits. You also seem oddly obsessed with some imaginary story that someone posted. Sad.

[Anonymous]

Some stellar morale boosting efforts there, PA. 🙄

[Anonymous]

Everyone who said PA is an "institutionalist" and that things would turn around once he got sworn in looks pretty foolish. MU did the best he could within the parameters of the acting/caretaker role.

[Anonymous]

He reassured the regions. That was something. Said there would be targeted reorgs. Don’t know what qualifies as targeted. Nothing will happen on telework until DOGE leaves. Not saying something will happen they it leaves. But nothing is happening while they are there.