RTO EO is up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The order's language seems to be mainly just for his supporters, of which vast majority blindly believes whatever talking point there is about the "lazy bureaucrat". The lack in detail and length of the order in the perfect language for such type of supporter's comprehension level and attention span, but any baby attorney can pick apart the vagueness of this order and how much deference it gives to the mid-to-upper level supervisors.

The order will be further interpreted by OPM, then the department and agency heads. It’s not up to individual supervisors. Seeing as the administration is going for maximum pain, there’s no reason to expect any vagueness to tilt in workers’ favor.

[Anonymous]

My plan is to go in tomorrow just to show some initiative. My office is still available so I will head in and put up my nick nacks just to reclaim it. Fully remote now, but will intend to go in once or twice a week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The order's language seems to be mainly just for his supporters, of which vast majority blindly believes whatever talking point there is about the "lazy bureaucrat". The lack in detail and length of the order in the perfect language for such type of supporter's comprehension level and attention span, but any baby attorney can pick apart the vagueness of this order and how much deference it gives to the mid-to-upper level supervisors.

The order will be further interpreted by OPM, then the department and agency heads. It’s not up to individual supervisors. Seeing as the administration is going for maximum pain, there’s no reason to expect any vagueness to tilt in workers’ favor.

That’s what you takeaway from this EO? Certainly doesn’t seem that way to me.

[Anonymous]

Just let them think they won guys. Shhh.

[Anonymous]

It's vague, because they have figured out that all of the new office leases they will have to sign won't exactly look like cost cutting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The order's language seems to be mainly just for his supporters, of which vast majority blindly believes whatever talking point there is about the "lazy bureaucrat". The lack in detail and length of the order in the perfect language for such type of supporter's comprehension level and attention span, but any baby attorney can pick apart the vagueness of this order and how much deference it gives to the mid-to-upper level supervisors.

The order will be further interpreted by OPM, then the department and agency heads. It’s not up to individual supervisors. Seeing as the administration is going for maximum pain, there’s no reason to expect any vagueness to tilt in workers’ favor.

That’s what you takeaway from this EO? Certainly doesn’t seem that way to me.

Seems that way to me. But maybe you’re also okay with the little salute Elon did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The order's language seems to be mainly just for his supporters, of which vast majority blindly believes whatever talking point there is about the "lazy bureaucrat". The lack in detail and length of the order in the perfect language for such type of supporter's comprehension level and attention span, but any baby attorney can pick apart the vagueness of this order and how much deference it gives to the mid-to-upper level supervisors.

The order will be further interpreted by OPM, then the department and agency heads. It’s not up to individual supervisors. Seeing as the administration is going for maximum pain, there’s no reason to expect any vagueness to tilt in workers’ favor.

Unfortunately I agree. I was hired remote and commuting to the hiring office (where I don't have a desk) is going to take about 25 hours of my week. I'm not even at the top of the pay scale. So I'd like the optimists to be right, but we're getting political appointees to set policy, OPM will not be generous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The order's language seems to be mainly just for his supporters, of which vast majority blindly believes whatever talking point there is about the "lazy bureaucrat". The lack in detail and length of the order in the perfect language for such type of supporter's comprehension level and attention span, but any baby attorney can pick apart the vagueness of this order and how much deference it gives to the mid-to-upper level supervisors.

This exactly. They’ll believe it’s done and expect grocery prices to be lower tomorrow from that other vague EO. All hilarious.

100%. Love it!

[Anonymous]

Does this apply to independent agencies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My plan is to go in tomorrow just to show some initiative. My office is still available so I will head in and put up my nick nacks just to reclaim it. Fully remote now, but will intend to go in once or twice a week.

Why would you do this? Wait for direction from your leadership.

[Anonymous]

The EO completely skips over telework. The EO could be interpreted to just make all the local DC remote workers RTO then mission accomplished.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The EO completely skips over telework. The EO could be interpreted to just make all the local DC remote workers RTO then mission accomplished.

Except that the political appointees will be the ones to interpret it.

[Anonymous]

This was deliberately intended to skip over prestigious FinRegs who will be led by reputable senior executives from Wall Street who don’t want to spend the next 4 years fighting with public unions and don’t care about telework as long as work gets done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does this apply to independent agencies?

An agency's independence is usually limited to its autonomy in carrying out it statutory mission. Independence does not mean absolute immunity from executive control. If you're at an independent agency, what generally happens is that your OGC will review the executive order and determine if you must comply, if compliance creates a conflict of interest, and whether as a practical matter you may choose to comply.

In this case, my money is on 100% of independent agencies complying with this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting they only addressed remote work vs telework. What is it like 10% of people are remote? Seems like a small group to go after vs targeting TW.

I think that depends how you parse it.

take all necessary steps to terminate remote work arrangements and require employees to return to work in-person at their respective duty stations on a full-time basis--meaning require those remote work employees to return in person

OR

take all necessary steps to terminate remote work arrangements --end full remote work
AND require [ALL] employees to return to work in-person at their respective duty stations on a full-time basis

Either way, the "as soon as practicable," "allow necessary exemptions," and "comply with applicable laws" leaves a lot of discretion.

This exactly. I love lawyers and the attention to language.

I’m pretty sure they mean for remote work arrangements to include partial telework agreements. It would not make sense for this to apply only to full time remote works and for only current full time remote workers to be required to be in the office five days a week and for everyone else to continue a two day a week telework agreement.