Reasonable Accommodation Abuse?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How, specifically, is it affecting your work? You said she performs menial, low priority tasks. How does that affect you?

Maybe most people posting are the people staying at home. It obviously affects OP because instead of having a mix of high priority /stress/ concentration tasks mixed in with low priority tasks all those low priority/low stress tasks are given to stay at home worker. So as a result OP’s job becomes harder yet OP is getting the same pay as stay at home worker.

Most people wouldn’t care if 19 people were showing up to work and one person works from home. It changes when under 7-10 people are showing up and there are 1-2 at home getting the easy tasks.

Push back OP. That’s what I started doing. I complain each and every time I am given a task that stay at home worker should be doing. I say give it to stay at home worker or pay me extra.

The government can't just pay you extra because one of your coworkers has an RA and works from home. If OP says that, they will come across as clueless and entitled.

Of course they don’t pay extra so I hold out on I am not doing the task stay at home worker should be doing. I don’t care if I am seen as clueless and entitled. I know I am not a doormat. And guess what? I make such a fuss that I no longer get that extra work passed on to me. Someone else gets dumped on.

I go to work to do my job and go home to my family. I don’t care what people think of me. I’m not staying late or working extra so a co-worker can do 1/3 of the work they should be doing while staying home. I have no problem with any coworker who does 100% of their job at home. If they are efficient and can do it in less time then that’s great.. What I won’t put up with is do someone else’s work because they can only manage to do 1/3 to 1/2 of the work.

This is exactly what happens. When others wind up doing the work that being on-site necessitates, the WFH employees are essentially taking money out of their coworkers' pockets because they are not being compensated for the work they are doing.

IMO, if a RA/WFH request means some of the job duties must be done by others then those actually doing that work should be compensated for it and salaries adjusted (up or down) accordingly.

Why should someone assume 20-30 percent more work without compensation, so others can work from home even though their duties may require on-site presence?

The government cannot just raise your salary because you're working more than your coworkers.

By all means push back if you're being given more work than your can complete. But what your coworkers' roles require is not your business.

It sure as hell is my business if I'm doing their work.

Employee A's duties: They are to review classified XYZ information daily and attend daily meetings in a secure location. One a week they are required to complete an analysis of information and is responsible for presenting it to XYZ managers during a classified meeting. These are on job description as critical duties.

Employee B's duties: They are to review classified ABC information, etc. These are also critical duties.

Because Employee A has a "WFH" accommodation, Employee B now has to review A.B.C, and X, Y, Z info daily, do TWO reports every week and make two presentations each week. It has increased their time required to be in office and the agency only offers comp time, no paid overtime.

If Employee B is ill they need to use sick leave. If they have a home repair scheduled they need to take annual leave. Employee A does not need to do so since they are at home. The employees' leave balances show that Employee A rarely takes sick leave and their annual leave is always at the max.

Tell me why Employee B should be fine with this?

According to your own post, Employee B’s duties are only to review ABC information, not XYZ. If B’s manager is assigning B duties beyond their job description, B should have a conversation about this or request a desk audit.

Why should Employee A get paid at their current rate/salary indefinitely if they are no longer performing their essential job duties? NP, and not a fed. Just genuinely curious.

In the hypo proposed the RA probably should not have been granted or should have been granted on a more limited basis (TW once or twice a week depending on how much of the job revolves around classified information). The right answer is either a more limited RA, reassignment to a role that doesn't deal with classified information or if none exist then a disability retirement. Then again, if part of the job revolves around analyzing open source information a manager can give A all open source stuff and B the classified stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How, specifically, is it affecting your work? You said she performs menial, low priority tasks. How does that affect you?

Maybe most people posting are the people staying at home. It obviously affects OP because instead of having a mix of high priority /stress/ concentration tasks mixed in with low priority tasks all those low priority/low stress tasks are given to stay at home worker. So as a result OP’s job becomes harder yet OP is getting the same pay as stay at home worker.

Most people wouldn’t care if 19 people were showing up to work and one person works from home. It changes when under 7-10 people are showing up and there are 1-2 at home getting the easy tasks.

Push back OP. That’s what I started doing. I complain each and every time I am given a task that stay at home worker should be doing. I say give it to stay at home worker or pay me extra.

The government can't just pay you extra because one of your coworkers has an RA and works from home. If OP says that, they will come across as clueless and entitled.

Of course they don’t pay extra so I hold out on I am not doing the task stay at home worker should be doing. I don’t care if I am seen as clueless and entitled. I know I am not a doormat. And guess what? I make such a fuss that I no longer get that extra work passed on to me. Someone else gets dumped on.

I go to work to do my job and go home to my family. I don’t care what people think of me. I’m not staying late or working extra so a co-worker can do 1/3 of the work they should be doing while staying home. I have no problem with any coworker who does 100% of their job at home. If they are efficient and can do it in less time then that’s great.. What I won’t put up with is do someone else’s work because they can only manage to do 1/3 to 1/2 of the work.

This is exactly what happens. When others wind up doing the work that being on-site necessitates, the WFH employees are essentially taking money out of their coworkers' pockets because they are not being compensated for the work they are doing.

IMO, if a RA/WFH request means some of the job duties must be done by others then those actually doing that work should be compensated for it and salaries adjusted (up or down) accordingly.

Why should someone assume 20-30 percent more work without compensation, so others can work from home even though their duties may require on-site presence?

The government cannot just raise your salary because you're working more than your coworkers.

By all means push back if you're being given more work than your can complete. But what your coworkers' roles require is not your business.

It sure as hell is my business if I'm doing their work.

Employee A's duties: They are to review classified XYZ information daily and attend daily meetings in a secure location. One a week they are required to complete an analysis of information and is responsible for presenting it to XYZ managers during a classified meeting. These are on job description as critical duties.

Employee B's duties: They are to review classified ABC information, etc. These are also critical duties.

Because Employee A has a "WFH" accommodation, Employee B now has to review A.B.C, and X, Y, Z info daily, do TWO reports every week and make two presentations each week. It has increased their time required to be in office and the agency only offers comp time, no paid overtime.

If Employee B is ill they need to use sick leave. If they have a home repair scheduled they need to take annual leave. Employee A does not need to do so since they are at home. The employees' leave balances show that Employee A rarely takes sick leave and their annual leave is always at the max.

Tell me why Employee B should be fine with this?

According to your own post, Employee B’s duties are only to review ABC information, not XYZ. If B’s manager is assigning B duties beyond their job description, B should have a conversation about this or request a desk audit.

Why should Employee A get paid at their current rate/salary indefinitely if they are no longer performing their essential job duties? NP, and not a fed. Just genuinely curious.

How does that affect Employee B?

That doesn't answer the question, it's just another question. Employee B is doing Employee A's job in the above scenario, and it's certainly unfair to them to be paid (presumably) the same amount of money for a very uneven workload. Are you dim or just argumentative?

There’s lots of unfair things in the world. The discussion was about how Employee B is harmed by Employee A’s RA.

If Employee B is being made to take on work outside their job duties, there are solutions available to them. Those solutions are the same regardless of who else in the office has an RA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How, specifically, is it affecting your work? You said she performs menial, low priority tasks. How does that affect you?

Maybe most people posting are the people staying at home. It obviously affects OP because instead of having a mix of high priority /stress/ concentration tasks mixed in with low priority tasks all those low priority/low stress tasks are given to stay at home worker. So as a result OP’s job becomes harder yet OP is getting the same pay as stay at home worker.

Most people wouldn’t care if 19 people were showing up to work and one person works from home. It changes when under 7-10 people are showing up and there are 1-2 at home getting the easy tasks.

Push back OP. That’s what I started doing. I complain each and every time I am given a task that stay at home worker should be doing. I say give it to stay at home worker or pay me extra.

The government can't just pay you extra because one of your coworkers has an RA and works from home. If OP says that, they will come across as clueless and entitled.

Of course they don’t pay extra so I hold out on I am not doing the task stay at home worker should be doing. I don’t care if I am seen as clueless and entitled. I know I am not a doormat. And guess what? I make such a fuss that I no longer get that extra work passed on to me. Someone else gets dumped on.

I go to work to do my job and go home to my family. I don’t care what people think of me. I’m not staying late or working extra so a co-worker can do 1/3 of the work they should be doing while staying home. I have no problem with any coworker who does 100% of their job at home. If they are efficient and can do it in less time then that’s great.. What I won’t put up with is do someone else’s work because they can only manage to do 1/3 to 1/2 of the work.

This is exactly what happens. When others wind up doing the work that being on-site necessitates, the WFH employees are essentially taking money out of their coworkers' pockets because they are not being compensated for the work they are doing.

IMO, if a RA/WFH request means some of the job duties must be done by others then those actually doing that work should be compensated for it and salaries adjusted (up or down) accordingly.

Why should someone assume 20-30 percent more work without compensation, so others can work from home even though their duties may require on-site presence?

The government cannot just raise your salary because you're working more than your coworkers.

By all means push back if you're being given more work than your can complete. But what your coworkers' roles require is not your business.

It sure as hell is my business if I'm doing their work.

Employee A's duties: They are to review classified XYZ information daily and attend daily meetings in a secure location. One a week they are required to complete an analysis of information and is responsible for presenting it to XYZ managers during a classified meeting. These are on job description as critical duties.

Employee B's duties: They are to review classified ABC information, etc. These are also critical duties.

Because Employee A has a "WFH" accommodation, Employee B now has to review A.B.C, and X, Y, Z info daily, do TWO reports every week and make two presentations each week. It has increased their time required to be in office and the agency only offers comp time, no paid overtime.

If Employee B is ill they need to use sick leave. If they have a home repair scheduled they need to take annual leave. Employee A does not need to do so since they are at home. The employees' leave balances show that Employee A rarely takes sick leave and their annual leave is always at the max.

Tell me why Employee B should be fine with this?

According to your own post, Employee B’s duties are only to review ABC information, not XYZ. If B’s manager is assigning B duties beyond their job description, B should have a conversation about this or request a desk audit.

Why should Employee A get paid at their current rate/salary indefinitely if they are no longer performing their essential job duties? NP, and not a fed. Just genuinely curious.

How does that affect Employee B?

That doesn't answer the question, it's just another question. Employee B is doing Employee A's job in the above scenario, and it's certainly unfair to them to be paid (presumably) the same amount of money for a very uneven workload. Are you dim or just argumentative?

There’s lots of unfair things in the world. The discussion was about how Employee B is harmed by Employee A’s RA.

If Employee B is being made to take on work outside their job duties, there are solutions available to them. Those solutions are the same regardless of who else in the office has an RA.[/quote

Argumentative, obviously. No reasonable person would say it's fine or justifiable. There is no viable solution in the federal government, especially with so many lackluster managers who won't stand up for their people. Especially in the current environment where ALL federal employees are looked at like lazy scumbags.

If an employee's manager tells them they have to take on these additional duties, and they complain, they will be targeted. It's a classic case of the victim being further victimized.

The only viable solution here is that Employee A (requiring WFH) should be notified that since they are no longer able to perform their critical duties, the agency will attempt to place them in a position where they can perform WFH duties, which may be at a significantly reduced salary/pay grade or else they will be terminated.

[Anonymous]

Your coworker should be fired.

[Anonymous]

If what you want to hear is that you should totally tell your manager that you deserve more money, you coworker should be fired or paid less or have to take more leave, etc., fine. Go for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your management cannot share the details of her RA and she has no obligation to share it with you.

Her RA is not why you have no flexibility.

If the conditions of your job are bad, I'm sorry. A lot of people have left federal jobs because they can't make it work, and it sucks.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If what you want to hear is that you should totally tell your manager that you deserve more money, you coworker should be fired or paid less or have to take more leave, etc., fine. Go for it.

Their supervisor cracks a smile every time OP whines about the coworker and takes on more work. They don't care what you have to say about other people OP, just get that work done and then do some more.