Biden wants RTO

[Anonymous]

Oh shit!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Off point but I gotta say:

There are so many posts on DCUM now where posters are complaining about contractors, neighbors, dogs - you name it - disturbing their ability to work from home. Just another example of the WFH crowd being selfish PITAs.

Aside from that one home improvement post from someone complaining about their contractor listening to music/having loud phone calls while they WAH, I think the complaints about dogs and noise or whatever come from people feeling salty about their coworkers who WAH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh shit!

wut?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So SEC CBA looks like it’s good for 4 years from the effective date until one party can open it up for modification without mutual agreement. Anyone mind pointing me to where I can find the effective date?

Please note that even if not a word of that article is changed, management can still require increased onsite presence. Just a few examples of language to this effect:

"Telework is subject to approval by the Employer and is not an employee entitlement."


A. All employees may telework up to eight days each pay period on a Routine Telework arrangement unless the employee:

1. Is undergoing training in a new job or is serving a probationary period (a supervisor may instruct the Telework Program Manager to allow a Routine Telework schedule during the probationary period as appropriate).

2. Occupies a position with tasks the Employer determines are best conducted in person and therefore the Employer determines Routine Telework would diminish the employee’s performance or agency operations; or

3. Occupies a position that has an unpredictable requirement to be onsite, as determined by the Employer.

The Employer may periodically review position duties and telework performance to ensure positions have been appropriately designated.

Note though that the agency already agreed that a significant portion of the work performed by employees is already eligible for TW. Note Article 11, Section 4(1):

1. Tasks generally suited for telework include, but are not limited to:

a. Writing;

b. Policy development;

c. Research, analysis and evaluation (e.g. investigating, program analysis, financial analysis), report writing;

d. Telephone-intensive tasks;

e. Computer-oriented tasks; and

f. Data processing in cases where the security of data can be adequately assured.

Eligible for telework but management still gets to decide and it’s not an entitlement. So it could change at any time at the discretion of management.

Article 11, Section 6 is pretty explicit about the reasons a telework agreement can be denied or revoked, it can't just be changed on a whim. Also, the agency litigated this issue and this is the best they could come up with, if they had a legit argument to restrict TW more they would have presented it. The only way I see a material change is if the composition of the FSIP changes with a new administration.

I feel like maybe you are ignoring the section quoted above? That section defines eligibility overall, and explicitly makes it subject to management discretion AND periodic review. Section 6 relates to an individual supervisor's decision with respect to an otherwise eligible employee. They preserve flexibility for management.

I think you're giving that section a lot more weight than it deserves. I mean, they've already agreed that certain tasks are suitable for TW and such tasks encompass a lot of the work performed by SEC staff so the burden is going to be on management to show why that no longer works. And, with people having been remote for about 3 years if management had that evidence they most assuredly would have presented it to the FSIP to limit TW because Gensler was not happy people get to TW so much.

[Anonymous]

Our agency has similar language about management discretion and recently said we are all in person 5 days a pay period. Management just said something about culture and collaboration and they weren’t being arbitrary because we are all now coming back. I don’t think the union has much of a case to fight this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:my agency is trying to force 6 days PP by taking away our offices if we don't comply.

What are they telling you exactly? If you give up your office, are they allowing you to continue WFH?

You will only have a dedicated workspace (offices, cubicles alike) if you come in 6 days PP, otherwise you have to hotel. They aren't taking away the option to WFH, but if you're a supervisor you are strongly urged to take the 6 days option

I'm already a supervisor in a cubicle (you have to be two levels above me to get an office). So that doesn't sound like much of a threat to me. I'd take that deal.

You'd take the 6 days or hotel? The policy impacts everyone basically since everyone, office or not, has a dedicated workspace

I'd be happy to hotel, but I'm not being given that option.

I wouldn't mind hoteling at all. The only thing Id worry about is sitting in someone's fart chair.

Um, do you use the bathroom at work?

The weirdness people have about hoteling is something I didn’t anticipate. Several colleagues have said they don’t like the idea of sitting where someone else sits. Do they ever leave the house and go anywhere other than their offices? Ride the metro? Take an Uber? Go to a restaurant? A movie?

ITA! And I have been 100% digital at work for years, so I cannot identify with the people who feel so attached to their paper files and books.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So SEC CBA looks like it’s good for 4 years from the effective date until one party can open it up for modification without mutual agreement. Anyone mind pointing me to where I can find the effective date?

Please note that even if not a word of that article is changed, management can still require increased onsite presence. Just a few examples of language to this effect:

"Telework is subject to approval by the Employer and is not an employee entitlement."


A. All employees may telework up to eight days each pay period on a Routine Telework arrangement unless the employee:

1. Is undergoing training in a new job or is serving a probationary period (a supervisor may instruct the Telework Program Manager to allow a Routine Telework schedule during the probationary period as appropriate).

2. Occupies a position with tasks the Employer determines are best conducted in person and therefore the Employer determines Routine Telework would diminish the employee’s performance or agency operations; or

3. Occupies a position that has an unpredictable requirement to be onsite, as determined by the Employer.

The Employer may periodically review position duties and telework performance to ensure positions have been appropriately designated.

Note though that the agency already agreed that a significant portion of the work performed by employees is already eligible for TW. Note Article 11, Section 4(1):

1. Tasks generally suited for telework include, but are not limited to:

a. Writing;

b. Policy development;

c. Research, analysis and evaluation (e.g. investigating, program analysis, financial analysis), report writing;

d. Telephone-intensive tasks;

e. Computer-oriented tasks; and

f. Data processing in cases where the security of data can be adequately assured.

Eligible for telework but management still gets to decide and it’s not an entitlement. So it could change at any time at the discretion of management.

no, their discretion is limited. they can’t just make up any reason to pull telework eligibility and will have to go through a grievance process if they abuse their discretion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So SEC CBA looks like it’s good for 4 years from the effective date until one party can open it up for modification without mutual agreement. Anyone mind pointing me to where I can find the effective date?

Please note that even if not a word of that article is changed, management can still require increased onsite presence. Just a few examples of language to this effect:

"Telework is subject to approval by the Employer and is not an employee entitlement."


A. All employees may telework up to eight days each pay period on a Routine Telework arrangement unless the employee:

1. Is undergoing training in a new job or is serving a probationary period (a supervisor may instruct the Telework Program Manager to allow a Routine Telework schedule during the probationary period as appropriate).

2. Occupies a position with tasks the Employer determines are best conducted in person and therefore the Employer determines Routine Telework would diminish the employee’s performance or agency operations; or

3. Occupies a position that has an unpredictable requirement to be onsite, as determined by the Employer.

The Employer may periodically review position duties and telework performance to ensure positions have been appropriately designated.

Note though that the agency already agreed that a significant portion of the work performed by employees is already eligible for TW. Note Article 11, Section 4(1):

1. Tasks generally suited for telework include, but are not limited to:

a. Writing;

b. Policy development;

c. Research, analysis and evaluation (e.g. investigating, program analysis, financial analysis), report writing;

d. Telephone-intensive tasks;

e. Computer-oriented tasks; and

f. Data processing in cases where the security of data can be adequately assured.

Eligible for telework but management still gets to decide and it’s not an entitlement. So it could change at any time at the discretion of management.

Article 11, Section 6 is pretty explicit about the reasons a telework agreement can be denied or revoked, it can't just be changed on a whim. Also, the agency litigated this issue and this is the best they could come up with, if they had a legit argument to restrict TW more they would have presented it. The only way I see a material change is if the composition of the FSIP changes with a new administration.

I feel like maybe you are ignoring the section quoted above? That section defines eligibility overall, and explicitly makes it subject to management discretion AND periodic review. Section 6 relates to an individual supervisor's decision with respect to an otherwise eligible employee. They preserve flexibility for management.

DP. No, that’s not right. The use of the word “discretion” does not mean their are no limits on that discretion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So SEC CBA looks like it’s good for 4 years from the effective date until one party can open it up for modification without mutual agreement. Anyone mind pointing me to where I can find the effective date?

Please note that even if not a word of that article is changed, management can still require increased onsite presence. Just a few examples of language to this effect:

"Telework is subject to approval by the Employer and is not an employee entitlement."


A. All employees may telework up to eight days each pay period on a Routine Telework arrangement unless the employee:

1. Is undergoing training in a new job or is serving a probationary period (a supervisor may instruct the Telework Program Manager to allow a Routine Telework schedule during the probationary period as appropriate).

2. Occupies a position with tasks the Employer determines are best conducted in person and therefore the Employer determines Routine Telework would diminish the employee’s performance or agency operations; or

3. Occupies a position that has an unpredictable requirement to be onsite, as determined by the Employer.

The Employer may periodically review position duties and telework performance to ensure positions have been appropriately designated.

Note though that the agency already agreed that a significant portion of the work performed by employees is already eligible for TW. Note Article 11, Section 4(1):

1. Tasks generally suited for telework include, but are not limited to:

a. Writing;

b. Policy development;

c. Research, analysis and evaluation (e.g. investigating, program analysis, financial analysis), report writing;

d. Telephone-intensive tasks;

e. Computer-oriented tasks; and

f. Data processing in cases where the security of data can be adequately assured.

Eligible for telework but management still gets to decide and it’s not an entitlement. So it could change at any time at the discretion of management.

Article 11, Section 6 is pretty explicit about the reasons a telework agreement can be denied or revoked, it can't just be changed on a whim. Also, the agency litigated this issue and this is the best they could come up with, if they had a legit argument to restrict TW more they would have presented it. The only way I see a material change is if the composition of the FSIP changes with a new administration.

I feel like maybe you are ignoring the section quoted above? That section defines eligibility overall, and explicitly makes it subject to management discretion AND periodic review. Section 6 relates to an individual supervisor's decision with respect to an otherwise eligible employee. They preserve flexibility for management.

DP. No, that’s not right. The use of the word “discretion” does not mean their are no limits on that discretion.

PP here and I understand that the discretion cannot be arbitrary. And here is where we come full circle on the unproductive debate that happens here...

There ARE legitimate reasons for a certain amount of mandatory onsite presence for a workforce as a whole. They have been discussed.
Whether any of them think they outweigh the countervailing reasons why WFH is good is beside the point. In order to not be arbitrary, there needs to be a legitimate basis. And there is one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So SEC CBA looks like it’s good for 4 years from the effective date until one party can open it up for modification without mutual agreement. Anyone mind pointing me to where I can find the effective date?

Please note that even if not a word of that article is changed, management can still require increased onsite presence. Just a few examples of language to this effect:

"Telework is subject to approval by the Employer and is not an employee entitlement."


A. All employees may telework up to eight days each pay period on a Routine Telework arrangement unless the employee:

1. Is undergoing training in a new job or is serving a probationary period (a supervisor may instruct the Telework Program Manager to allow a Routine Telework schedule during the probationary period as appropriate).

2. Occupies a position with tasks the Employer determines are best conducted in person and therefore the Employer determines Routine Telework would diminish the employee’s performance or agency operations; or

3. Occupies a position that has an unpredictable requirement to be onsite, as determined by the Employer.

The Employer may periodically review position duties and telework performance to ensure positions have been appropriately designated.

Note though that the agency already agreed that a significant portion of the work performed by employees is already eligible for TW. Note Article 11, Section 4(1):

1. Tasks generally suited for telework include, but are not limited to:

a. Writing;

b. Policy development;

c. Research, analysis and evaluation (e.g. investigating, program analysis, financial analysis), report writing;

d. Telephone-intensive tasks;

e. Computer-oriented tasks; and

f. Data processing in cases where the security of data can be adequately assured.

Eligible for telework but management still gets to decide and it’s not an entitlement. So it could change at any time at the discretion of management.

no, their discretion is limited. they can’t just make up any reason to pull telework eligibility and will have to go through a grievance process if they abuse their discretion.

I agree there would be tons of grievances. No question.
But they just have to have a legitimate reason, and there are many that meet the criteria of legitimate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So SEC CBA looks like it’s good for 4 years from the effective date until one party can open it up for modification without mutual agreement. Anyone mind pointing me to where I can find the effective date?

Please note that even if not a word of that article is changed, management can still require increased onsite presence. Just a few examples of language to this effect:

"Telework is subject to approval by the Employer and is not an employee entitlement."


A. All employees may telework up to eight days each pay period on a Routine Telework arrangement unless the employee:

1. Is undergoing training in a new job or is serving a probationary period (a supervisor may instruct the Telework Program Manager to allow a Routine Telework schedule during the probationary period as appropriate).

2. Occupies a position with tasks the Employer determines are best conducted in person and therefore the Employer determines Routine Telework would diminish the employee’s performance or agency operations; or

3. Occupies a position that has an unpredictable requirement to be onsite, as determined by the Employer.

The Employer may periodically review position duties and telework performance to ensure positions have been appropriately designated.

Note though that the agency already agreed that a significant portion of the work performed by employees is already eligible for TW. Note Article 11, Section 4(1):

1. Tasks generally suited for telework include, but are not limited to:

a. Writing;

b. Policy development;

c. Research, analysis and evaluation (e.g. investigating, program analysis, financial analysis), report writing;

d. Telephone-intensive tasks;

e. Computer-oriented tasks; and

f. Data processing in cases where the security of data can be adequately assured.

Eligible for telework but management still gets to decide and it’s not an entitlement. So it could change at any time at the discretion of management.

no, their discretion is limited. they can’t just make up any reason to pull telework eligibility and will have to go through a grievance process if they abuse their discretion.

I agree there would be tons of grievances. No question.
But they just have to have a legitimate reason, and there are many that meet the criteria of legitimate.

When we first came back 2 days a pay period over a year ago there were hundreds of grievances, our HR handled them centrally and they were dismissed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:my agency is trying to force 6 days PP by taking away our offices if we don't comply.

What are they telling you exactly? If you give up your office, are they allowing you to continue WFH?

You will only have a dedicated workspace (offices, cubicles alike) if you come in 6 days PP, otherwise you have to hotel. They aren't taking away the option to WFH, but if you're a supervisor you are strongly urged to take the 6 days option

I'm already a supervisor in a cubicle (you have to be two levels above me to get an office). So that doesn't sound like much of a threat to me. I'd take that deal.

You'd take the 6 days or hotel? The policy impacts everyone basically since everyone, office or not, has a dedicated workspace

I'd be happy to hotel, but I'm not being given that option.

I wouldn't mind hoteling at all. The only thing Id worry about is sitting in someone's fart chair.

Um, do you use the bathroom at work?

The weirdness people have about hoteling is something I didn’t anticipate. Several colleagues have said they don’t like the idea of sitting where someone else sits. Do they ever leave the house and go anywhere other than their offices? Ride the metro? Take an Uber? Go to a restaurant? A movie?

ITA! And I have been 100% digital at work for years, so I cannot identify with the people who feel so attached to their paper files and books.

Same. My boss just retired and he had to clean his office out—it was kind of sad when he realized all of the paper he had saved was really useless to anyone else. I’ve been 100% digital for about a decade, with a few notebooks here and there. Anything printed gets recycled! I get very little official paper mail anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So SEC CBA looks like it’s good for 4 years from the effective date until one party can open it up for modification without mutual agreement. Anyone mind pointing me to where I can find the effective date?

Please note that even if not a word of that article is changed, management can still require increased onsite presence. Just a few examples of language to this effect:

"Telework is subject to approval by the Employer and is not an employee entitlement."


A. All employees may telework up to eight days each pay period on a Routine Telework arrangement unless the employee:

1. Is undergoing training in a new job or is serving a probationary period (a supervisor may instruct the Telework Program Manager to allow a Routine Telework schedule during the probationary period as appropriate).

2. Occupies a position with tasks the Employer determines are best conducted in person and therefore the Employer determines Routine Telework would diminish the employee’s performance or agency operations; or

3. Occupies a position that has an unpredictable requirement to be onsite, as determined by the Employer.

The Employer may periodically review position duties and telework performance to ensure positions have been appropriately designated.

Note though that the agency already agreed that a significant portion of the work performed by employees is already eligible for TW. Note Article 11, Section 4(1):

1. Tasks generally suited for telework include, but are not limited to:

a. Writing;

b. Policy development;

c. Research, analysis and evaluation (e.g. investigating, program analysis, financial analysis), report writing;

d. Telephone-intensive tasks;

e. Computer-oriented tasks; and

f. Data processing in cases where the security of data can be adequately assured.

Eligible for telework but management still gets to decide and it’s not an entitlement. So it could change at any time at the discretion of management.

no, their discretion is limited. they can’t just make up any reason to pull telework eligibility and will have to go through a grievance process if they abuse their discretion.

I agree there would be tons of grievances. No question.
But they just have to have a legitimate reason, and there are many that meet the criteria of legitimate.

When we first came back 2 days a pay period over a year ago there were hundreds of grievances, our HR handled them centrally and they were dismissed

The issue for HR is when the policy is applied unevenly—which is what totally makes it suck for managers that want to be able to offer flexibility. If they give some units flexibility but not others, it’s a can of worms no one wants to deal with. Therefor, it’s all or nothing. I hate that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So SEC CBA looks like it’s good for 4 years from the effective date until one party can open it up for modification without mutual agreement. Anyone mind pointing me to where I can find the effective date?

Please note that even if not a word of that article is changed, management can still require increased onsite presence. Just a few examples of language to this effect:

"Telework is subject to approval by the Employer and is not an employee entitlement."


A. All employees may telework up to eight days each pay period on a Routine Telework arrangement unless the employee:

1. Is undergoing training in a new job or is serving a probationary period (a supervisor may instruct the Telework Program Manager to allow a Routine Telework schedule during the probationary period as appropriate).

2. Occupies a position with tasks the Employer determines are best conducted in person and therefore the Employer determines Routine Telework would diminish the employee’s performance or agency operations; or

3. Occupies a position that has an unpredictable requirement to be onsite, as determined by the Employer.

The Employer may periodically review position duties and telework performance to ensure positions have been appropriately designated.

Note though that the agency already agreed that a significant portion of the work performed by employees is already eligible for TW. Note Article 11, Section 4(1):

1. Tasks generally suited for telework include, but are not limited to:

a. Writing;

b. Policy development;

c. Research, analysis and evaluation (e.g. investigating, program analysis, financial analysis), report writing;

d. Telephone-intensive tasks;

e. Computer-oriented tasks; and

f. Data processing in cases where the security of data can be adequately assured.

Eligible for telework but management still gets to decide and it’s not an entitlement. So it could change at any time at the discretion of management.

Article 11, Section 6 is pretty explicit about the reasons a telework agreement can be denied or revoked, it can't just be changed on a whim. Also, the agency litigated this issue and this is the best they could come up with, if they had a legit argument to restrict TW more they would have presented it. The only way I see a material change is if the composition of the FSIP changes with a new administration.

I feel like maybe you are ignoring the section quoted above? That section defines eligibility overall, and explicitly makes it subject to management discretion AND periodic review. Section 6 relates to an individual supervisor's decision with respect to an otherwise eligible employee. They preserve flexibility for management.

DP. No, that’s not right. The use of the word “discretion” does not mean their are no limits on that discretion.

PP here and I understand that the discretion cannot be arbitrary. And here is where we come full circle on the unproductive debate that happens here...

There ARE legitimate reasons for a certain amount of mandatory onsite presence for a workforce as a whole. They have been discussed.
Whether any of them think they outweigh the countervailing reasons why WFH is good is beside the point. In order to not be arbitrary, there needs to be a legitimate basis. And there is one.

NP but in this case with the SEC management was unable to present any compelling reasons for why TW should be less than 8 days per pay period to the FSIP (which was a significant step back from their initial position btw). Maybe there is no difference with the work the SEC does or maybe management was too lazy or stupid to prepare and present the evidence, it's hard to tell. Also, as a side note, I think the SEC is going to be reluctant to re-open this issue because their primary argument for why remote work should be limited is no longer applicable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So SEC CBA looks like it’s good for 4 years from the effective date until one party can open it up for modification without mutual agreement. Anyone mind pointing me to where I can find the effective date?

Please note that even if not a word of that article is changed, management can still require increased onsite presence. Just a few examples of language to this effect:

"Telework is subject to approval by the Employer and is not an employee entitlement."


A. All employees may telework up to eight days each pay period on a Routine Telework arrangement unless the employee:

1. Is undergoing training in a new job or is serving a probationary period (a supervisor may instruct the Telework Program Manager to allow a Routine Telework schedule during the probationary period as appropriate).

2. Occupies a position with tasks the Employer determines are best conducted in person and therefore the Employer determines Routine Telework would diminish the employee’s performance or agency operations; or

3. Occupies a position that has an unpredictable requirement to be onsite, as determined by the Employer.

The Employer may periodically review position duties and telework performance to ensure positions have been appropriately designated.

Note though that the agency already agreed that a significant portion of the work performed by employees is already eligible for TW. Note Article 11, Section 4(1):

1. Tasks generally suited for telework include, but are not limited to:

a. Writing;

b. Policy development;

c. Research, analysis and evaluation (e.g. investigating, program analysis, financial analysis), report writing;

d. Telephone-intensive tasks;

e. Computer-oriented tasks; and

f. Data processing in cases where the security of data can be adequately assured.

Eligible for telework but management still gets to decide and it’s not an entitlement. So it could change at any time at the discretion of management.

Article 11, Section 6 is pretty explicit about the reasons a telework agreement can be denied or revoked, it can't just be changed on a whim. Also, the agency litigated this issue and this is the best they could come up with, if they had a legit argument to restrict TW more they would have presented it. The only way I see a material change is if the composition of the FSIP changes with a new administration.

I feel like maybe you are ignoring the section quoted above? That section defines eligibility overall, and explicitly makes it subject to management discretion AND periodic review. Section 6 relates to an individual supervisor's decision with respect to an otherwise eligible employee. They preserve flexibility for management.

DP. No, that’s not right. The use of the word “discretion” does not mean their are no limits on that discretion.

PP here and I understand that the discretion cannot be arbitrary. And here is where we come full circle on the unproductive debate that happens here...

There ARE legitimate reasons for a certain amount of mandatory onsite presence for a workforce as a whole. They have been discussed.
Whether any of them think they outweigh the countervailing reasons why WFH is good is beside the point. In order to not be arbitrary, there needs to be a legitimate basis. And there is one.

NP but in this case with the SEC management was unable to present any compelling reasons for why TW should be less than 8 days per pay period to the FSIP (which was a significant step back from their initial position btw). Maybe there is no difference with the work the SEC does or maybe management was too lazy or stupid to prepare and present the evidence, it's hard to tell. Also, as a side note, I think the SEC is going to be reluctant to re-open this issue because their primary argument for why remote work should be limited is no longer applicable.

I think you have the facts wrong here. It was the Agency itself that proposed 8 days of telework per pay period. The union argued for zero required days. FSIP agreed with management. Therefore, they never attempted nor were they required to present evidence that was LESS than what management was proposing. That is nonsensical.

And as to the point of whether the list of work requiring onsite presence is exhaustive, the Union itself argued that it is not.

"NTEU’s proposal would maintain the current CBA rule that makes clear Management may require an employee to come into the office for a specific reason: “The employer reserves the right to direct an employee scheduled for telework to report to [their SEC worksite] in circumstances deemed necessary by the Employer to meet mission, staffing and/or workload requirements…” (2018 CBA, Art. 11, § 14(D)). This general rule, which affords management considerable discretion, has been in effect at SEC for over twenty years, and renders SEC’s novel list of “unsuitable” telework tasks unnecessary. SEC has never identified any problems with this rule, and in fact, NTEU has only very rarely, if ever, filed a grievance over its application.” (Union Closing Brief, page 9)."

https://www.flra.gov/node/79433