Biden wants RTO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Sorry, I may have been unclear. The agency's initial position during negotiations was for less TW and by the time they got to the FSIP they settled in on 8 days per pay period. You're right I don't know why but the only answer that makes sense is that they thought they would not win with their initial position.

I don't think the bolded part is going to be an issue because the line managers are generally reasonable and don't call people into the office for no reason.

[Anonymous]

PP what do you mean by this? “ 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 want to agree with you but it seems their primary argument is that it enhances productivity, collaboration, etc. which they will absolutely still try to argue. So what are you referring to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Sorry, I may have been unclear. The agency's initial position during negotiations was for less TW and by the time they got to the FSIP they settled in on 8 days per pay period. You're right I don't know why but the only answer that makes sense is that they thought they would not win with their initial position.

I don't think the bolded part is going to be an issue because the line managers are generally reasonable and don't call people into the office for no reason.

I don't think that is the only answer that makes sense. I think the more likely answer is that they did what all parties do in negotiations and originally ask for more than they actually want so that they have room to give. They weren't forced into anything prior to making their last proposal prior to the panel. And management's initial proposal, which I can only find in a piece written by the union, so I take it with a grain of salt, was 4 days per pay period...or two days per week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP what do you mean by this? “ 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 want to agree with you but it seems their primary argument is that it enhances productivity, collaboration, etc. which they will absolutely still try to argue. So what are you referring to?

PP here and the agency represented that all remote employees would need to be allowed to use duty time to commute if called into the office. The agency either changed or reinterpreted its existing travel policy so that no longer applies to employees within a 40 mile radius (conveniently shortly after they testified to the FSIP that it had to be that way).

Perhaps instead of calling it their primary argument I should have called it their most persuasive argument because that is the one the FSIP focused on in its decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP what do you mean by this? “ 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 want to agree with you but it seems their primary argument is that it enhances productivity, collaboration, etc. which they will absolutely still try to argue. So what are you referring to?

PP here and the agency represented that all remote employees would need to be allowed to use duty time to commute if called into the office. The agency either changed or reinterpreted its existing travel policy so that no longer applies to employees within a 40 mile radius (conveniently shortly after they testified to the FSIP that it had to be that way).

Perhaps instead of calling it their primary argument I should have called it their most persuasive argument because that is the one the FSIP focused on in its decision.

I'm sincere in this question, not snarky. Do you have more information on this?

It is my understanding that they argued that they would have to allow duty time IF the employee's duty station changed to home and the duty station changed to home if they did not report at least twice a pay period. Since employees now need to report twice a pay period under the agreement, commute time is no longer duty time. Right? If so, that is logically consistent...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP what do you mean by this? “ 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 want to agree with you but it seems their primary argument is that it enhances productivity, collaboration, etc. which they will absolutely still try to argue. So what are you referring to?

PP here and the agency represented that all remote employees would need to be allowed to use duty time to commute if called into the office. The agency either changed or reinterpreted its existing travel policy so that no longer applies to employees within a 40 mile radius (conveniently shortly after they testified to the FSIP that it had to be that way).

Perhaps instead of calling it their primary argument I should have called it their most persuasive argument because that is the one the FSIP focused on in its decision.

I'm sincere in this question, not snarky. Do you have more information on this?

It is my understanding that they argued that they would have to allow duty time IF the employee's duty station changed to home and the duty station changed to home if they did not report at least twice a pay period. Since employees now need to report twice a pay period under the agreement, commute time is no longer duty time. Right? If so, that is logically consistent...

Remote employees (i.e. those whose duty station is their home/ full time teleworkers) cannot use duty time for their commute if they live within 40 miles of the agency which wasn't the agency's interpretation of the policy before the FSIP.

Nothing wrong with that of course but the FSIP seemed to heavily consider lost time to commuting in rendering its decision and that concern no longer applies.

[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

Same, except for the few people my supervisor allegedly yelled at or harassed. They get to go back on telework pending investigation.

[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.

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

Same, except for the few people my supervisor allegedly yelled at or harassed. They get to go back on telework pending investigation.

Did your unions not press the issue with the mediation panel or appeal to the impasse panel? Or did you not have TW in your CBA and they were just reverting to pre pandemic norms?

[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.

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

Same, except for the few people my supervisor allegedly yelled at or harassed. They get to go back on telework pending investigation.

Did your unions not press the issue with the mediation panel or appeal to the impasse panel? Or did you not have TW in your CBA and they were just reverting to pre pandemic norms?

We have TW in our CBA but it says management can make changes as long as it’s not arbitrary. They’ve interpreted that as everyone in the same office being treated the same so management in each office is announcing new uniform policies for more work in the office.

[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.

SEC tried to make the culture argument in arbitration and failed.

[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.

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

Same, except for the few people my supervisor allegedly yelled at or harassed. They get to go back on telework pending investigation.

Did your unions not press the issue with the mediation panel or appeal to the impasse panel? Or did you not have TW in your CBA and they were just reverting to pre pandemic norms?

We have telework and remote work in our CBA but agency changed to 3 days in person for telework and put all DC commuting area remote workers back on telework. Remote work still in place for those outside DC or who moved out of DC on remote agreement.

[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.

SEC tried to make the culture argument in arbitration and failed.

Why do you say that? According to the FSIP decision they went to mediation-arbitration, where no decision was rendered by a third party at all. They just failed to reach mutual agreement agreement.

And the "culture" argument is not the only one. Seems that FSIP was open to a variety of reasons:

"The Union is correct that SEC bargaining unit employees are professionals who, even during a global pandemic, were able to get the job done. However, we are not convinced, as the Union suggests, that the three years of 100% telework because of the COVID-19 pandemic was Presence with a Purpose. The pandemic had a major impact not only on how the SEC conducted business but also on other entities with whom the SEC regularly interacts, such as courts, businesses, and law firms. This makes it difficult to generalize from the experience of the pandemic to the likely experience in a post-pandemic environment. To say that bargaining unit employees did not need to come into their assigned SEC offices to perform their duties is to ignore the fact that going into the office was not even an option for part of that time."

[Anonymous]

Yes. This makes me worried. Because this decision was rendered at the tail end of the pandemic, when the entire federal government and private sector was still very telework-friendly. The external context has shifted drastically, which could swing the FSIP the other way next time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a bad move. I'm a DOJ attorney, and constantly evaluating my private sector options. If WFH is reduced, I'll go with the money, understanding that I am being paid more and going in at least as often.

And the DOJ will replace you in a heartbeat. Bye!

Why would PP care if the DOJ did that? The assumption is that PP would be replaced. There is absolutely no point to your comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love WFH more than anyone, but there’s no question that RTO is much better for the local economy. Lunches, metro rides, parking fees, dry cleaners, etc.

Money that federal workers have to pay out of pocket now. When I worked in DC I brought my own lunch and used dry cleaners near my home. The only thing they will get money on is Metro fees and parking.

And that’s you. But objectively nobody can deny that more goods and services will get moved if people are in the office. Economies grow when money changed hands.

What makes you think WFH means people are not spending money? I spend the same money except in my neighborhood instead of downtown. I get my coffee at the independent coffeshop down the street instead of starbucks. I get last minute groceries at the corner store. I get my prescriptions at the local CVS. My spending has not changed.

Yeah but Bowser doesn’t care about that. This is all about DC’s economy. Bowser has been begging Biden to force federal workers to come back.