RTO EO is up

[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.

That interpret doesn’t make sense though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Remote workers can become teleworkers.

[Anonymous]

This is so unfair to people that teleworked a few days a week prior to COVID.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about bargaining contracts and ADA accommodations!

“Consistent with applicable law”

[Anonymous]

Will this impact the SEC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is what happens when you have people who have no idea what they’re doing writing the rules. Oh well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It clearly also applies to telework. How else do you interpret "employees to return to work in-person at their respective duty stations on a full-time basis"?

What does “to work” mean? They’ll be litigating this for years.

It says “to work in-person.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

My agency can't afford to reimburse remote workers to move back to DC from other states, but you don't have to pay to RTO someone who lives within 50 miles of DC. If you think political appointees want to deal with the attention that comes with busting a budget then you aren't familiar with them at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Glad I got my popcorn early.

Does it turn you on when other people’s lives are upended?

Drama llama? RTO is hardly an upending - have some perspective

I haven’t been complaining too much about this, mostly because I’ve felt very lucky to be a remote worker and knew it would end someday, but don’t minimize it but saying it doesn’t upend things. I’ll spend 2ish less hours/day with my kids, who are young and still want to spend time with me. My young kids routine is going to change quite a bit (only one parent at home in the morning, most likely) which will be stressful and require adjustment. I haven’t yet figured out a way to keep the exercise routine I’ve had for 2+ years that has greatly improved my physical and mental health, and see my kids at all on those days. And we have a dog who does not enjoy being alone all day.

These are all the problems of privilege, and I recognize that. They still create stress and disruption.

One thing for sure - I’m cutting back to working 40 hours per week!

[Anonymous]

I assume the language is meant to tell agencies to rescind CBAs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I assume the language is meant to tell agencies to rescind CBAs?

and how pray tell does an agency rescind a collective bargaining agreement

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nothing will happen. The EO came out, there's lanugage in it that's wishy washy, Trump can say he did something. On to next shiny object.

Yep.

You can’t squish workers into the stairwells and bathrooms…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There are independent agencies and then there are independent regulatory commissions. They aren’t the same and the latter are not typically subject to executive orders.

[Anonymous]

I couldn't go back into my old office if I wanted to, they literally demolished it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I assume the language is meant to tell agencies to rescind CBAs?

It doesn’t say anything remotely like that