Anyone get telework approved at SEC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it’s accurate to call it a “right” (or else they wouldn’t have been able to get rid of it. Probably a privilege. I agree it sucks thag management did this.

Management is too busy sucking up to Doge. I mean we need to wear our badges at all times. We're still doing the 5 bullet points? Even FDA which has had massive RIFs is bringing back 2 day/wk telework and has told everyone that they're done with the bullets. Us nope - keep sucking up to OPM/DOGE/WH like the spineless leaders you are.

Paul has been confirmed. Where the hell is he? I realize a town hall doesn't come together the next day but not even an email to staff?

THIS. It’s pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it’s accurate to call it a “right” (or else they wouldn’t have been able to get rid of it. Probably a privilege. I agree it sucks thag management did this.

Management is too busy sucking up to Doge. I mean we need to wear our badges at all times. We're still doing the 5 bullet points? Even FDA which has had massive RIFs is bringing back 2 day/wk telework and has told everyone that they're done with the bullets. Us nope - keep sucking up to OPM/DOGE/WH like the spineless leaders you are.

Paul has been confirmed. Where the hell is he? I realize a town hall doesn't come together the next day but not even an email to staff?

You were always supposed to wear your badge, even if many people didn’t. And who the f cares about spending two minutes (max) on the five things email.

Maybe after two huge DIFs we can get back to TW twice a week, or even better, maybe we stop complaining about stupid stuff, and we avoid the RIFs altogether. (And FDA’s telework is really limited in terms of who can take part, so you probably don’t want to use that as a model.)

I’ll stop complaining about stupid stuff as soon as they stop doing stupid stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it’s accurate to call it a “right” (or else they wouldn’t have been able to get rid of it. Probably a privilege. I agree it sucks thag management did this.

Management is too busy sucking up to Doge. I mean we need to wear our badges at all times. We're still doing the 5 bullet points? Even FDA which has had massive RIFs is bringing back 2 day/wk telework and has told everyone that they're done with the bullets. Us nope - keep sucking up to OPM/DOGE/WH like the spineless leaders you are.

Paul has been confirmed. Where the hell is he? I realize a town hall doesn't come together the next day but not even an email to staff?

You were always supposed to wear your badge, even if many people didn’t. And who the f cares about spending two minutes (max) on the five things email.

Maybe after two huge DIFs we can get back to TW twice a week, or even better, maybe we stop complaining about stupid stuff, and we avoid the RIFs altogether. (And FDA’s telework is really limited in terms of who can take part, so you probably don’t want to use that as a model.)

I mean you sound like one of those SEC people who feels soooo blessed to be here at all. I don't feel that way so YMMV. It's not that wearing a badge is a big deal or 5 seconds on a bullet email is a big deal, it's that leadership is being spineless. If they can't say no to 5 bullets, you legit think they'll say no when DOGE says hmm you know what you need a 15% RIF, the retirements weren't enough. News flash - they won't. So this spinelessness isn't protecting us from anything in the future.

What happens if PA just says No? Cry baby doge complains to DT? And he does what? Fires the chair of the SEC over 5 bullets and a bit of TW (which even the EO gave him some discretion over)? Sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it’s accurate to call it a “right” (or else they wouldn’t have been able to get rid of it. Probably a privilege. I agree it sucks thag management did this.

Management is too busy sucking up to Doge. I mean we need to wear our badges at all times. We're still doing the 5 bullet points? Even FDA which has had massive RIFs is bringing back 2 day/wk telework and has told everyone that they're done with the bullets. Us nope - keep sucking up to OPM/DOGE/WH like the spineless leaders you are.

Paul has been confirmed. Where the hell is he? I realize a town hall doesn't come together the next day but not even an email to staff?

You were always supposed to wear your badge, even if many people didn’t. And who the f cares about spending two minutes (max) on the five things email.

Maybe after two huge DIFs we can get back to TW twice a week, or even better, maybe we stop complaining about stupid stuff, and we avoid the RIFs altogether. (And FDA’s telework is really limited in terms of who can take part, so you probably don’t want to use that as a model.)

I’ll stop complaining about stupid stuff as soon as they stop doing stupid stuff.

You sound like my toddler, but his isn’t purportedly a professional and making $200k+ per year.

[Anonymous]

SO funny to read all the posts by the low-agency, neurotic, risk-averse, lemming conformists on this thread. Two questions for you:

1. Given the vague, ambiguous, amorphous, ridiculous policy that allows “some” ad hoc telework (as long as it doesn’t create a “pattern”), who decides whether a given ad-hoc telework event “violated” the policy or creates a “pattern”? How is that determined exactly? I’ll wait…

2. What are the consequences of any violation (assuming they could ever clearly determine that)? PIP? A scolding? Immediate termination? Has anyone said?

Once they opened the door to ANY ad hoc telework, they lost control and created a very slippery slope that will be a friggin’ nightmare to oversee or supervise with any consistency or coherence.

And to make things even more fun, anyone who feels that they’re being treated unfairly or differently from their peers will be filing EEOC complaints, grievances, etc. (the statute of limitations for which, btw, is often longer than 4 years). “Well, you let Mary ad hoc all the time…. waaaah!”

It’s a miracle that any sane person would want to be a manager in this environment and expose themselves to such chaos and risk. You couldn’t pay be $800k a year to do it

[Anonymous]

If only the CBA had addressed telework. Huge oversight. I wonder how the rockstar union missed that one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SO funny to read all the posts by the low-agency, neurotic, risk-averse, lemming conformists on this thread. Two questions for you:

1. Given the vague, ambiguous, amorphous, ridiculous policy that allows “some” ad hoc telework (as long as it doesn’t create a “pattern”), who decides whether a given ad-hoc telework event “violated” the policy or creates a “pattern”? How is that determined exactly? I’ll wait…

2. What are the consequences of any violation (assuming they could ever clearly determine that)? PIP? A scolding? Immediate termination? Has anyone said?

Once they opened the door to ANY ad hoc telework, they lost control and created a very slippery slope that will be a friggin’ nightmare to oversee or supervise with any consistency or coherence.

And to make things even more fun, anyone who feels that they’re being treated unfairly or differently from their peers will be filing EEOC complaints, grievances, etc. (the statute of limitations for which, btw, is often longer than 4 years). “Well, you let Mary ad hoc all the time…. waaaah!”

It’s a miracle that any sane person would want to be a manager in this environment and expose themselves to such chaos and risk. You couldn’t pay be $800k a year to do it

This is exactly why they will eventually say no more adhoc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SO funny to read all the posts by the low-agency, neurotic, risk-averse, lemming conformists on this thread. Two questions for you:

1. Given the vague, ambiguous, amorphous, ridiculous policy that allows “some” ad hoc telework (as long as it doesn’t create a “pattern”), who decides whether a given ad-hoc telework event “violated” the policy or creates a “pattern”? How is that determined exactly? I’ll wait…

2. What are the consequences of any violation (assuming they could ever clearly determine that)? PIP? A scolding? Immediate termination? Has anyone said?

Once they opened the door to ANY ad hoc telework, they lost control and created a very slippery slope that will be a friggin’ nightmare to oversee or supervise with any consistency or coherence.

And to make things even more fun, anyone who feels that they’re being treated unfairly or differently from their peers will be filing EEOC complaints, grievances, etc. (the statute of limitations for which, btw, is often longer than 4 years). “Well, you let Mary ad hoc all the time…. waaaah!”

It’s a miracle that any sane person would want to be a manager in this environment and expose themselves to such chaos and risk. You couldn’t pay be $800k a year to do it

This is exactly why they will eventually say no more adhoc.

No, this is exactly while they’ll have to get reasonable and revert back to 2019 policies (which the current administration at the time fully supported, by the way).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SO funny to read all the posts by the low-agency, neurotic, risk-averse, lemming conformists on this thread. Two questions for you:

1. Given the vague, ambiguous, amorphous, ridiculous policy that allows “some” ad hoc telework (as long as it doesn’t create a “pattern”), who decides whether a given ad-hoc telework event “violated” the policy or creates a “pattern”? How is that determined exactly? I’ll wait…

2. What are the consequences of any violation (assuming they could ever clearly determine that)? PIP? A scolding? Immediate termination? Has anyone said?

Once they opened the door to ANY ad hoc telework, they lost control and created a very slippery slope that will be a friggin’ nightmare to oversee or supervise with any consistency or coherence.

And to make things even more fun, anyone who feels that they’re being treated unfairly or differently from their peers will be filing EEOC complaints, grievances, etc. (the statute of limitations for which, btw, is often longer than 4 years). “Well, you let Mary ad hoc all the time…. waaaah!”

It’s a miracle that any sane person would want to be a manager in this environment and expose themselves to such chaos and risk. You couldn’t pay be $800k a year to do it

This is exactly why they will eventually say no more adhoc.

No, this is exactly while they’ll have to get reasonable and revert back to 2019 policies (which the current administration at the time fully supported, by the way).

I don’t think either is going to happen any time soon. I don’t see them eliminating all ad hoc, and I could even see some relatively loosening of the criteria, at least in practice, but I bet it will be a long while before formal, regular telework is permitted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SO funny to read all the posts by the low-agency, neurotic, risk-averse, lemming conformists on this thread. Two questions for you:

1. Given the vague, ambiguous, amorphous, ridiculous policy that allows “some” ad hoc telework (as long as it doesn’t create a “pattern”), who decides whether a given ad-hoc telework event “violated” the policy or creates a “pattern”? How is that determined exactly? I’ll wait…

2. What are the consequences of any violation (assuming they could ever clearly determine that)? PIP? A scolding? Immediate termination? Has anyone said?

Once they opened the door to ANY ad hoc telework, they lost control and created a very slippery slope that will be a friggin’ nightmare to oversee or supervise with any consistency or coherence.

And to make things even more fun, anyone who feels that they’re being treated unfairly or differently from their peers will be filing EEOC complaints, grievances, etc. (the statute of limitations for which, btw, is often longer than 4 years). “Well, you let Mary ad hoc all the time…. waaaah!”

It’s a miracle that any sane person would want to be a manager in this environment and expose themselves to such chaos and risk. You couldn’t pay be $800k a year to do it

This is exactly why they will eventually say no more adhoc.

No, this is exactly while they’ll have to get reasonable and revert back to 2019 policies (which the current administration at the time fully supported, by the way).

I don’t think either is going to happen any time soon. I don’t see them eliminating all ad hoc, and I could even see some relatively loosening of the criteria, at least in practice, but I bet it will be a long while before formal, regular telework is permitted.

And in the meantime, staff with less than 10 years in, anyone under the age of 40, and anyone whose spouse makes a lot more money than them will leave. They won’t care, but in the long term it will hurt the agency and the precious mission they say they care so much about. And while that is the point for DOGE at a lot of the federal government, no one wants an incompetent SEC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SO funny to read all the posts by the low-agency, neurotic, risk-averse, lemming conformists on this thread. Two questions for you:

1. Given the vague, ambiguous, amorphous, ridiculous policy that allows “some” ad hoc telework (as long as it doesn’t create a “pattern”), who decides whether a given ad-hoc telework event “violated” the policy or creates a “pattern”? How is that determined exactly? I’ll wait…

2. What are the consequences of any violation (assuming they could ever clearly determine that)? PIP? A scolding? Immediate termination? Has anyone said?

Once they opened the door to ANY ad hoc telework, they lost control and created a very slippery slope that will be a friggin’ nightmare to oversee or supervise with any consistency or coherence.

And to make things even more fun, anyone who feels that they’re being treated unfairly or differently from their peers will be filing EEOC complaints, grievances, etc. (the statute of limitations for which, btw, is often longer than 4 years). “Well, you let Mary ad hoc all the time…. waaaah!”

It’s a miracle that any sane person would want to be a manager in this environment and expose themselves to such chaos and risk. You couldn’t pay be $800k a year to do it

This is exactly why they will eventually say no more adhoc.

No, this is exactly while they’ll have to get reasonable and revert back to 2019 policies (which the current administration at the time fully supported, by the way).

I don’t think either is going to happen any time soon. I don’t see them eliminating all ad hoc, and I could even see some relatively loosening of the criteria, at least in practice, but I bet it will be a long while before formal, regular telework is permitted.

And in the meantime, staff with less than 10 years in, anyone under the age of 40, and anyone whose spouse makes a lot more money than them will leave. They won’t care, but in the long term it will hurt the agency and the precious mission they say they care so much about. And while that is the point for DOGE at a lot of the federal government, no one wants an incompetent SEC.

This. All my direct reports under the age of 40 has either left, or is actively looking to leave. These are the HARD working folks that came over from the private sector to do meaningful and respectable work while having some semblance of a life with some flexibility. Good luck to this agency. I can’t wait to become VERA eligible, I hate it here now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SO funny to read all the posts by the low-agency, neurotic, risk-averse, lemming conformists on this thread. Two questions for you:

1. Given the vague, ambiguous, amorphous, ridiculous policy that allows “some” ad hoc telework (as long as it doesn’t create a “pattern”), who decides whether a given ad-hoc telework event “violated” the policy or creates a “pattern”? How is that determined exactly? I’ll wait…

2. What are the consequences of any violation (assuming they could ever clearly determine that)? PIP? A scolding? Immediate termination? Has anyone said?

Once they opened the door to ANY ad hoc telework, they lost control and created a very slippery slope that will be a friggin’ nightmare to oversee or supervise with any consistency or coherence.

And to make things even more fun, anyone who feels that they’re being treated unfairly or differently from their peers will be filing EEOC complaints, grievances, etc. (the statute of limitations for which, btw, is often longer than 4 years). “Well, you let Mary ad hoc all the time…. waaaah!”

It’s a miracle that any sane person would want to be a manager in this environment and expose themselves to such chaos and risk. You couldn’t pay be $800k a year to do it

This is exactly why they will eventually say no more adhoc.

No, this is exactly while they’ll have to get reasonable and revert back to 2019 policies (which the current administration at the time fully supported, by the way).

I don’t think either is going to happen any time soon. I don’t see them eliminating all ad hoc, and I could even see some relatively loosening of the criteria, at least in practice, but I bet it will be a long while before formal, regular telework is permitted.

And in the meantime, staff with less than 10 years in, anyone under the age of 40, and anyone whose spouse makes a lot more money than them will leave. They won’t care, but in the long term it will hurt the agency and the precious mission they say they care so much about. And while that is the point for DOGE at a lot of the federal government, no one wants an incompetent SEC.

This. All my direct reports under the age of 40 has either left, or is actively looking to leave. These are the HARD working folks that came over from the private sector to do meaningful and respectable work while having some semblance of a life with some flexibility. Good luck to this agency. I can’t wait to become VERA eligible, I hate it here now.

Most work places could do with a lot less millennial entitlement. Not sure who you think you are but if you hate it or have better options elsewhere, please feel free to go. The SEC will be just fine without you.

[Anonymous]

How's everyone surviving?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How's everyone surviving?

Booked Easter week off and desperately trying not to think too hard 🫠

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How's everyone surviving?

Thank you for caring enough to ask. It’s been hard, very hard. TWO straight days having to get out of my pajamas travel into the office has been more than I can handle. I’m sitting on the metro now just trying not to break out in tears.