SEC - Reorg

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess the union is only communicating with paying members now. I haven’t heard from them since Feb. (had been at the agency for a few months). I was just about to join too. But certainly not now.

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/us-sec-staff-should-not-worry-about-shutdown-layoffs-union-says-2025-09-26/

Because they sent something only to those who paid you won’t join? They do that all the time and have been for years. Sometimes non paying get the email but not always. I have been at the agency almost 20 years and finally joined. The lawsuits they have filed will take forever. As will it take forever for the arbitration to get appealed and maybe to district court. But I’m willing to help pay for someone to keep fighting.

Haven’t heard a PEEP from them since early March (except a request to fill out a survey in June)! So they get to pretend that I’m a “member of the bargaining unit” but then they give me zero updates during all this chaos over the last 6 months, other than asking me to do something for THEM???

Frankly, I hope they get shut down — all they care about is collecting dues, apparently.

There have been no updates. They filed the arbitration. Did the arbitration. That’s it. Members have gotten maybe 2.

Why don’t you just apply for the next management job and see how that goes. Sounds like you’d be a peach to work for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess the union is only communicating with paying members now. I haven’t heard from them since Feb. (had been at the agency for a few months). I was just about to join too. But certainly not now.

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/us-sec-staff-should-not-worry-about-shutdown-layoffs-union-says-2025-09-26/

LOL, you were never going to join, let’s be honest. Don’t know why you think you would be entitled to any communication when you are not a member.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agreed. The RAs may not be “fake”, but they are a stretch that most ethical staff would not abuse/game. I’ve realized a couple of colleagues are home with RAs that had no issue before RTO. It’s not hard to see a specialist and have them cook something up for you, but it’s obvious to your colleagues and doesn’t earn you any goodwill with them. HR should be tougher, because it otherwise hurts morale for everyone else, but for whatever reason, they’re not.

they had no issue *that you know about*

a colleague got a cancer diagnosis right after RTO. another had a baby and is doing intermittent FLMA. another is married to a deployed soldier. but sure, you just assume folks you don't see in the office are faking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all the complainers, I think the agency could have done a LOT worse than PA. We seem to luck out. By “disdain,” I think you mean he doesn’t kiss staff’s butt.

As if GG just adored the staff! Lol.

GG at least gave the staff decent raises for the first time in years. And he gave us our now taken away telework that was effective and the staff sorely misses but PA won’t reinstate. And allowed for a two hour dismissal prior to holidays that PA for some reason thinks is stupid and won’t do even though OPM has issued guidance saying it’s ok.

It’s not really about kissing the staff’s butt. It’s the fact that there are little things he could be doing that he chooses not to. It sends a message. Sure, it could be a lot worse and everyone appreciates that it’s not. But we should also be able to call the issues like we see them.

GG didn't really want to give staff telework. They were in bargaining for around a year and had to go to FSIP. We got lucky because the last admin basically had an about-face re. telework right after the new CBA was signed. GG was really not much better than PA. He worked the rulemaking teams to the bone and spread them too thin for a bunch of rules which ultimately were struck down or have now been canceled or delayed.

GG was kind of an AH in part because he was more robot than human. That said, he did honor the CBA imposed by the FSIP even though he didn't like where they ended up with TW.

The TW “imposed” by the FSIP was management’s TW proposal. AKA GG’s proposal. The union’s was “presence with a purpose” which was unlimited TW and the staff shows up when needed. Maybe GG didn’t love it but sure did a lot of TW himself and he did say on his way out that he was impressed with how efficiently the staff worked with so much TW.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed. The RAs may not be “fake”, but they are a stretch that most ethical staff would not abuse/game. I’ve realized a couple of colleagues are home with RAs that had no issue before RTO. It’s not hard to see a specialist and have them cook something up for you, but it’s obvious to your colleagues and doesn’t earn you any goodwill with them. HR should be tougher, because it otherwise hurts morale for everyone else, but for whatever reason, they’re not.

they had no issue *that you know about*

a colleague got a cancer diagnosis right after RTO. another had a baby and is doing intermittent FLMA. another is married to a deployed soldier. but sure, you just assume folks you don't see in the office are faking.

Agree with the visible vs. not visible RA. It is not up to any colleagues to decide. And why wouldn’t anyone attribute the uptick in RAs to the fact that many people didn’t need them under prior TW? One day in the office per week could be doable without RA vs. likely 5 is not. I feel bad for people who now have to share their personal medical business for everyone to judge when before they could live their lives in privacy and peace.

Also - the spouse with a deployed soldier is exempted from RTO pursuant to the compelling exception standard set by OPM. It’s not an RA.

[Anonymous]

That Reuter's article is kind of funny. The union email was pretty standard--just said they will proceed like they have always proceeded w/r/t government shutdowns. We have all had many we've been through, this one is no different w/r/t procedure and law.

It's funny that following process and law is now "news" due to the fact that this administration thinks that following the law is optional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed. The RAs may not be “fake”, but they are a stretch that most ethical staff would not abuse/game. I’ve realized a couple of colleagues are home with RAs that had no issue before RTO. It’s not hard to see a specialist and have them cook something up for you, but it’s obvious to your colleagues and doesn’t earn you any goodwill with them. HR should be tougher, because it otherwise hurts morale for everyone else, but for whatever reason, they’re not.

they had no issue *that you know about*

a colleague got a cancer diagnosis right after RTO. another had a baby and is doing intermittent FLMA. another is married to a deployed soldier. but sure, you just assume folks you don't see in the office are faking.

Agree with the visible vs. not visible RA. It is not up to any colleagues to decide. And why wouldn’t anyone attribute the uptick in RAs to the fact that many people didn’t need them under prior TW? One day in the office per week could be doable without RA vs. likely 5 is not. I feel bad for people who now have to share their personal medical business for everyone to judge when before they could live their lives in privacy and peace.

Also - the spouse with a deployed soldier is exempted from RTO pursuant to the compelling exception standard set by OPM. It’s not an RA.

my point is exactly that. PP has no idea if someone is on an RA, or if their spouse deployed, or if someone is using FMLA. They just think "bob's office has been dark every time I walk by, I bet that slacker is faking for an RA, didn't he go to disney last month?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess the union is only communicating with paying members now. I haven’t heard from them since Feb. (had been at the agency for a few months). I was just about to join too. But certainly not now.

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/us-sec-staff-should-not-worry-about-shutdown-layoffs-union-says-2025-09-26/

You’re mad that you don’t get union emails when you didn’t even join the union?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all the complainers, I think the agency could have done a LOT worse than PA. We seem to luck out. By “disdain,” I think you mean he doesn’t kiss staff’s butt.

As if GG just adored the staff! Lol.

GG at least gave the staff decent raises for the first time in years. And he gave us our now taken away telework that was effective and the staff sorely misses but PA won’t reinstate. And allowed for a two hour dismissal prior to holidays that PA for some reason thinks is stupid and won’t do even though OPM has issued guidance saying it’s ok.

It’s not really about kissing the staff’s butt. It’s the fact that there are little things he could be doing that he chooses not to. It sends a message. Sure, it could be a lot worse and everyone appreciates that it’s not. But we should also be able to call the issues like we see them.

GG didn't really want to give staff telework. They were in bargaining for around a year and had to go to FSIP. We got lucky because the last admin basically had an about-face re. telework right after the new CBA was signed. GG was really not much better than PA. He worked the rulemaking teams to the bone and spread them too thin for a bunch of rules which ultimately were struck down or have now been canceled or delayed.

GG was kind of an AH in part because he was more robot than human. That said, he did honor the CBA imposed by the FSIP even though he didn't like where they ended up with TW.

The TW “imposed” by the FSIP was management’s TW proposal. AKA GG’s proposal. The union’s was “presence with a purpose” which was unlimited TW and the staff shows up when needed. Maybe GG didn’t love it but sure did a lot of TW himself and he did say on his way out that he was impressed with how efficiently the staff worked with so much TW.

GG wanted pre-COVID TW. He got backed into the position because he couldn't come up with a business reason for pre-COVID TW so he had to go with the remote angle. He wasn't happy we ended up with that.

[Anonymous]

I hope everyone at the sec is looking for a new job. You can find something in the private sector with better pay and working conditions. If it’s because you want to stay in dc I’d reconsider. SEC is not a good place to work and it will likely only get worse. Similar environment at other financial regulators.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope everyone at the sec is looking for a new job. You can find something in the private sector with better pay and working conditions. If it’s because you want to stay in dc I’d reconsider. SEC is not a good place to work and it will likely only get worse. Similar environment at other financial regulators.

There are better jobs, the problem is everyone is looking to leave all at once and there are not enough jobs for the volume of applicants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess the union is only communicating with paying members now. I haven’t heard from them since Feb. (had been at the agency for a few months). I was just about to join too. But certainly not now.

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/us-sec-staff-should-not-worry-about-shutdown-layoffs-union-says-2025-09-26/

You’re mad that you don’t get union emails when you didn’t even join the union?

Why can’t people keep their mouths shut? Or emails private. Whatever. It’s really weird that everything that’s said or done ends up in the news. That goes for PA and the agency too, why are these reporters all up in our butts? Don’t they have something better to report on? I can’t imagine everything the SEC does when it comes to personnel is newsworthy, who reads this crap?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess the union is only communicating with paying members now. I haven’t heard from them since Feb. (had been at the agency for a few months). I was just about to join too. But certainly not now.

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/us-sec-staff-should-not-worry-about-shutdown-layoffs-union-says-2025-09-26/

You’re mad that you don’t get union emails when you didn’t even join the union?

Then don’t call me “bargaining unit.” Keep me out of your stupid crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess the union is only communicating with paying members now. I haven’t heard from them since Feb. (had been at the agency for a few months). I was just about to join too. But certainly not now.

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/us-sec-staff-should-not-worry-about-shutdown-layoffs-union-says-2025-09-26/

You’re mad that you don’t get union emails when you didn’t even join the union?

Then don’t call me “bargaining unit.” Keep me out of your stupid crap.

You can always ask HR to reclassify your position to non-bargaining unit if you feel that strongly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess the union is only communicating with paying members now. I haven’t heard from them since Feb. (had been at the agency for a few months). I was just about to join too. But certainly not now.

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/us-sec-staff-should-not-worry-about-shutdown-layoffs-union-says-2025-09-26/

You’re mad that you don’t get union emails when you didn’t even join the union?

Why can’t people keep their mouths shut? Or emails private. Whatever. It’s really weird that everything that’s said or done ends up in the news. That goes for PA and the agency too, why are these reporters all up in our butts? Don’t they have something better to report on? I can’t imagine everything the SEC does when it comes to personnel is newsworthy, who reads this crap?

+1. Who are these people that get these emails and think it would be a great idea to share them with the press. As if there is any chance that extra attention on the agency will result in positive changes.