Anyone get telework approved at SEC?

[Anonymous]

And not a single question about the 5 bullets. Not one democrat could muster the courage to ask:

“Why is your staff being compelled to waste time sending 5 bullets every week? Who is requiring them do that exactly? You or someone else? If it’s someone else, do they control your agency or do you?”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And not a single question about the 5 bullets. Not one democrat could muster the courage to ask:

“Why is your staff being compelled to waste time sending 5 bullets every week? Who is requiring them do that exactly? You or someone else? If it’s someone else, do they control your agency or do you?”

That’s what you wanted the Dems to waste their time on???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And not a single question about the 5 bullets. Not one democrat could muster the courage to ask:

“Why is your staff being compelled to waste time sending 5 bullets every week? Who is requiring them do that exactly? You or someone else? If it’s someone else, do they control your agency or do you?”

That’s what you wanted the Dems to waste their time on???

Yeah — some people think that the identity of the person who controls the agency is sorta important. At least a little bit. If PA doesn’t, what’s the point in having him testify?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And not a single question about the 5 bullets. Not one democrat could muster the courage to ask:

“Why is your staff being compelled to waste time sending 5 bullets every week? Who is requiring them do that exactly? You or someone else? If it’s someone else, do they control your agency or do you?”

That’s what you wanted the Dems to waste their time on???

Yeah — some people think that the identity of the person who controls the agency is sorta important. At least a little bit. If PA doesn’t, what’s the point in having him testify?

I don’t view not picking a fight on the useless but harmless five bullets as abdicating control of the agency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And not a single question about the 5 bullets. Not one democrat could muster the courage to ask:

“Why is your staff being compelled to waste time sending 5 bullets every week? Who is requiring them do that exactly? You or someone else? If it’s someone else, do they control your agency or do you?”

That’s what you wanted the Dems to waste their time on???

Yeah — some people think that the identity of the person who controls the agency is sorta important. At least a little bit. If PA doesn’t, what’s the point in having him testify?

I don’t view not picking a fight on the useless but harmless five bullets as abdicating control of the agency.

If you control the agency, there’s nothing to “fight” over. Just ignore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And not a single question about the 5 bullets. Not one democrat could muster the courage to ask:

“Why is your staff being compelled to waste time sending 5 bullets every week? Who is requiring them do that exactly? You or someone else? If it’s someone else, do they control your agency or do you?”

That’s what you wanted the Dems to waste their time on???

Yeah — some people think that the identity of the person who controls the agency is sorta important. At least a little bit. If PA doesn’t, what’s the point in having him testify?

I don’t view not picking a fight on the useless but harmless five bullets as abdicating control of the agency.

“Not picking a fight” seems to be the excuse for a lot of things — 5 bullets, doge, RTO, etc. What IS “worth picking a fight over” if not your staffing levels, your HR policies, and whether your people need to send random emails every week for no reason? I’ll wait…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And not a single question about the 5 bullets. Not one democrat could muster the courage to ask:

“Why is your staff being compelled to waste time sending 5 bullets every week? Who is requiring them do that exactly? You or someone else? If it’s someone else, do they control your agency or do you?”

That’s what you wanted the Dems to waste their time on???

Yeah — some people think that the identity of the person who controls the agency is sorta important. At least a little bit. If PA doesn’t, what’s the point in having him testify?

I don’t view not picking a fight on the useless but harmless five bullets as abdicating control of the agency.

“Not picking a fight” seems to be the excuse for a lot of things — 5 bullets, doge, RTO, etc. What IS “worth picking a fight over” if not your staffing levels, your HR policies, and whether your people need to send random emails every week for no reason? I’ll wait…

Let’s go back to Sesame Street and ask ourselves ‘which one of these are not like the others.’

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And not a single question about the 5 bullets. Not one democrat could muster the courage to ask:

“Why is your staff being compelled to waste time sending 5 bullets every week? Who is requiring them do that exactly? You or someone else? If it’s someone else, do they control your agency or do you?”

That’s what you wanted the Dems to waste their time on???

Yeah — some people think that the identity of the person who controls the agency is sorta important. At least a little bit. If PA doesn’t, what’s the point in having him testify?

I don’t view not picking a fight on the useless but harmless five bullets as abdicating control of the agency.

“Not picking a fight” seems to be the excuse for a lot of things — 5 bullets, doge, RTO, etc. What IS “worth picking a fight over” if not your staffing levels, your HR policies, and whether your people need to send random emails every week for no reason? I’ll wait…

THIS. I could see not picking a fight about bullets if we WERE picking a fight over something more important - abiding by the union contract, staffing levels, giving people some telework flexibility etc. What Paul is doing is bending over. Not that that's shocking.

[Anonymous]

He's doing the minimum necessary and that's fine by me.

Apparently, he was on the Hill today testifying that the Commission has lost over 600 employees or 15% of its workforce. He may be trying to get ahead of any DOGE recommendation that any more staff be cut.

[Anonymous]

Someone on reddit said adhoc telework is going away completely. Dudes username was Gullible-Cream, tho, so wondering if anyone can verify?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone on reddit said adhoc telework is going away completely. Dudes username was Gullible-Cream, tho, so wondering if anyone can verify?

At SEC? Or overall? Interesting timing as timekeepers in my area have just started saying 1 ad hoc day every other PP is ok. Though I know ppl in TM and CF saying no telework ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone on reddit said adhoc telework is going away completely. Dudes username was Gullible-Cream, tho, so wondering if anyone can verify?

https://www.reddit.com/r/fednews/comments/1kruzr3/comment/mth3umj/?context=3

Guy claims to be “90% sure” for whatever that is worth

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone on reddit said adhoc telework is going away completely. Dudes username was Gullible-Cream, tho, so wondering if anyone can verify?

https://www.reddit.com/r/fednews/comments/1kruzr3/comment/mth3umj/?context=3

Guy claims to be “90% sure” for whatever that is worth

I guess that’s just something else that the PP’s hero “didn’t want to start a fight over.”

[Anonymous]

I just heard the same from a very reliable source about ad hoc telework. Is the end game just total misery? Have people use all their leave? Or is this just gearing everyone up for the next Vera/VSIP?

[Anonymous]

So I guess no ad-hoc for snow storms either? Or is this one of those “we cherry pick and enforce only those provisions of the CBA that we like” exercises?