SEC - why not even a peep from leadership?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Passing along scuttlebutt circulating amongst staff who should have reason to know:

-Badge swipes are priority for DOGE

-NTEU side letter no longer perceived as operative as to blanket use of swipe data to systematically reconcile against timecards

-This wasn't always the case, but staff has lost some of most vocal internal advocates. KJ is a yes man who'll go along. CAG and CC firmly management side and tough as nails.

-Ethics out-processing approx 700 employees, not counting contractors & interns

How do badge swipes bring down the deficit or improve efficiency?

Also — If they have reason to think that the agency isn’t properly managing its employees, shouldn’t *management* immediately be terminated?? Doesn’t the agency regularly bring actions against entities for inadequate controls and failure to supervise?

So weird.

I mean DOGE is coming for managers as well. All the same policies will apply to them. What's your point? This isn't a career management vs staff thing, it's direction from DOGE, WH, and politicals at the top. Obviously supervisors are not the ones pushing badge swipe checks or wanting to be subject to them.

Well, if doge’s theory is that staff has been systematically running roughshod and not even showing up to work or falsifying time cards (ie, widespread fraud), then their FIRST act should be to confirm/test their theory, and if proven, eliminate every single manager who was responsible for overseeing those staff.

Isn’t that what the private sector would do?

If they don’t suspect that, then why the obsession with badge swipes?

Put up or shut up.

NP and my bet is they are just looking for easy ways to fire people and time and attendance issues are pretty easy. So, rational in the sense that they want to further reduce headcount.

There’s a way to reduce headcount without all the passive aggressive pussyfooting around.

So if they have a headcount target that they think is appropriate (beyond the 700 who are already leaving), freakin announce it, execute, and move on. Jeezus — this is like low-IQ preschool McKinsey-lite.

Is the number 4000? 3900? 2200? What’s it based on?

PP or they want to make people miserable and have them quit so no severance. Or they're too lazy to do a RIF? Honestly no one knows but you can bet everything they're doing is with a goal to reduce headcount.

I wonder if MaxiFlex could be on the chopping block. I'm in a distinctly not public facing office and our SO is making noises about "coverage" beyond core hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:RE: swipes. But BU hasn't returned to the office fully yet. There's so little data on swipes right now.

They could check to make sure people have actually been coming in twice a pay period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Passing along scuttlebutt circulating amongst staff who should have reason to know:

-Badge swipes are priority for DOGE

-NTEU side letter no longer perceived as operative as to blanket use of swipe data to systematically reconcile against timecards

-This wasn't always the case, but staff has lost some of most vocal internal advocates. KJ is a yes man who'll go along. CAG and CC firmly management side and tough as nails.

-Ethics out-processing approx 700 employees, not counting contractors & interns

How do badge swipes bring down the deficit or improve efficiency?

Also — If they have reason to think that the agency isn’t properly managing its employees, shouldn’t *management* immediately be terminated?? Doesn’t the agency regularly bring actions against entities for inadequate controls and failure to supervise?

So weird.

I mean DOGE is coming for managers as well. All the same policies will apply to them. What's your point? This isn't a career management vs staff thing, it's direction from DOGE, WH, and politicals at the top. Obviously supervisors are not the ones pushing badge swipe checks or wanting to be subject to them.

Well, if doge’s theory is that staff has been systematically running roughshod and not even showing up to work or falsifying time cards (ie, widespread fraud), then their FIRST act should be to confirm/test their theory, and if proven, eliminate every single manager who was responsible for overseeing those staff.

Isn’t that what the private sector would do?

If they don’t suspect that, then why the obsession with badge swipes?

Put up or shut up.

NP and my bet is they are just looking for easy ways to fire people and time and attendance issues are pretty easy. So, rational in the sense that they want to further reduce headcount.

There’s a way to reduce headcount without all the passive aggressive pussyfooting around.

So if they have a headcount target that they think is appropriate (beyond the 700 who are already leaving), freakin announce it, execute, and move on. Jeezus — this is like low-IQ preschool McKinsey-lite.

Is the number 4000? 3900? 2200? What’s it based on?

PP or they want to make people miserable and have them quit so no severance. Or they're too lazy to do a RIF? Honestly no one knows but you can bet everything they're doing is with a goal to reduce headcount.

I wonder if MaxiFlex could be on the chopping block. I'm in a distinctly not public facing office and our SO is making noises about "coverage" beyond core hours.

Funny you mention this because I have heard the same thing from our SOs. We have a super commuter and they are giving some BS about needing coverage every day after the person leaves. They also said something like we are moving away from having core hours (but not in a good way).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RE: swipes. But BU hasn't returned to the office fully yet. There's so little data on swipes right now.

They could check to make sure people have actually been coming in twice a pay period.

They have been doing random audits of this already. Enforcing the rules was targeted at those with less than 50% compliance.

[Anonymous]

Imagine how much coverage they would have if people didn’t have to slog up and down 95 two or three hours a day…

[Anonymous]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-securities-exchange-commission-restructures-enforcement-division-memo-says-2025-04-02/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-securities-exchange-commission-restructures-enforcement-division-memo-says-2025-04-02/

Yeah, this seems much simpler and more straightforward. Not.

I wonder how long it took doge to concoct this brilliant reorganization plan.

[Anonymous]

I like how everyone knows the Midwest is as honest as apple pie, and therefore needs no regulating

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RE: swipes. But BU hasn't returned to the office fully yet. There's so little data on swipes right now.

They could check to make sure people have actually been coming in twice a pay period.

I had heard that’s been happening since Sept 2024 - making sure ppl are coming in rather than just lying on their time sheets + staying whatever number of hours they’re supposed to stay. Is this really a problem in 2025? I mean yeah ppl played fast and loose in 2023 bc they’d go in to in office day, grab coffee with a friend and leave. But are hordes of ppl just not coming in now or planning to not come in w RTO and just saying yep I was there? Whomever approves your time was around all week - they’d notice if they never saw you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like how everyone knows the Midwest is as honest as apple pie, and therefore needs no regulating

They aren’t closing the Chicago office. It’s just a matter of reporting structures up the line.

[Anonymous]

If they want to reduce headcount they should reopen the fork like other agencies did.
Many people would leave. The last fork was before RTO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If they want to reduce headcount they should reopen the fork like other agencies did.
Many people would leave. The last fork was before RTO

I doubt that. The VERA/VSIP window just ended, and people knew RTO was coming when they decided whether to accept or not.

Maybe if they reasons in a few months after people have experienced RTO (maybe for some it will be worse than expected) and it hits summer, you will get another group of voluntary exits. But I don’t think you will get a lot more that way, and certainly not by offering it now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they want to reduce headcount they should reopen the fork like other agencies did.
Many people would leave. The last fork was before RTO

I doubt that. The VERA/VSIP window just ended, and people knew RTO was coming when they decided whether to accept or not.

Maybe if they reasons in a few months after people have experienced RTO (maybe for some it will be worse than expected) and it hits summer, you will get another group of voluntary exits. But I don’t think you will get a lot more that way, and certainly not by offering it now.

NP and FWIW a lot of people that aren't old enough for VERA are definitely looking for new jobs. Whether the job market can support all these people is an open question but they are absolutely going to get more attrition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they want to reduce headcount they should reopen the fork like other agencies did.
Many people would leave. The last fork was before RTO

I doubt that. The VERA/VSIP window just ended, and people knew RTO was coming when they decided whether to accept or not.

Maybe if they reasons in a few months after people have experienced RTO (maybe for some it will be worse than expected) and it hits summer, you will get another group of voluntary exits. But I don’t think you will get a lot more that way, and certainly not by offering it now.

NP and FWIW a lot of people that aren't old enough for VERA are definitely looking for new jobs. Whether the job market can support all these people is an open question but they are absolutely going to get more attrition.

Right, but the PP I was responding to said lots of people would leave with another fork. Someone who finds a new job is going to leave, fork or not, so I was simply saying a new fork at this time would drive a ton more people to leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they want to reduce headcount they should reopen the fork like other agencies did.
Many people would leave. The last fork was before RTO

I doubt that. The VERA/VSIP window just ended, and people knew RTO was coming when they decided whether to accept or not.

Maybe if they reasons in a few months after people have experienced RTO (maybe for some it will be worse than expected) and it hits summer, you will get another group of voluntary exits. But I don’t think you will get a lot more that way, and certainly not by offering it now.

NP and FWIW a lot of people that aren't old enough for VERA are definitely looking for new jobs. Whether the job market can support all these people is an open question but they are absolutely going to get more attrition.

Why does the same person (and yes, it’s the same person) always start off his posts on DCUM with “NP and ….” It’s unnecessary and annoying.