Anyone get telework approved at SEC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone on these threads talks past each other bc everyone ignores the 800 gorilla in the room — namely, that there are at least 2 groups of staff, which are affected VERY differently by RTO, career exit options, doge, etc:

1. Highly credentialed lawyers and accountants and economists, and

2. Support staff, IT folks, etc.

Those groups keep arguing with each other, which is futile.

You are right the two groups are different, but I’m not sure that is the source of disagreement here.

I’m not even sure which group would be the I’m only here because I am stuck and which would be it’s not that bad.

I think a lot of people on the "it's not so bad I still like it here so will stay" category are those either r with minimal family obligations or they are using leave and assuming it is temporary. I think a lot more people will feel the pain if this goes on for over 6 months. It is simply unsustainable. Can you imagine when fall comes and everyone is coming in with the flu? I will be shutting my door all day and dialing into calls.

I was at a different agency pre-COVID, where TW wasn't allowed. During flu season, we used leave and went back when we were able to handle going back. Some showed up to work with a cold or the flu. [No one wore masks at any point.] Problem with this argument is that there are lots of counterarguments. The TW flexibility was a privilege and not everyone received it equally. Because it is being taken away today, we seem to be having a visceral reaction to it--kind of like giving your teen a phone and social media and then taking it away.

Ok but we are talking about a particular agency. And in addition to the SEC, I have been at another agency and at private law firm and I can tell you that no one at any of those places hesitated to ad hoc telework when recovering. And that was with no formal telework policy in place. So your pre covid experience is an outlier.

+1. All the people saying “but Wall Street and BigLaw are RTO - stop whining” are neglecting to mention that there, taking ad hoc telework is totally accepted and in most places not monitored at all.

This. Law firms might technically be RTO but they allow very liberal ad hoc. As long as you meet your billables, they don’t really care.

Plus, first year associates make more than the highest paid sec employee. Must be really depressing for sec lawyers — made a really poor life choice.

Most SEC employees don’t want to work in BigLaw. They left BigLaw for a reason.

We can make more money and get more flexibility at big law now. What’s the draw to make less and be treated like a child?

Exactly. Anyone who voluntarily leaves biglaw (or inhouse) for this is a moron and will seriously regret it. Grass is NOT greener.

lol of course it is greener. I am an Ivy League law school grad and did law review - I never worked in BigLaw and am very happy at my FinReg. I work 40 hrs a week at an intellectually stimulating job with cool people doing key work. Zero interest in ever working at BigLaw.

If it’s so great, I wonder why hundreds and hundreds of staff left those “lush green pastures” in less than 3 months. Anyone with decent options are gone or will be soon. No professional worth a damn will put up with being treated like total crap for very long.

cool now tell us about BigLaw turnover.

I definitely have no plans to leave my FinReg. The people who left were probationaries who were illegally fired or going to be; people who were well into their 60s and ready to retire; and high-level policy folks who were likely going to be demoted or targeted for Schedule F. It was a small number. yes a few early career folks who had just left Biglaw went back, but not many. Many of us have other prospects and stayed.

No law firm has ever lost 16 pct of its staff in 3 months. Unless it was imploding.

I’m not sure that’s true during economic downturns, but more importantly, law firms don’t offer the kind of incentives that led people to leave voluntarily.

I guess I’ve just had a charmed/lucky life. I’ve worked some jobs that I thought were pretty tough — fast food, bus boy, military, etc. But never did anyone ever blatantly break decade-long promises to me (eg, CBA) or force me to essentially “get on my knees” and do things like write emails purely as a power move or as a F-U. And even my worse bosses instinctively stuck up for me when it counted.

So apologies if this takes some getting used to.

I get being upset about the CBA, but your dramatization of the emails is bizarrely over the top.

THIS is how it’s done. THIS is leadership. From Politico:

“In April, leaders of the National Institutes of Health rolled back DOGE directives that instructed staffers to send weekly emails outlining their productivity … “I’ve tried my hardest to turn the lights back on. … I heard you guys had to do five points every week. That was ridiculous. I’m really proud that we don’t have to have some of the best scientists in the world tell me what they did last week,” Bhattacharya said at a town hall last week.”

Ok, sure it might be nice if sec leadership had done this. But to say having to write the emails is like being forced down on your knees is losing any semblance of perspective.

Other than a gestalt pleasure that the agency was pushing back against DOGE, how would your life actually be any better or different if the sec took NIH’s approach.

Again, losing TW has a huge impact on most people’s lives. That I get. But you seem more worked up about the emails.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone on these threads talks past each other bc everyone ignores the 800 gorilla in the room — namely, that there are at least 2 groups of staff, which are affected VERY differently by RTO, career exit options, doge, etc:

1. Highly credentialed lawyers and accountants and economists, and

2. Support staff, IT folks, etc.

Those groups keep arguing with each other, which is futile.

You are right the two groups are different, but I’m not sure that is the source of disagreement here.

I’m not even sure which group would be the I’m only here because I am stuck and which would be it’s not that bad.

I think a lot of people on the "it's not so bad I still like it here so will stay" category are those either r with minimal family obligations or they are using leave and assuming it is temporary. I think a lot more people will feel the pain if this goes on for over 6 months. It is simply unsustainable. Can you imagine when fall comes and everyone is coming in with the flu? I will be shutting my door all day and dialing into calls.

I was at a different agency pre-COVID, where TW wasn't allowed. During flu season, we used leave and went back when we were able to handle going back. Some showed up to work with a cold or the flu. [No one wore masks at any point.] Problem with this argument is that there are lots of counterarguments. The TW flexibility was a privilege and not everyone received it equally. Because it is being taken away today, we seem to be having a visceral reaction to it--kind of like giving your teen a phone and social media and then taking it away.

Ok but we are talking about a particular agency. And in addition to the SEC, I have been at another agency and at private law firm and I can tell you that no one at any of those places hesitated to ad hoc telework when recovering. And that was with no formal telework policy in place. So your pre covid experience is an outlier.

+1. All the people saying “but Wall Street and BigLaw are RTO - stop whining” are neglecting to mention that there, taking ad hoc telework is totally accepted and in most places not monitored at all.

This. Law firms might technically be RTO but they allow very liberal ad hoc. As long as you meet your billables, they don’t really care.

Plus, first year associates make more than the highest paid sec employee. Must be really depressing for sec lawyers — made a really poor life choice.

Most SEC employees don’t want to work in BigLaw. They left BigLaw for a reason.

We can make more money and get more flexibility at big law now. What’s the draw to make less and be treated like a child?

Exactly. Anyone who voluntarily leaves biglaw (or inhouse) for this is a moron and will seriously regret it. Grass is NOT greener.

lol of course it is greener. I am an Ivy League law school grad and did law review - I never worked in BigLaw and am very happy at my FinReg. I work 40 hrs a week at an intellectually stimulating job with cool people doing key work. Zero interest in ever working at BigLaw.

If it’s so great, I wonder why hundreds and hundreds of staff left those “lush green pastures” in less than 3 months. Anyone with decent options are gone or will be soon. No professional worth a damn will put up with being treated like total crap for very long.

cool now tell us about BigLaw turnover.

I definitely have no plans to leave my FinReg. The people who left were probationaries who were illegally fired or going to be; people who were well into their 60s and ready to retire; and high-level policy folks who were likely going to be demoted or targeted for Schedule F. It was a small number. yes a few early career folks who had just left Biglaw went back, but not many. Many of us have other prospects and stayed.

No law firm has ever lost 16 pct of its staff in 3 months. Unless it was imploding.

I’m not sure that’s true during economic downturns, but more importantly, law firms don’t offer the kind of incentives that led people to leave voluntarily.

I guess I’ve just had a charmed/lucky life. I’ve worked some jobs that I thought were pretty tough — fast food, bus boy, military, etc. But never did anyone ever blatantly break decade-long promises to me (eg, CBA) or force me to essentially “get on my knees” and do things like write emails purely as a power move or as a F-U. And even my worse bosses instinctively stuck up for me when it counted.

So apologies if this takes some getting used to.

I get being upset about the CBA, but your dramatization of the emails is bizarrely over the top.

THIS is how it’s done. THIS is leadership. From Politico:

“In April, leaders of the National Institutes of Health rolled back DOGE directives that instructed staffers to send weekly emails outlining their productivity … “I’ve tried my hardest to turn the lights back on. … I heard you guys had to do five points every week. That was ridiculous. I’m really proud that we don’t have to have some of the best scientists in the world tell me what they did last week,” Bhattacharya said at a town hall last week.”

That's all well and good but in the same article it talks about how he claims to be powerless with respect to the RIFs because they came down the day he started. As if as the agency head he couldn't just rescind the RIF notices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone on these threads talks past each other bc everyone ignores the 800 gorilla in the room — namely, that there are at least 2 groups of staff, which are affected VERY differently by RTO, career exit options, doge, etc:

1. Highly credentialed lawyers and accountants and economists, and

2. Support staff, IT folks, etc.

Those groups keep arguing with each other, which is futile.

You are right the two groups are different, but I’m not sure that is the source of disagreement here.

I’m not even sure which group would be the I’m only here because I am stuck and which would be it’s not that bad.

I think a lot of people on the "it's not so bad I still like it here so will stay" category are those either r with minimal family obligations or they are using leave and assuming it is temporary. I think a lot more people will feel the pain if this goes on for over 6 months. It is simply unsustainable. Can you imagine when fall comes and everyone is coming in with the flu? I will be shutting my door all day and dialing into calls.

I was at a different agency pre-COVID, where TW wasn't allowed. During flu season, we used leave and went back when we were able to handle going back. Some showed up to work with a cold or the flu. [No one wore masks at any point.] Problem with this argument is that there are lots of counterarguments. The TW flexibility was a privilege and not everyone received it equally. Because it is being taken away today, we seem to be having a visceral reaction to it--kind of like giving your teen a phone and social media and then taking it away.

Ok but we are talking about a particular agency. And in addition to the SEC, I have been at another agency and at private law firm and I can tell you that no one at any of those places hesitated to ad hoc telework when recovering. And that was with no formal telework policy in place. So your pre covid experience is an outlier.

+1. All the people saying “but Wall Street and BigLaw are RTO - stop whining” are neglecting to mention that there, taking ad hoc telework is totally accepted and in most places not monitored at all.

This. Law firms might technically be RTO but they allow very liberal ad hoc. As long as you meet your billables, they don’t really care.

Plus, first year associates make more than the highest paid sec employee. Must be really depressing for sec lawyers — made a really poor life choice.

Most SEC employees don’t want to work in BigLaw. They left BigLaw for a reason.

We can make more money and get more flexibility at big law now. What’s the draw to make less and be treated like a child?

Exactly. Anyone who voluntarily leaves biglaw (or inhouse) for this is a moron and will seriously regret it. Grass is NOT greener.

lol of course it is greener. I am an Ivy League law school grad and did law review - I never worked in BigLaw and am very happy at my FinReg. I work 40 hrs a week at an intellectually stimulating job with cool people doing key work. Zero interest in ever working at BigLaw.

If it’s so great, I wonder why hundreds and hundreds of staff left those “lush green pastures” in less than 3 months. Anyone with decent options are gone or will be soon. No professional worth a damn will put up with being treated like total crap for very long.

cool now tell us about BigLaw turnover.

I definitely have no plans to leave my FinReg. The people who left were probationaries who were illegally fired or going to be; people who were well into their 60s and ready to retire; and high-level policy folks who were likely going to be demoted or targeted for Schedule F. It was a small number. yes a few early career folks who had just left Biglaw went back, but not many. Many of us have other prospects and stayed.

No law firm has ever lost 16 pct of its staff in 3 months. Unless it was imploding.

I’m not sure that’s true during economic downturns, but more importantly, law firms don’t offer the kind of incentives that led people to leave voluntarily.

I guess I’ve just had a charmed/lucky life. I’ve worked some jobs that I thought were pretty tough — fast food, bus boy, military, etc. But never did anyone ever blatantly break decade-long promises to me (eg, CBA) or force me to essentially “get on my knees” and do things like write emails purely as a power move or as a F-U. And even my worse bosses instinctively stuck up for me when it counted.

So apologies if this takes some getting used to.

I get being upset about the CBA, but your dramatization of the emails is bizarrely over the top.

THIS is how it’s done. THIS is leadership. From Politico:

“In April, leaders of the National Institutes of Health rolled back DOGE directives that instructed staffers to send weekly emails outlining their productivity … “I’ve tried my hardest to turn the lights back on. … I heard you guys had to do five points every week. That was ridiculous. I’m really proud that we don’t have to have some of the best scientists in the world tell me what they did last week,” Bhattacharya said at a town hall last week.”

That's all well and good but in the same article it talks about how he claims to be powerless with respect to the RIFs because they came down the day he started. As if as the agency head he couldn't just rescind the RIF notices.

Who cares about RIFs? He put an end to the real tyranny, the weekly emails.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone on these threads talks past each other bc everyone ignores the 800 gorilla in the room — namely, that there are at least 2 groups of staff, which are affected VERY differently by RTO, career exit options, doge, etc:

1. Highly credentialed lawyers and accountants and economists, and

2. Support staff, IT folks, etc.

Those groups keep arguing with each other, which is futile.

You are right the two groups are different, but I’m not sure that is the source of disagreement here.

I’m not even sure which group would be the I’m only here because I am stuck and which would be it’s not that bad.

I think a lot of people on the "it's not so bad I still like it here so will stay" category are those either r with minimal family obligations or they are using leave and assuming it is temporary. I think a lot more people will feel the pain if this goes on for over 6 months. It is simply unsustainable. Can you imagine when fall comes and everyone is coming in with the flu? I will be shutting my door all day and dialing into calls.

I was at a different agency pre-COVID, where TW wasn't allowed. During flu season, we used leave and went back when we were able to handle going back. Some showed up to work with a cold or the flu. [No one wore masks at any point.] Problem with this argument is that there are lots of counterarguments. The TW flexibility was a privilege and not everyone received it equally. Because it is being taken away today, we seem to be having a visceral reaction to it--kind of like giving your teen a phone and social media and then taking it away.

Ok but we are talking about a particular agency. And in addition to the SEC, I have been at another agency and at private law firm and I can tell you that no one at any of those places hesitated to ad hoc telework when recovering. And that was with no formal telework policy in place. So your pre covid experience is an outlier.

+1. All the people saying “but Wall Street and BigLaw are RTO - stop whining” are neglecting to mention that there, taking ad hoc telework is totally accepted and in most places not monitored at all.

This. Law firms might technically be RTO but they allow very liberal ad hoc. As long as you meet your billables, they don’t really care.

Plus, first year associates make more than the highest paid sec employee. Must be really depressing for sec lawyers — made a really poor life choice.

Most SEC employees don’t want to work in BigLaw. They left BigLaw for a reason.

We can make more money and get more flexibility at big law now. What’s the draw to make less and be treated like a child?

Exactly. Anyone who voluntarily leaves biglaw (or inhouse) for this is a moron and will seriously regret it. Grass is NOT greener.

lol of course it is greener. I am an Ivy League law school grad and did law review - I never worked in BigLaw and am very happy at my FinReg. I work 40 hrs a week at an intellectually stimulating job with cool people doing key work. Zero interest in ever working at BigLaw.

If it’s so great, I wonder why hundreds and hundreds of staff left those “lush green pastures” in less than 3 months. Anyone with decent options are gone or will be soon. No professional worth a damn will put up with being treated like total crap for very long.

cool now tell us about BigLaw turnover.

I definitely have no plans to leave my FinReg. The people who left were probationaries who were illegally fired or going to be; people who were well into their 60s and ready to retire; and high-level policy folks who were likely going to be demoted or targeted for Schedule F. It was a small number. yes a few early career folks who had just left Biglaw went back, but not many. Many of us have other prospects and stayed.

No law firm has ever lost 16 pct of its staff in 3 months. Unless it was imploding.

I’m not sure that’s true during economic downturns, but more importantly, law firms don’t offer the kind of incentives that led people to leave voluntarily.

I guess I’ve just had a charmed/lucky life. I’ve worked some jobs that I thought were pretty tough — fast food, bus boy, military, etc. But never did anyone ever blatantly break decade-long promises to me (eg, CBA) or force me to essentially “get on my knees” and do things like write emails purely as a power move or as a F-U. And even my worse bosses instinctively stuck up for me when it counted.

So apologies if this takes some getting used to.

I get being upset about the CBA, but your dramatization of the emails is bizarrely over the top.

THIS is how it’s done. THIS is leadership. From Politico:

“In April, leaders of the National Institutes of Health rolled back DOGE directives that instructed staffers to send weekly emails outlining their productivity … “I’ve tried my hardest to turn the lights back on. … I heard you guys had to do five points every week. That was ridiculous. I’m really proud that we don’t have to have some of the best scientists in the world tell me what they did last week,” Bhattacharya said at a town hall last week.”

That's all well and good but in the same article it talks about how he claims to be powerless with respect to the RIFs because they came down the day he started. As if as the agency head he couldn't just rescind the RIF notices.

Who cares about RIFs? He put an end to the real tyranny, the weekly emails.

Ha right. I was just going to say - I had a friend RIFed at NIH - they slashed her group entirely and no they weren't working on anything controversial. And there was no accounting for seniority, years at agency etc. So way to go Bhattacharya, you def stood up on the 5 bullets while slashing and burning staff.

[Anonymous]

They likely know which groups are still overmanned. Make only those groups RTO and give the other groups liberal ad hoc. Or maybe they’re already doing that?

[Anonymous]

The CF town hall should be interesting whether they address why it has the most restrictive policy in the entire agency. I don’t think Cf management can just say they are following what they were told to do since other divisions and offices allow ad hoc without the same difficult standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The CF town hall should be interesting whether they address why it has the most restrictive policy in the entire agency. I don’t think Cf management can just say they are following what they were told to do since other divisions and offices allow ad hoc without the same difficult standard.

They won't allow the question I bet. I could see the daggers in Cicely's eyes when they let through the question about violating remote work agreements at the last town hall.

[Anonymous]

There are some groups in ENF with really restrictive policies too. My group isn’t asking a lot because we just don’t want to push it right now. I’m sure that will subside, but for now, really trying to use it sparingly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The CF town hall should be interesting whether they address why it has the most restrictive policy in the entire agency. I don’t think Cf management can just say they are following what they were told to do since other divisions and offices allow ad hoc without the same difficult standard.

They won't allow the question I bet. I could see the daggers in Cicely's eyes when they let through the question about violating remote work agreements at the last town hall.

I hope she talks about giving us another welcome back snack bar instead.

[Anonymous]

As Cf staff, I’d actually appreciate if they just said that this was a decision that Cf management made to make the ad hoc policy restrictive. That it is within division discretion, and this is the ad hoc policy that they decided. Done. I think what is frustrating is if they make it seem like this is the Chairs policy, or that they are “in it with us”. I don’t admire their position, but I think leadership taking personal ownership of decisions, even if not popular with Staff, is respectable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As Cf staff, I’d actually appreciate if they just said that this was a decision that Cf management made to make the ad hoc policy restrictive. That it is within division discretion, and this is the ad hoc policy that they decided. Done. I think what is frustrating is if they make it seem like this is the Chairs policy, or that they are “in it with us”. I don’t admire their position, but I think leadership taking personal ownership of decisions, even if not popular with Staff, is respectable.

Same reason I lost respect for the acting director. Don’t try to act like your hands are tied when it’s false.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As Cf staff, I’d actually appreciate if they just said that this was a decision that Cf management made to make the ad hoc policy restrictive. That it is within division discretion, and this is the ad hoc policy that they decided. Done. I think what is frustrating is if they make it seem like this is the Chairs policy, or that they are “in it with us”. I don’t admire their position, but I think leadership taking personal ownership of decisions, even if not popular with Staff, is respectable.

What are you talking about?? This IS the chair’s policy. As is the 5 bullets.

Certain divisions may choose not to comply with that policy. But it’s still the chair’s policy.

I applaud CF for having the integrity to follow the policy. If the chair wants to change it, then he can and should. But this wink wink BS (here’s the official
policy, but then here’s the informal policy) is ridiculous and gives the chair a pass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As Cf staff, I’d actually appreciate if they just said that this was a decision that Cf management made to make the ad hoc policy restrictive. That it is within division discretion, and this is the ad hoc policy that they decided. Done. I think what is frustrating is if they make it seem like this is the Chairs policy, or that they are “in it with us”. I don’t admire their position, but I think leadership taking personal ownership of decisions, even if not popular with Staff, is respectable.

What are you talking about?? This IS the chair’s policy. As is the 5 bullets.

Certain divisions may choose not to comply with that policy. But it’s still the chair’s policy.

I applaud CF for having the integrity to follow the policy. If the chair wants to change it, then he can and should. But this wink wink BS (here’s the official
policy, but then here’s the informal policy) is ridiculous and gives the chair a pass.

Not sure what you're talking about but the RTO FAQs say infrequent TW is ok for personal situations like doctors appointments. I have to assume the FAQs represent the chair's policy unless there is an updated document I am not aware of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As Cf staff, I’d actually appreciate if they just said that this was a decision that Cf management made to make the ad hoc policy restrictive. That it is within division discretion, and this is the ad hoc policy that they decided. Done. I think what is frustrating is if they make it seem like this is the Chairs policy, or that they are “in it with us”. I don’t admire their position, but I think leadership taking personal ownership of decisions, even if not popular with Staff, is respectable.

What are you talking about?? This IS the chair’s policy. As is the 5 bullets.

Certain divisions may choose not to comply with that policy. But it’s still the chair’s policy.

I applaud CF for having the integrity to follow the policy. If the chair wants to change it, then he can and should. But this wink wink BS (here’s the official
policy, but then here’s the informal policy) is ridiculous and gives the chair a pass.

Not sure what you're talking about but the RTO FAQs say infrequent TW is ok for personal situations like doctors appointments. I have to assume the FAQs represent the chair's policy unless there is an updated document I am not aware of.

“Infrequent” is a meaningless term. I read that as “never,” unless the FO defines it. Don’t blame CF for not sticking its neck out to play this silly game where the FO tries to have it both ways — appease opm but not being “too strict,” while putting all the risk on line managers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As Cf staff, I’d actually appreciate if they just said that this was a decision that Cf management made to make the ad hoc policy restrictive. That it is within division discretion, and this is the ad hoc policy that they decided. Done. I think what is frustrating is if they make it seem like this is the Chairs policy, or that they are “in it with us”. I don’t admire their position, but I think leadership taking personal ownership of decisions, even if not popular with Staff, is respectable.

What are you talking about?? This IS the chair’s policy. As is the 5 bullets.

Certain divisions may choose not to comply with that policy. But it’s still the chair’s policy.

I applaud CF for having the integrity to follow the policy. If the chair wants to change it, then he can and should. But this wink wink BS (here’s the official
policy, but then here’s the informal policy) is ridiculous and gives the chair a pass.

Not sure what you're talking about but the RTO FAQs say infrequent TW is ok for personal situations like doctors appointments. I have to assume the FAQs represent the chair's policy unless there is an updated document I am not aware of.

“Infrequent” is a meaningless term. I read that as “never,” unless the FO defines it. Don’t blame CF for not sticking its neck out to play this silly game where the FO tries to have it both ways — appease opm but not being “too strict,” while putting all the risk on line managers.

It literally says you can use it for dr. appointments. You're putting words in there that aren't there.