Reply to Anyone get telework approved at SEC?

Forum Index » Jobs and Careers

Reply to "Anyone get telework approved at SEC?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]A friend at state dept was put on admin leave 3 weeks ago and was told their last day is Friday.  Figure it out and go to work if you have to.  Try looking with the many thousands of others who are looking now. [/quote]

+ 1-  parents need to figure out how to manage their families and get help.[/quote]

You do realize for generations women didn’t work or they worked part time have two parents working outside the home is difficult and not what many of us signed up for when we stayed in the government. We have figured out how to manage. But like hell if I’m not going to complain. And in time will likely look for another job. [/quote]

100% I resent people that tell women to “buck up” and deal. Working moms are disproportionately impacted by this. [/quote]

Then that’s a problem between you and your husband, not you and your job.[/quote]

This is the standard response of somebody who resents the progress women made during the pandemic. Working moms are statistically among the most efficient and motivated workers, but as a group they opt out of leadership roles and/or full time work because of family obligations like afterschool care. The pandemic telework situation created a surge in these women working more hours and seeking promotions, purely because they didn't have to commute. It was a net positive for employers.  [/quote]

Not at all.  It only affects women more than men if the women don’t insist on men doing their equal share around the house and with kids.

This sucks for everybody, but there need not be a gender divide.[/quote]

Thanks. I’ll let my husband know he needs to start breastfeeding our infant.[/quote]

PP don’t respond to these trolls. They will never change. It’s not even about breastfeeding, which last for a relatively short period of time. We actually want to raise our kids and spend time with them, while also having a career. It’s hard to do that when you are out for such a long part of the day due to commuting back and fourth.  Ppl like PP will never understand. [/quote]

100% this. The SEC was known to be a place where many brilliant ambitious women who didn’t want to work biglae hours would go. This has changed so many rapidly, it’s a tragedy.[/quote]

There are countless ambitious women across corporate America who successfully manage the demanding hours of BigLaw and executive roles while raising children. There are countless women in government agencies who successfully manage the demanding hours of an SES or senior management position while raising children.  They may not be present for every moment in their children’s lives, but they make it work—with the support of partners, childcare arrangements, and deliberate prioritization. Many of these women hold C-level positions and are responsible for significant organizational decisions, attending high-level meetings in person every day with limited flexibility around remote work.

The reality is, this level of balance requires trade-offs. It’s not that it [i][b]can’t [/b][/i]be done—it’s that choices must be made about what to take on and what to let go of. The notion that working mothers in demanding roles deserve special telework accommodations not broadly available across similar sectors doesn’t align with the standards set by many high-performing organizations.  If we, as the largest market regulator in the world, want to be taken seriously and model the rigor of private-sector leadership, we need to set a tone consistent with that standard. Watch speeches from women like Indra Noori, Sheryl Sandberg, Mary Barra, Julie Sweet and a host of other women from mid level leadership positions to the top of their organizations—all of whom speak candidly about the compromises and commitments they’ve made as mothers in leadership. Their examples show it’s possible—with intention, support, and structure. If someone is seeking a remote-first job, there are certainly opportunities that offer that. But framing return-to-office expectations as a gender equity issue risks mischaracterizing the broader challenge. I say this as a woman working full-time, five days a week, at the SEC, raising three kids between the ages of 8 and 13—and having been back in person since 2022.[/quote]

Your smug comments about prioritization miss the point, which is that people DO prioritize. That's why they chose the jobs they did: they prioritized certain flexibilities. Now their priorities will cause them to leave, or to stay but decline to step forward and fully use their talents. It affects everybody including men, but you will see the most constriction among women and disabled people.

Basically, a lot of people dont want to be like Sheryl Sandberg, and most jobs don't need them to be (or pay that way) so pretending that's a goal is nonsense. [/quote]

To be clear, the point isn’t that anyone should aspire to be Sheryl Sandberg or any other high-profile executive. Everyone should define success on their own terms—whether that’s based on career goals, family priorities, or the kind of parent they want to be. But that kind of prioritization starts with choosing a job that aligns with those values.  When organizations—whether in corporate America or government—shift their expectations, those changes affect everyone. If your current priorities no longer align with the direction your organization is taking, the responsible and empowered thing to do is to seek out a role that better suits your needs and lifestyle. That’s what it means to actively own your choices, rather than passively resist change or complain when the conditions around you evolve.[/quote]

In my own division, I’ve seen women make thoughtful, proactive decisions when faced with these organizational shifts. Some chose to take the original fork offer after having honest conversations with their spouses about what the change in work expectations would mean for their lifestyle. They recognized that the new direction would significantly alter their day-to-day, and they made the deliberate choice to step away—some with other roles lined up, others without, but all confident they would navigate the transition on their own terms. That’s what real prioritization looks like. [b]It’s not about pushing back against the organization’s evolving goals or trying to reshape its desired future state to match individual preferences. It’s about recognizing when your personal priorities no longer align with your current environment—and making the empowered decision to move toward something that does.[/b][/quote]

+10000. If you want something different, leave. There are jobs out there. Companies and organizations change and no one is required to work for the SEC for life. It sounds like it is now a miserable place with inefficient policies, and if this bothers you, start interviewing. Outside of DC, plenty of companies are hiring. There is somewhat of an unnecessary fear of the private sector in DC, which isn’t based on reality. Kind of like how leadership tells us everyone is in the office 5 days a week, which simply is not true. Perhaps at Google, but not your average corporate job.

[/quote]

Um you are so clueless.  For most people, it is not easy to just leave.  Why not stay and fight for our rights back?  Especially since they were taken away not for any real reason but to torture us.  I am not leaving.  I am keep complaining and pushing for my old schedule back.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics