Reply to Biden wants RTO

Forum Index » Jobs and Careers

Reply to "Biden wants RTO"

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]So SEC CBA looks like it’s good for 4 years from the effective date until one party can open it up for modification without mutual agreement. Anyone mind pointing me to where I can find the effective date?[/quote]

Please note that even if not a word of that article is changed, management can still require increased onsite presence.  Just a few examples of language to this effect:

"Telework i[b]s subject to approval by the Employer[/b] and is not an employee entitlement."

A. All employees may telework up to eight days each pay period on a Routine Telework arrangement unless the employee:

1. Is undergoing training in a new job or is serving a probationary period (a supervisor may instruct the Telework Program Manager to allow a Routine Telework schedule during the probationary period as appropriate).

2. Occupies a position with tasks [b]the Employer determines[/b] are best conducted in person and therefore the Employer determines Routine Telework would diminish the employee’s performance or agency operations; or

3. Occupies a position that has an unpredictable requirement to be onsite, [b]as determined by the Employer.[/b]

[b]The Employer[/b] may periodically review position duties and telework performance to ensure positions have been appropriately designated.[/quote]

Note though that the agency already agreed that a significant portion of the work performed by employees is already eligible for TW.  Note Article 11, Section 4(1):

1. Tasks generally suited for telework include, but are not limited to:

a. Writing;

b. Policy development;

c. Research, analysis and evaluation (e.g. investigating, program analysis, financial analysis), report writing;

d. Telephone-intensive tasks;

e. Computer-oriented tasks; and

f. Data processing in cases where the security of data can be adequately assured.[/quote]

Eligible for telework but management still gets to decide and it’s not an entitlement. So it could change at any time at the discretion of management.[/quote]

Article 11, Section 6 is pretty explicit about the reasons a telework agreement can be denied or revoked, it can't just be changed on a whim.  Also, the agency litigated this issue and this is the best they could come up with, if they had a legit argument to restrict TW more they would have presented it.  The only way I see a material change is if the composition of the FSIP changes with a new administration.[/quote]

I feel like maybe you are ignoring the section quoted above? That section defines eligibility overall, and explicitly makes it subject to management discretion AND periodic review.  Section 6 relates to an individual supervisor's decision with respect to an otherwise eligible employee.  They preserve flexibility for management.[/quote]

DP. No, that’s not right. The use of the word “discretion” does not mean their are no limits on that discretion. [/quote]

PP here and I understand that the discretion cannot be arbitrary.  And here is where we come full circle on the unproductive debate that happens here...

There ARE legitimate reasons for a certain amount of mandatory onsite presence for a workforce as a whole.  They have been discussed.
Whether any of them think they outweigh the countervailing reasons why WFH is good is beside the point.  In order to not be arbitrary, there needs to be a legitimate basis.  And there is one.[/quote]

NP but in this case with the SEC management [b]was unable to present any compelling reasons for why TW should be less than 8 days per pay period to the FSIP[/b] (which was a significant step back from their initial position btw).  Maybe there is no difference with the work the SEC does or maybe management was too lazy or stupid to prepare and present the evidence, it's hard to tell.  Also, as a side note, I think the SEC is going to be reluctant to re-open this issue because their primary argument for why remote work should be limited is no longer applicable.[/quote]

I think you have the facts wrong here.  It was the Agency itself that proposed 8 days of telework per pay period.  The union argued for zero required days.  FSIP agreed with management.  Therefore, they never attempted nor were they required to present evidence that was LESS than what management was proposing.  That is nonsensical.

And as to the point of whether the list of work requiring onsite presence is exhaustive, the Union itself argued that it is not.

"NTEU’s proposal would maintain the current CBA rule that makes clear Management may require an employee to come into the office for a specific reason: “The employer reserves the right to direct an employee scheduled for telework to report to [their SEC worksite] in circumstances deemed necessary by the Employer to meet mission, staffing and/or workload requirements…”  (2018 CBA, Art. 11, § 14(D)). This general rule,[b] which affords management considerable discretion,[/b] has been in effect at SEC for over twenty years, and renders SEC’s novel list of “unsuitable” telework tasks unnecessary. SEC has never identified any problems with this rule, and in fact, NTEU has only very rarely, if ever, filed a grievance over its application.” (Union Closing Brief, page 9)."

https://www.flra.gov/node/79433
[/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