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]

SEC tried to make the culture argument in arbitration and failed. [/quote]

Why do you say that?  According to the FSIP decision they went to mediation-arbitration, where no decision was rendered by a third party at all.  They just failed to reach mutual agreement agreement.

And the "culture" argument is not the only one.  Seems that FSIP was open to a variety of reasons:

"The Union is correct that SEC bargaining unit employees are professionals who, even during a global pandemic, were able to get the job done.  However, we are not convinced, as the Union suggests, that the three years of 100% telework because of the COVID-19 pandemic was Presence with a Purpose.  The pandemic had a major impact not only on how the SEC conducted business but also on other entities with whom the SEC regularly interacts, such as courts, businesses, and law firms.  This makes it difficult to generalize from the experience of the pandemic to the likely experience in a post-pandemic environment.  To say that bargaining unit employees did not need to come into their assigned SEC offices to perform their duties is to ignore the fact that going into the office was not even an option for part of that time."[/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