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]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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

“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. [/quote]

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