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:It’s amazing how much meaner people are on DCUM than on other parts of the internet

It’s because people don’t use the report button. Jeff deletes mean people like a flash.

The anti-fed trolling has increased dramatically this year.

There's very little trolling, just a lot of people (probably many of them feds) pointing out that telework doesn't need to be provided.

If you don’t have an RA, why is someone else’s accommodation your problem? Just a bunch of busybodies.

Because it’s not being fairly applied. Many of us don’t want to lie and get doctors to sign off on it.

I like RTO. I think if they gave us all 1-2 days of telework everyone would be happy. My agency had a lot of issues with remote work. Employees were not available when needed and of course fed supervisors couldn’t do anything about it. I had one where I had pages and pages of documentation of someone not doing work and not being available (missing meetings) and HR couldn’t do anything more than give warnings.

Why should I accept your bad faith assumption that not only are employees lying, but that people with medical licenses are willing to risk their livelihoods by lying?

One doctor I see advertises on his website that he will write telework letters. I think you’re making a silly and naive assumption that this isn’t incredibly common. Or, you know that, and are yourself making a bad faith argument (which I think is more likely).

Again, how is this some sort of proof that doctors are willing to commit outright fraud? If this person actually advertises this, surely you can give us a link, right? And if they do, they should be aware that they are walking on a thin line and possibly committing fraud that will cost them their license. I don't see what incentive a doctor would have to do such a thing.

DP. The letters I've seen don't lie. They identify a medical condition or two, and then either say that they recommend telework or that'll identify benefits of telework. And they don't say what the person is unable to do.

The more legitimate ones generally do identify specific things the person cannot do (safely). Unfortunately, many of those we can't do anymore, like temporary telework after surgeries while someone is recovering and has significantly impaired mobility. Unless it's a long-term condition, their only option is to take sick leave or unpaid FMLA.

This is total BS. I have an RA for a medical condition. I submitted a letter that was not specific enough and it was promptly refused. I had to go back to my doctor to have them revise it to be more specific.

If your agency does not follow an appropriate legal protocol that is not the fault of people who need an RA.

Good for your agency.

There's only one person left in our accommodations office. She doesn't care as along as the letter 1) identifies a medical condition, and 2) references the desired accommodation.

Sure babe

The latest RA request is from someone with ADHD and anxiety, where the doctor noted that telework would reduce the stress of his long commute.

I'll be curious to see if the the RA office still recommends that we accept that one.

Are you the supervisor? It's on you to negotiate with the employee on what is reasonable. There's no reason to accept a doctor's nonspecific recommendation except you and HR being incompetent at your jobs. A lot of problems with federal employment come down to this- incompetent management.

I have zero confidence that my agency will support me in a lawsuit. I will do whatever HR recommends in writing.

Again… this is on HR and your agency. You are making it so clear. Why should people with disabilities suffer?

Someone above mentioned back pain as if that is a fake disability… do you know how monstrously debilitating back pain can be? It can ruin someone’s life. That’s why it’s not up to you- it’s up to the doctor to determine medical need.

That person should move closer to work if the commute is challenging.

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:It’s amazing how much meaner people are on DCUM than on other parts of the internet

It’s because people don’t use the report button. Jeff deletes mean people like a flash.

The anti-fed trolling has increased dramatically this year.

There's very little trolling, just a lot of people (probably many of them feds) pointing out that telework doesn't need to be provided.

If you don’t have an RA, why is someone else’s accommodation your problem? Just a bunch of busybodies.

Because it’s not being fairly applied. Many of us don’t want to lie and get doctors to sign off on it.

I like RTO. I think if they gave us all 1-2 days of telework everyone would be happy. My agency had a lot of issues with remote work. Employees were not available when needed and of course fed supervisors couldn’t do anything about it. I had one where I had pages and pages of documentation of someone not doing work and not being available (missing meetings) and HR couldn’t do anything more than give warnings.

Why should I accept your bad faith assumption that not only are employees lying, but that people with medical licenses are willing to risk their livelihoods by lying?

One doctor I see advertises on his website that he will write telework letters. I think you’re making a silly and naive assumption that this isn’t incredibly common. Or, you know that, and are yourself making a bad faith argument (which I think is more likely).

Again, how is this some sort of proof that doctors are willing to commit outright fraud? If this person actually advertises this, surely you can give us a link, right? And if they do, they should be aware that they are walking on a thin line and possibly committing fraud that will cost them their license. I don't see what incentive a doctor would have to do such a thing.

DP. The letters I've seen don't lie. They identify a medical condition or two, and then either say that they recommend telework or that'll identify benefits of telework. And they don't say what the person is unable to do.

The more legitimate ones generally do identify specific things the person cannot do (safely). Unfortunately, many of those we can't do anymore, like temporary telework after surgeries while someone is recovering and has significantly impaired mobility. Unless it's a long-term condition, their only option is to take sick leave or unpaid FMLA.

This is total BS. I have an RA for a medical condition. I submitted a letter that was not specific enough and it was promptly refused. I had to go back to my doctor to have them revise it to be more specific.

If your agency does not follow an appropriate legal protocol that is not the fault of people who need an RA.

Good for your agency.

There's only one person left in our accommodations office. She doesn't care as along as the letter 1) identifies a medical condition, and 2) references the desired accommodation.

Sure babe

The latest RA request is from someone with ADHD and anxiety, where the doctor noted that telework would reduce the stress of his long commute.

I'll be curious to see if the the RA office still recommends that we accept that one.

Are you the supervisor? It's on you to negotiate with the employee on what is reasonable. There's no reason to accept a doctor's nonspecific recommendation except you and HR being incompetent at your jobs. A lot of problems with federal employment come down to this- incompetent management.

I have zero confidence that my agency will support me in a lawsuit. I will do whatever HR recommends in writing.

Again… this is on HR and your agency. You are making it so clear. Why should people with disabilities suffer?

Someone above mentioned back pain as if that is a fake disability… do you know how monstrously debilitating back pain can be? It can ruin someone’s life. That’s why it’s not up to you- it’s up to the doctor to determine medical need.

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:It’s amazing how much meaner people are on DCUM than on other parts of the internet

It’s because people don’t use the report button. Jeff deletes mean people like a flash.

The anti-fed trolling has increased dramatically this year.

There's very little trolling, just a lot of people (probably many of them feds) pointing out that telework doesn't need to be provided.

If you don’t have an RA, why is someone else’s accommodation your problem? Just a bunch of busybodies.

Because it’s not being fairly applied. Many of us don’t want to lie and get doctors to sign off on it.

I like RTO. I think if they gave us all 1-2 days of telework everyone would be happy. My agency had a lot of issues with remote work. Employees were not available when needed and of course fed supervisors couldn’t do anything about it. I had one where I had pages and pages of documentation of someone not doing work and not being available (missing meetings) and HR couldn’t do anything more than give warnings.

Why should I accept your bad faith assumption that not only are employees lying, but that people with medical licenses are willing to risk their livelihoods by lying?

One doctor I see advertises on his website that he will write telework letters. I think you’re making a silly and naive assumption that this isn’t incredibly common. Or, you know that, and are yourself making a bad faith argument (which I think is more likely).

Again, how is this some sort of proof that doctors are willing to commit outright fraud? If this person actually advertises this, surely you can give us a link, right? And if they do, they should be aware that they are walking on a thin line and possibly committing fraud that will cost them their license. I don't see what incentive a doctor would have to do such a thing.

DP. The letters I've seen don't lie. They identify a medical condition or two, and then either say that they recommend telework or that'll identify benefits of telework. And they don't say what the person is unable to do.

The more legitimate ones generally do identify specific things the person cannot do (safely). Unfortunately, many of those we can't do anymore, like temporary telework after surgeries while someone is recovering and has significantly impaired mobility. Unless it's a long-term condition, their only option is to take sick leave or unpaid FMLA.

This is total BS. I have an RA for a medical condition. I submitted a letter that was not specific enough and it was promptly refused. I had to go back to my doctor to have them revise it to be more specific.

If your agency does not follow an appropriate legal protocol that is not the fault of people who need an RA.

Good for your agency.

There's only one person left in our accommodations office. She doesn't care as along as the letter 1) identifies a medical condition, and 2) references the desired accommodation.

Sure babe

The latest RA request is from someone with ADHD and anxiety, where the doctor noted that telework would reduce the stress of his long commute.

I'll be curious to see if the the RA office still recommends that we accept that one.

Are you the supervisor? It's on you to negotiate with the employee on what is reasonable. There's no reason to accept a doctor's nonspecific recommendation except you and HR being incompetent at your jobs. A lot of problems with federal employment come down to this- incompetent management.

I have zero confidence that my agency will support me in a lawsuit. I will do whatever HR recommends in writing.

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:It’s amazing how much meaner people are on DCUM than on other parts of the internet

It’s because people don’t use the report button. Jeff deletes mean people like a flash.

The anti-fed trolling has increased dramatically this year.

There's very little trolling, just a lot of people (probably many of them feds) pointing out that telework doesn't need to be provided.

If you don’t have an RA, why is someone else’s accommodation your problem? Just a bunch of busybodies.

Because it’s not being fairly applied. Many of us don’t want to lie and get doctors to sign off on it.

I like RTO. I think if they gave us all 1-2 days of telework everyone would be happy. My agency had a lot of issues with remote work. Employees were not available when needed and of course fed supervisors couldn’t do anything about it. I had one where I had pages and pages of documentation of someone not doing work and not being available (missing meetings) and HR couldn’t do anything more than give warnings.

Why should I accept your bad faith assumption that not only are employees lying, but that people with medical licenses are willing to risk their livelihoods by lying?

One doctor I see advertises on his website that he will write telework letters. I think you’re making a silly and naive assumption that this isn’t incredibly common. Or, you know that, and are yourself making a bad faith argument (which I think is more likely).

Again, how is this some sort of proof that doctors are willing to commit outright fraud? If this person actually advertises this, surely you can give us a link, right? And if they do, they should be aware that they are walking on a thin line and possibly committing fraud that will cost them their license. I don't see what incentive a doctor would have to do such a thing.

DP. The letters I've seen don't lie. They identify a medical condition or two, and then either say that they recommend telework or that'll identify benefits of telework. And they don't say what the person is unable to do.

The more legitimate ones generally do identify specific things the person cannot do (safely). Unfortunately, many of those we can't do anymore, like temporary telework after surgeries while someone is recovering and has significantly impaired mobility. Unless it's a long-term condition, their only option is to take sick leave or unpaid FMLA.

This is total BS. I have an RA for a medical condition. I submitted a letter that was not specific enough and it was promptly refused. I had to go back to my doctor to have them revise it to be more specific.

If your agency does not follow an appropriate legal protocol that is not the fault of people who need an RA.

Good for your agency.

There's only one person left in our accommodations office. She doesn't care as along as the letter 1) identifies a medical condition, and 2) references the desired accommodation.

Sure babe

The latest RA request is from someone with ADHD and anxiety, where the doctor noted that telework would reduce the stress of his long commute.

I'll be curious to see if the the RA office still recommends that we accept that one.

Are you the supervisor? It's on you to negotiate with the employee on what is reasonable. There's no reason to accept a doctor's nonspecific recommendation except you and HR being incompetent at your jobs. A lot of problems with federal employment come down to this- incompetent management.

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:It’s amazing how much meaner people are on DCUM than on other parts of the internet

It’s because people don’t use the report button. Jeff deletes mean people like a flash.

The anti-fed trolling has increased dramatically this year.

There's very little trolling, just a lot of people (probably many of them feds) pointing out that telework doesn't need to be provided.

If you don’t have an RA, why is someone else’s accommodation your problem? Just a bunch of busybodies.

Because it’s not being fairly applied. Many of us don’t want to lie and get doctors to sign off on it.

I like RTO. I think if they gave us all 1-2 days of telework everyone would be happy. My agency had a lot of issues with remote work. Employees were not available when needed and of course fed supervisors couldn’t do anything about it. I had one where I had pages and pages of documentation of someone not doing work and not being available (missing meetings) and HR couldn’t do anything more than give warnings.

Why should I accept your bad faith assumption that not only are employees lying, but that people with medical licenses are willing to risk their livelihoods by lying?

One doctor I see advertises on his website that he will write telework letters. I think you’re making a silly and naive assumption that this isn’t incredibly common. Or, you know that, and are yourself making a bad faith argument (which I think is more likely).

Again, how is this some sort of proof that doctors are willing to commit outright fraud? If this person actually advertises this, surely you can give us a link, right? And if they do, they should be aware that they are walking on a thin line and possibly committing fraud that will cost them their license. I don't see what incentive a doctor would have to do such a thing.

DP. The letters I've seen don't lie. They identify a medical condition or two, and then either say that they recommend telework or that'll identify benefits of telework. And they don't say what the person is unable to do.

The more legitimate ones generally do identify specific things the person cannot do (safely). Unfortunately, many of those we can't do anymore, like temporary telework after surgeries while someone is recovering and has significantly impaired mobility. Unless it's a long-term condition, their only option is to take sick leave or unpaid FMLA.

This is total BS. I have an RA for a medical condition. I submitted a letter that was not specific enough and it was promptly refused. I had to go back to my doctor to have them revise it to be more specific.

If your agency does not follow an appropriate legal protocol that is not the fault of people who need an RA.

Good for your agency.

There's only one person left in our accommodations office. She doesn't care as along as the letter 1) identifies a medical condition, and 2) references the desired accommodation.

Sure babe

The latest RA request is from someone with ADHD and anxiety, where the doctor noted that telework would reduce the stress of his long commute.

I'll be curious to see if the the RA office still recommends that we accept that one.

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:It’s amazing how much meaner people are on DCUM than on other parts of the internet

It’s because people don’t use the report button. Jeff deletes mean people like a flash.

The anti-fed trolling has increased dramatically this year.

There's very little trolling, just a lot of people (probably many of them feds) pointing out that telework doesn't need to be provided.

If you don’t have an RA, why is someone else’s accommodation your problem? Just a bunch of busybodies.

Because it’s not being fairly applied. Many of us don’t want to lie and get doctors to sign off on it.

I like RTO. I think if they gave us all 1-2 days of telework everyone would be happy. My agency had a lot of issues with remote work. Employees were not available when needed and of course fed supervisors couldn’t do anything about it. I had one where I had pages and pages of documentation of someone not doing work and not being available (missing meetings) and HR couldn’t do anything more than give warnings.

Why should I accept your bad faith assumption that not only are employees lying, but that people with medical licenses are willing to risk their livelihoods by lying?

One doctor I see advertises on his website that he will write telework letters. I think you’re making a silly and naive assumption that this isn’t incredibly common. Or, you know that, and are yourself making a bad faith argument (which I think is more likely).

Again, how is this some sort of proof that doctors are willing to commit outright fraud? If this person actually advertises this, surely you can give us a link, right? And if they do, they should be aware that they are walking on a thin line and possibly committing fraud that will cost them their license. I don't see what incentive a doctor would have to do such a thing.

DP. The letters I've seen don't lie. They identify a medical condition or two, and then either say that they recommend telework or that'll identify benefits of telework. And they don't say what the person is unable to do.

The more legitimate ones generally do identify specific things the person cannot do (safely). Unfortunately, many of those we can't do anymore, like temporary telework after surgeries while someone is recovering and has significantly impaired mobility. Unless it's a long-term condition, their only option is to take sick leave or unpaid FMLA.

My agency is the opposite. It’s very easy to get temporary reasonable accommodations. Long term ones are harder. I know this because my employee had leg surgery and couldn’t drive for 2 weeks.

That used to be the case until they established a policy that they don't accept or process an RA request for something under 6 weeks.

Then it’s just called temporary telework?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s amazing how much meaner people are on DCUM than on other parts of the internet

It’s because people don’t use the report button. Jeff deletes mean people like a flash.

The anti-fed trolling has increased dramatically this year.

There's very little trolling, just a lot of people (probably many of them feds) pointing out that telework doesn't need to be provided.

If you don’t have an RA, why is someone else’s accommodation your problem? Just a bunch of busybodies.

Because it’s not being fairly applied. Many of us don’t want to lie and get doctors to sign off on it.

I like RTO. I think if they gave us all 1-2 days of telework everyone would be happy. My agency had a lot of issues with remote work. Employees were not available when needed and of course fed supervisors couldn’t do anything about it. I had one where I had pages and pages of documentation of someone not doing work and not being available (missing meetings) and HR couldn’t do anything more than give warnings.

Why should I accept your bad faith assumption that not only are employees lying, but that people with medical licenses are willing to risk their livelihoods by lying?

One doctor I see advertises on his website that he will write telework letters. I think you’re making a silly and naive assumption that this isn’t incredibly common. Or, you know that, and are yourself making a bad faith argument (which I think is more likely).

Again, how is this some sort of proof that doctors are willing to commit outright fraud? If this person actually advertises this, surely you can give us a link, right? And if they do, they should be aware that they are walking on a thin line and possibly committing fraud that will cost them their license. I don't see what incentive a doctor would have to do such a thing.

DP. The letters I've seen don't lie. They identify a medical condition or two, and then either say that they recommend telework or that'll identify benefits of telework. And they don't say what the person is unable to do.

The more legitimate ones generally do identify specific things the person cannot do (safely). Unfortunately, many of those we can't do anymore, like temporary telework after surgeries while someone is recovering and has significantly impaired mobility. Unless it's a long-term condition, their only option is to take sick leave or unpaid FMLA.

My agency is the opposite. It’s very easy to get temporary reasonable accommodations. Long term ones are harder. I know this because my employee had leg surgery and couldn’t drive for 2 weeks.

That used to be the case until they established a policy that they don't accept or process an RA request for something under 6 weeks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s amazing how much meaner people are on DCUM than on other parts of the internet

It’s because people don’t use the report button. Jeff deletes mean people like a flash.

The anti-fed trolling has increased dramatically this year.

There's very little trolling, just a lot of people (probably many of them feds) pointing out that telework doesn't need to be provided.

If you don’t have an RA, why is someone else’s accommodation your problem? Just a bunch of busybodies.

Because it’s not being fairly applied. Many of us don’t want to lie and get doctors to sign off on it.

I like RTO. I think if they gave us all 1-2 days of telework everyone would be happy. My agency had a lot of issues with remote work. Employees were not available when needed and of course fed supervisors couldn’t do anything about it. I had one where I had pages and pages of documentation of someone not doing work and not being available (missing meetings) and HR couldn’t do anything more than give warnings.

Why should I accept your bad faith assumption that not only are employees lying, but that people with medical licenses are willing to risk their livelihoods by lying?

One doctor I see advertises on his website that he will write telework letters. I think you’re making a silly and naive assumption that this isn’t incredibly common. Or, you know that, and are yourself making a bad faith argument (which I think is more likely).

Again, how is this some sort of proof that doctors are willing to commit outright fraud? If this person actually advertises this, surely you can give us a link, right? And if they do, they should be aware that they are walking on a thin line and possibly committing fraud that will cost them their license. I don't see what incentive a doctor would have to do such a thing.

DP. The letters I've seen don't lie. They identify a medical condition or two, and then either say that they recommend telework or that'll identify benefits of telework. And they don't say what the person is unable to do.

The more legitimate ones generally do identify specific things the person cannot do (safely). Unfortunately, many of those we can't do anymore, like temporary telework after surgeries while someone is recovering and has significantly impaired mobility. Unless it's a long-term condition, their only option is to take sick leave or unpaid FMLA.

My agency is the opposite. It’s very easy to get temporary reasonable accommodations. Long term ones are harder. I know this because my employee had leg surgery and couldn’t drive for 2 weeks.

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:It’s amazing how much meaner people are on DCUM than on other parts of the internet

It’s because people don’t use the report button. Jeff deletes mean people like a flash.

The anti-fed trolling has increased dramatically this year.

There's very little trolling, just a lot of people (probably many of them feds) pointing out that telework doesn't need to be provided.

If you don’t have an RA, why is someone else’s accommodation your problem? Just a bunch of busybodies.

Because it’s not being fairly applied. Many of us don’t want to lie and get doctors to sign off on it.

I like RTO. I think if they gave us all 1-2 days of telework everyone would be happy. My agency had a lot of issues with remote work. Employees were not available when needed and of course fed supervisors couldn’t do anything about it. I had one where I had pages and pages of documentation of someone not doing work and not being available (missing meetings) and HR couldn’t do anything more than give warnings.

Why should I accept your bad faith assumption that not only are employees lying, but that people with medical licenses are willing to risk their livelihoods by lying?

One doctor I see advertises on his website that he will write telework letters. I think you’re making a silly and naive assumption that this isn’t incredibly common. Or, you know that, and are yourself making a bad faith argument (which I think is more likely).

Again, how is this some sort of proof that doctors are willing to commit outright fraud? If this person actually advertises this, surely you can give us a link, right? And if they do, they should be aware that they are walking on a thin line and possibly committing fraud that will cost them their license. I don't see what incentive a doctor would have to do such a thing.

DP. The letters I've seen don't lie. They identify a medical condition or two, and then either say that they recommend telework or that'll identify benefits of telework. And they don't say what the person is unable to do.

The more legitimate ones generally do identify specific things the person cannot do (safely). Unfortunately, many of those we can't do anymore, like temporary telework after surgeries while someone is recovering and has significantly impaired mobility. Unless it's a long-term condition, their only option is to take sick leave or unpaid FMLA.

This is total BS. I have an RA for a medical condition. I submitted a letter that was not specific enough and it was promptly refused. I had to go back to my doctor to have them revise it to be more specific.

If your agency does not follow an appropriate legal protocol that is not the fault of people who need an RA.

Good for your agency.

There's only one person left in our accommodations office. She doesn't care as along as the letter 1) identifies a medical condition, and 2) references the desired accommodation.

Sure babe

The latest RA request is from someone with ADHD and anxiety, where the doctor noted that telework would reduce the stress of his long commute.

I'll be curious to see if the the RA office still recommends that we accept that one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s amazing how much meaner people are on DCUM than on other parts of the internet

It’s because people don’t use the report button. Jeff deletes mean people like a flash.

The anti-fed trolling has increased dramatically this year.

There's very little trolling, just a lot of people (probably many of them feds) pointing out that telework doesn't need to be provided.

If you don’t have an RA, why is someone else’s accommodation your problem? Just a bunch of busybodies.

Because it’s not being fairly applied. Many of us don’t want to lie and get doctors to sign off on it.

I like RTO. I think if they gave us all 1-2 days of telework everyone would be happy. My agency had a lot of issues with remote work. Employees were not available when needed and of course fed supervisors couldn’t do anything about it. I had one where I had pages and pages of documentation of someone not doing work and not being available (missing meetings) and HR couldn’t do anything more than give warnings.

Why should I accept your bad faith assumption that not only are employees lying, but that people with medical licenses are willing to risk their livelihoods by lying?

One doctor I see advertises on his website that he will write telework letters. I think you’re making a silly and naive assumption that this isn’t incredibly common. Or, you know that, and are yourself making a bad faith argument (which I think is more likely).

Again, how is this some sort of proof that doctors are willing to commit outright fraud? If this person actually advertises this, surely you can give us a link, right? And if they do, they should be aware that they are walking on a thin line and possibly committing fraud that will cost them their license. I don't see what incentive a doctor would have to do such a thing.

DP. The letters I've seen don't lie. They identify a medical condition or two, and then either say that they recommend telework or that'll identify benefits of telework. And they don't say what the person is unable to do.

The more legitimate ones generally do identify specific things the person cannot do (safely). Unfortunately, many of those we can't do anymore, like temporary telework after surgeries while someone is recovering and has significantly impaired mobility. Unless it's a long-term condition, their only option is to take sick leave or unpaid FMLA.

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:It’s amazing how much meaner people are on DCUM than on other parts of the internet

It’s because people don’t use the report button. Jeff deletes mean people like a flash.

The anti-fed trolling has increased dramatically this year.

There's very little trolling, just a lot of people (probably many of them feds) pointing out that telework doesn't need to be provided.

If you don’t have an RA, why is someone else’s accommodation your problem? Just a bunch of busybodies.

Because it’s not being fairly applied. Many of us don’t want to lie and get doctors to sign off on it.

I like RTO. I think if they gave us all 1-2 days of telework everyone would be happy. My agency had a lot of issues with remote work. Employees were not available when needed and of course fed supervisors couldn’t do anything about it. I had one where I had pages and pages of documentation of someone not doing work and not being available (missing meetings) and HR couldn’t do anything more than give warnings.

Why should I accept your bad faith assumption that not only are employees lying, but that people with medical licenses are willing to risk their livelihoods by lying?

One doctor I see advertises on his website that he will write telework letters. I think you’re making a silly and naive assumption that this isn’t incredibly common. Or, you know that, and are yourself making a bad faith argument (which I think is more likely).

Again, how is this some sort of proof that doctors are willing to commit outright fraud? If this person actually advertises this, surely you can give us a link, right? And if they do, they should be aware that they are walking on a thin line and possibly committing fraud that will cost them their license. I don't see what incentive a doctor would have to do such a thing.

DP. The letters I've seen don't lie. They identify a medical condition or two, and then either say that they recommend telework or that'll identify benefits of telework. And they don't say what the person is unable to do.

The more legitimate ones generally do identify specific things the person cannot do (safely). Unfortunately, many of those we can't do anymore, like temporary telework after surgeries while someone is recovering and has significantly impaired mobility. Unless it's a long-term condition, their only option is to take sick leave or unpaid FMLA.

This is total BS. I have an RA for a medical condition. I submitted a letter that was not specific enough and it was promptly refused. I had to go back to my doctor to have them revise it to be more specific.

If your agency does not follow an appropriate legal protocol that is not the fault of people who need an RA.

Good for your agency.

There's only one person left in our accommodations office. She doesn't care as along as the letter 1) identifies a medical condition, and 2) references the desired accommodation.

Sure babe

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s amazing how much meaner people are on DCUM than on other parts of the internet

It’s because people don’t use the report button. Jeff deletes mean people like a flash.

The anti-fed trolling has increased dramatically this year.

There's very little trolling, just a lot of people (probably many of them feds) pointing out that telework doesn't need to be provided.

If you don’t have an RA, why is someone else’s accommodation your problem? Just a bunch of busybodies.

Because it’s not being fairly applied. Many of us don’t want to lie and get doctors to sign off on it.

I like RTO. I think if they gave us all 1-2 days of telework everyone would be happy. My agency had a lot of issues with remote work. Employees were not available when needed and of course fed supervisors couldn’t do anything about it. I had one where I had pages and pages of documentation of someone not doing work and not being available (missing meetings) and HR couldn’t do anything more than give warnings.

Why should I accept your bad faith assumption that not only are employees lying, but that people with medical licenses are willing to risk their livelihoods by lying?

One doctor I see advertises on his website that he will write telework letters. I think you’re making a silly and naive assumption that this isn’t incredibly common. Or, you know that, and are yourself making a bad faith argument (which I think is more likely).

Again, how is this some sort of proof that doctors are willing to commit outright fraud? If this person actually advertises this, surely you can give us a link, right? And if they do, they should be aware that they are walking on a thin line and possibly committing fraud that will cost them their license. I don't see what incentive a doctor would have to do such a thing.

DP. The letters I've seen don't lie. They identify a medical condition or two, and then either say that they recommend telework or that'll identify benefits of telework. And they don't say what the person is unable to do.

The more legitimate ones generally do identify specific things the person cannot do (safely). Unfortunately, many of those we can't do anymore, like temporary telework after surgeries while someone is recovering and has significantly impaired mobility. Unless it's a long-term condition, their only option is to take sick leave or unpaid FMLA.

This is total BS. I have an RA for a medical condition. I submitted a letter that was not specific enough and it was promptly refused. I had to go back to my doctor to have them revise it to be more specific.

If your agency does not follow an appropriate legal protocol that is not the fault of people who need an RA.

Good for your agency.

There's only one person left in our accommodations office. She doesn't care as along as the letter 1) identifies a medical condition, and 2) references the desired accommodation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s amazing how much meaner people are on DCUM than on other parts of the internet

It’s because people don’t use the report button. Jeff deletes mean people like a flash.

The anti-fed trolling has increased dramatically this year.

There's very little trolling, just a lot of people (probably many of them feds) pointing out that telework doesn't need to be provided.

If you don’t have an RA, why is someone else’s accommodation your problem? Just a bunch of busybodies.

Because it’s not being fairly applied. Many of us don’t want to lie and get doctors to sign off on it.

I like RTO. I think if they gave us all 1-2 days of telework everyone would be happy. My agency had a lot of issues with remote work. Employees were not available when needed and of course fed supervisors couldn’t do anything about it. I had one where I had pages and pages of documentation of someone not doing work and not being available (missing meetings) and HR couldn’t do anything more than give warnings.

Why should I accept your bad faith assumption that not only are employees lying, but that people with medical licenses are willing to risk their livelihoods by lying?

One doctor I see advertises on his website that he will write telework letters. I think you’re making a silly and naive assumption that this isn’t incredibly common. Or, you know that, and are yourself making a bad faith argument (which I think is more likely).

Again, how is this some sort of proof that doctors are willing to commit outright fraud? If this person actually advertises this, surely you can give us a link, right? And if they do, they should be aware that they are walking on a thin line and possibly committing fraud that will cost them their license. I don't see what incentive a doctor would have to do such a thing.

DP. The letters I've seen don't lie. They identify a medical condition or two, and then either say that they recommend telework or that'll identify benefits of telework. And they don't say what the person is unable to do.

The more legitimate ones generally do identify specific things the person cannot do (safely). Unfortunately, many of those we can't do anymore, like temporary telework after surgeries while someone is recovering and has significantly impaired mobility. Unless it's a long-term condition, their only option is to take sick leave or unpaid FMLA.

This is total BS. I have an RA for a medical condition. I submitted a letter that was not specific enough and it was promptly refused. I had to go back to my doctor to have them revise it to be more specific.

If your agency does not follow an appropriate legal protocol that is not the fault of people who need an RA.

Good for your agency.

There's only one person left in our accommodations office. She doesn't care as along as the letter 1) identifies a medical condition, and 2) references the desired accommodation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s amazing how much meaner people are on DCUM than on other parts of the internet

It’s because people don’t use the report button. Jeff deletes mean people like a flash.

The anti-fed trolling has increased dramatically this year.

There's very little trolling, just a lot of people (probably many of them feds) pointing out that telework doesn't need to be provided.

If you don’t have an RA, why is someone else’s accommodation your problem? Just a bunch of busybodies.

Because it’s not being fairly applied. Many of us don’t want to lie and get doctors to sign off on it.

I like RTO. I think if they gave us all 1-2 days of telework everyone would be happy. My agency had a lot of issues with remote work. Employees were not available when needed and of course fed supervisors couldn’t do anything about it. I had one where I had pages and pages of documentation of someone not doing work and not being available (missing meetings) and HR couldn’t do anything more than give warnings.

Why should I accept your bad faith assumption that not only are employees lying, but that people with medical licenses are willing to risk their livelihoods by lying?

One doctor I see advertises on his website that he will write telework letters. I think you’re making a silly and naive assumption that this isn’t incredibly common. Or, you know that, and are yourself making a bad faith argument (which I think is more likely).

Again, how is this some sort of proof that doctors are willing to commit outright fraud? If this person actually advertises this, surely you can give us a link, right? And if they do, they should be aware that they are walking on a thin line and possibly committing fraud that will cost them their license. I don't see what incentive a doctor would have to do such a thing.

DP. The letters I've seen don't lie. They identify a medical condition or two, and then either say that they recommend telework or that'll identify benefits of telework. And they don't say what the person is unable to do.

The more legitimate ones generally do identify specific things the person cannot do (safely). Unfortunately, many of those we can't do anymore, like temporary telework after surgeries while someone is recovering and has significantly impaired mobility. Unless it's a long-term condition, their only option is to take sick leave or unpaid FMLA.

This is total BS. I have an RA for a medical condition. I submitted a letter that was not specific enough and it was promptly refused. I had to go back to my doctor to have them revise it to be more specific.

If your agency does not follow an appropriate legal protocol that is not the fault of people who need an RA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s amazing how much meaner people are on DCUM than on other parts of the internet

It’s because people don’t use the report button. Jeff deletes mean people like a flash.

The anti-fed trolling has increased dramatically this year.

There's very little trolling, just a lot of people (probably many of them feds) pointing out that telework doesn't need to be provided.

If you don’t have an RA, why is someone else’s accommodation your problem? Just a bunch of busybodies.

Because it’s not being fairly applied. Many of us don’t want to lie and get doctors to sign off on it.

I like RTO. I think if they gave us all 1-2 days of telework everyone would be happy. My agency had a lot of issues with remote work. Employees were not available when needed and of course fed supervisors couldn’t do anything about it. I had one where I had pages and pages of documentation of someone not doing work and not being available (missing meetings) and HR couldn’t do anything more than give warnings.

Why should I accept your bad faith assumption that not only are employees lying, but that people with medical licenses are willing to risk their livelihoods by lying?

One doctor I see advertises on his website that he will write telework letters. I think you’re making a silly and naive assumption that this isn’t incredibly common. Or, you know that, and are yourself making a bad faith argument (which I think is more likely).