Anonymous wrote:With all of the law schools in the DC area, the Board will not have a problem hiring attorneys to replace those who refuse to come to Washington.

Yes, there are several law schools in the D.C. region. However, most people don’t go to law school with the desire to review thousands of pages of medical records per week and copy and paste boilerplate language into three decision templates every week. The Board does not have the best reputation as an employer, and the lack of prestige won’t help the Board attract candidates.

Anonymous wrote:With all of the law schools in the DC area, the Board will not have a problem hiring attorneys to replace those who refuse to come to Washington.

That presumes the intended outcome is to replace attorneys/staff/anyone. My understanding is that they don't want to hire anyone, which is ridiculous as well. You need people to work, if you want the government to work. And hiring new people without experience will just cost more, cause more delay in processing, and the like.

With all of the law schools in the DC area, the Board will not have a problem hiring attorneys to replace those who refuse to come to Washington.

Anonymous wrote:https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna181065

If they want to return to pre-Covid policies, at least that somewhat limits their anticipated reach. But if they just want a flat ban on all of it, then I think every congressionally elected person needs to be in their office every day of the week too. We don't elect and pay them to leave on week long breaks.

Yes, it is an idiotic policy. If you are expecting smart decisions that are well thought out, think again. Look at the nominee for AG.

This proposal is completely contradictory.

First, that means you MUST pay more in salary, as you will be bringing them into DC (as that is where most office ares) from lower-cost areas. Second, you must pay MORE for space. Third, you must pay MORE for equipment. Fourth, you must pay MORE for overhead costs, i, normal operating costs.

So, in the end, the costs will balloon beyond the current budgets. And what happens when Congress wants to reduce costs? It won't be able to.

This seems like a whole lot of labor/employment issues as well, which will result in protracted litigation costing even MORE money.

They have explicitly stated that it is their hope that many federal employees quit their jobs instead of actually returning to the office in-person five days per week.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/20/politics/doge-remote-work-federal-employees/index.html

If you are a remote Board employee, be prepared to immediately return to the office.

VA has many office buildings to distribute us among temporarily.

They will find space, but don’t expect an office or even a cubicle.

Anonymous wrote:It is being widely reported that the Trump administration is preparing an executive order to end all remote work and recall all federal employees to work in-person 5 days per week. There does not appear to be any discretion for exceptions this time.

Will that affect the Board, where most positions are classified as remote now, vs. telework? The Board literally doesn't have the space to house everyone, should we all have to return to the office.

It is being widely reported that the Trump administration is preparing an executive order to end all remote work and recall all federal employees to work in-person 5 days per week. There does not appear to be any discretion for exceptions this time.

JFC, given these latest picks for cabinet positions, the VA is going to end up with Cobra Commander as the secretary.

If anyone knows, can Trump appoint a new Board Chairman before the current Chairman's term expires in 2028? Or is the current chairman locked in for the entire term? [As a side note: Current chairman is Puerto Rican]

Anonymous wrote:What about Senator Bill Cassidy’s bill where he wants to eliminate locality pay for remote employees? And change FERS to be based on base pay and not locality pay?

If the bill does not pass in the current session it will probably die in the committee stage.The current session ends when the House/ Senate recess in December.

Anonymous wrote:What about Senator Bill Cassidy’s bill where he wants to eliminate locality pay for remote employees? And change FERS to be based on base pay and not locality pay?

That's a whole separate matter that no one here will be able to answer. You will need to have insider information about the conversations among republicans for that question to be answered.

What about Senator Bill Cassidy’s bill where he wants to eliminate locality pay for remote employees? And change FERS to be based on base pay and not locality pay?