Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Could it be that Trump does understand this EO is toothless and nothing willl change for federal employees? Could it be that Trump isn’t as monstrous as some say? He’s obviously a terrible human being but maybe not a terrible president. We can hope…
Parts A and B of your post are unrelated, but I believe Trump himself does not care where employees sit. And I'm reasonably sure that they know the EO does little (I wouldn't say it does nothing). I think this is not a high value issue for most Rs. It is, however, part of the larger effort to dismantle agencies for the profit of certain businesses.
Anonymous wrote:Could it be that Trump does understand this EO is toothless and nothing willl change for federal employees? Could it be that Trump isn’t as monstrous as some say? He’s obviously a terrible human being but maybe not a terrible president. We can hope…
Anonymous wrote:Could it be that Trump does understand this EO is toothless and nothing willl change for federal employees? Could it be that Trump isn’t as monstrous as some say? He’s obviously a terrible human being but maybe not a terrible president. We can hope…
Anonymous wrote:Could it be that Trump does understand this EO is toothless and nothing willl change for federal employees? Could it be that Trump isn’t as monstrous as some say? He’s obviously a terrible human being but maybe not a terrible president. We can hope…
This exactly.Anonymous wrote:There aren't enough desks at a lot of agencies.
Anonymous wrote:OPM tomorrow:
"We trust that the Executive Branch knows the difference between remote work and telework, and also that they know that remote workers' duty stations are their homes. As such we interpret this EO to refer to just remote workers, and it requires remote workers to maintain their home duty stations."
Anonymous wrote:Remote workers are the ones whose duty stations are their homes, so this makes no sense.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It clearly also applies to telework. How else do you interpret "employees to return to work in-person at their respective duty stations on a full-time basis"?
Does it? It seems like they got the wording wrong and half-assed this one.
I don't think they got the wording wrong. I think "remote work" has a a more negative connotation with the MAGA base, and it was used deliberately. What that means for teleworkers, who knows. Based on this wording, I don't see my preferred flexibility - situational telework - going away. I'll go in five days no problem as long as I have the flexibility on either end of the day to telework for an hour or so.
Anonymous wrote:"As soon as practicable" is ambiguous, and I could interpret that as "the first day of never."
That's a poorly written EO.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So is an EO one of those things like a regulation where people can go to court over interpretation?
Not typically. Who has standing to sue here? It's a memo to agency heads telling them to make a plan.
Well if it is interpreted one way, then it would generate costs and damage to those having to return to office (in particular remote workers). So presumably they have standing.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So is an EO one of those things like a regulation where people can go to court over interpretation?
Not typically. Who has standing to sue here? It's a memo to agency heads telling them to make a plan.
Anonymous wrote:So is an EO one of those things like a regulation where people can go to court over interpretation?