Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've got three pregnant employees that will not qualify for paid parental leave - they sure as hell do not want to use up their leave right now before their babies are born...

Oh man, I feel for those employees.

+1

Can you imagine preparing to give birth and thinking you have paid leave saved up, then boom pandemic hits. Not to mention the anxiety of going to the hospital during a virus outbreak. We need to have some compassion and humanity right now, not just “too bad, so sad, shoulda saved more leave.”

Can you imagine having two kids in college and having the stock market tank. I thought I was prepared. I saved. I invested. I took a portion out to keep it safe for next year. Nonetheless the invested part just changed. My CSS profile is based on 2018 so nothing will change there. Will the gov help?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've got three pregnant employees that will not qualify for paid parental leave - they sure as hell do not want to use up their leave right now before their babies are born...

Oh man, I feel for those employees.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've got three pregnant employees that will not qualify for paid parental leave - they sure as hell do not want to use up their leave right now before their babies are born...

Oh man, I feel for those employees.

+1

Can you imagine preparing to give birth and thinking you have paid leave saved up, then boom pandemic hits. Not to mention the anxiety of going to the hospital during a virus outbreak. We need to have some compassion and humanity right now, not just “too bad, so sad, shoulda saved more leave.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would everyone who can't possible take any sick leave do if they were sick with something else? Wouldn't you have to take an advance, LWOP, vacation?

Honestly, probably apply for for the voluntary leave transfer program, but now the program is going to get flooded with requests.

Also, it?s one thing to use up my leave (or advance leave) for my own and my children?s health. But being essentially forced to use leave because of quarantines in order to save older people seems unfair. Why should I burn up my accrued leave because of a virus that isn?t even likely to harm my family? The older people can use their leave to stay home, they have use or lose any way

It?s not just to save older white collar workers. It?s to save the 60 year old admin who is raising her grandkids or the 60 year old cleaner whose family abroad is dependent on her remitting her wages.

The lack of understanding of public health measures is really troubling here, and shows the need for much, much better communication. Mandatory telework and school closures are NOT quarantines. They are social distancing measures to slow the spread of the virus. The reason to slow the spread of the virus is not "just" for 60+ year olds. It's to keep the medical system from being completely overwhelmed ... which would mean that NOBODY could get ANY emergency care. Break your leg? Get cancer? Kid has a bad croup attack and needs medicines? Good luck with that while the hospitals are dealing with thousands of COVID19 patients.

But what is the end goal? It will be months before a vaccine is available- say you implement all these draconian measures to slow the spread- for how long? And who's to say as soon as you turn everyone loose again that the transmissions doesn't just resume again?

NP: The goal is to flatten the infection rate curve. If *everyone* gets this at the same time, our hospitals will be completely overrun with the serious cases. If we can spread out the infections until there is a vaccine and we know more about the virus and treatment, the hospitals are much less likely to have to turn people away. This will also lower the mortality rate.

Also, "Draconian?" Seriously? Working from home is Draconian?

Sure for you, not a big deal.. You get to work in your PJs and eat ice cream. But everything has consequences. Feds work from home ----> small businesses that depend on their business lay off workers. So now people are out of jobs just to slow the spread.

Are you trolling? Health and safety is a higher priority than jobs.

You'd really be ok losing YOUR job over this?

Right. People are going apoplectic about potentially having to take LWOP, which would mean they have a job to come back to, but are fine with lots of folks in the private sector losing their jobs.

It’s not “fine” for people in the private sector to lose jobs, but it is better than dying. Is this in dispute?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would everyone who can't possible take any sick leave do if they were sick with something else? Wouldn't you have to take an advance, LWOP, vacation?

Honestly, probably apply for for the voluntary leave transfer program, but now the program is going to get flooded with requests.

Also, it?s one thing to use up my leave (or advance leave) for my own and my children?s health. But being essentially forced to use leave because of quarantines in order to save older people seems unfair. Why should I burn up my accrued leave because of a virus that isn?t even likely to harm my family? The older people can use their leave to stay home, they have use or lose any way

It?s not just to save older white collar workers. It?s to save the 60 year old admin who is raising her grandkids or the 60 year old cleaner whose family abroad is dependent on her remitting her wages.

The lack of understanding of public health measures is really troubling here, and shows the need for much, much better communication. Mandatory telework and school closures are NOT quarantines. They are social distancing measures to slow the spread of the virus. The reason to slow the spread of the virus is not "just" for 60+ year olds. It's to keep the medical system from being completely overwhelmed ... which would mean that NOBODY could get ANY emergency care. Break your leg? Get cancer? Kid has a bad croup attack and needs medicines? Good luck with that while the hospitals are dealing with thousands of COVID19 patients.

But what is the end goal? It will be months before a vaccine is available- say you implement all these draconian measures to slow the spread- for how long? And who's to say as soon as you turn everyone loose again that the transmissions doesn't just resume again?

NP: The goal is to flatten the infection rate curve. If *everyone* gets this at the same time, our hospitals will be completely overrun with the serious cases. If we can spread out the infections until there is a vaccine and we know more about the virus and treatment, the hospitals are much less likely to have to turn people away. This will also lower the mortality rate.

Also, "Draconian?" Seriously? Working from home is Draconian?

Sure for you, not a big deal.. You get to work in your PJs and eat ice cream. But everything has consequences. Feds work from home ----> small businesses that depend on their business lay off workers. So now people are out of jobs just to slow the spread.

Are you trolling? Health and safety is a higher priority than jobs.

You'd really be ok losing YOUR job over this?

Right. People are going apoplectic about potentially having to take LWOP, which would mean they have a job to come back to, but are fine with lots of folks in the private sector losing their jobs.

It’s not “fine” for people in the private sector to lose jobs, but it is better than dying. Is this in dispute?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would everyone who can't possible take any sick leave do if they were sick with something else? Wouldn't you have to take an advance, LWOP, vacation?

Honestly, probably apply for for the voluntary leave transfer program, but now the program is going to get flooded with requests.

Also, it?s one thing to use up my leave (or advance leave) for my own and my children?s health. But being essentially forced to use leave because of quarantines in order to save older people seems unfair. Why should I burn up my accrued leave because of a virus that isn?t even likely to harm my family? The older people can use their leave to stay home, they have use or lose any way

It?s not just to save older white collar workers. It?s to save the 60 year old admin who is raising her grandkids or the 60 year old cleaner whose family abroad is dependent on her remitting her wages.

The lack of understanding of public health measures is really troubling here, and shows the need for much, much better communication. Mandatory telework and school closures are NOT quarantines. They are social distancing measures to slow the spread of the virus. The reason to slow the spread of the virus is not "just" for 60+ year olds. It's to keep the medical system from being completely overwhelmed ... which would mean that NOBODY could get ANY emergency care. Break your leg? Get cancer? Kid has a bad croup attack and needs medicines? Good luck with that while the hospitals are dealing with thousands of COVID19 patients.

But what is the end goal? It will be months before a vaccine is available- say you implement all these draconian measures to slow the spread- for how long? And who's to say as soon as you turn everyone loose again that the transmissions doesn't just resume again?

NP: The goal is to flatten the infection rate curve. If *everyone* gets this at the same time, our hospitals will be completely overrun with the serious cases. If we can spread out the infections until there is a vaccine and we know more about the virus and treatment, the hospitals are much less likely to have to turn people away. This will also lower the mortality rate.

Also, "Draconian?" Seriously? Working from home is Draconian?

Sure for you, not a big deal.. You get to work in your PJs and eat ice cream. But everything has consequences. Feds work from home ----> small businesses that depend on their business lay off workers. So now people are out of jobs just to slow the spread.

Are you trolling? Health and safety is a higher priority than jobs.

You'd really be ok losing YOUR job over this?

Right. People are going apoplectic about potentially having to take LWOP, which would mean they have a job to come back to, but are fine with lots of folks in the private sector losing their jobs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would everyone who can't possible take any sick leave do if they were sick with something else? Wouldn't you have to take an advance, LWOP, vacation?

Honestly, probably apply for for the voluntary leave transfer program, but now the program is going to get flooded with requests.

Also, it?s one thing to use up my leave (or advance leave) for my own and my children?s health. But being essentially forced to use leave because of quarantines in order to save older people seems unfair. Why should I burn up my accrued leave because of a virus that isn?t even likely to harm my family? The older people can use their leave to stay home, they have use or lose any way

It?s not just to save older white collar workers. It?s to save the 60 year old admin who is raising her grandkids or the 60 year old cleaner whose family abroad is dependent on her remitting her wages.

The lack of understanding of public health measures is really troubling here, and shows the need for much, much better communication. Mandatory telework and school closures are NOT quarantines. They are social distancing measures to slow the spread of the virus. The reason to slow the spread of the virus is not "just" for 60+ year olds. It's to keep the medical system from being completely overwhelmed ... which would mean that NOBODY could get ANY emergency care. Break your leg? Get cancer? Kid has a bad croup attack and needs medicines? Good luck with that while the hospitals are dealing with thousands of COVID19 patients.

But what is the end goal? It will be months before a vaccine is available- say you implement all these draconian measures to slow the spread- for how long? And who's to say as soon as you turn everyone loose again that the transmissions doesn't just resume again?

NP: The goal is to flatten the infection rate curve. If *everyone* gets this at the same time, our hospitals will be completely overrun with the serious cases. If we can spread out the infections until there is a vaccine and we know more about the virus and treatment, the hospitals are much less likely to have to turn people away. This will also lower the mortality rate.

Also, "Draconian?" Seriously? Working from home is Draconian?

Sure for you, not a big deal.. You get to work in your PJs and eat ice cream. But everything has consequences. Feds work from home ----> small businesses that depend on their business lay off workers. So now people are out of jobs just to slow the spread.

Are you trolling? Health and safety is a higher priority than jobs.

You'd really be ok losing YOUR job over this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've got three pregnant employees that will not qualify for paid parental leave - they sure as hell do not want to use up their leave right now before their babies are born...

Oh man, I feel for those employees.

The government was shut for 35 days for some nonsense in 2018-2019. We have a pandemic on our hands and no one will even mandate telework with flexible options??


Thread winner!

Anonymous wrote:I've got three pregnant employees that will not qualify for paid parental leave - they sure as hell do not want to use up their leave right now before their babies are born...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for fed workers -- is there a sick leave bank you guys can use if you are out of paid sick leave (like the woman who just came back from maternity leave, or the new hires)? Maybe they should also remove restrictions on the use of the sick leave borrowing bank.

There is, but you have to burn through all of your sick and annual leave first. A lot of people, if healthy enough to work, will continue to come in sick rather than be forced to burn up all their leave. And who is going to donate leave if they’re in fear of a virus getting them sick?

This is going to create an interesting dynamic between younger workers (who tend to have less leave than more senior employees) who may have mild symptoms and not want to burn their little leave balance vs. older employees who have more leave, but lower immunity. We should be in this all together like other countries that are guaranteeing pay in case of quarantine or illness. But instead it’s every man for himself in the fed gov.

Coming in because you refuse to burn your leave is selfish when you have a leave bank you can draw on.

Agree.
Use your leave. If you have to leave but decide to come in sick, it is you who is selfish.
I am a fed. My leave balance is low - two kids (10 & 13) and I’m always using it. But if I’m sick, I use it.
There aren’t that many women who literally just came off maternity leave. Plus part of planning and having a child is keeping enough leave for when your child has to go to the doctor or us sick.

Anonymous wrote:The government was shut for 35 days for some nonsense in 2018-2019. We have a pandemic on our hands and no one will even mandate telework with flexible options??

Anonymous wrote:The government was shut for 35 days for some nonsense in 2018-2019. We have a pandemic on our hands and no one will even mandate telework with flexible options??