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: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?

The problem is the people losing their jobs are by and large a different demographic than those who will die. You’re asking younger workers to lose pay (or worse their jobs) due to massive school/business shutdowns in order to save (mostly) older people from crippling our healthcare system. As a millennial, I feel like I’ve been screwed so many times. Graduated during a recession then started a family in recent years depleting my leave balance. I don’t want to start a generational war, but I sort of feel like society owes this younger generation instead of asking all of us to take massive financial hits to save the boomers, who by the way have largely voted for policies that have led to high student loans and people having to work in the gig economy without sick leave/health insurance. So I, for one, am willing to quarantine myself if needed to help save lives, but I’m not willing to sacrifice my family’s financial stability.

What a Lord of the Flies way of looking at things. You're disgusting.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The problem is the people losing their jobs are by and large a different demographic than those who will die. You’re asking younger workers to lose pay (or worse their jobs) due to massive school/business shutdowns in order to save (mostly) older people from crippling our healthcare system. As a millennial, I feel like I’ve been screwed so many times. Graduated during a recession then started a family in recent years depleting my leave balance. I don’t want to start a generational war, but I sort of feel like society owes this younger generation instead of asking all of us to take massive financial hits to save the boomers, who by the way have largely voted for policies that have led to high student loans and people having to work in the gig economy without sick leave/health insurance. So I, for one, am willing to quarantine myself if needed to help save lives, but I’m not willing to sacrifice my family’s financial stability.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Respectfully, since your kids are 10 and 13, it has been a while since you were in the boat of someone who recently returned from maternity leave. I’m one of those people, and I did plan for sick days for my kids, but I have very little leave right now. I haven’t been using annual leave because I knew I might need to use it in case someone in my household came down with the flu this winter. But it won’t take long to burn through that leave if my kids’ daycare is closed. I hope things will be better once parental leave kicks in, but for many feds who take time off for childbirth the period after returning to work is really difficult given the leave situation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/03/09/securities-exchange-commission-asks-dc-employees-work-home-due-coronavirus-scare/

That’s one agency.

We don’t know if that individual takes metro or drives, but the hq is located on the redline, union station.

Not to mention Amtrak, MARC, and the VRE...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/03/09/securities-exchange-commission-asks-dc-employees-work-home-due-coronavirus-scare/

That’s one agency.

We don’t know if that individual takes metro or drives, but the hq is located on the redline, union station.

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/03/09/securities-exchange-commission-asks-dc-employees-work-home-due-coronavirus-scare/

That’s one agency.

Anonymous wrote:^^also the way this is being handled is waiting until a full on emergency where all of these questions about leave without pay come to the forefront. If they started telework now it may mitigate the number of infections but they don’t want to admit there is a problem until it is too late.

Anonymous wrote:For those of us who can telework it just makes sense to provide, even encourage, it. It would leave public transit and other services available for those who need to go in while hopefully flattening the infection curve at least a bit.

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: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?

Every year, people die from influenza too. Should we close up shop during flu season too? Or are those deaths acceptable to you?

DP.
First, there’s a vaccine for flu.
Second, This is IN ADDITION to flu.
Not sure how that flu fact is at all reassuring. It sounds uninformed. Tell it to someone with asthma or immunocompromised who can’t get a vaccine because there ISN'T one and let us know how it goes.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Every year, people die from influenza too. Should we close up shop during flu season too? Or are those deaths acceptable to you?

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Ugh Millennials today are as entitled as Boomers were at their age.

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?

The problem is the people losing their jobs are by and large a different demographic than those who will die. You’re asking younger workers to lose pay (or worse their jobs) due to massive school/business shutdowns in order to save (mostly) older people from crippling our healthcare system. As a millennial, I feel like I’ve been screwed so many times. Graduated during a recession then started a family in recent years depleting my leave balance. I don’t want to start a generational war, but I sort of feel like society owes this younger generation instead of asking all of us to take massive financial hits to save the boomers, who by the way have largely voted for policies that have led to high student loans and people having to work in the gig economy without sick leave/health insurance. So I, for one, am willing to quarantine myself if needed to help save lives, but I’m not willing to sacrifice my family’s financial stability.

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?