Anonymous wrote:Not a Trump supporter but enough is enough. Time to get back to the office. Sorry folks.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anyone have any insight on what’s going to happen at FDA?
Which center? Nothing from CDER but we are already in the office 2x per PP.
We don’t even have an acting commissioner yet so who knows.
Still nothing. I really thought the union would make a statement.
Radio silence still at FDA.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What are we thinking at SEC?
My view is this EO is cover for the agency heads who want staff back full time - and want to please the WH - to do so. Some obviously really really want to please Trump - see Marco Rubio and make Maga happy. But what about outsiders like Atkins? I mean he's a Trump appointee so I can see wanting to play ball. But he's not looking to run for political office either and may not be interested in engaging in a ongoing fight with the union over every little thing. Are the financial regulators going to run with the "applicable law" part - i.e. we have a CBA in place?
I live close to the office so NBD for me but I def have colleagues who are worried who bought houses as far as Richmond.
The SEC will promulgate a policy with as much wiggle room as the EO. Managerial discretion, exemptions, ad hoc, blah blah blah. I don’t envy managers who will be dealing with this as their full time job now.
But will it try to apply it to bargaining unit employees and rescind the CBA
They'll try but the CBA is a contract - it's not like you can rescind it without litigation which drags it out a number of years.
And in the meantime employees are coming into the office five days per week!
You clearly don’t understand labor law, contracts or injunctions, so please step aside.
Anonymous wrote:Meh. No one is going to actually do this. I don’t and they can fire me if they want.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What are we thinking at SEC?
My view is this EO is cover for the agency heads who want staff back full time - and want to please the WH - to do so. Some obviously really really want to please Trump - see Marco Rubio and make Maga happy. But what about outsiders like Atkins? I mean he's a Trump appointee so I can see wanting to play ball. But he's not looking to run for political office either and may not be interested in engaging in a ongoing fight with the union over every little thing. Are the financial regulators going to run with the "applicable law" part - i.e. we have a CBA in place?
I live close to the office so NBD for me but I def have colleagues who are worried who bought houses as far as Richmond.
The SEC will promulgate a policy with as much wiggle room as the EO. Managerial discretion, exemptions, ad hoc, blah blah blah. I don’t envy managers who will be dealing with this as their full time job now.
But will it try to apply it to bargaining unit employees and rescind the CBA
They'll try but the CBA is a contract - it's not like you can rescind it without litigation which drags it out a number of years.
And in the meantime employees are coming into the office five days per week!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What are we thinking at SEC?
My view is this EO is cover for the agency heads who want staff back full time - and want to please the WH - to do so. Some obviously really really want to please Trump - see Marco Rubio and make Maga happy. But what about outsiders like Atkins? I mean he's a Trump appointee so I can see wanting to play ball. But he's not looking to run for political office either and may not be interested in engaging in a ongoing fight with the union over every little thing. Are the financial regulators going to run with the "applicable law" part - i.e. we have a CBA in place?
I live close to the office so NBD for me but I def have colleagues who are worried who bought houses as far as Richmond.
The SEC will promulgate a policy with as much wiggle room as the EO. Managerial discretion, exemptions, ad hoc, blah blah blah. I don’t envy managers who will be dealing with this as their full time job now.
But will it try to apply it to bargaining unit employees and rescind the CBA
They'll try but the CBA is a contract - it's not like you can rescind it without litigation which drags it out a number of years.
And in the meantime employees are coming into the office five days per week!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What are we thinking at SEC?
My view is this EO is cover for the agency heads who want staff back full time - and want to please the WH - to do so. Some obviously really really want to please Trump - see Marco Rubio and make Maga happy. But what about outsiders like Atkins? I mean he's a Trump appointee so I can see wanting to play ball. But he's not looking to run for political office either and may not be interested in engaging in a ongoing fight with the union over every little thing. Are the financial regulators going to run with the "applicable law" part - i.e. we have a CBA in place?
I live close to the office so NBD for me but I def have colleagues who are worried who bought houses as far as Richmond.
The SEC will promulgate a policy with as much wiggle room as the EO. Managerial discretion, exemptions, ad hoc, blah blah blah. I don’t envy managers who will be dealing with this as their full time job now.
But will it try to apply it to bargaining unit employees and rescind the CBA
They'll try but the CBA is a contract - it's not like you can rescind it without litigation which drags it out a number of years.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This EO is so dumb. It’s almost too vague. OPM will have to issue guidance in order for agencies to implement otherwise there will be disparate ways in which this is interpreted. The only thing I’m hinging on in retaining even 1 day of TW is that this doesn’t seem to override the TW Act of 2010 but perhaps and agency head could decide to bypass it and abolish TW.
Yes. Department and agency heads will do what they want to do. What they will do depends on a lot of factors--allegiance to Trump, but also some have wanted to bring people back for a long time and the EO gives them a pretense, even if they are not Trump fans. Others will not make changes and EO allows for that.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What are we thinking at SEC?
My view is this EO is cover for the agency heads who want staff back full time - and want to please the WH - to do so. Some obviously really really want to please Trump - see Marco Rubio and make Maga happy. But what about outsiders like Atkins? I mean he's a Trump appointee so I can see wanting to play ball. But he's not looking to run for political office either and may not be interested in engaging in a ongoing fight with the union over every little thing. Are the financial regulators going to run with the "applicable law" part - i.e. we have a CBA in place?
I live close to the office so NBD for me but I def have colleagues who are worried who bought houses as far as Richmond.
The SEC will promulgate a policy with as much wiggle room as the EO. Managerial discretion, exemptions, ad hoc, blah blah blah. I don’t envy managers who will be dealing with this as their full time job now.
But will it try to apply it to bargaining unit employees and rescind the CBA
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What are we thinking at SEC?
My view is this EO is cover for the agency heads who want staff back full time - and want to please the WH - to do so. Some obviously really really want to please Trump - see Marco Rubio and make Maga happy. But what about outsiders like Atkins? I mean he's a Trump appointee so I can see wanting to play ball. But he's not looking to run for political office either and may not be interested in engaging in a ongoing fight with the union over every little thing. Are the financial regulators going to run with the "applicable law" part - i.e. we have a CBA in place?
I live close to the office so NBD for me but I def have colleagues who are worried who bought houses as far as Richmond.
The SEC will promulgate a policy with as much wiggle room as the EO. Managerial discretion, exemptions, ad hoc, blah blah blah. I don’t envy managers who will be dealing with this as their full time job now.
Anonymous wrote:What are we thinking at SEC?
My view is this EO is cover for the agency heads who want staff back full time - and want to please the WH - to do so. Some obviously really really want to please Trump - see Marco Rubio and make Maga happy. But what about outsiders like Atkins? I mean he's a Trump appointee so I can see wanting to play ball. But he's not looking to run for political office either and may not be interested in engaging in a ongoing fight with the union over every little thing. Are the financial regulators going to run with the "applicable law" part - i.e. we have a CBA in place?
I live close to the office so NBD for me but I def have colleagues who are worried who bought houses as far as Richmond.
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"?
If you take the words at face value, it requires remote work agreements to terminate and those workers must report in person. So if I am remote (residence outside the 50 mile radius) then I’m required to report daily in the office once my remote agreement is terminated. I would likely have to relocate. But this says nothing about all the teleworkers who live within the 59 mile radius. Methinks DOGE is even dumber (and less educated on their jurisdiction) than I thought. Sweet!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My duty workstation is my home address. Not worrying here.
Not if your remote agreement is terminated. That's why the EO orders two separate things: terminate remote agreements and return all employees to work full-time.
I'm not sure why folks think the wording of this EO is helpful. Are you being willfully obtuse? It's actually crafted to cover the largest swath of people. There is no exception for fully-remote, no mention of pre-covid levels, etc.
The only beneficial part, in terms of wording, is the allowance for exemptions, applicable with law, etc.
because words have meaning? “Remote” is not the same thing as “telework.”