Not just CDC, NIH also likely.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does “abuse” mean? If you can do your job 100% at home, why do it in the office if you have a health condition? Telework used to be a lot less viable and the technology is totally ingrained into daily processes now. Not sure why so many people on this thread are buying this “abuse” narrative and miserably policing other people.

Well because “having a health condition” is not legally a per se entitlement to telework. telework has to be a “reasonable accommodation.” If you can do your job in the office but telework is nicer, that’s not it. If there is a different accommodation that is also reasonable the office can require that.

+1 People are only entitled to effective accommodations and not their accommodations of choice.

I was just privy to a case at the RA office recently at my agency and I will say this - the employee cannot request a specific accommodation such as telework. They have to list out their limitations as approved by a doctor and the office will then provide accommodations to assist with these limitations. In order to try to abide by the return to office executive order the agencies will now find ways to accommodate these disabilities in the office. This is for long term situations. There will still be short term approvals for things like chemo treatment or a broken leg. There will be no more indefinite remote work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does “abuse” mean? If you can do your job 100% at home, why do it in the office if you have a health condition? Telework used to be a lot less viable and the technology is totally ingrained into daily processes now. Not sure why so many people on this thread are buying this “abuse” narrative and miserably policing other people.

Well because “having a health condition” is not legally a per se entitlement to telework. telework has to be a “reasonable accommodation.” If you can do your job in the office but telework is nicer, that’s not it. If there is a different accommodation that is also reasonable the office can require that.

That's not up to you, that's up to the supervisor and HR. So if someone gets an RA for telework, what exactly is your problem? And how is it being "abused" if people have used the legal RA process? It's your own prejudice talking.

+1. My assumption is that if someone can get a doctor to fill out the form and supply other required documentation and have it approved by both the supervisor and HR that the persons condition is serious enough to warrant a TW RA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does “abuse” mean? If you can do your job 100% at home, why do it in the office if you have a health condition? Telework used to be a lot less viable and the technology is totally ingrained into daily processes now. Not sure why so many people on this thread are buying this “abuse” narrative and miserably policing other people.

Well because “having a health condition” is not legally a per se entitlement to telework. telework has to be a “reasonable accommodation.” If you can do your job in the office but telework is nicer, that’s not it. If there is a different accommodation that is also reasonable the office can require that.

That's not up to you, that's up to the supervisor and HR. So if someone gets an RA for telework, what exactly is your problem? And how is it being "abused" if people have used the legal RA process? It's your own prejudice talking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does “abuse” mean? If you can do your job 100% at home, why do it in the office if you have a health condition? Telework used to be a lot less viable and the technology is totally ingrained into daily processes now. Not sure why so many people on this thread are buying this “abuse” narrative and miserably policing other people.

+1. The reason ore people are asking for RA is because of the illegal RTO order. Yes, they might have been able to come in 1 or 2 days per week previously, but 5 days might be too much. Or yes they are exaggerating their condition but they desperately need to keep their job and can’t do RTO.

The RTO isn’t illegal. It is inconvenient, but not illegal.

It actually is because the law that authorizes telework for federal employees requires agencies to allow eligible employees to telework to the maximum extent possible. The administration declaring without evidence that no work can be done properly via telework does not make it so, especially not when they spout off elsewhere about how the policy change is really just to make people miserable.

Anonymous wrote:What does “abuse” mean? If you can do your job 100% at home, why do it in the office if you have a health condition? Telework used to be a lot less viable and the technology is totally ingrained into daily processes now. Not sure why so many people on this thread are buying this “abuse” narrative and miserably policing other people.

Why? Because your job told you to. It’s abuse to claim a health condition when you really just prefer not to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does “abuse” mean? If you can do your job 100% at home, why do it in the office if you have a health condition? Telework used to be a lot less viable and the technology is totally ingrained into daily processes now. Not sure why so many people on this thread are buying this “abuse” narrative and miserably policing other people.

+1. The reason ore people are asking for RA is because of the illegal RTO order. Yes, they might have been able to come in 1 or 2 days per week previously, but 5 days might be too much. Or yes they are exaggerating their condition but they desperately need to keep their job and can’t do RTO.

The RTO isn’t illegal. It is inconvenient, but not illegal.

Anonymous wrote:Is that even legal or did they go in and unilaterally change the Americans with Disabilities Act?

They don’t have to grant the accommodation you want under the ADA, they just have to be reasonable. Going to work is reasonable. ADA 101.

Anonymous wrote:What does “abuse” mean? If you can do your job 100% at home, why do it in the office if you have a health condition? Telework used to be a lot less viable and the technology is totally ingrained into daily processes now. Not sure why so many people on this thread are buying this “abuse” narrative and miserably policing other people.

+1. The reason ore people are asking for RA is because of the illegal RTO order. Yes, they might have been able to come in 1 or 2 days per week previously, but 5 days might be too much. Or yes they are exaggerating their condition but they desperately need to keep their job and can’t do RTO.

I honestly don’t see why anxiety would be granted an RA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its probably because a lot of people were abusing it but instead of getting rid of it they should make very specific guidelines.

I mean what are the HR people doing over there now? Are you telling me the agencies mandated full-time RTO and then they tell HR to just grant whatever RA someone asks for? You either meet the criteria and get a TW RA or you don't and you get something else.

I think it is far less likely that HR isn't doing its job and far more likely that the agency is just disregarding the law as evidenced by the fact that this is a blanket prohibition regardless of the facts and circumstances of a particular case.

Well, the entire RA office was RIF'd so... no one has been doing that job. Supervisors were told to approve all interim RA requests. There is still no RA office.

Anonymous wrote:Its probably because a lot of people were abusing it but instead of getting rid of it they should make very specific guidelines.

I mean what are the HR people doing over there now? Are you telling me the agencies mandated full-time RTO and then they tell HR to just grant whatever RA someone asks for? You either meet the criteria and get a TW RA or you don't and you get something else.

I think it is far less likely that HR isn't doing its job and far more likely that the agency is just disregarding the law as evidenced by the fact that this is a blanket prohibition regardless of the facts and circumstances of a particular case.