Anonymous wrote:
4. Telecommuting means that the duty station remains DC, getting LOC for DC, which is unfair to other employees

Anonymous wrote:If you want to make it work YOU have to make it work. Don’t wait for someone to tell you how it’s done. You figure out what’s needed, what your agency will require, and then try to put the pieces in place. It may still not work out but this is one of those things where people typically just say no because they’ve never seen it done and don’t know how to do it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I dealt with a similar request on the management side at my agency. I advised against approval, after much consideration. A couple reasons:

1. First and most importantly, the employee performed a function that did require physical presence and ability to come to external meetings on occasion, something he/she could not do from overseas (without a lot of planning ahead and expense to the employee. Keep in mind that when you telework, travel costs to get to duty station are on the employee).
2. IT security
3. Physical security
4. Telecommuting means that the duty station remains DC, getting LOC for DC, which is unfair to other employees
5. We are working with a union that is pushing for ever increasing telework. We believe that our existing policy is liberal, but does provide managers discretion that we train to use appropriately. If we were to let one employee telework fulltime, without the ability to recall to the office when necessary, it would set a very dangerous precedent.

I really don't mean to sound cold-hearted here. The choice you are facing is a tough one for your marriage and career. And maybe you do perform one of those rare functions that do not require physical presence ever. Good luck to you. No harm in asking. But just please don't get upset with your employer if you are denied. They have to think about the entire workforce and getting the job done efficiently and effectively.

I’m a little surprised you would take #4 seriously enough to have it affect your decision. Seems like a minor thing and the “unfairness” would really depend on where the employee is going.

And I’ll push back on #5 a bit too. I think it’s possible to set up a category of “temporarily (2-3 years) permanent” teleworking employees for the purposes of accompanying a partner overseas without worrying about a slippery slope.

PP you are responding to. You are right that all of the factors are not of equal importance at all, but collectively they added up to the decision not to approve. As to #4, it is not just unfair, but technically a misapplication of federal funds. LOC is about trying to account for the cost of living in the area where the work is performed. This is why our staff duty-stationed in Arkansas do not take home as much money as the staff duty-stationed in NY. Unfair, and also not in accordance with regulation.

As to #5, we thought about it a lot. But it is difficult to draw a line. What if a partner is going overseas in private business? What if that partner is going overseas to work at a very important nonprofit or NGO? What is a partner got an opportunity of a lifetime to write for a network television show (this happened)?

Yes, it would be nice if a company could accommodate employee's personal life decisions (it is a personal decision to accompany a partner wherever they go for whatever reason). But it is frequently not a good business practice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are exceptions where an agency must grant spousal work abroad if the spouse is posted on an overseas assignment for the government (I know State and Justice participate in some form). Not sure how it works though worth checking out.

I have never heard of this.

To the OP - try with your agency - do they allow telework in general? If so, you could make a case for it. DETO is a thing but my understanding is that it's for State's benefit, not your agency or you. They want their $ if you are going to use ICASS services like computer/network, etc.

Check out State's Family Liaison Office (FLO) - I believe they have regional reps. Also, look at the available EFM jobs. There is also something called the professional associates program. And check with USAID or other agencies at port. Be creative and don't rule anything out.

If you want to make it work YOU have to make it work. Don’t wait for someone to tell you how it’s done. You figure out what’s needed, what your agency will require, and then try to put the pieces in place. It may still not work out but this is one of those things where people typically just say no because they’ve never seen it done and don’t know how to do it.

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the IT security issue? Is it a matter of using foreign-based infrastructure? I’m admittedly ignorant on these things and don’t see how teleworking from Paris would be less secure than teleworking from Bethesda.

Anonymous wrote:Just wondering if anyone had any additional insight into this topic. M spouse is Active Duty Military and I am a Federal employee. We have PCS orders and I would like my agency to at least consider this...Please help...Any links, documents, policies etc. would be helpful.

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the IT security issue? Is it a matter of using foreign-based infrastructure? I’m admittedly ignorant on these things and don’t see how teleworking from Paris would be less secure than teleworking from Bethesda.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I dealt with a similar request on the management side at my agency. I advised against approval, after much consideration. A couple reasons:

1. First and most importantly, the employee performed a function that did require physical presence and ability to come to external meetings on occasion, something he/she could not do from overseas (without a lot of planning ahead and expense to the employee. Keep in mind that when you telework, travel costs to get to duty station are on the employee).
2. IT security
3. Physical security
4. Telecommuting means that the duty station remains DC, getting LOC for DC, which is unfair to other employees
5. We are working with a union that is pushing for ever increasing telework. We believe that our existing policy is liberal, but does provide managers discretion that we train to use appropriately. If we were to let one employee telework fulltime, without the ability to recall to the office when necessary, it would set a very dangerous precedent.

I really don't mean to sound cold-hearted here. The choice you are facing is a tough one for your marriage and career. And maybe you do perform one of those rare functions that do not require physical presence ever. Good luck to you. No harm in asking. But just please don't get upset with your employer if you are denied. They have to think about the entire workforce and getting the job done efficiently and effectively.

I’m a little surprised you would take #4 seriously enough to have it affect your decision. Seems like a minor thing and the “unfairness” would really depend on where the employee is going.

And I’ll push back on #5 a bit too. I think it’s possible to set up a category of “temporarily (2-3 years) permanent” teleworking employees for the purposes of accompanying a partner overseas without worrying about a slippery slope.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is your spouse a Department of State employee?

Yes. I think I’m just getting cold feet about giving up my job even though I know it’s likely what I’ll need to do- it’s not glamorous but in my field and who knows if I could get something similar again down the road.