Some of you at the SEC seem dangerously out of touch with the current political reality. To believe that DT is indifferent to telework—or that he doesn’t raise it directly with nominees before their confirmation—is simply naïve. This is someone who views himself as a CEO-president and has made it clear through executive action that he wants federal employees back in the office. His motivation isn’t just policy-driven—it’s punitive, aimed at dismantling what he perceives as bureaucratic resistance, whether at the SEC (the largest market regulator in the world) or the smallest agency in government.

Let’s also not forget: every independent agency had their rulemaking authority pulled in February, and OMB issued detailed implementation guidance just last week. If they’re going to assert that level of control over regulatory independence, what makes anyone think they wouldn’t aggressively enforce telework restrictions? To suggest that TW would be off-limits, that MU could refuse to implement without consequences, or that PA would be willing to stake their position over this issue, is disconnected from the current environment.

It’s time to face facts. This isn’t speculative. It’s strategic, it’s deliberate, and it’s already happening. Wake up!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we expect actual agency guidance on the implementation of this telework?

This is not an environment where you want detailed guidance. This is an environment where you want supervisor discretion.

Yep — the same discretion that the EO specifically permits but that MANAGEMENT REFUSED TO USE.

Do you really think there wouldn’t have been repercussions to the agency, and the people who work there, if Mark/Paul exercised the discretion you claim they had and not RTO, or even if they set it at the pre-Covid rules?

I think that is wishful thinking.

I think it’s debatable. Depends on what the media picks up.

Really if agencies didn’t go along with this then it would be much easier to push back. The problem is people are sheep. It will take around two years and a financial crisis to get TW back.

The SEC gets tons of media coverage. It would have been big news if we didn’t RTO.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is giving SEC workers a bad name. SEC staff = whiny entitled babies

They’re treating us like babies that can’t be trusted. Do you expect us to gush over how they’re punishing us out of pettiness and spite? Or what, we should prostrate ourselves in humble gratitude for a shitty work environment with steadily eroding pay and benefits? It’s hilarious how people like you think we should all accept crumbs and be thankful for it.

I would be so thankful for the crumbs of my SEC job back now.

Are you saying you got fired/RIF’d from the agency? I am thought all departures have been voluntary so far.

The top of the SEC has no integrity, and no fear of consequences because they won't face any in the end-from regulatory failures to personnel fouls.

That didn’t even remotely address the question at issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we expect actual agency guidance on the implementation of this telework?

This is not an environment where you want detailed guidance. This is an environment where you want supervisor discretion.

Yep — the same discretion that the EO specifically permits but that MANAGEMENT REFUSED TO USE.

Do you really think there wouldn’t have been repercussions to the agency, and the people who work there, if Mark/Paul exercised the discretion you claim they had and not RTO, or even if they set it at the pre-Covid rules?

I think that is wishful thinking.

What repercussions? A nasty memo complaining about it? Firing the head of the chief market regulator of the largest economy in the world — bc of an HR policy disagreement? Sure.

I seriously doubt that DT gives a crap about telework (as evidenced by 2017-2020). RTO is RV’s little obsession/fetish. DT goes along with it for now, but he is not going to fire agency heads over quibbles about minor HR policies.

The fundamental question is, who does PA answer to? OPM? OMB? Or the WH? If the WH, then he could get on the phone with the WH and work something out. See the FDA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we expect actual agency guidance on the implementation of this telework?

This is not an environment where you want detailed guidance. This is an environment where you want supervisor discretion.

Yep — the same discretion that the EO specifically permits but that MANAGEMENT REFUSED TO USE.

Do you really think there wouldn’t have been repercussions to the agency, and the people who work there, if Mark/Paul exercised the discretion you claim they had and not RTO, or even if they set it at the pre-Covid rules?

I think that is wishful thinking.

I think it’s debatable. Depends on what the media picks up.

Really if agencies didn’t go along with this then it would be much easier to push back. The problem is people are sheep. It will take around two years and a financial crisis to get TW back.

Anonymous wrote:Without guidance, people have posted here that those close with supervisors have been approved TW, and others haven’t or are afraid to ask. Some offices allow it. Others don’t. Guidance would outline what circumstances allow for ad hoc (medical appointment). People would then feel more comfortable requesting it if they knew the expectations.

You don’t get it. The environment is too risky for anything like this to be documented. STOP ASKING QUESTIONS. People like you will ruin it for everyone.

Telework will eventually return but not right now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is giving SEC workers a bad name. SEC staff = whiny entitled babies

They’re treating us like babies that can’t be trusted. Do you expect us to gush over how they’re punishing us out of pettiness and spite? Or what, we should prostrate ourselves in humble gratitude for a shitty work environment with steadily eroding pay and benefits? It’s hilarious how people like you think we should all accept crumbs and be thankful for it.

I would be so thankful for the crumbs of my SEC job back now.

Are you saying you got fired/RIF’d from the agency? I am thought all departures have been voluntary so far.

The top of the SEC has no integrity, and no fear of consequences because they won't face any in the end-from regulatory failures to personnel fouls.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we expect actual agency guidance on the implementation of this telework?

This is not an environment where you want detailed guidance. This is an environment where you want supervisor discretion.

Yep — the same discretion that the EO specifically permits but that MANAGEMENT REFUSED TO USE.

Do you really think there wouldn’t have been repercussions to the agency, and the people who work there, if Mark/Paul exercised the discretion you claim they had and not RTO, or even if they set it at the pre-Covid rules?

I think that is wishful thinking.

Anonymous wrote:Line managers are definitely approving. Likely have cover from higher ups to risk that.

Hope they have that “cover” in writing, for when the Sch F police come knocking.

Line managers are definitely approving. Likely have cover from higher ups to risk that.

Anonymous wrote:I feel very sorry for line managers. They’re forced to deal with this avalanche of requests for “ad hoc” TW without any clear guidance.

And when stuff hits the fan, I’m sure they’ll be second guessed. And then probably fired under Sch F for not implementing the administration’s policies “forcefully enough.”

But at least they get paid a lot more and there’s no compression! Not.

Not sure why any line manager would approve any TW. Why take the risk? If the employee complains, the manager can just blame OPM and higher mgmt — it’s their policy. Why would/should a manager stick their neck out?

I feel very sorry for line managers. They’re forced to deal with this avalanche of requests for “ad hoc” TW without any clear guidance.

And when stuff hits the fan, I’m sure they’ll be second guessed. And then probably fired under Sch F for not implementing the administration’s policies “forcefully enough.”

But at least they get paid a lot more and there’s no compression! Not.

Without guidance, people have posted here that those close with supervisors have been approved TW, and others haven’t or are afraid to ask. Some offices allow it. Others don’t. Guidance would outline what circumstances allow for ad hoc (medical appointment). People would then feel more comfortable requesting it if they knew the expectations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we expect actual agency guidance on the implementation of this telework?

This is not an environment where you want detailed guidance. This is an environment where you want supervisor discretion.

Yep — the same discretion that the EO specifically permits but that MANAGEMENT REFUSED TO USE.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we expect actual agency guidance on the implementation of this telework?

No because the moment any guidance comes through, one asshat will post it here and another will take a picture and send it to Reuters. Please everyone just stop.

Dude/Lady -- there's no agency person willing to put his or her name on a document that allows for telework policy. Get a grip! Department heads won't issue it, agency heads won't sign it. You're living in an alternate reality if you think this is something that can [b]actually be done during this time.