Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Interesting they only addressed remote work vs telework. What is it like 10% of people are remote? Seems like a small group to go after vs targeting TW.
I think that depends how you parse it.
take all necessary steps to terminate remote work arrangements and require employees to return to work in-person at their respective duty stations on a full-time basis--meaning require those remote work employees to return in person
OR
take all necessary steps to terminate remote work arrangements --end full remote work
AND require [ALL] employees to return to work in-person at their respective duty stations on a full-time basis
Either way, the "as soon as practicable," "allow necessary exemptions," and "comply with applicable laws" leaves a lot of discretion.
This exactly. I love lawyers and the attention to language.
Anonymous wrote:Does this apply to independent agencies?
Anonymous wrote:The EO completely skips over telework. The EO could be interpreted to just make all the local DC remote workers RTO then mission accomplished.
Anonymous wrote:My plan is to go in tomorrow just to show some initiative. My office is still available so I will head in and put up my nick nacks just to reclaim it. Fully remote now, but will intend to go in once or twice a week.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The order's language seems to be mainly just for his supporters, of which vast majority blindly believes whatever talking point there is about the "lazy bureaucrat". The lack in detail and length of the order in the perfect language for such type of supporter's comprehension level and attention span, but any baby attorney can pick apart the vagueness of this order and how much deference it gives to the mid-to-upper level supervisors.
This exactly. They’ll believe it’s done and expect grocery prices to be lower tomorrow from that other vague EO. All hilarious.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The order's language seems to be mainly just for his supporters, of which vast majority blindly believes whatever talking point there is about the "lazy bureaucrat". The lack in detail and length of the order in the perfect language for such type of supporter's comprehension level and attention span, but any baby attorney can pick apart the vagueness of this order and how much deference it gives to the mid-to-upper level supervisors.
The order will be further interpreted by OPM, then the department and agency heads. It’s not up to individual supervisors. Seeing as the administration is going for maximum pain, there’s no reason to expect any vagueness to tilt in workers’ favor.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The order's language seems to be mainly just for his supporters, of which vast majority blindly believes whatever talking point there is about the "lazy bureaucrat". The lack in detail and length of the order in the perfect language for such type of supporter's comprehension level and attention span, but any baby attorney can pick apart the vagueness of this order and how much deference it gives to the mid-to-upper level supervisors.
The order will be further interpreted by OPM, then the department and agency heads. It’s not up to individual supervisors. Seeing as the administration is going for maximum pain, there’s no reason to expect any vagueness to tilt in workers’ favor.
That’s what you takeaway from this EO? Certainly doesn’t seem that way to me.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The order's language seems to be mainly just for his supporters, of which vast majority blindly believes whatever talking point there is about the "lazy bureaucrat". The lack in detail and length of the order in the perfect language for such type of supporter's comprehension level and attention span, but any baby attorney can pick apart the vagueness of this order and how much deference it gives to the mid-to-upper level supervisors.
The order will be further interpreted by OPM, then the department and agency heads. It’s not up to individual supervisors. Seeing as the administration is going for maximum pain, there’s no reason to expect any vagueness to tilt in workers’ favor.
Anonymous wrote:The order's language seems to be mainly just for his supporters, of which vast majority blindly believes whatever talking point there is about the "lazy bureaucrat". The lack in detail and length of the order in the perfect language for such type of supporter's comprehension level and attention span, but any baby attorney can pick apart the vagueness of this order and how much deference it gives to the mid-to-upper level supervisors.