Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will say that it was horrible for me losing telework, but I didn't think it was fair that coworkers got RAs approved for made up reasons. I know that RAs are often legitimate, but the ones I saw and know personally (I am in the approval chain for these) were bogus. Anxiety and back pain from a long commute were popular.

I don't get this argument at all. The claims either meet the standard for an RA or they don't. If the HR people aren't doing their jobs and properly vetting claims the answer is they should be disciplined or trained better, not remove the RA from everyone.

But what is an appropriate RA? I have a few disabled coworkers who were in electric wheelchairs and they worked in person with me for 15 years. We even put in van accessible parking spots just for them.

Maybe immunocompromised in an RA?

Yes, and various autoimmune disorders, and people under going cancer treatment for example. They can still work, but it might be deadly to come into the office and catch flu or Covid.

Treatment for cancer isn’t permanent. They should and do get a temporary RA. I know several people with autoimmune diseases that work in person. A few are teachers.

NP - The fact that you know several people with autoimmune diseases who work in-person is irrelevant. It depends on the specific autoimmune disease and the specific person.

Moreover, some cancers are incurable, but treatable, i.e., people are on treatments for the rest of their lives to keep the cancer at bay. In many of those instances, the treatments are immunosuppressive. So, yes, for people who are on those kinds of cancer treatments and are severely immunocompromised as a result, full-time telework is a very appropriate RA.

Or providing a respirator or maybe a private office.

Or full-time telework. I get some people abuse the system, but many don’t.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will say that it was horrible for me losing telework, but I didn't think it was fair that coworkers got RAs approved for made up reasons. I know that RAs are often legitimate, but the ones I saw and know personally (I am in the approval chain for these) were bogus. Anxiety and back pain from a long commute were popular.

I don't get this argument at all. The claims either meet the standard for an RA or they don't. If the HR people aren't doing their jobs and properly vetting claims the answer is they should be disciplined or trained better, not remove the RA from everyone.

But what is an appropriate RA? I have a few disabled coworkers who were in electric wheelchairs and they worked in person with me for 15 years. We even put in van accessible parking spots just for them.

Maybe immunocompromised in an RA?

Yes, and various autoimmune disorders, and people under going cancer treatment for example. They can still work, but it might be deadly to come into the office and catch flu or Covid.

Treatment for cancer isn’t permanent. They should and do get a temporary RA. I know several people with autoimmune diseases that work in person. A few are teachers.

NP - The fact that you know several people with autoimmune diseases who work in-person is irrelevant. It depends on the specific autoimmune disease and the specific person.

Moreover, some cancers are incurable, but treatable, i.e., people are on treatments for the rest of their lives to keep the cancer at bay. In many of those instances, the treatments are immunosuppressive. So, yes, for people who are on those kinds of cancer treatments and are severely immunocompromised as a result, full-time telework is a very appropriate RA.

Or providing a respirator or maybe a private office.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will say that it was horrible for me losing telework, but I didn't think it was fair that coworkers got RAs approved for made up reasons. I know that RAs are often legitimate, but the ones I saw and know personally (I am in the approval chain for these) were bogus. Anxiety and back pain from a long commute were popular.

I don't get this argument at all. The claims either meet the standard for an RA or they don't. If the HR people aren't doing their jobs and properly vetting claims the answer is they should be disciplined or trained better, not remove the RA from everyone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The Telework Act of 2010 does no such thing. What are you referring to?

Google is your friend. https://www.opm.gov/telework/history-legislation-reports/

“Congressional interest in expanding the use of telework in the Executive branch began in earnest with the passage of the Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001 (Public Law 106-346), (external link) (PDF file)which required each Executive agency to establish a policy under which eligible employees of the agency would be permitted to participate in telework to the maximum extent possible without diminished employee performance.”

Is that in the law or the leg history? Your link doesn’t say but the leg history is not law.

Anonymous wrote:

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:

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

Because 200 bullets were shot at them and they are being forced to work from the locations where the trauma happened....not everyone is ready, and being forced to work from a location where you don't feel safe is cruel

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The Telework Act of 2010 does no such thing. What are you referring to?

Google is your friend. https://www.opm.gov/telework/history-legislation-reports/

“Congressional interest in expanding the use of telework in the Executive branch began in earnest with the passage of the Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001 (Public Law 106-346), (external link) (PDF file)which required each Executive agency to establish a policy under which eligible employees of the agency would be permitted to participate in telework to the maximum extent possible without diminished employee performance.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The Telework Act of 2010 does no such thing. What are you referring to?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will say that it was horrible for me losing telework, but I didn't think it was fair that coworkers got RAs approved for made up reasons. I know that RAs are often legitimate, but the ones I saw and know personally (I am in the approval chain for these) were bogus. Anxiety and back pain from a long commute were popular.

I don't get this argument at all. The claims either meet the standard for an RA or they don't. If the HR people aren't doing their jobs and properly vetting claims the answer is they should be disciplined or trained better, not remove the RA from everyone.

But what is an appropriate RA? I have a few disabled coworkers who were in electric wheelchairs and they worked in person with me for 15 years. We even put in van accessible parking spots just for them.

Maybe immunocompromised in an RA?

Yes, and various autoimmune disorders, and people under going cancer treatment for example. They can still work, but it might be deadly to come into the office and catch flu or Covid.

Treatment for cancer isn’t permanent. They should and do get a temporary RA. I know several people with autoimmune diseases that work in person. A few are teachers.

NP - The fact that you know several people with autoimmune diseases who work in-person is irrelevant. It depends on the specific autoimmune disease and the specific person.

Moreover, some cancers are incurable, but treatable, i.e., people are on treatments for the rest of their lives to keep the cancer at bay. In many of those instances, the treatments are immunosuppressive. So, yes, for people who are on those kinds of cancer treatments and are severely immunocompromised as a result, full-time telework is a very appropriate RA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will say that it was horrible for me losing telework, but I didn't think it was fair that coworkers got RAs approved for made up reasons. I know that RAs are often legitimate, but the ones I saw and know personally (I am in the approval chain for these) were bogus. Anxiety and back pain from a long commute were popular.

I don't get this argument at all. The claims either meet the standard for an RA or they don't. If the HR people aren't doing their jobs and properly vetting claims the answer is they should be disciplined or trained better, not remove the RA from everyone.

But what is an appropriate RA? I have a few disabled coworkers who were in electric wheelchairs and they worked in person with me for 15 years. We even put in van accessible parking spots just for them.

Maybe immunocompromised in an RA?

Yes, and various autoimmune disorders, and people under going cancer treatment for example. They can still work, but it might be deadly to come into the office and catch flu or Covid.

Treatment for cancer isn’t permanent. They should and do get a temporary RA. I know several people with autoimmune diseases that work in person. A few are teachers.

Anonymous wrote:

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:Well the ADA was on Project 2025's chopping block, so this tracks.

Anonymous wrote:Would love to see the overlap between feds that took the vax and are now disabled…