Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The wording is intentional and necessary. It says they are not playing around.

No. The wording says they think we’re trash. Instead of the highly educated and specialized workforce that we are. HR would be involved if our management spoke that way to us usually. It’s just unprofessional. I feel like an idiot for blindly following our SES and trusting them. I should have left as I’ve had higher job offers.

I’m at a subagency that is the darling of Trump as well and this is how we’re treated??

We’ve been made the whipping boy of this administration, but let’s turn the focus to Congress. So many of the issues with Feds stem from the truly awful Statutes we’re working under. (And for the uneducated- Congress writes statutes and Feds write regulations). Congress doesn’t fund us appropriately and then we’re sued nonstop for our inability to fully carry out the poorly written laws.

Feds teleworking 1-2 days a week was never the issue.

No they wouldn't.

Yes they would.

No.

Unless by "involved" you mean someone running to HR, and someone at HR having to sit there and listen. Then I suppose that would be "involved."

Anonymous wrote:What bothers me the most about all of this, even more than being called back into the office is the way the OPM memo was worded. And the fact that our senior leaders sent it out unchanged. It is cold, rude, callous and untrue. I feel let down by our senior managers when a month ago I would have said they were the absolute best. That memo read like a high schooler wrote it. And it was factually untrue! My entire office is in person 50% and they are talking about how our building is abandoned and no one is working. I don’t want fluffy language but that memo was a disgrace. Never in my 20 years as a Fed have I had such a nasty memo sent to me. If our senior leaders (feds!) want to send more like this, they can be guaranteed that they’ve lost the heart of their workforce. We all thought we’d be returning to the office but it’s an embarrassment how this is being handled.

Frankly they should be using a scalpel to get rid of bad apples instead of this bulldozer. Give us managers better options to fire or manage our employees. Fire people who are only “fully successful” on their performance evals. Going into the office isn’t going to get rid of bad apples.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am curious -- do different agencies have different timesheet systems? Ours does not allow us to indicate entry and exit times -- just a number of hours worked -- We are required to work core hours of course, but there is always the possibility of flex by some amount (e.g starting at 9:30 and working till say 6.)

We only enter hours worked. But there are office hours (9 to 5:30), and unless you have other arrangements you are expected to be there during that time. Some managers watch this, some don't. Flexing has to be approved.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The wording is intentional and necessary. It says they are not playing around.

No. The wording says they think we’re trash. Instead of the highly educated and specialized workforce that we are. HR would be involved if our management spoke that way to us usually. It’s just unprofessional. I feel like an idiot for blindly following our SES and trusting them. I should have left as I’ve had higher job offers.

I’m at a subagency that is the darling of Trump as well and this is how we’re treated??

We’ve been made the whipping boy of this administration, but let’s turn the focus to Congress. So many of the issues with Feds stem from the truly awful Statutes we’re working under. (And for the uneducated- Congress writes statutes and Feds write regulations). Congress doesn’t fund us appropriately and then we’re sued nonstop for our inability to fully carry out the poorly written laws.

Feds teleworking 1-2 days a week was never the issue.

No they wouldn't.

Yes they would.

Anonymous wrote:I am curious -- do different agencies have different timesheet systems? Ours does not allow us to indicate entry and exit times -- just a number of hours worked -- We are required to work core hours of course, but there is always the possibility of flex by some amount (e.g starting at 9:30 and working till say 6.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The wording is intentional and necessary. It says they are not playing around.

No. The wording says they think we’re trash. Instead of the highly educated and specialized workforce that we are. HR would be involved if our management spoke that way to us usually. It’s just unprofessional. I feel like an idiot for blindly following our SES and trusting them. I should have left as I’ve had higher job offers.

I’m at a subagency that is the darling of Trump as well and this is how we’re treated??

We’ve been made the whipping boy of this administration, but let’s turn the focus to Congress. So many of the issues with Feds stem from the truly awful Statutes we’re working under. (And for the uneducated- Congress writes statutes and Feds write regulations). Congress doesn’t fund us appropriately and then we’re sued nonstop for our inability to fully carry out the poorly written laws.

Feds teleworking 1-2 days a week was never the issue.

No they wouldn't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The wording is intentional and necessary. It says they are not playing around.

No. The wording says they think we’re trash. Instead of the highly educated and specialized workforce that we are. HR would be involved if our management spoke that way to us usually. It’s just unprofessional. I feel like an idiot for blindly following our SES and trusting them. I should have left as I’ve had higher job offers.

I’m at a subagency that is the darling of Trump as well and this is how we’re treated??

We’ve been made the whipping boy of this administration, but let’s turn the focus to Congress. So many of the issues with Feds stem from the truly awful Statutes we’re working under. (And for the uneducated- Congress writes statutes and Feds write regulations). Congress doesn’t fund us appropriately and then we’re sued nonstop for our inability to fully carry out the poorly written laws.

Feds teleworking 1-2 days a week was never the issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clarification on OPM website indicates situational telework will be only for weather and emergencies declared by the agency.

So I guess that means ANY time I have a doctor's appointment, or one of my kids does, I'll be taking an entire day of SL? Is that even allowed? I've heard some policies saying you can't take more than a half day. But the last train into DC leaves from my city at 7 AM, and I'm sure not buying a second car just to drive an hour to the end of a metro line after appointments.

That’s, of course, how it worked pre-telework. If going in to the office doesn’t work with the appointment, you take the entire day off.

Yes, but it was inefficient.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clarification on OPM website indicates situational telework will be only for weather and emergencies declared by the agency.

So I guess that means ANY time I have a doctor's appointment, or one of my kids does, I'll be taking an entire day of SL? Is that even allowed? I've heard some policies saying you can't take more than a half day. But the last train into DC leaves from my city at 7 AM, and I'm sure not buying a second car just to drive an hour to the end of a metro line after appointments.

That’s, of course, how it worked pre-telework. If going in to the office doesn’t work with the appointment, you take the entire day off.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clarification on OPM website indicates situational telework will be only for weather and emergencies declared by the agency.

So I guess that means ANY time I have a doctor's appointment, or one of my kids does, I'll be taking an entire day of SL? Is that even allowed? I've heard some policies saying you can't take more than a half day. But the last train into DC leaves from my city at 7 AM, and I'm sure not buying a second car just to drive an hour to the end of a metro line after appointments.

That’s, of course, how it worked pre-telework. If going in to the office doesn’t work with the appointment, you take the entire day off.

Anonymous wrote:The wording is intentional and necessary. It says they are not playing around.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clarification on OPM website indicates situational telework will be only for weather and emergencies declared by the agency.

So I guess that means ANY time I have a doctor's appointment, or one of my kids does, I'll be taking an entire day of SL? Is that even allowed? I've heard some policies saying you can't take more than a half day. But the last train into DC leaves from my city at 7 AM, and I'm sure not buying a second car just to drive an hour to the end of a metro line after appointments.

That’s, of course, how it worked pre-telework. If going in to the office doesn’t work with the appointment, you take the entire day off.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clarification on OPM website indicates situational telework will be only for weather and emergencies declared by the agency.

So I guess that means ANY time I have a doctor's appointment, or one of my kids does, I'll be taking an entire day of SL? Is that even allowed? I've heard some policies saying you can't take more than a half day. But the last train into DC leaves from my city at 7 AM, and I'm sure not buying a second car just to drive an hour to the end of a metro line after appointments.

Cn you please provide a link? I looked but wasn't able to find this. THank you.