Anonymous wrote:If you couldn’t get away with it before COVID, you won’t get away with it now. Prepare accordingly!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bottom line is there is a huge amount of agency discretion here, and ultimately it will depend on how much your agency head wants to do away with telework. If they are not on board this leaves ample room for them to do very little.

+1000

It is as simple as this

With DOGE incoming, wouldn’t every agency head interpret this EO in conformance with the spirit of the EO, and bring everyone back asap?

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so I don’t have a “remote work arrangement.” Almost no one at my agency does. I telework 3 days a week. So I guess this EO is basically meaningless

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Except that the political appointees will be the ones to interpret it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bottom line is there is a huge amount of agency discretion here, and ultimately it will depend on how much your agency head wants to do away with telework. If they are not on board this leaves ample room for them to do very little.

+1000

It is as simple as this

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This EO is so dumb. It’s almost too vague. OPM will have to issue guidance in order for agencies to implement otherwise there will be disparate ways in which this is interpreted. The only thing I’m hinging on in retaining even 1 day of TW is that this doesn’t seem to override the TW Act of 2010 but perhaps and agency head could decide to bypass it and abolish TW.

Yes. Department and agency heads will do what they want to do. What they will do depends on a lot of factors--allegiance to Trump, but also some have wanted to bring people back for a long time and the EO gives them a pretense, even if they are not Trump fans. Others will not make changes and EO allows for that.

Maybe, this EO is so lazily written that it just encourages filing a lawsuit rather than complying.

Anonymous wrote:Bahaha this has the WIDEST margin of wiggle language ever...smh exactly as expected.
"...exemptions they deem necessary."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m pretty sure they mean for remote work arrangements to include partial telework agreements. It would not make sense for this to apply only to full time remote works and for only current full time remote workers to be required to be in the office five days a week and for everyone else to continue a two day a week telework agreement.

Remote workers can become teleworkers.

Anonymous wrote:Bottom line is there is a huge amount of agency discretion here, and ultimately it will depend on how much your agency head wants to do away with telework. If they are not on board this leaves ample room for them to do very little.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This EO is so dumb. It’s almost too vague. OPM will have to issue guidance in order for agencies to implement otherwise there will be disparate ways in which this is interpreted. The only thing I’m hinging on in retaining even 1 day of TW is that this doesn’t seem to override the TW Act of 2010 but perhaps and agency head could decide to bypass it and abolish TW.

Yes. Department and agency heads will do what they want to do. What they will do depends on a lot of factors--allegiance to Trump, but also some have wanted to bring people back for a long time and the EO gives them a pretense, even if they are not Trump fans. Others will not make changes and EO allows for that.

Anonymous wrote:All of this is a fun circus to watch. I was worried when he was first elected but it has become clear nothing real will get done. All this nonsense makes Trump and his administration lose more credibility by the minute. Matt Gaetz! Feds are going in! TikTok can’t be banned!

Anonymous wrote:This EO is so dumb. It’s almost too vague. OPM will have to issue guidance in order for agencies to implement otherwise there will be disparate ways in which this is interpreted. The only thing I’m hinging on in retaining even 1 day of TW is that this doesn’t seem to override the TW Act of 2010 but perhaps and agency head could decide to bypass it and abolish TW.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I assume the language is meant to tell agencies to rescind CBAs?

It doesn’t say anything remotely like that