Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great, we're back to women knifing each other in the back because they're taking "too much" maternity leave (yes, I heard you with the living in the midwest scenario). Good old regressive days.

When will the US understand that parents need at least 6 months of paid maternity leave, and 6 months of paternity leave?

The birthrate is plummeting. Time to treat families right if the nation needs babies.

Separately, sure, ding people for living where they shouldn't be living. Punish them for not following the rules. But when the rules are insane in the first place, I think the people who skirt them aren't entirely wrong.

Paternity leave and maternity leave do not help the birthrate.

My controversial opinion is that they have made it worse.

Paid parental leave has resulted in both parents being expected to return to the workforce, especially in European countries. The tax structure and paid leave means you get a year or so off per kid and then back to work you go.

Women would have more kids if their husband earned more money and they didn’t have to ever return to work with young kids.

Most don’t want to do the SAHM model anymore.

Anonymous wrote:I work in a fabulously collegial Fed office where it’s like a big family. I know 2 colleagues have stopped coming to the office. They get their work done at home then report it as in office, which is time fraud. I suspect their managers will look the other way as long as they get their work done. No one is ratting them out either. I don’t mind at all. If something happens and everyone’s badge goes n data gets audited, I won’t be at the bottom of the pack.

If coworkers don't want to rat them out, fine. But it's kind of mind blowing to me that managers whether family or not are willing to certify that timesheet every week knowing there's fraud. I mean if it comes out - and these days it's not a hypothetical, there are looking for people to fire - do the managers think they'll somehow be able to claim ignorance or something?

Anonymous wrote:The administration doesn’t care about laws, policies, rules or norms so why should she? She probably figures she’ll get axed anyway so why not milk the system while she can.

It’s rich that you all are on her worrying about whether one woman is following the policy while this massive lawlessness in leadership is happening. Rules for thee but not for me.

This. We've got heads of agencies WFH from las vegas while taking kickbacks and taking over buildings and putting in their own personal gyms and doing so much illegal sh!t my head wants to explode. Stop crabbing in bucketing and band together.

I work in a fabulously collegial Fed office where it’s like a big family. I know 2 colleagues have stopped coming to the office. They get their work done at home then report it as in office, which is time fraud. I suspect their managers will look the other way as long as they get their work done. No one is ratting them out either. I don’t mind at all. If something happens and everyone’s badge goes n data gets audited, I won’t be at the bottom of the pack.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are assuming that all the people who have to go to the office every day will not be curious why someone still gets to be remote.

You can be curious, but that doesn't mean supervisors can tell you. Or that the employee will tell coworkers the truth instead of a story.

Supervisors can tell other supervisors.

Incorrect. Only people with a need to know can be told. Generally that’s just the direct supervisor.

Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation

Preview
Anyone know a govt employee who simply decided they won't go to the office?
Anonymous wrote:



But the point is people find out from word of mouth.. Examples at my office include :a few people who were in the hospital and they returned to work and told several friends, who then told their friends and someone who is being treated for a chronic medical condition and asked for donated leave. Once your name is out there like that there is no secret to keep. And it is nor a violation because these people told everyone that they were in the hospital and asked for their names to be on all agency donated leave distribution.
Incorrect. Only people with a need to know can be told. Generally that’s just the direct supervisor.

Forum Index » Jobs and Careers
Reply to "Anyone know a govt employee who simply decided they won't go to the office?"
Subject:
Anyone know a govt employee who simply decided they won't go to the office?

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color:
Default
Font:
Normal
Close Marks
Tip: Styles may be quickly applied to selected text

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are assuming that all the people who have to go to the office every day will not be curious why someone still gets to be remote.

You can be curious, but that doesn't mean supervisors can tell you. Or that the employee will tell coworkers the truth instead of a story.

Supervisors can tell other supervisors.

But the point is people find out from word of mouth.. Examples at my office include :a few people who were in the hospital and they returned to work and told several friends, who then told their friends and someone who is being treated for a chronic medical condition and asked for donated leave. Once your name is out there like that there is no secret to keep. And it is nor a violation because these people told everyone that they were in the hospital and asked for their names to be on all agency donated leave distribution.
Incorrect. Only people with a need to know can be told. Generally that’s just the direct supervisor.

But a lot of people tell everyone at work so there is no need for a supervisor to say anything. I know two people who got accommodation after being in the hospital and came back to work and told everyone where they were.

There are also lots of people on the leave donation list due to illness and they give permission for their name to be publicized to everyone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are assuming that all the people who have to go to the office every day will not be curious why someone still gets to be remote.

You can be curious, but that doesn't mean supervisors can tell you. Or that the employee will tell coworkers the truth instead of a story.

Supervisors can tell other supervisors.

Incorrect. I'm a manager and someone in my team has a RA. I don't know what's wrong with this person and I haven't discussed his status with anyone else in management, it's simply illegal. I bet people are gossiping but IDNGAF.

Outside the Federal government and outside of union contracts or other specific exceptions, all work in VA is "at will".

Approximately, "at will" means either the employee or employer can terminate the employment without any notice -- and this is without requiring a justification or requiring cause to terminate.

Different states will have different state labor laws.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone in the future considering government jobs should be required to read this thread.

There is very little if any discussion about actual work and productivity.

Instead it’s about silly rules, HR, time sheets, exceptions, RTO etc.

Prioritize working somewhere that’s focused on actual work and adding value. Not on where someone uses their laptop.

The problem with this is that employees don't make rules at their job; employers do.

If your enployer requires you to be at the office it is a condition of your employment. Failing to meet a condition of your employment is grounds for termination.

In some ways, I view RTO to be a breach of terms of employment, at least in my particular office. The gig was always you can telework unless you aren't meeting your productivity targets. Only then, your telework agreement would be terminated and you would either need to come in or quit. I was always meeting my targets but suddenly some ahole who doesn’t even know the details of my work and my office assumes I'm actually golfing all day and I'm called in anyway. Yes, I abided however I'm trying to figure out a good time to quit as this was not what I signed up for when I took the job.

The administration doesn’t care about laws, policies, rules or norms so why should she? She probably figures she’ll get axed anyway so why not milk the system while she can.

It’s rich that you all are on her worrying about whether one woman is following the policy while this massive lawlessness in leadership is happening. Rules for thee but not for me.

I know some federal employees who are avoiding RTO by gaming the reasonable accommodation system. But… they also legitimately had telework reasonable accommodations for many years. DOGE/MAGA/Heritage now thinks they are DEI bc of disability status and is forcing them to RTO by failing to renew their longstanding reasonable accommodations to telework. These include people who have debilitating chronic illnesses, cancers, etc. Reasonable accommodations denied - so they are filing appeal after appeal and new request after new request, EEO, ADR, etc.

My advice is to mind your business. If you don’t like your situation deal with it but if you aren’t her supervisor just don’t pay attention to her situation. She’s lucky she is able to get away with things and you ratting her out won’t make your life better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are assuming that all the people who have to go to the office every day will not be curious why someone still gets to be remote.

You can be curious, but that doesn't mean supervisors can tell you. Or that the employee will tell coworkers the truth instead of a story.

Supervisors can tell other supervisors.

Incorrect. Only people with a need to know can be told. Generally that’s just the direct supervisor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great, we're back to women knifing each other in the back because they're taking "too much" maternity leave (yes, I heard you with the living in the midwest scenario). Good old regressive days.

When will the US understand that parents need at least 6 months of paid maternity leave, and 6 months of paternity leave?

The birthrate is plummeting. Time to treat families right if the nation needs babies.

Separately, sure, ding people for living where they shouldn't be living. Punish them for not following the rules. But when the rules are insane in the first place, I think the people who skirt them aren't entirely wrong.

Paternity leave and maternity leave do not help the birthrate.

My controversial opinion is that they have made it worse.

Paid parental leave has resulted in both parents being expected to return to the workforce, especially in European countries. The tax structure and paid leave means you get a year or so off per kid and then back to work you go.

Women would have more kids if their husband earned more money and they didn’t have to ever return to work with young kids.

Anonymous wrote:Great, we're back to women knifing each other in the back because they're taking "too much" maternity leave (yes, I heard you with the living in the midwest scenario). Good old regressive days.

When will the US understand that parents need at least 6 months of paid maternity leave, and 6 months of paternity leave?

The birthrate is plummeting. Time to treat families right if the nation needs babies.

Separately, sure, ding people for living where they shouldn't be living. Punish them for not following the rules. But when the rules are insane in the first place, I think the people who skirt them aren't entirely wrong.

Paternity leave and maternity leave do not help the birthrate.

Anonymous wrote:Anyone in the future considering government jobs should be required to read this thread.

There is very little if any discussion about actual work and productivity.

Instead it’s about silly rules, HR, time sheets, exceptions, RTO etc.

Prioritize working somewhere that’s focused on actual work and adding value. Not on where someone uses their laptop.

The problem with this is that employees don't make rules at their job; employers do.

If your enployer requires you to be at the office it is a condition of your employment. Failing to meet a condition of your employment is grounds for termination.