Week 4 Remote work bargaining preview: Management is running out of time

With only 1 week of scheduled bargaining left, Management still hasn't answered basic questions about their remote work proposals.

Last week, the Union Bargaining Committee finished our counter proposals on Work Schedules and Work Space allocation. So far after 3 weeks of bargaining sessions we have made progress on multiple issues, including work schedules and privacy. But we are still waiting on Management to identify which positions will be eligible for “Home Duty Stationed,” “Telework Primary,” and “Office Primary” options under its proposal. We have been asking for this information since January.

What we still don't know:

1. Which job duties does CFPB Management think are required to be done in person?
2. Which positions does Management agree can continue working from home full-time? (Our Union proposal is that everyone has already shown we can do this and should be eligible. Management disagrees...without saying for which positions they disagree).
3. Why did Management flip flop on voluntary exam travel, which allows examiners to choose whether to permanently keep working on exams completely from home or return to official travel?

We told Management last week: without this info we can't finalize our counter-proposals, much less reach an agreement quickly or take a deal to members for a vote. Would you vote for a contract that doesn't actually state whether you will be required to work in person or travel, and how often? Would you vote for a contract that could revoke the current days of telework you've earned under the existing contract?

Without guarantees in writing for who can work from home, Management's "100% Telework" proposal is a mirage

Despite what we have been told for months, CFPB Management's proposals don't actually guarantee that anyone will be eligible for 100% telework. They only propose a new category known as "Telework Primary." The Management proposal for "Telework Primary" does not distinguish between 50% telework or 100% telework, meaning there are NO guidelines for who would be permitted or denied permission to work from home full time. Why does management even need to designate people for 100% telework? We already have the "Home Duty Stationed" designation, which provides 100% work-from-home for over 300 Bureau employees nationwide (including dozens across several divisions who aren't examiners).

Of course, we don't care what it's called, so long as folks can continue working from home, so why is this a problem?  Because “Telework” only refers to a work flexibility arrangement, that must be approved in advance by a supervisor, whereas a “Home Duty Station” is a permanent designation and annotated on form SF-50, Notification of Personnel Action. 

Management promised to get back to us last Thursday, June 23rd, with more information on who they deem to be fit to keep working from home full-time under their proposed "Telework Primary" framework, but despite Management's promises, the Union still hasn't received this essential information.

Management still has zero evidence for their claims that Home Duty Stationed employees are more expensive for the Bureau

Since week 1 of bargaining the Union, requested the data for travel expenses for employees who are Home Duty Stationed versus office-based. We need this information in order to counter management’s belief (which they admit they have zero evidence for) that letting people be Home Duty Stationed will be more expensive. Management stated during bargaining sessions that they want to shift the burden of travel and commuting costs to employees when they require us to report to work in-person, hence their creation of a new "Telework Primary" category and their desire to eliminate the Home Duty Stationed option for all new hires going forward. Employees who are Home Duty Stationed are paid during travel/commute time, and their travel costs for work are paid by the Bureau.

Is Management employing a tried-and-true tactic (delay, delay, delay)?

The Director and Deputy Director have told employees that these negotiations are a priority and they want to reach a deal quickly. Yet right when we are finally making progress, Management's bargaining team is now causing unneeded delays.

Around noon on Friday we emailed the Bureau’s Office of Labor Relations and the rest of the Management bargaining team to remind them about our outstanding requests, and to request a date for when they plan to send us this missing information. Management knows that we cannot evaluate how their proposal would impact employees without these details, but in their last reply to us Friday, they claimed they cannot provide a date for when we can expect this info.

We are alerting you to this now so you understand that any delays, threats from Management of a forced return, or disparagement against your coworkers and our Union blaming them for delays in reaching an agreement are misleading and not grounded in reality. The fact is: Management has had over six months to produce answers to these questions and now with one week of scheduled bargaining left, they continue to fail to provide this info.

Your signature is needed to make sure Management negotiates in good faith

Rest assured, we will continue to hold Management’s feet to the fire but we need every employee's help to keep the pressure on Management to actually work with us without delays! You can help us stop the stalling, by SIGNING and SHARING our petition, which we will deliver to Director Chopra once we get 300 signatures (your signature will remain anonymous until then).

Sign the petition now →