The American Federation for Government Employees (AFGE) issues legal complaint against the Housing and Urban Development Agency (HUD) over remote work.
Similar to the legal case brought against the Bureau of Fiscal Service (BFS) by the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), the AFGE has started the arbitration process against HUD over telework requirements. On behalf of the 5,000 or so HUD employees that the union organization represents, the AFGE alleges that the agency arbitrarily excluded groups from consideration for telework and failed to consider the specific duties, assignments, and functions of those were not allowed to work from home.
No-Obligation Webinars on Federal Employee Retirement Benefits:
AFGE has gathered numerous samples of remote work applications that were denied and in spaces designated for an elaboration on the decision, it was either blank or lacking sufficient details, like blatant statements such as “your position is not eligible for remote work.” Representatives for the AFGE’s case concede that a 100% remote work environment is unrealistic for HUD, but also argue that more HUD workers that could telework were determined ineligible by the federal agency without sufficient reasoning. As well, AFGE is quick to point out that HUD has operated successfully over the past 2 years while remote work was in place due to the pandemic. Hiring for the agency even outpaced retirements during the same timeframe. Supporting this, OPM Director Kiran Ahuja stated in 2021 that, regarding federal employees working remotely during the pandemic, “agencies demonstrated they could carry out their missions effectively.”
HUD’s Response to Arbitration
Officials for the agency have mostly deflected responsibility onto individual managers, who did make the final determinations regarding recent applications for telework. However, the agency has also defended itself by noting that they’ve allowed “unprecedented workplace flexibilities” since COVID-19 struck. And most employees were sent notices similar to those involved in the aforementioned legal dispute between NTEU and BFS, where some workers were notified of an upcoming requirement to work on-site in a federal office for at least 2 days per pay-period. HUD officials have also reiterated that there this nothing to stop employees from formally requesting an alternative “Flexiplace” option than the one currently assigned.
--
Until Next Time,
The information has been obtained from sources considered reliable but we do not guarantee that the foregoing material is accurate or complete. Any opinions are those of Serving Those Who Serve writers and not necessarily those of RJFS or Raymond James. Any information is not a complete summary or statement of all available data necessary for making an investment decision and does not constitute a recommendation. Investing involves risk and you may incur a profit or loss regardless of strategy suggested. Every investor’s situation is unique and you should consider your investment goals, risk tolerance, and time horizon before making any investment or financial decision. Prior to making an investment decision, please consult with your financial advisor about your individual situation. While we are familiar with the tax provisions of the issues presented herein, as Financial Advisors of RJFS, we are not qualified to render advice on tax or legal matters. You should discuss tax or legal matters with the appropriate professional. **
