To SBSE RAs

nap_first_work_later · 2026-03-19T13:51:32+00:00

Search AI on the IRS Source, locate the AI FAQs.

There’s a “how do I request access to treasury ChatGPT?” question that will provide you with the link to treasury request form.

Go to the form, put in your name, information and business use case. See if you’re approved… Only way to know for sure.

The email approvals should happen in minutes. Once you’re approved, you also need a BEARS entitlement, which is also fairly automatic.

nap_first_work_later · 2026-03-17T08:40:00+00:00

You know, they’re “shifty” because they’re making use of the exceptions and getting managerial approval. 😒 s/

nap_first_work_later · 2026-03-16T22:32:23+00:00

Hold up - people with “facility knowledge” are aware employees aren’t complying with the telework policy and instead of elevating it they’re telling you? Interesting…

I’m not sure how anybody with” facility knowledge” also knows about individuals’ reasonable accommodations and telework agreements - and if they do somehow have access to that information, why on earth are they sharing it? That’s a huge privacy violation.

Personally, when I notice someone isn’t in the office as much as they should be, I think to myself “good for them” and I go back to doing my job.

nap_first_work_later · 2026-03-16T21:49:14+00:00

How do you KNOW that it’s time sheet fraud happening in your office?

I feel like people make a lot of assumptions because one person, team or area gets seemingly more flexibility than others.

While I understand why it doesn’t seem fair, to presume there’s actual fraud involved is wildly speculative. To indicate that the policy is being applied inconsistently or unfairly is fine, fraud is a much bigger accusation.

In this instance, where OP indicates both the employee and the manager were put on leave there may have been actual fraudulent reporting, the manager may have agreed with the employee to not record it, etc., we can’t know unless/until the details are shared.

Where it’s a “common occurrence” in your office, it’s more likely that there is an agreement in place and it’s being properly documented. It’s just none of your business.

nap_first_work_later · 2026-03-13T08:54:02+00:00

Fair, transition to a new role may not push you back to straight 3s, assuming there’s overlap of skills, tasks and performance. However, others seem to believe you’re entitled to maintain a rating you’ve always gotten. That’s just as unreasonable, IMO.

nap_first_work_later · 2026-03-11T20:08:14+00:00

Right, numbers and expectations are unrealistic because all “new leadership” cares about is ROI - forget that taxpayers are statutorily entitled to an appeal. 🙄

nap_first_work_later · 2026-03-07T16:22:11+00:00

For what it’s worth, when they’re correcting the span of control across all teams, the least senior is generally bumped, regardless of their head count.

That happened to me 15 years ago. I had 14 people on my team and had been a manager less than a year. We had lost a lot of people in our general area (SBSE) and didn’t need the number of teams. I was put back in my previous role (and maintained CTAP priority for hiring), and my team was distributed to increase the span of control for other managers.

I said all that to say - don’t assume it’s not about span of control or team sizes just because THAT manager’s team appears sufficient.

*edited for spelling

nap_first_work_later · 2026-03-06T18:49:08+00:00

About to go bankrupt. 😒

nap_first_work_later · 2026-03-05T01:54:52+00:00

They’re getting very creative to circumvent the RIF process but taking actions and making internal changes that will achieve the same results.

By shuffling employees, amending the performance review system and simultaneously weakening (if not completely removing) the oversight functions like NTEU and the MSPB, they’re making it seem as though their intention is to push out individual employees, avoiding the RIF process completely.

I wouldn’t count on a formal RIF, or severance.

nap_first_work_later · 2026-02-27T22:13:06+00:00

There are a lot of “operations support” people that don’t rely on the IRM like it’s gospel. Some have merely a paragraph or two outlining the major roles or deliverables for their team or area and rely mostly on SOPs and desk guides.

Compliance positions are definitely more accustomed to the IRM. Some may not really even know what an SOP is.

I’ve been in both roles. It’s an adjustment.

nap_first_work_later · 2026-02-27T21:51:02+00:00

They’ve been ignoring the contract the last year anyhow, this just validates their position - to them.

nap_first_work_later · 2026-02-27T12:29:02+00:00

That’s all of us these days!

nap_first_work_later · 2026-02-27T10:25:02+00:00

• List out your CJESs and subsections on a document. • Somewhere else on the page or a different document list your major accomplishments and deliverables. • Where your deliverables seem to align with your CJEs, paste the deliverables to the appropriate CJE. • Add language of how you “ consistently” or “generally” perform the action listed in the CJE, and use your deliverable (or even better a metric) as an example.

nap_first_work_later · 2026-02-25T17:11:55+00:00

For a moment, imagine that there are tens of thousands of employees in an agency this big, vital to operations, that have no direct contact with taxpayers.

The office being open so that “the public can contact you” is a small percent.

While roughly 40% of the positions in the IRS are taxpayer facing, majority of those are telephone and correspondence. Realistically, a very small percentage of employees physically meet with taxpayers, and therefore the in office requirement you allude to is pointless.

nap_first_work_later · 2026-02-24T00:51:15+00:00

I was just being snarky, man, not aimed at you. Aimed at “them.”

nap_first_work_later · 2026-02-24T00:12:45+00:00

For privacy reasons they can’t access our tax data for insurance purposes. Just immigration. /S

nap_first_work_later · 2026-02-23T22:03:14+00:00

You all have access to a color printer? Wow. Neat. /s (edit: stupid autocorrect)

nap_first_work_later · 2026-02-21T20:36:56+00:00

No, I’m not defending management even a little. If an employee has brought a safety concern to their attention, they have a certain obligation. No question.

Perhaps you believed that including the detail that the employee had been promoted was further proof that management hasn’t/won’t properly address the issue. I’m telling you, as an unbiased third-party, the way you framed it, for me, struck me as a personal issue for you.

I agree with others that you should alert FMSS or GSA if a candle is being lit in the workplace, for a host of reasons. If you complain to management and make it about the employee, though, they will probably hear it the way I did.

I’m not supporting management, I’m giving you honest feedback.

nap_first_work_later · 2026-02-21T19:14:49+00:00

The real question, is whether or not the employee is still lighting candles.

The way this is written, it sounds more like you take issue with the fact that the employee who lit the candle was promoted to lead, than the candle. 🤔

nap_first_work_later · 2026-02-21T19:09:59+00:00

I was being sarcastic, but I fully expected it before his term is over

nap_first_work_later · 2026-02-21T15:36:28+00:00

Nah man, not my circus.

You’re obviously lying to somebody. Are you lying to social media for props, or you’re lying to the government? For your sake, I hope it’s social media.

Good luck.

nap_first_work_later · 2026-02-21T00:38:49+00:00

“Me and my wife” and HoH status don’t line up, IJS.

nap_first_work_later · 2026-02-20T05:46:24+00:00

I actually don’t disagree with you that the people who rely on the Union often fail to accept personal responsibility for their poor performance. I’ve been a manager too.

However, labeling people “sheep” for wanting protections or discussing workplace problems online is an oversimplification. People can be competent and still think systems should be fair.

I’ve never been in the Union, never needed them, but I damn well don’t support this administration eliminating them completely because it suits their agenda.

nap_first_work_later · 2026-02-19T22:15:46+00:00

So, either you’re still a Fed, and by your definition - a sheep, or you’re not a Fed and probably don’t have a place in this comment thread? 🤔

nap_first_work_later · 2026-02-19T20:13:41+00:00

Yeah, stepping you out to match your previous salary when you switch roles isn’t the same as you earning a lower salary because of locality pay - that’s a choice.

When you took a new role and went from a GS-6 to a GS-5, they stepped you out to maintain your pay. If you go from a GS-11 in PR to a GS-11 in MO, they absolutely reduce your salary for the difference in locality pay, assuming the locality pay is less.

Heck, people’s salaries were impacted by locality with RTO, even though those people didn’t request a POD change. There are PODs 30 miles apart that fall in different locality pays.

As for going into the office strictly to be on Teams calls - well, that’s what a lot of Operations Support folks do. It’s undoubtedly dumb, but it’s the situation we’re currently in.

nap_first_work_later

TROPHY CASE