DEI RIFs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's not what a RIF is, OP.

The OPM memo calls it a RIF.

Holy shit, the OPM memo is a bloodbath. Wow. The EO stopped short of this, this is absolutely nuts.

https://chcoc.gov/sites/default/files/OPM%20Memo%20Initial%20Guidance%20Regarding%20DEIA%20Executive%20Orders.pdf

I wonder how many acting heads are going to quit rather than send out those memos.
I honestly can’t see the person acting at my agency sending that out - she’s just the last one standing and as far as I can tell totally non-political.

That memo is just...another level. I will be very interested to see if our acting sends it out. It's one thing to say, hey, we've decided to eliminate all these programs. It's something totally different to say they resulted in "shameful discrimination" and then threaten the workforce if they don't report "coded language." But nothing to see here! It's all good and totally normal governing.

+1. These people didn't create the DEI offices and in most cases didn't create the policies people are complaining about. They were assigned to do a job. It's fine to decide that job is unwanted now, but making the employees into villains should worry everybody. Every fed will at some point work on something the other side doesn't like.

The voters chose this. Trump told us he is a vindictive POS who doesn't respect the rule of law or the federal bureaucracy, and this is what voters wanted. He has fewer people around him willing to reign him in. I'd expect constant chaos for the next 4 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's not what a RIF is, OP.

The OPM memo calls it a RIF.

Holy shit, the OPM memo is a bloodbath. Wow. The EO stopped short of this, this is absolutely nuts.

https://chcoc.gov/sites/default/files/OPM%20Memo%20Initial%20Guidance%20Regarding%20DEIA%20Executive%20Orders.pdf

I wonder how many acting heads are going to quit rather than send out those memos.
I honestly can’t see the person acting at my agency sending that out - she’s just the last one standing and as far as I can tell totally non-political.

That memo is just...another level. I will be very interested to see if our acting sends it out. It's one thing to say, hey, we've decided to eliminate all these programs. It's something totally different to say they resulted in "shameful discrimination" and then threaten the workforce if they don't report "coded language." But nothing to see here! It's all good and totally normal governing.

+1. These people didn't create the DEI offices and in most cases didn't create the policies people are complaining about. They were assigned to do a job. It's fine to decide that job is unwanted now, but making the employees into villains should worry everybody. Every fed will at some point work on something the other side doesn't like.

They weren't assigned to these offices, they applied to work in them, presumably because they wanted to advance that mission. The mission has been discredited, the consequences follow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's not what a RIF is, OP.

The OPM memo calls it a RIF.

Holy shit, the OPM memo is a bloodbath. Wow. The EO stopped short of this, this is absolutely nuts.

https://chcoc.gov/sites/default/files/OPM%20Memo%20Initial%20Guidance%20Regarding%20DEIA%20Executive%20Orders.pdf

I wonder how many acting heads are going to quit rather than send out those memos.
I honestly can’t see the person acting at my agency sending that out - she’s just the last one standing and as far as I can tell totally non-political.

That memo is just...another level. I will be very interested to see if our acting sends it out. It's one thing to say, hey, we've decided to eliminate all these programs. It's something totally different to say they resulted in "shameful discrimination" and then threaten the workforce if they don't report "coded language." But nothing to see here! It's all good and totally normal governing.

+1. These people didn't create the DEI offices and in most cases didn't create the policies people are complaining about. They were assigned to do a job. It's fine to decide that job is unwanted now, but making the employees into villains should worry everybody. Every fed will at some point work on something the other side doesn't like.

They weren't assigned to these offices, they applied to work in them, presumably because they wanted to advance that mission. The mission has been discredited, the consequences follow.

Where is the compassion for these workers and their families?
Is this all bc of some crazy idea that they are taking jobs from white Christian men? Or bc they are more educated than white Christian men?
I don’t understand the hate and desire for revenge. And frankly, I don’t want to. Don’t you understand that this mass layoff will affect us all? Unemployed, instability, lost income, etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's not what a RIF is, OP.

The OPM memo calls it a RIF.

Holy shit, the OPM memo is a bloodbath. Wow. The EO stopped short of this, this is absolutely nuts.

https://chcoc.gov/sites/default/files/OPM%20Memo%20Initial%20Guidance%20Regarding%20DEIA%20Executive%20Orders.pdf

I wonder how many acting heads are going to quit rather than send out those memos.
I honestly can’t see the person acting at my agency sending that out - she’s just the last one standing and as far as I can tell totally non-political.

That memo is just...another level. I will be very interested to see if our acting sends it out. It's one thing to say, hey, we've decided to eliminate all these programs. It's something totally different to say they resulted in "shameful discrimination" and then threaten the workforce if they don't report "coded language." But nothing to see here! It's all good and totally normal governing.

+1. These people didn't create the DEI offices and in most cases didn't create the policies people are complaining about. They were assigned to do a job. It's fine to decide that job is unwanted now, but making the employees into villains should worry everybody. Every fed will at some point work on something the other side doesn't like.

They weren't assigned to these offices, they applied to work in them, presumably because they wanted to advance that mission. The mission has been discredited, the consequences follow.

Oh come on. Not only were existing jobs transferred / repurposed, but people apply to newly created openings for all the same reasons that anybody applies to any job. Do you think the people who work in procurement are really passionate about buying pencils? Should they be vilified, as individuals, if they work on the purchase of tanks and then a later administration doesn't want tanks?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's not what a RIF is, OP.

The OPM memo calls it a RIF.

Holy shit, the OPM memo is a bloodbath. Wow. The EO stopped short of this, this is absolutely nuts.

https://chcoc.gov/sites/default/files/OPM%20Memo%20Initial%20Guidance%20Regarding%20DEIA%20Executive%20Orders.pdf

I wonder how many acting heads are going to quit rather than send out those memos.
I honestly can’t see the person acting at my agency sending that out - she’s just the last one standing and as far as I can tell totally non-political.

That memo is just...another level. I will be very interested to see if our acting sends it out. It's one thing to say, hey, we've decided to eliminate all these programs. It's something totally different to say they resulted in "shameful discrimination" and then threaten the workforce if they don't report "coded language." But nothing to see here! It's all good and totally normal governing.

+1. These people didn't create the DEI offices and in most cases didn't create the policies people are complaining about. They were assigned to do a job. It's fine to decide that job is unwanted now, but making the employees into villains should worry everybody. Every fed will at some point work on something the other side doesn't like.

They weren't assigned to these offices, they applied to work in them, presumably because they wanted to advance that mission. The mission has been discredited, the consequences follow.

Oh come on. Not only were existing jobs transferred / repurposed, but people apply to newly created openings for all the same reasons that anybody applies to any job. Do you think the people who work in procurement are really passionate about buying pencils? Should they be vilified, as individuals, if they work on the purchase of tanks and then a later administration doesn't want tanks?

I’m not the PP but I have compassion for many of the people who may lose their jobs. That’s a terrible situation. However, anyone who applied for these positions should have noted that this was not a long term strategy. Trump or no Trump, it would have faded out. The private sector has slowly been cutting back on these positions and some companies have eliminated them altogether. This isn’t EEO.

And even if the individuals put out some awful webinars, they had to come up with something to meet their metrics. It’s understandable. Unfortunately, it’s also not necessarily value added.

[Anonymous]

The pendulum swung to far on the DEI initiatives. It happened right after COVID. The pendulum needs to swing the other way now. Use this time to repoint your career in a new direction.

[Anonymous]

I had no idea that there were actual DEI jobs in the federal government. I thought these were initiatives that were just part of the overall mission and training, but not outright dedicated jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's not what a RIF is, OP.

The OPM memo calls it a RIF.

Holy shit, the OPM memo is a bloodbath. Wow. The EO stopped short of this, this is absolutely nuts.

https://chcoc.gov/sites/default/files/OPM%20Memo%20Initial%20Guidance%20Regarding%20DEIA%20Executive%20Orders.pdf

I wonder how many acting heads are going to quit rather than send out those memos.
I honestly can’t see the person acting at my agency sending that out - she’s just the last one standing and as far as I can tell totally non-political.

That memo is just...another level. I will be very interested to see if our acting sends it out. It's one thing to say, hey, we've decided to eliminate all these programs. It's something totally different to say they resulted in "shameful discrimination" and then threaten the workforce if they don't report "coded language." But nothing to see here! It's all good and totally normal governing.

+1. These people didn't create the DEI offices and in most cases didn't create the policies people are complaining about. They were assigned to do a job. It's fine to decide that job is unwanted now, but making the employees into villains should worry everybody. Every fed will at some point work on something the other side doesn't like.

They weren't assigned to these offices, they applied to work in them, presumably because they wanted to advance that mission. The mission has been discredited, the consequences follow.

Oh come on. Not only were existing jobs transferred / repurposed, but people apply to newly created openings for all the same reasons that anybody applies to any job. Do you think the people who work in procurement are really passionate about buying pencils? Should they be vilified, as individuals, if they work on the purchase of tanks and then a later administration doesn't want tanks?

I’m not the PP but I have compassion for many of the people who may lose their jobs. That’s a terrible situation. However, anyone who applied for these positions should have noted that this was not a long term strategy.

Degrees from diploma mills totally correlate with the capacity for sound judgment and strategic thinking, so...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's not what a RIF is, OP.

The OPM memo calls it a RIF.

Holy shit, the OPM memo is a bloodbath. Wow. The EO stopped short of this, this is absolutely nuts.

https://chcoc.gov/sites/default/files/OPM%20Memo%20Initial%20Guidance%20Regarding%20DEIA%20Executive%20Orders.pdf

I wonder how many acting heads are going to quit rather than send out those memos.
I honestly can’t see the person acting at my agency sending that out - she’s just the last one standing and as far as I can tell totally non-political.

That memo is just...another level. I will be very interested to see if our acting sends it out. It's one thing to say, hey, we've decided to eliminate all these programs. It's something totally different to say they resulted in "shameful discrimination" and then threaten the workforce if they don't report "coded language." But nothing to see here! It's all good and totally normal governing.

+1. These people didn't create the DEI offices and in most cases didn't create the policies people are complaining about. They were assigned to do a job. It's fine to decide that job is unwanted now, but making the employees into villains should worry everybody. Every fed will at some point work on something the other side doesn't like.

They weren't assigned to these offices, they applied to work in them, presumably because they wanted to advance that mission. The mission has been discredited, the consequences follow.

Where is the compassion for these workers and their families?
Is this all bc of some crazy idea that they are taking jobs from white Christian men? Or bc they are more educated than white Christian men?
I don’t understand the hate and desire for revenge. And frankly, I don’t want to. Don’t you understand that this mass layoff will affect us all? Unemployed, instability, lost income, etc

Hate and revenge? That’s a bit much. Many of the posters here who have criticized this job series aren’t white Christian men.

These positions have been staffed up in the last four years. No, it’s not cool for those people to lose their jobs and I hope they can apply elsewhere. But it not like it’s a foundational part of any agency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's not what a RIF is, OP.

The OPM memo calls it a RIF.

Holy shit, the OPM memo is a bloodbath. Wow. The EO stopped short of this, this is absolutely nuts.

https://chcoc.gov/sites/default/files/OPM%20Memo%20Initial%20Guidance%20Regarding%20DEIA%20Executive%20Orders.pdf

I wonder how many acting heads are going to quit rather than send out those memos.
I honestly can’t see the person acting at my agency sending that out - she’s just the last one standing and as far as I can tell totally non-political.

That memo is just...another level. I will be very interested to see if our acting sends it out. It's one thing to say, hey, we've decided to eliminate all these programs. It's something totally different to say they resulted in "shameful discrimination" and then threaten the workforce if they don't report "coded language." But nothing to see here! It's all good and totally normal governing.

+1. These people didn't create the DEI offices and in most cases didn't create the policies people are complaining about. They were assigned to do a job. It's fine to decide that job is unwanted now, but making the employees into villains should worry everybody. Every fed will at some point work on something the other side doesn't like.

They weren't assigned to these offices, they applied to work in them, presumably because they wanted to advance that mission. The mission has been discredited, the consequences follow.

Oh come on. Not only were existing jobs transferred / repurposed, but people apply to newly created openings for all the same reasons that anybody applies to any job. Do you think the people who work in procurement are really passionate about buying pencils? Should they be vilified, as individuals, if they work on the purchase of tanks and then a later administration doesn't want tanks?

I’m not the PP but I have compassion for many of the people who may lose their jobs. That’s a terrible situation. However, anyone who applied for these positions should have noted that this was not a long term strategy. Trump or no Trump, it would have faded out. The private sector has slowly been cutting back on these positions and some companies have eliminated them altogether. This isn’t EEO.

And even if the individuals put out some awful webinars, they had to come up with something to meet their metrics. It’s understandable. Unfortunately, it’s also not necessarily value added.

Those are fine reasons to close an office and reassign people or lay them off, but not to act like these individual employees are the problem. That's my point. We all carry out direction from politicals. The next political may disagree with today's direction, but the employee isn't wrong for carrying out today's direction as best they can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's not what a RIF is, OP.

The OPM memo calls it a RIF.

Holy shit, the OPM memo is a bloodbath. Wow. The EO stopped short of this, this is absolutely nuts.

https://chcoc.gov/sites/default/files/OPM%20Memo%20Initial%20Guidance%20Regarding%20DEIA%20Executive%20Orders.pdf

I wonder how many acting heads are going to quit rather than send out those memos.
I honestly can’t see the person acting at my agency sending that out - she’s just the last one standing and as far as I can tell totally non-political.

That memo is just...another level. I will be very interested to see if our acting sends it out. It's one thing to say, hey, we've decided to eliminate all these programs. It's something totally different to say they resulted in "shameful discrimination" and then threaten the workforce if they don't report "coded language." But nothing to see here! It's all good and totally normal governing.

+1. These people didn't create the DEI offices and in most cases didn't create the policies people are complaining about. They were assigned to do a job. It's fine to decide that job is unwanted now, but making the employees into villains should worry everybody. Every fed will at some point work on something the other side doesn't like.

They weren't assigned to these offices, they applied to work in them, presumably because they wanted to advance that mission. The mission has been discredited, the consequences follow.

Oh come on. Not only were existing jobs transferred / repurposed, but people apply to newly created openings for all the same reasons that anybody applies to any job. Do you think the people who work in procurement are really passionate about buying pencils? Should they be vilified, as individuals, if they work on the purchase of tanks and then a later administration doesn't want tanks?

I’m not the PP but I have compassion for many of the people who may lose their jobs. That’s a terrible situation. However, anyone who applied for these positions should have noted that this was not a long term strategy. Trump or no Trump, it would have faded out. The private sector has slowly been cutting back on these positions and some companies have eliminated them altogether. This isn’t EEO.

And even if the individuals put out some awful webinars, they had to come up with something to meet their metrics. It’s understandable. Unfortunately, it’s also not necessarily value added.

Those are fine reasons to close an office and reassign people or lay them off, but not to act like these individual employees are the problem. That's my point. We all carry out direction from politicals. The next political may disagree with today's direction, but the employee isn't wrong for carrying out today's direction as best they can.

Agreed. They were following the mission.

Now it’s time to find a new mission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That NIH DEIA office is…something else.

How so?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That NIH DEIA office is…something else.

How so?

Someone who works there is black. Therefore it’s racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They’ll just be fired.

Not in my office. The only ones losing out are the PRIVATE sector contractors who provided some training. That contract is being canceled but the fed are staying put.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DEI sucks and on January 21, 2021 they were forcing us to declare our pronouns in emails and meetings.

No they weren’t.

We were told that a proper signature block should include pronouns

I have friends at several agencies. Some agencies directed their employees to include pronouns and other agencies did not.

This. Although I have colleagues who put it in their signature block; I did not.

I have it in my signature block because my name is 95% assumed to be male. It clears up a lot of confusion and is better than having Ms. before my first name.

I just removed it from my signature block, though it was useful in identifying that I am a man, as my name is more often used by women. To be fair, I also had it on there for the currently disfavored reasons.

Personally, I’d prefer to have a Ms. before my name. The pronouns seem like virtue signaling more so than gender signaling.