If RIFs are executed to cut 30-70%, who is safe?

[Anonymous]

Elon Musk is all for merit based. More than anything, they will look at performance ratings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's going to be about whether you are working on something that important to the administration. ICE will be fine and EPA gutted, for example.

Oh sweet summer child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Elon Musk is all for merit based. More than anything, they will look at performance ratings

Oh sweet summer child.., study history

Elon Musk fired Twitter employees who criticized him by ordering his team to review their internal chats and tweets. He also fired employees who publicly criticized him

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did you donate to Trump and own a Tesla. Safe

Oh please! I used to live in Spring Valley and Wagshalls parking lot was wall to wall Tesla, all driven by Democrats, every sing one of them. Must be pretty hard to have that car now, huh? Not so much a status symbol of the elite any longer.

[Anonymous]

sing s/b single

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did you donate to Trump and own a Tesla. Safe

But please don’t capitulate, like the spineless Republicans in Congress. Someone must stand strong, for our democracy to survive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you donate to Trump and own a Tesla. Safe

Oh please! I used to live in Spring Valley and Wagshalls parking lot was wall to wall Tesla, all driven by Democrats, every sing one of them. Must be pretty hard to have that car now, huh? Not so much a status symbol of the elite any longer.

Haven’t you seen all of the apologetic, anti-Musk bumper stickers on Tesla’s?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People who can point to an exact law Congress enacted that justifies their job, and are superior at doing said job. Most people in government have survived by inserting themselves into the 23-step approval process for anything and they’re glorified paper pushers with the title assistant deputy to the deputy chief’s assistant. That’s all going away.

Yep. I am not wishing for anyone to lose their jobs but as an experienced private sector veteran, corporations reduce their headcounts all the time for fiscal reasons and low performers are gently laid off. It's clear Trump is looking for a more resilient, nimble and efficient government and part of that has to be much greater flexibility to change the personnel as needs require rather than a system of institutional tenure that shuffles low performers from department to department.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People who can point to an exact law Congress enacted that justifies their job, and are superior at doing said job. Most people in government have survived by inserting themselves into the 23-step approval process for anything and they’re glorified paper pushers with the title assistant deputy to the deputy chief’s assistant. That’s all going away.

Fork you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who can point to an exact law Congress enacted that justifies their job, and are superior at doing said job. Most people in government have survived by inserting themselves into the 23-step approval process for anything and they’re glorified paper pushers with the title assistant deputy to the deputy chief’s assistant. That’s all going away.

Yep. I am not wishing for anyone to lose their jobs but as an experienced private sector veteran, corporations reduce their headcounts all the time for fiscal reasons and low performers are gently laid off. It's clear Trump is looking for a more resilient, nimble and efficient government and part of that has to be much greater flexibility to change the personnel as needs require rather than a system of institutional tenure that shuffles low performers from department to department.

Translation: I know nothing about how the government works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who can point to an exact law Congress enacted that justifies their job, and are superior at doing said job. Most people in government have survived by inserting themselves into the 23-step approval process for anything and they’re glorified paper pushers with the title assistant deputy to the deputy chief’s assistant. That’s all going away.

Yep. I am not wishing for anyone to lose their jobs but as an experienced private sector veteran, corporations reduce their headcounts all the time for fiscal reasons and low performers are gently laid off. It's clear Trump is looking for a more resilient, nimble and efficient government and part of that has to be much greater flexibility to change the personnel as needs require rather than a system of institutional tenure that shuffles low performers from department to department.

“Experienced private sector veteran” = “I feel certain I know a ton of stuff about the inner workings of the federal government, which I never though about before until yesterday.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who can point to an exact law Congress enacted that justifies their job, and are superior at doing said job. Most people in government have survived by inserting themselves into the 23-step approval process for anything and they’re glorified paper pushers with the title assistant deputy to the deputy chief’s assistant. That’s all going away.

Yep. I am not wishing for anyone to lose their jobs but as an experienced private sector veteran, corporations reduce their headcounts all the time for fiscal reasons and low performers are gently laid off. It's clear Trump is looking for a more resilient, nimble and efficient government and part of that has to be much greater flexibility to change the personnel as needs require rather than a system of institutional tenure that shuffles low performers from department to department.

Translation: I know nothing about how the government works.

Now let's come into modern times, the government needs to be streamlines, it is the business of spending the American taxpayers dollars. Nothing special there, just transparency which seems to be very difficult to find these days. The business of running a company, or America, needs to focus on spending wisely and showing positive returns. As an example, giving money to foreign countries who burn our flag and wish us death, bad business judgement/decision. Things need to change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who can point to an exact law Congress enacted that justifies their job, and are superior at doing said job. Most people in government have survived by inserting themselves into the 23-step approval process for anything and they’re glorified paper pushers with the title assistant deputy to the deputy chief’s assistant. That’s all going away.

Yep. I am not wishing for anyone to lose their jobs but as an experienced private sector veteran, corporations reduce their headcounts all the time for fiscal reasons and low performers are gently laid off. It's clear Trump is looking for a more resilient, nimble and efficient government and part of that has to be much greater flexibility to change the personnel as needs require rather than a system of institutional tenure that shuffles low performers from department to department.

“Experienced private sector veteran” = “I feel certain I know a ton of stuff about the inner workings of the federal government, which I never though about before until yesterday.”

Private sector with a lot of federal contracting exposure. There's plenty of grift in the government and plenty of wastage and inefficient staffing. It can be a problem. It rewards some while bogging down others. No one wants to be told their job is useless or they do something that can be combined with multiple other roles in a private company. But it's true enough. "inner workings of the federal grovernment" means following endless arcane rules and processes delaying everything in order to protect one person's job or one little department that needs to justify its existence. Endless busywork and meetings and shuffling of papers.

Most people are not losing their jobs. We're not facing a situation where 80% are laid off. But I do see 30% being realistic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People who can point to an exact law Congress enacted that justifies their job…

This is it.

Can Musk point to an exact law Congress enacted that justifies his job?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you donate to Trump and own a Tesla. Safe

Oh please! I used to live in Spring Valley and Wagshalls parking lot was wall to wall Tesla, all driven by Democrats, every sing one of them. Must be pretty hard to have that car now, huh? Not so much a status symbol of the elite any longer.

Haven’t you seen all of the apologetic, anti-Musk bumper stickers on Tesla’s?

I haven’t seen a single one, and I live in NoVA.