DEI RIFs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Why all this racial and anti Christian animosity?

Observing the fact that white Christians have had privileged opportunities (whether they deserved it or not) is not animosity. It is a fact. NP.

This has nothing to do with the DEI RIF, or whatever its category. I’m not a white Christian. I don’t believe that my interests were supported by the DEI office and corresponding trainings. I don’t feel harmed by its removal. I do feel for the people who might lose their jobs, though. It’s a tough job economy.

How so? Exactly, how so? I'm white. Did not bother me either way to hear that my agency was reaching out to make opportunities available to disadvantaged or under-represented groups. Or to hear that there may be systemic biases in employment decisions. I didn't think of it once. It didn't affect me.

I never heard of any reaching out to make opportunities available to disadvantaged or under-represented groups. I also never experienced any bias as a federal employee who is female and a minority. As to systemic bias? I have no experience.

But, that’s neither here nor there because my personal experience doesn’t matter. What matters is whether these positions were effective in a way that did not impose its own racism. Whether biases for or against were reduced. Because that’s the point. “Under-represented” is not the point. We don’t control who applies to any given position.

The job duties that I observed the offices undertaking, no offense to them, amounted largely to webinars.

So there was no affect to you. And you post is clear on one point: you have absolutely no idea what these programs are. You references to hiring, for example, is outside DEI. "Imposing racism" is also outside it. And if you think it did, again, you can file a complaint with your EEO office.

The point is that these offices didn’t have an effect on anyone. They were not effective.

My observation of what they are over the past years is a provider of virtual brown bag lunch speakers on topics not exactly relevant.

These functions, whatever they are, can be incorporated into EEO or HR. There isn’t enough substance to merit several FTEs.

Yes this. They were very fluffy brown bags.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Why all this racial and anti Christian animosity?

Observing the fact that white Christians have had privileged opportunities (whether they deserved it or not) is not animosity. It is a fact. NP.

This has nothing to do with the DEI RIF, or whatever its category. I’m not a white Christian. I don’t believe that my interests were supported by the DEI office and corresponding trainings. I don’t feel harmed by its removal. I do feel for the people who might lose their jobs, though. It’s a tough job economy.

How so? Exactly, how so? I'm white. Did not bother me either way to hear that my agency was reaching out to make opportunities available to disadvantaged or under-represented groups. Or to hear that there may be systemic biases in employment decisions. I didn't think of it once. It didn't affect me.

I never heard of any reaching out to make opportunities available to disadvantaged or under-represented groups. I also never experienced any bias as a federal employee who is female and a minority. As to systemic bias? I have no experience.

But, that’s neither here nor there because my personal experience doesn’t matter. What matters is whether these positions were effective in a way that did not impose its own racism. Whether biases for or against were reduced. Because that’s the point. “Under-represented” is not the point. We don’t control who applies to any given position.

The job duties that I observed the offices undertaking, no offense to them, amounted largely to webinars.

So there was no affect to you. And you post is clear on one point: you have absolutely no idea what these programs are. You references to hiring, for example, is outside DEI. "Imposing racism" is also outside it. And if you think it did, again, you can file a complaint with your EEO office.

The point is that these offices didn’t have an effect on anyone. They were not effective.

My observation of what they are over the past years is a provider of virtual brown bag lunch speakers on topics not exactly relevant.

These functions, whatever they are, can be incorporated into EEO or HR. There isn’t enough substance to merit several FTEs.

I'm the person to whom you are responding. I will say that is more an accurate description: training and information. Whether that requires FTEs is agency dependent and ours had plenty to do. But they are not eliminating these positions b/c of the amount of work but b/c of the work and information they were putting out there. THAT is the problem to me. Why is it so hard for some of you to know that there is institutional biases? That doesn't mean you're "racist" but it is self-awareness. I'll never understand why that is so difficult for some of you to hear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We just got the canned version of the email. Our DEI equivalent office was almost invisible and maybe had three people, so the impact is minor.

As someone else stated upthread, I do hope that there is consideration given to moving these people around since the one person I know was in that office was just a regular employee doing normal duties and took on that role because they had an affinity for it. It isn’t like they were cranked out of a DEI academy.

I’d like to know how they can do a RIF if there is a hiring freeze? I’ve watched RIFs before when offices close in cities and those people were just given preference in hiring. If no hiring is happening…then what?
That's the part that worries me. Will normal RIF protocols be followed? If not, won't this get bogged down in lawsuits?

[Anonymous]

I’d like to know how they can do a RIF if there is a hiring freeze? I’ve watched RIFs before when offices close in cities and those people were just given preference in hiring. If no hiring is happening…then what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our office has pretty much ONLY hired females of very specific races over the last 3 years. Like it is a grossly outsized amount compared to their percent in the population. Impossible that they are the best candidates. They've promoted ZERO Asians into higher level management, which is again impossible to claim they're not qualified given that Asians have the most education out of any racial group. It is entirely DEI at work. They need racial quotas rather than hiring the best.

If they had racial quotas, wouldn’t that include Asians in management?

You'd have thought. But the left considers Asians to be "white adjacent" and that they're not URMs. I mean it is truly noticeable how badly underrepresented Asians are in management positions in our office, especially considering how many we have with insane pedigrees and years of experience doing the work. Asians just don't have the right skin tone to be promoted.

You are so close to understanding why DEI initiatives are important. It’s kind of hilarious.

You are so close to understanding the frustration with DEI programs. They aren’t working and are wasting resources rather than addressing the reasons they were put forward

Were you with those folks 24/7? Then yo have no idea what they were doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Why all this racial and anti Christian animosity?

Observing the fact that white Christians have had privileged opportunities (whether they deserved it or not) is not animosity. It is a fact. NP.

This has nothing to do with the DEI RIF, or whatever its category. I’m not a white Christian. I don’t believe that my interests were supported by the DEI office and corresponding trainings. I don’t feel harmed by its removal. I do feel for the people who might lose their jobs, though. It’s a tough job economy.

How so? Exactly, how so? I'm white. Did not bother me either way to hear that my agency was reaching out to make opportunities available to disadvantaged or under-represented groups. Or to hear that there may be systemic biases in employment decisions. I didn't think of it once. It didn't affect me.

I never heard of any reaching out to make opportunities available to disadvantaged or under-represented groups. I also never experienced any bias as a federal employee who is female and a minority. As to systemic bias? I have no experience.

But, that’s neither here nor there because my personal experience doesn’t matter. What matters is whether these positions were effective in a way that did not impose its own racism. Whether biases for or against were reduced. Because that’s the point. “Under-represented” is not the point. We don’t control who applies to any given position.

The job duties that I observed the offices undertaking, no offense to them, amounted largely to webinars.

So there was no affect to you. And you post is clear on one point: you have absolutely no idea what these programs are. You references to hiring, for example, is outside DEI. "Imposing racism" is also outside it. And if you think it did, again, you can file a complaint with your EEO office.

The point is that these offices didn’t have an effect on anyone. They were not effective.

My observation of what they are over the past years is a provider of virtual brown bag lunch speakers on topics not exactly relevant.

These functions, whatever they are, can be incorporated into EEO or HR. There isn’t enough substance to merit several FTEs.

Ours canceled the term “brown bag lunch”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

It is ironic that you spend your entire post defending diversity by slamming Christians, an entire race, and half the genders in this country.

+1. And this is the thought process that resulted in so many people resenting DEI initiatives. It’s okay to discriminate as long as we’re discriminating against someone who is white, male, straight, Christian. Now I’m afraid we have taken a huge step back wrt race relations. It’s a shame that DEI went so far that it’s brought us to where we are now.

Absolutely. DEI created more racists than there would have otherwise been.

With all due respect, you have no idea how DEI works. There was no discrimination as that is not the point of those offices. And, lbh, America has been chock full of racists since it was settled. So spare me that last sentence.

I know of many instances of discrimination that has occurred in the workplace due to DEI, including several people who have actually been told they were passed over for a job or promotion because they had to give it to the diverse candidate.

Let's just be clear, no federal manager has ever uttered those words (verbatim or otherwise) to a federal job candidate. Because if they were uttered, the person the words were uttered to would get an equivalent position bc those words were uttered. It would be grounds for an EEO complaint. That said, many jobs have gone to diversity hires and they happen to be the "best qualified for the job" *wink wink* ... that's how it works!

Untrue. I know an SES 2 who put it on his evals.

He put on his evals that he hired someone less qualified because they were “diverse”?

If you are judged on the diversity of your hires, you are going to hire in a way that satisfies that element even if it means you aren't hiring the most talented

NP. I've personally been in meetings with supervisors straight up telling staff they won't be promoted if their contribution to DEI is deemed inadequate. I disagree with that whole idea and I'm glad it will no longer be considered.

I do not believe you that that is what was said. I have no doubt that is what you heard, however. "Contribution to DEI" does not mean hiring in a way that discriminates against white people (I'm white). Even though that may be what your takeaway was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’d like to know how they can do a RIF if there is a hiring freeze? I’ve watched RIFs before when offices close in cities and those people were just given preference in hiring. If no hiring is happening…then what?

My understanding is that lateral hires are not included in a hiring freeze.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Why all this racial and anti Christian animosity?

Observing the fact that white Christians have had privileged opportunities (whether they deserved it or not) is not animosity. It is a fact. NP.

This has nothing to do with the DEI RIF, or whatever its category. I’m not a white Christian. I don’t believe that my interests were supported by the DEI office and corresponding trainings. I don’t feel harmed by its removal. I do feel for the people who might lose their jobs, though. It’s a tough job economy.

How so? Exactly, how so? I'm white. Did not bother me either way to hear that my agency was reaching out to make opportunities available to disadvantaged or under-represented groups. Or to hear that there may be systemic biases in employment decisions. I didn't think of it once. It didn't affect me.

I never heard of any reaching out to make opportunities available to disadvantaged or under-represented groups. I also never experienced any bias as a federal employee who is female and a minority. As to systemic bias? I have no experience.

But, that’s neither here nor there because my personal experience doesn’t matter. What matters is whether these positions were effective in a way that did not impose its own racism. Whether biases for or against were reduced. Because that’s the point. “Under-represented” is not the point. We don’t control who applies to any given position.

The job duties that I observed the offices undertaking, no offense to them, amounted largely to webinars.

So there was no affect to you. And you post is clear on one point: you have absolutely no idea what these programs are. You references to hiring, for example, is outside DEI. "Imposing racism" is also outside it. And if you think it did, again, you can file a complaint with your EEO office.

The point is that these offices didn’t have an effect on anyone. They were not effective.

My observation of what they are over the past years is a provider of virtual brown bag lunch speakers on topics not exactly relevant.

These functions, whatever they are, can be incorporated into EEO or HR. There isn’t enough substance to merit several FTEs.

I'm the person to whom you are responding. I will say that is more an accurate description: training and information. Whether that requires FTEs is agency dependent and ours had plenty to do. But they are not eliminating these positions b/c of the amount of work but b/c of the work and information they were putting out there. THAT is the problem to me. Why is it so hard for some of you to know that there is institutional biases? That doesn't mean you're "racist" but it is self-awareness. I'll never understand why that is so difficult for some of you to hear.

It’s not difficult to hear. It’s boring, not necessarily accurate, and often not relevant. How many lectures on institutional bias must my Latina self attend? Can I read the Clif notes and get on with my work? Why must I listen to it on repeat often from private contractors who often are milking the system. It does nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

It is ironic that you spend your entire post defending diversity by slamming Christians, an entire race, and half the genders in this country.

+1. And this is the thought process that resulted in so many people resenting DEI initiatives. It’s okay to discriminate as long as we’re discriminating against someone who is white, male, straight, Christian. Now I’m afraid we have taken a huge step back wrt race relations. It’s a shame that DEI went so far that it’s brought us to where we are now.

Absolutely. DEI created more racists than there would have otherwise been.

With all due respect, you have no idea how DEI works. There was no discrimination as that is not the point of those offices. And, lbh, America has been chock full of racists since it was settled. So spare me that last sentence.

I know of many instances of discrimination that has occurred in the workplace due to DEI, including several people who have actually been told they were passed over for a job or promotion because they had to give it to the diverse candidate.

Let's just be clear, no federal manager has ever uttered those words (verbatim or otherwise) to a federal job candidate. Because if they were uttered, the person the words were uttered to would get an equivalent position bc those words were uttered. It would be grounds for an EEO complaint. That said, many jobs have gone to diversity hires and they happen to be the "best qualified for the job" *wink wink* ... that's how it works!

Untrue. I know an SES 2 who put it on his evals.

He put on his evals that he hired someone less qualified because they were “diverse”?

If you are judged on the diversity of your hires, you are going to hire in a way that satisfies that element even if it means you aren't hiring the most talented

NP. I've personally been in meetings with supervisors straight up telling staff they won't be promoted if their contribution to DEI is deemed inadequate. I disagree with that whole idea and I'm glad it will no longer be considered.

I do not believe you that that is what was said. I have no doubt that is what you heard, however. "Contribution to DEI" does not mean hiring in a way that discriminates against white people (I'm white). Even though that may be what your takeaway was.

I believe this poster. My agency labeled DIE initiatives as ‘corporateness.’ I was told by my supervisors that promotion criteria included planning, attending, and supporting DIE programs-you know, to be “corporate.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

It is ironic that you spend your entire post defending diversity by slamming Christians, an entire race, and half the genders in this country.

+1. And this is the thought process that resulted in so many people resenting DEI initiatives. It’s okay to discriminate as long as we’re discriminating against someone who is white, male, straight, Christian. Now I’m afraid we have taken a huge step back wrt race relations. It’s a shame that DEI went so far that it’s brought us to where we are now.

Absolutely. DEI created more racists than there would have otherwise been.

With all due respect, you have no idea how DEI works. There was no discrimination as that is not the point of those offices. And, lbh, America has been chock full of racists since it was settled. So spare me that last sentence.

I know of many instances of discrimination that has occurred in the workplace due to DEI, including several people who have actually been told they were passed over for a job or promotion because they had to give it to the diverse candidate.

Let's just be clear, no federal manager has ever uttered those words (verbatim or otherwise) to a federal job candidate. Because if they were uttered, the person the words were uttered to would get an equivalent position bc those words were uttered. It would be grounds for an EEO complaint. That said, many jobs have gone to diversity hires and they happen to be the "best qualified for the job" *wink wink* ... that's how it works!

Untrue. I know an SES 2 who put it on his evals.

He put on his evals that he hired someone less qualified because they were “diverse”?

If you are judged on the diversity of your hires, you are going to hire in a way that satisfies that element even if it means you aren't hiring the most talented

NP. I've personally been in meetings with supervisors straight up telling staff they won't be promoted if their contribution to DEI is deemed inadequate. I disagree with that whole idea and I'm glad it will no longer be considered.

I do not believe you that that is what was said. I have no doubt that is what you heard, however. "Contribution to DEI" does not mean hiring in a way that discriminates against white people (I'm white). Even though that may be what your takeaway was.

I believe this poster. My agency labeled DIE initiatives as ‘corporateness.’ I was told by my supervisors that promotion criteria included planning, attending, and supporting DIE programs-you know, to be “corporate.”

Right. That means training and lunch and learns. Not discriminatory hiring. I have to sit through all sorts of training on a yearly basis. Why are you such a crybaby? Why is it so awful to expect people to hire in a neutral way (& learn how to do that)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

It is ironic that you spend your entire post defending diversity by slamming Christians, an entire race, and half the genders in this country.

+1. And this is the thought process that resulted in so many people resenting DEI initiatives. It’s okay to discriminate as long as we’re discriminating against someone who is white, male, straight, Christian. Now I’m afraid we have taken a huge step back wrt race relations. It’s a shame that DEI went so far that it’s brought us to where we are now.

Absolutely. DEI created more racists than there would have otherwise been.

With all due respect, you have no idea how DEI works. There was no discrimination as that is not the point of those offices. And, lbh, America has been chock full of racists since it was settled. So spare me that last sentence.

I know of many instances of discrimination that has occurred in the workplace due to DEI, including several people who have actually been told they were passed over for a job or promotion because they had to give it to the diverse candidate.

Let's just be clear, no federal manager has ever uttered those words (verbatim or otherwise) to a federal job candidate. Because if they were uttered, the person the words were uttered to would get an equivalent position bc those words were uttered. It would be grounds for an EEO complaint. That said, many jobs have gone to diversity hires and they happen to be the "best qualified for the job" *wink wink* ... that's how it works!

Untrue. I know an SES 2 who put it on his evals.

He put on his evals that he hired someone less qualified because they were “diverse”?

If you are judged on the diversity of your hires, you are going to hire in a way that satisfies that element even if it means you aren't hiring the most talented

The SES metric did not judge people based on the race, etc. of the people they hired.

Our SES eval had added category about what you did to support diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

It is ironic that you spend your entire post defending diversity by slamming Christians, an entire race, and half the genders in this country.

+1. And this is the thought process that resulted in so many people resenting DEI initiatives. It’s okay to discriminate as long as we’re discriminating against someone who is white, male, straight, Christian. Now I’m afraid we have taken a huge step back wrt race relations. It’s a shame that DEI went so far that it’s brought us to where we are now.

Absolutely. DEI created more racists than there would have otherwise been.

With all due respect, you have no idea how DEI works. There was no discrimination as that is not the point of those offices. And, lbh, America has been chock full of racists since it was settled. So spare me that last sentence.

I know of many instances of discrimination that has occurred in the workplace due to DEI, including several people who have actually been told they were passed over for a job or promotion because they had to give it to the diverse candidate.

Let's just be clear, no federal manager has ever uttered those words (verbatim or otherwise) to a federal job candidate. Because if they were uttered, the person the words were uttered to would get an equivalent position bc those words were uttered. It would be grounds for an EEO complaint. That said, many jobs have gone to diversity hires and they happen to be the "best qualified for the job" *wink wink* ... that's how it works!

Untrue. I know an SES 2 who put it on his evals.

He put on his evals that he hired someone less qualified because they were “diverse”?

If you are judged on the diversity of your hires, you are going to hire in a way that satisfies that element even if it means you aren't hiring the most talented

NP. I've personally been in meetings with supervisors straight up telling staff they won't be promoted if their contribution to DEI is deemed inadequate. I disagree with that whole idea and I'm glad it will no longer be considered.

I do not believe you that that is what was said. I have no doubt that is what you heard, however. "Contribution to DEI" does not mean hiring in a way that discriminates against white people (I'm white). Even though that may be what your takeaway was.

This message was directed at staff who don't even do any hiring! Joining the DEI committee for example but if everyone joins, that's too easy to just check a box so staff were suggested to invent some other project to add to their annual evaluations. I've since moved on elsewhere but my husband works for that same agency and he's thrilled he won't need to invent something annually in order to have a shot at getting promoted anymore.

[Anonymous]

So much misinformation. In the agency where I am detailed, everyone had a DEI objective, and if we were hiring we had a mandatory question about how you supported DEi in your previous roles. The correct answer for managers was to sign up to be a champion for an employee resource group (the ultimate purpose of which was to make sure everyone had the warm fuzzies and to make people stop saying things like ‘hey come over here and eat bacon or else you’re weird’ to Muslims on Ramadan). We also had to sit on hiring panels to make sure no one made assumptions about someone’s fitness for a job based on factors like “she’s got small kids, she won’t travel”). We also got training on how to respond to our neurodiverse employees behaviors and not write them up for ‘not being team players’). It was harmless. We had already cut a bunch of it out of our programs because we had a reduced budget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So much misinformation. In the agency where I am detailed, everyone had a DEI objective, and if we were hiring we had a mandatory question about how you supported DEi in your previous roles. The correct answer for managers was to sign up to be a champion for an employee resource group (the ultimate purpose of which was to make sure everyone had the warm fuzzies and to make people stop saying things like ‘hey come over here and eat bacon or else you’re weird’ to Muslims on Ramadan). We also had to sit on hiring panels to make sure no one made assumptions about someone’s fitness for a job based on factors like “she’s got small kids, she won’t travel”). We also got training on how to respond to our neurodiverse employees behaviors and not write them up for ‘not being team players’). It was harmless. We had already cut a bunch of it out of our programs because we had a reduced budget.

Every agency handled DEI in a different manner. What may have worked at one agency certainly did not work at another.