DEI RIFs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And no agencies were engaged in quota hiring.

[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.

Ours canceled the term “brown bag lunch”

This is hilarious!!!

[Anonymous]

Accessibility is the law. Why is that part of DEI?

Anyway the DEI initiatives were championed by everyone who wanted younger, less expensive more diverse people over older whiter more expensive people.

That's what DEI was always about. Hiring younger people who are more diverse.

[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.

It sounds like you had a decent DEI office. The mandatory hiring question seems irrelevant to hiring but most people should be able to manage an answer.

I hope that the people in that office get an opportunity to move to a different function as they probably would do a decent job there too.

[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.

Ours canceled the term “brown bag lunch”

Ok is this one really true??

[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: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”

Ok is this one really true??

No

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chime in if you report your office for refusing to comply with the directive to take down DEIA junk. Curious to see how many do not comply.

Heil Comrade! Shall I report on my own parents' snide remarks about this administration too? Will that earn me a medal, and then get me thrown into a gulag for being related to them?

It's so sad that our country falls down this hole so easily.

This is exactly what it feels like. Nazi Germany or a communist state.

Fun fact: When the Nazis started mistreating Jews in the early 1930s, many Germans didn’t know the extent of it until it was reported in the foreign press. The Nazis responded by claiming Jews were lying to weaken Germany’s international standing and used that as justification to abuse them more publicly.

It’s eerily similar to what we’re seeing now. People worked to shed light on discrimination, then their work is misrepresented as the very thing they fought against, all to justify rolling back longstanding antidiscrimination policies. Trump literally revoked an employment discrimination EO that has been in place since 1965. And we have people in this thread claiming that black people are presumptively unqualified for any job for which they’ve been hired and are only employed because of DEI.

Oh please. Getting rid of this DEI junk isn't remotely close to Nazism. Imposition of DEI mumbo jumbo, however, is very similar to communist group think under Chairman Mao that caused the persecution and deaths of 50+ million people. Imagine if you came out against DEI racism at work during peak DEI imposition. You'd be ostracized, tarred and feathered at work while having your career ruined by the woke mob, even though you might have legitimate gripes with DEI brainwashing. Progressive DEI is way more similar to communist persecution.

[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: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”

Ok is this one really true??

I’m the PP. Yes, we were told not to refer to them as brown bag lunches because it could be offensive.

[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: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”

Ok is this one really true??

Happened at my agency!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chime in if you report your office for refusing to comply with the directive to take down DEIA junk. Curious to see how many do not comply.

Heil Comrade! Shall I report on my own parents' snide remarks about this administration too? Will that earn me a medal, and then get me thrown into a gulag for being related to them?

It's so sad that our country falls down this hole so easily.

This is exactly what it feels like. Nazi Germany or a communist state.

Fun fact: When the Nazis started mistreating Jews in the early 1930s, many Germans didn’t know the extent of it until it was reported in the foreign press. The Nazis responded by claiming Jews were lying to weaken Germany’s international standing and used that as justification to abuse them more publicly.

It’s eerily similar to what we’re seeing now. People worked to shed light on discrimination, then their work is misrepresented as the very thing they fought against, all to justify rolling back longstanding antidiscrimination policies. Trump literally revoked an employment discrimination EO that has been in place since 1965. And we have people in this thread claiming that black people are presumptively unqualified for any job for which they’ve been hired and are only employed because of DEI.

Oh please. Getting rid of this DEI junk isn't remotely close to Nazism. Imposition of DEI mumbo jumbo, however, is very similar to communist group think under Chairman Mao that caused the persecution and deaths of 50+ million people. Imagine if you came out against DEI racism at work during peak DEI imposition. You'd be ostracized, tarred and feathered at work while having your career ruined by the woke mob, even though you might have legitimate gripes with DEI brainwashing. Progressive DEI is way more similar to communist persecution.

I have to agree with this. It’s unfortunate because the underlying ideas are good but the implementation was awful. I guess that’s humanity for you.

[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.

Puhlease. DEI folk constantly claim their is institutional racism. Yet they can almost never define it with concrete examples. There are never any tangible goals anyone could ever reach to say that yeah, institutional racism is over. Nope, they will keep shifting the definition for forever. Certain races will be persecuted for forever and the permanent victims no matter what. That's the only way you can keep DEI jobs and the cottage industry alive. DEI jobs go extinct if racism or persecution ends, therefore racism and persecution are never allowed to end. They'll always make up junk and shift goal posts so that certain races and groups are persecuted. They have now made up like 49 genders and sexualities or whatever. The more groups and factions they make up, the more probability they can find oppression, even though it is entirerly made up in their brain.

[Anonymous]

Did I miss the post where someone explained where all these DEI employees came from?

Three to four years ago were they lateral hires or new hires that were specifically hired for DEI jobs?

[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: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”

Ok is this one really true??

Apparently.

https://newsfeed.time.com/2013/08/06/dont-call-it-a-brown-bag-lunch-seattle-frowns-on-popular-term/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did I miss the post where someone explained where all these DEI employees came from?

Three to four years ago were they lateral hires or new hires that were specifically hired for DEI jobs?

In my agency, the two I’m aware of were lateral hires. I hope they get the opportunity to move to a different agency. With the hiring freeze, that would be helpful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did I miss the post where someone explained where all these DEI employees came from?

Three to four years ago were they lateral hires or new hires that were specifically hired for DEI jobs?

It's an industry.

Industries grow. They justify their growth by constantly making up examples of "institutional racism, sexism, and bigotry". Of course corporate doesn't want to face the wrath of the woke mob, so they kowtow to these clowns and setup and entire office for DEI. They hire chief officers, directors, and managers all making $200-350k per year to setup rainbows in the cafeteria during pride month, and to send out monthly emails reminding you for the 10000th time that the Tulsa OK riots occurred 100 years ago and that America was founded on a trail of Native American tears. They also make all of their salary setting up trainings to make people aware of their language, pronouns, and to denounce the genderised roman language. It went from Lantino, to LatinX to paying DEI directors six figure salaries to come up with Latine (more inclusive!). You can't make this insanity up.