DEI RIFs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It was overblown at my agency. Glad to see it go.

+1. Amen. Out of hand at my agency too.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good riddance!

tRUmp is that you?

[Anonymous]

That NIH DEIA office is…something else.

[Anonymous]

It’s shocking to discover that half the commenters on this thread are apparently employed by the federal government and also lack basic reading comprehension skills. Are you this bad at your jobs?

[Anonymous]

I'm pretty shocked to see that they included accessibility in this. And disgusted.

I have worked with hard of hearing individuals at my agency. One had an ASL interpreter assigned to her. I suppose that accommodation is gone? As is the interpreter?

And I know of two projects designed to allow for greater accessibility for hard of hearing individuals. One is so good that the future intent was to release it to the public.

We have blind people and places for them to take their service animals to urinate/defecate. Will those spaces be destroyed?

And surely there are veterans with disabilities from their service - have their accessibility requests caused "shameful discrimination?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s shocking to discover that half the commenters on this thread are apparently employed by the federal government and also lack basic reading comprehension skills. Are you this bad at your jobs?

Would you care to expand on this critique?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm pretty shocked to see that they included accessibility in this. And disgusted.

I have worked with hard of hearing individuals at my agency. One had an ASL interpreter assigned to her. I suppose that accommodation is gone? As is the interpreter?

And I know of two projects designed to allow for greater accessibility for hard of hearing individuals. One is so good that the future intent was to release it to the public.

We have blind people and places for them to take their service animals to urinate/defecate. Will those spaces be destroyed?

And surely there are veterans with disabilities from their service - have their accessibility requests caused "shameful discrimination?"

It should be a law on the books to override/accommodate that component of the acronym.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s shocking to discover that half the commenters on this thread are apparently employed by the federal government and also lack basic reading comprehension skills. Are you this bad at your jobs?

Are you so bad at your job that you just throw out vague criticisms without elaboration? "Hi Larla, The memo you wrote for me sucks and you're a terrible writer, but I can't give you any more detail than that."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm pretty shocked to see that they included accessibility in this. And disgusted.

I have worked with hard of hearing individuals at my agency. One had an ASL interpreter assigned to her. I suppose that accommodation is gone? As is the interpreter?

And I know of two projects designed to allow for greater accessibility for hard of hearing individuals. One is so good that the future intent was to release it to the public.

We have blind people and places for them to take their service animals to urinate/defecate. Will those spaces be destroyed?

And surely there are veterans with disabilities from their service - have their accessibility requests caused "shameful discrimination?"

Accommodations existed before DEI. That's all covered by HR and EEO. I genuinely hope those new programs thrive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pretty shocked to see that they included accessibility in this. And disgusted.

I have worked with hard of hearing individuals at my agency. One had an ASL interpreter assigned to her. I suppose that accommodation is gone? As is the interpreter?

And I know of two projects designed to allow for greater accessibility for hard of hearing individuals. One is so good that the future intent was to release it to the public.

We have blind people and places for them to take their service animals to urinate/defecate. Will those spaces be destroyed?

And surely there are veterans with disabilities from their service - have their accessibility requests caused "shameful discrimination?"

It should be a law on the books to override/accommodate that component of the acronym.

PP here - you are correct. I just looked it up - Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Personally I think it would have been nice if the memo mentioned that.

[Anonymous]

Delivered with a Nazi salute.

[Anonymous]

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

+1. How an earth did those people all have enough work to fill full time jobs?

[Anonymous]

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's probably part of the reason the administration is quickly replacing career acting heads with political acting heads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah eeo is required under title vii. We're not listing any eeo complaint folks as dei. Ugh.

But at some agencies, the dei and eeo functions are in the same office. This will be a mess to implement.

Yes. Mine spend the majority of their time on dei and not eeo.

There were a lot of employees disgruntled over their high salaries and the fact that they could hire more people when critical programs couldn’t. But damn. That opm memo is a bloodbath. I didn’t want them to be fired.

why not fire them? They are useless and a waste of money ?

At my agency people rotate in and out of these jobs. They aren't career HR people. So hopefully they are permitted to find different positions and not fired because of where they happened to be assigned on Jan 20tu.