The Fork is back on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like Fork is on, upheld by judge.

https://wtop.com/government/2025/02/judge-clears-way-for-trumps-plan-to-downsize-federal-workforce-with-deferred-resignation-program/

Fork was not "upheld by a judge." The judge decide not to decide.

It is no longer blocked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The unions should just continue to advise employees that the deal is not enforceable. If people want to take it anyway, best of luck to them. Perhaps it is a way to weed out weaker employees.

The unions can’t make that determination. None of us can until the courts decide.

I don't think you understand this very well. Unions can absolutely decide to advise people based on their opinion of how enforceable an agreement is or is not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Individual Feds lack the $$$ to bring suits.

Yeah this is awful news. There aren’t many Feds who are going to be able to fork out tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to bring a suit one by one

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m taking the fork!

You have to work for the government to do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The unions should just continue to advise employees that the deal is not enforceable. If people want to take it anyway, best of luck to them. Perhaps it is a way to weed out weaker employees.

The unions can’t make that determination. None of us can until the courts decide.

I don't think you understand this very well. Unions can absolutely decide to advise people based on their opinion of how enforceable an agreement is or is not.

I understand it perfectly. How about: it would be irresponsible of the unions to advise employees the deal is unenforceable when they do not know that. All they can responsibly do is point out the risks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Individual Feds lack the $$$ to bring suits.

Class action baby!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why didn’t they offer a VERA, offer a VSIP, then offer the Fork to the people who didn’t qualify for the other two?

I don't qualify for any of them. I sort of wish I did so I could press the eject button on the crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Individual Feds lack the $$$ to bring suits.

Yeah this is awful news. There aren’t many Feds who are going to be able to fork out tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to bring a suit one by one

Exactly. And, unfortunately true.

Many may now judge fork vs risks of schedule F.

Hopefully people can find other jobs. Good luck all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Individual Feds lack the $$$ to bring suits.

Class action baby!

Funded by who? Most Feds don’t have tens of thousands for legal fees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The unions should just continue to advise employees that the deal is not enforceable. If people want to take it anyway, best of luck to them. Perhaps it is a way to weed out weaker employees.

The unions can’t make that determination. None of us can until the courts decide.

I don't think you understand this very well. Unions can absolutely decide to advise people based on their opinion of how enforceable an agreement is or is not.

I understand it perfectly. How about: it would be irresponsible of the unions to advise employees the deal is unenforceable when they do not know that. All they can responsibly do is point out the risks.

True.

Perhaps people can ask their House members if they will vote to strip Feds of the $?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m taking the fork!

You have to work for the government to do that.

That’s why I’m taking the fork!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Individual Feds lack the $$$ to bring suits.

Class action baby!

Funded by who? Most Feds don’t have tens of thousands for legal fees.

Ever heard of contingency?

[Anonymous]

I worried this would be an issue when I read the order denying the labor TRO written by a bush appointed judge in DC last week. He ruled that there was no standing. I didn’t look into all of the named plaintiffs in other pending cases. But what would it take for an employee to have standing? Is there an injury in fact when they’ve been offered a fork in the road?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Shocked by this.. does this mean it’s legal?

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-allows-trump-proceed-with-government-employee-buyout-2025-02-12/

No. The judge didn't rule on the legality. He ruled the plaintiffs don't have standing, so he can't determine whether it is legal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to ask if they can really pay after the CR ends. Will the next funding have authorization for forking out pay for no work?
Ask someone who understands the budget process. All spending bulls start in the House.

Do you think it’s likely Congress would cut people/feds off from income that way?

People can fork, get pushed via schedule f or find other work, seems those are the likely choices. Things do not look like they are going back.

Are you joking ? The Republican controlled Congress is not doing anything that is a check on Trump. Yes it’s a dire situation for Feds but I still dont see the funding for Fork appearing yet.