NYT: Judge Pauses RIF Plans

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lets say (hypothetically) this ruling is not overturned. What would it mean for the already riffed?

If the ruling is not overturned, it means Congress would need to include language in one of their upcoming bills that blesses the reorganizations. That might be easier said than done given that all members of Congress don't want the blowback from this policy, which so far is quite unpopular around the country.

It is pretty popular outside of DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lets say (hypothetically) this ruling is not overturned. What would it mean for the already riffed?

If the ruling is not overturned, it means Congress would need to include language in one of their upcoming bills that blesses the reorganizations. That might be easier said than done given that all members of Congress don't want the blowback from this policy, which so far is quite unpopular around the country.

It is pretty popular outside of DC.

Blessing the RIFs would be subject to filibuster and doubtful could be accomplished via reconciliation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s all academic. Who cares if OMB “can” direct agencies to RIF when the agencies are all either led by flunkies who will RIF anyway or, if they don’t, will be fired and replaced with someone who will RIF?

This whole case is about a very inside baseball esoteric legal question without much practical effect — does OMB/OPM have the authority to DIRECT agencies to RIF? Who cares?

FYI — the answer may be different depending on whether the agency is “independent” or not.

I thought this too. If Trump says at a cabinet meeting "wow it would be great for each agency to cut 15%" you better believe these loser bootlicker would hop to it with maybe possibly Rubio as an exception.

I think the impoundment argument is more interesting.

You may not agree with the policy; but those cabinet officials *work for Trump*, they are *supposed* to do what he says. If they can’t bring themselves to do it, they should resign in protest. But the idea that executive branch employees should “resist” Trump is profoundly anti-democratic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lets say (hypothetically) this ruling is not overturned. What would it mean for the already riffed?

If the ruling is not overturned, it means Congress would need to include language in one of their upcoming bills that blesses the reorganizations. That might be easier said than done given that all members of Congress don't want the blowback from this policy, which so far is quite unpopular around the country.

It is pretty popular outside of DC.

Where 80% of Feds are located? Talk about short sighted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s all academic. Who cares if OMB “can” direct agencies to RIF when the agencies are all either led by flunkies who will RIF anyway or, if they don’t, will be fired and replaced with someone who will RIF?

This whole case is about a very inside baseball esoteric legal question without much practical effect — does OMB/OPM have the authority to DIRECT agencies to RIF? Who cares?

FYI — the answer may be different depending on whether the agency is “independent” or not.

I thought this too. If Trump says at a cabinet meeting "wow it would be great for each agency to cut 15%" you better believe these loser bootlicker would hop to it with maybe possibly Rubio as an exception.

I think the impoundment argument is more interesting.

You may not agree with the policy; but those cabinet officials *work for Trump*, they are *supposed* to do what he says. If they can’t bring themselves to do it, they should resign in protest. But the idea that executive branch employees should “resist” Trump is profoundly anti-democratic.

This question in this matter is different: the challenge isn’t focused on whether Trump can direct RIFs, but whether he has the authority to do so as conceived w/o Congressional authorization. I don’t know the answer to that, but if it’s a problem it can’t be cured by Trump issuing a direct order.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lets say (hypothetically) this ruling is not overturned. What would it mean for the already riffed?

If the ruling is not overturned, it means Congress would need to include language in one of their upcoming bills that blesses the reorganizations. That might be easier said than done given that all members of Congress don't want the blowback from this policy, which so far is quite unpopular around the country.

It is pretty popular outside of DC.

That’s a common talking point, but it doesn’t hold up when you look past the slogans. Sure, “cutting government waste” polls well in the abstract—but when you tell people what’s actually being cut (VA services, IRS call centers, disaster aid, Head Start grants, rural loans), support drops off fast.

More importantly, popularity doesn’t matter if Congress has to vote to approve or fund the RIF plans. Members don’t want to be on record backing mass layoffs that hit their own districts—especially not before an election. That’s why they’ve let the administration take the lead but haven’t moved to codify anything. If this really were popular “outside DC,” they’d be rushing to attach it to the next appropriations bill. They’re not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lets say (hypothetically) this ruling is not overturned. What would it mean for the already riffed?

If the ruling is not overturned, it means Congress would need to include language in one of their upcoming bills that blesses the reorganizations. That might be easier said than done given that all members of Congress don't want the blowback from this policy, which so far is quite unpopular around the country.

It is pretty popular outside of DC.

You obviously live in DC. Nope, people in red states found out their relatives working at SSA or the VA or DOD contracts (fellow Trump voters even) were laid off by their savior. Others are too old to use DOGE's internet/app based SSA systems and are pissed the Gen Z DOGE kids took away phone applications now requiring the elderly go in person and wait 4 hrs+. Just wait until DOGE cuts SSA field offices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lets say (hypothetically) this ruling is not overturned. What would it mean for the already riffed?

If the ruling is not overturned, it means Congress would need to include language in one of their upcoming bills that blesses the reorganizations. That might be easier said than done given that all members of Congress don't want the blowback from this policy, which so far is quite unpopular around the country.

It is pretty popular outside of DC.

Blessing the RIFs would be subject to filibuster and doubtful could be accomplished via reconciliation.

I thought they could be covered by a rescission bill which apparently only needs a senate majority vote. Questionable whether they have the votes for that in the senate though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lets say (hypothetically) this ruling is not overturned. What would it mean for the already riffed?

If the ruling is not overturned, it means Congress would need to include language in one of their upcoming bills that blesses the reorganizations. That might be easier said than done given that all members of Congress don't want the blowback from this policy, which so far is quite unpopular around the country.

It is pretty popular outside of DC.

Where 80% of Feds are located? Talk about short sighted.

More like 95 percent of spending happens outside of DC.

[Anonymous]

Anyone know how this might impact the recently RIF'd?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s all academic. Who cares if OMB “can” direct agencies to RIF when the agencies are all either led by flunkies who will RIF anyway or, if they don’t, will be fired and replaced with someone who will RIF?

This whole case is about a very inside baseball esoteric legal question without much practical effect — does OMB/OPM have the authority to DIRECT agencies to RIF? Who cares?

FYI — the answer may be different depending on whether the agency is “independent” or not.

I thought this too. If Trump says at a cabinet meeting "wow it would be great for each agency to cut 15%" you better believe these loser bootlicker would hop to it with maybe possibly Rubio as an exception.

I think the impoundment argument is more interesting.

You may not agree with the policy; but those cabinet officials *work for Trump*, they are *supposed* to do what he says. If they can’t bring themselves to do it, they should resign in protest. But the idea that executive branch employees should “resist” Trump is profoundly anti-democratic.

Cabinet secretaries have split loyalties and many cabinet secretaries see themselves as a possible future state governor, Vice President, Federal Reserve Chair, etc. and don't want their names and reputations ruined. At least one Cabinet Secretary thinks they are a possible future President. Those secretaries work for the President, but their agencies also have Congressionally-mandated missions which they will be held responsible for fulfilling. No Secretary of Labor wants to be called before Congress to explain why workplace injuries and fatalities have gone up by 20 percent, or why $1 billion allocated for job training wasn't spent on job training.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s all academic. Who cares if OMB “can” direct agencies to RIF when the agencies are all either led by flunkies who will RIF anyway or, if they don’t, will be fired and replaced with someone who will RIF?

This whole case is about a very inside baseball esoteric legal question without much practical effect — does OMB/OPM have the authority to DIRECT agencies to RIF? Who cares?

FYI — the answer may be different depending on whether the agency is “independent” or not.

I thought this too. If Trump says at a cabinet meeting "wow it would be great for each agency to cut 15%" you better believe these loser bootlicker would hop to it with maybe possibly Rubio as an exception.

I think the impoundment argument is more interesting.

You may not agree with the policy; but those cabinet officials *work for Trump*, they are *supposed* to do what he says. If they can’t bring themselves to do it, they should resign in protest. But the idea that executive branch employees should “resist” Trump is profoundly anti-democratic.

Cabinet secretaries have split loyalties and many cabinet secretaries see themselves as a possible future state governor, Vice President, Federal Reserve Chair, etc. and don't want their names and reputations ruined. At least one Cabinet Secretary thinks they are a possible future President. Those secretaries work for the President, but their agencies also have Congressionally-mandated missions which they will be held responsible for fulfilling. No Secretary of Labor wants to be called before Congress to explain why workplace injuries and fatalities have gone up by 20 percent, or why $1 billion allocated for job training wasn't spent on job training.

One of the podcasts I listen to was just saying one reason Trump likes Fox news cabinet members is because they don't have that split loyalty. They aren't the governor of wherever who thinks she has a political future that she has to protect. They have no experience, no constituencies, and no futures, outside of serving this dirtbag.

[Anonymous]

I feel bad for people who took the DRP and VERA because they thought they would get RIFed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel bad for people who took the DRP and VERA because they thought they would get RIFed.

I’ve been saying all this time that DRP only made sense if you were ready to retire or very sure you would get RIFed AND had the ability to find a new job quickly (eg young probationaries with options and no roots put down or a very disfavored job like OMWI). Or just confident in other options being available and no longer wanting to be a fed - these are mainly the younger folk and the leadership that can transition to a law firm easily (from my agency).

Add to that the fact that DRP makes it hard to get or even seek a new job due to ethics issues and it all just seemed foolish unless you fall into one of those categories.

For everyone else, riding it out has made more sense.

My agency has not really acquitted itself that well during the transition, but at least it announced DRP 2 along with a statement that RIFs were not planned. So DRP and VERA are only being taken by those who can jump easily to new jobs or those close to retirement - and possibly a few who know they are on the Schedule F chopping block, but they tend to have more marketability too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel bad for people who took the DRP and VERA because they thought they would get RIFed.

I’ve been saying all this time that DRP only made sense if you were ready to retire or very sure you would get RIFed AND had the ability to find a new job quickly (eg young probationaries with options and no roots put down or a very disfavored job like OMWI). Or just confident in other options being available and no longer wanting to be a fed - these are mainly the younger folk and the leadership that can transition to a law firm easily (from my agency).

Add to that the fact that DRP makes it hard to get or even seek a new job due to ethics issues and it all just seemed foolish unless you fall into one of those categories.

For everyone else, riding it out has made more sense.

My agency has not really acquitted itself that well during the transition, but at least it announced DRP 2 along with a statement that RIFs were not planned. So DRP and VERA are only being taken by those who can jump easily to new jobs or those close to retirement - and possibly a few who know they are on the Schedule F chopping block, but they tend to have more marketability too.

I could see DRP also making sense for people that were remote and were either unwilling or unable to relocate. Or others for whom 100% RTO was logistically impossible that it gives them an off ramp to hopefully find something else.