DEI RIFs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our DEI head resigned before the inauguration. It’s hard to imagine any staying on give how anti-diversity and exclusionary the incoming administration is.

Ha ha - being against DEI initiatives (which are now being shown to increase racism) does not equal "exclusionary".

Yes, let’s not anger the racists with more diversity or inclusion.

You should embrace the differences since you claim to want diversity.

Fck the racists.

So you don't actually like diversity.

I don’t like intentionally obtuse a-holes.

Racism, misogyny, and political a$$battery are not immutable traits.

A$$battery? Maybe calm down, you're going nuts.

[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:lol @ the super dumb poster who thinks veterans preference isn’t part of DEI. It absolutely is. And it particularly falls under the “i.” Damn the American education system is really failing people.

Veterans preference is based on a particular type of work experience that reflects virtue and self-sacrifice - it’s WHAT YOU CHOSE TO DO (serve in the military) versus DEI, which is based on characteristics that are not in your control. Normal people can see the difference.

It’s not based on work experience. It’s literally based on how disabled the veteran is. You can argue the merits of “rewarding” people in that situation, but ceases to be about merit (i.e., innate ability) or any type of work experience if that is the main criteria by which the preference is applied.

Getting blown up at work is work experience. Shove it.

Why should the veteran who didn’t get blown up get less preference?

So your point is that you want veterans to get equal preference? Argue away. Still in a different category than DEI.

No I want you to explain why one type of veteran deserves a higher preference than the other. Your argument is that veterans preference is not DEI because the service experience is work that provides them unique skills that make them more qualified. But how is a disabled veteran MORE qualified than one who isn’t? What additional skill do they have because they developed a service-connected cardiac condition?

Because the literal self-sacrifice of your body at work is different.

What extra skill does the veteran who developed a heart condition have compared to the one who didn’t?

Skill is your word. It doesn’t have to confer a skill to be a work experience. Hating on veterans is a really ugly look, so keep doing it because it’s a great red flag for you to carry.

NP. This is your emotion speaking. You believe that veterans have served their country honorably and should get a leg up in hiring for the federal govt. So you think this is a good thing that the govt favor these folk. For other DEI programs, you don’t think these people are worthy of getting any sort of leg up (which is except for veterans is illegal in hiring in govt) and everything should be based on “merit”. So you celebrate the end of “DEI”. But if you were intellectually honest, you would agree that it’s just a matter of who you think is worthy rather than “merit”.

BTW, despite the fact that I get resumes of tons of unqualified veterans that I had to choose from in hiring, I was ok with the process. If they really were not qualified (didn’t have the type of education or skills), I could look at other candidates. But having to read through the vet resumes to see if they could work was a good exercise and I hired one veteran who is hard working and great.

I consider choosing to serve to be a meritorious decision. I don’t think being a certain race or gender is meritorious.

But how does it make the person better able to do the job?

Reflects pro-social, teamwork, resilience, discipline, all of which are good qualities for jobs.

Sorry but simply being a vet does guarantee that you will have those characteristics. I'll also point out that those are soft skills, not hard skills, that anyone can have - whether they served or not.

The veterans system may need to be reformed, but the original purpose is that among qualified candidates where all else is equal, veterans get preference. It’s also not because of inherent qualities, but because it can be hard for veterans to get a civilian job after years of specialized military service.
It has obviously gotten out of control if people feel they have to hire less qualified veterans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The moving of DEI people to EEO offices in some agencies won't last. The executive orders made that explicitly clear, so those people will most likely be made redundant soon enough. Any agency that attempts to maintain some kind of DEI undercover will be ruthlessly reformed. Best is to accept that DEI is over and done with and move on. It's a brave new world.

I'll have to admit if the Biden administration hadn't gone so overboard with DEI and just kept the standard generations old affirmative action approach, all of this probably wouldn't be happening.

Except for veterans, there has never been affirmative action in government hiring.

Affirmative action was a very real presence in the Federal bureaucracy and Federal contracting. 8(a) had a massive influence on contracting and hiring and it is the instrument by which AA spread from the Feds to the contractors and into the private sector. I have no idea what you are trying to pretend otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The moving of DEI people to EEO offices in some agencies won't last. The executive orders made that explicitly clear, so those people will most likely be made redundant soon enough. Any agency that attempts to maintain some kind of DEI undercover will be ruthlessly reformed. Best is to accept that DEI is over and done with and move on. It's a brave new world.

I'll have to admit if the Biden administration hadn't gone so overboard with DEI and just kept the standard generations old affirmative action approach, all of this probably wouldn't be happening.

Except for veterans, there has never been affirmative action in government hiring.

Affirmative action was a very real presence in the Federal bureaucracy and Federal contracting. 8(a) had a massive influence on contracting and hiring and it is the instrument by which AA spread from the Feds to the contractors and into the private sector. I have no idea what you are trying to pretend otherwise.

At no point has there been affirmative action in the hiring of federal employees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our DEI head resigned before the inauguration. It’s hard to imagine any staying on give how anti-diversity and exclusionary the incoming administration is.

Ha ha - being against DEI initiatives (which are now being shown to increase racism) does not equal "exclusionary".

Yes, let’s not anger the racists with more diversity or inclusion.

You should embrace the differences since you claim to want diversity.

Fck the racists.

So you don't actually like diversity.

I don’t like intentionally obtuse a-holes.

Racism, misogyny, and political a$$battery are not immutable traits.

A$$battery? Maybe calm down, you're going nuts.

A$$hattery. MAGA.

It’s a typo, twat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The moving of DEI people to EEO offices in some agencies won't last. The executive orders made that explicitly clear, so those people will most likely be made redundant soon enough. Any agency that attempts to maintain some kind of DEI undercover will be ruthlessly reformed. Best is to accept that DEI is over and done with and move on. It's a brave new world.

I'll have to admit if the Biden administration hadn't gone so overboard with DEI and just kept the standard generations old affirmative action approach, all of this probably wouldn't be happening.

Except for veterans, there has never been affirmative action in government hiring.

Affirmative action was a very real presence in the Federal bureaucracy and Federal contracting. 8(a) had a massive influence on contracting and hiring and it is the instrument by which AA spread from the Feds to the contractors and into the private sector. I have no idea what you are trying to pretend otherwise.

At no point has there been affirmative action in the hiring of federal employees.

There is affirmative action for veterans.

[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:lol @ the super dumb poster who thinks veterans preference isn’t part of DEI. It absolutely is. And it particularly falls under the “i.” Damn the American education system is really failing people.

Veterans preference is based on a particular type of work experience that reflects virtue and self-sacrifice - it’s WHAT YOU CHOSE TO DO (serve in the military) versus DEI, which is based on characteristics that are not in your control. Normal people can see the difference.

It’s not based on work experience. It’s literally based on how disabled the veteran is. You can argue the merits of “rewarding” people in that situation, but ceases to be about merit (i.e., innate ability) or any type of work experience if that is the main criteria by which the preference is applied.

Getting blown up at work is work experience. Shove it.

Why should the veteran who didn’t get blown up get less preference?

So your point is that you want veterans to get equal preference? Argue away. Still in a different category than DEI.

No I want you to explain why one type of veteran deserves a higher preference than the other. Your argument is that veterans preference is not DEI because the service experience is work that provides them unique skills that make them more qualified. But how is a disabled veteran MORE qualified than one who isn’t? What additional skill do they have because they developed a service-connected cardiac condition?

Because the literal self-sacrifice of your body at work is different.

What extra skill does the veteran who developed a heart condition have compared to the one who didn’t?

Skill is your word. It doesn’t have to confer a skill to be a work experience. Hating on veterans is a really ugly look, so keep doing it because it’s a great red flag for you to carry.

NP. This is your emotion speaking. You believe that veterans have served their country honorably and should get a leg up in hiring for the federal govt. So you think this is a good thing that the govt favor these folk. For other DEI programs, you don’t think these people are worthy of getting any sort of leg up (which is except for veterans is illegal in hiring in govt) and everything should be based on “merit”. So you celebrate the end of “DEI”. But if you were intellectually honest, you would agree that it’s just a matter of who you think is worthy rather than “merit”.

BTW, despite the fact that I get resumes of tons of unqualified veterans that I had to choose from in hiring, I was ok with the process. If they really were not qualified (didn’t have the type of education or skills), I could look at other candidates. But having to read through the vet resumes to see if they could work was a good exercise and I hired one veteran who is hard working and great.

I consider choosing to serve to be a meritorious decision. I don’t think being a certain race or gender is meritorious.

But how does it make the person better able to do the job?

It doesn’t make them better. It means as between two qualified candidates, I will be forced to overcome my subconscious bias for the qualified white male and select instead the black, lesbian, trans female veteran. As it should be to overcome that unfair (if subconscious) bias.

[Anonymous]

Select instead the QUALIFIED black, lesbian, etc.

[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:lol @ the super dumb poster who thinks veterans preference isn’t part of DEI. It absolutely is. And it particularly falls under the “i.” Damn the American education system is really failing people.

Veterans preference is based on a particular type of work experience that reflects virtue and self-sacrifice - it’s WHAT YOU CHOSE TO DO (serve in the military) versus DEI, which is based on characteristics that are not in your control. Normal people can see the difference.

It’s not based on work experience. It’s literally based on how disabled the veteran is. You can argue the merits of “rewarding” people in that situation, but ceases to be about merit (i.e., innate ability) or any type of work experience if that is the main criteria by which the preference is applied.

Getting blown up at work is work experience. Shove it.

Why should the veteran who didn’t get blown up get less preference?

So your point is that you want veterans to get equal preference? Argue away. Still in a different category than DEI.

No I want you to explain why one type of veteran deserves a higher preference than the other. Your argument is that veterans preference is not DEI because the service experience is work that provides them unique skills that make them more qualified. But how is a disabled veteran MORE qualified than one who isn’t? What additional skill do they have because they developed a service-connected cardiac condition?

Because the literal self-sacrifice of your body at work is different.

What extra skill does the veteran who developed a heart condition have compared to the one who didn’t?

Skill is your word. It doesn’t have to confer a skill to be a work experience. Hating on veterans is a really ugly look, so keep doing it because it’s a great red flag for you to carry.

NP. This is your emotion speaking. You believe that veterans have served their country honorably and should get a leg up in hiring for the federal govt. So you think this is a good thing that the govt favor these folk. For other DEI programs, you don’t think these people are worthy of getting any sort of leg up (which is except for veterans is illegal in hiring in govt) and everything should be based on “merit”. So you celebrate the end of “DEI”. But if you were intellectually honest, you would agree that it’s just a matter of who you think is worthy rather than “merit”.

BTW, despite the fact that I get resumes of tons of unqualified veterans that I had to choose from in hiring, I was ok with the process. If they really were not qualified (didn’t have the type of education or skills), I could look at other candidates. But having to read through the vet resumes to see if they could work was a good exercise and I hired one veteran who is hard working and great.

I consider choosing to serve to be a meritorious decision. I don’t think being a certain race or gender is meritorious.

But how does it make the person better able to do the job?

It doesn’t make them better. It means as between two qualified candidates, I will be forced to overcome my subconscious bias for the qualified white male and select instead the black, lesbian, trans female veteran. As it should be to overcome that unfair (if subconscious) bias.

The conversation you were responding to was about why being forced to hire a veteran with a heart condition over one that doesn’t have one is consistent with principles of merit. Nothing to with anything you posted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our DEI head resigned before the inauguration. It’s hard to imagine any staying on give how anti-diversity and exclusionary the incoming administration is.

Ha ha - being against DEI initiatives (which are now being shown to increase racism) does not equal "exclusionary".

Yes, let’s not anger the racists with more diversity or inclusion.

You should embrace the differences since you claim to want diversity.

Fck the racists.

So you don't actually like diversity.

I don’t like intentionally obtuse a-holes.

Racism, misogyny, and political a$$battery are not immutable traits.

A$$battery? Maybe calm down, you're going nuts.

A$$hattery. MAGA.

It’s a typo, twat.

Oh now you’ve done it! Next the Trumpite will tell you’re proving how intolerant DEI is. As though that excuses their racism.

You can see they’re already clogging up the thread with complaints about nonexistent rules that would force them to hire black lesbians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:will they be offered laterals? is it legal to just fire them?

They have been terminated.


https://chcoc.gov/sites/default/files/OPM%20Memo%20Guidance%20Regarding%20RIFs%20of%20DEIA%20Offices%201-24-2025.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:will they be offered laterals? is it legal to just fire them?

They have been terminated.


https://chcoc.gov/sites/default/files/OPM%20Memo%20Guidance%20Regarding%20RIFs%20of%20DEIA%20Offices%201-24-2025.pdf

Not only terminated but they’ve been classified as DEIA employees as only qualified to work in DEIA and therefore wont be able to qualify for another non-DEIA fed job. Extra cruelty.

[Anonymous]

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.

Is it okay to discriminate against someone who had privilege?

And that is the crux of the matter. No, it's not, and it especially doesn't fly well if the white person in question has struggled all their lives. You can't change your skin color or the family you were born into. There has to be a better way of addressing current structural and institutional racism than constantly reminding white people that they are inherently favored by the system... even though it's often true.

- mixed-race person.

[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:lol @ the super dumb poster who thinks veterans preference isn’t part of DEI. It absolutely is. And it particularly falls under the “i.” Damn the American education system is really failing people.

Veterans preference is based on a particular type of work experience that reflects virtue and self-sacrifice - it’s WHAT YOU CHOSE TO DO (serve in the military) versus DEI, which is based on characteristics that are not in your control. Normal people can see the difference.

It’s not based on work experience. It’s literally based on how disabled the veteran is. You can argue the merits of “rewarding” people in that situation, but ceases to be about merit (i.e., innate ability) or any type of work experience if that is the main criteria by which the preference is applied.

Getting blown up at work is work experience. Shove it.

Why should the veteran who didn’t get blown up get less preference?

So your point is that you want veterans to get equal preference? Argue away. Still in a different category than DEI.

No I want you to explain why one type of veteran deserves a higher preference than the other. Your argument is that veterans preference is not DEI because the service experience is work that provides them unique skills that make them more qualified. But how is a disabled veteran MORE qualified than one who isn’t? What additional skill do they have because they developed a service-connected cardiac condition?

Because the literal self-sacrifice of your body at work is different.

What extra skill does the veteran who developed a heart condition have compared to the one who didn’t?

Skill is your word. It doesn’t have to confer a skill to be a work experience. Hating on veterans is a really ugly look, so keep doing it because it’s a great red flag for you to carry.

NP. This is your emotion speaking. You believe that veterans have served their country honorably and should get a leg up in hiring for the federal govt. So you think this is a good thing that the govt favor these folk. For other DEI programs, you don’t think these people are worthy of getting any sort of leg up (which is except for veterans is illegal in hiring in govt) and everything should be based on “merit”. So you celebrate the end of “DEI”. But if you were intellectually honest, you would agree that it’s just a matter of who you think is worthy rather than “merit”.

BTW, despite the fact that I get resumes of tons of unqualified veterans that I had to choose from in hiring, I was ok with the process. If they really were not qualified (didn’t have the type of education or skills), I could look at other candidates. But having to read through the vet resumes to see if they could work was a good exercise and I hired one veteran who is hard working and great.

I consider choosing to serve to be a meritorious decision. I don’t think being a certain race or gender is meritorious.

But how does it make the person better able to do the job?

It doesn’t make them better. It means as between two qualified candidates, I will be forced to overcome my subconscious bias for the qualified white male and select instead the black, lesbian, trans female veteran. As it should be to overcome that unfair (if subconscious) bias.

As a federal hiring manager, all I see on my cert are unqualified veterans. The right keywords aren’t even in their resumes. Idk if USA jobs can’t filter or our HR, but my job requires specialized experience. I have nothing against veterans otherwise and of course would hire if they had experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our DEI head resigned before the inauguration. It’s hard to imagine any staying on give how anti-diversity and exclusionary the incoming administration is.

Ha ha - being against DEI initiatives (which are now being shown to increase racism) does not equal "exclusionary".

Yes, let’s not anger the racists with more diversity or inclusion.

You should embrace the differences since you claim to want diversity.

Fck the racists.

So you don't actually like diversity.

I don’t like intentionally obtuse a-holes.

Racism, misogyny, and political a$$battery are not immutable traits.

A$$battery? Maybe calm down, you're going nuts.

A$$hattery. MAGA.

It’s a typo, twat.

Oh now you’ve done it! Next the Trumpite will tell you’re proving how intolerant DEI is. As though that excuses their racism.

You can see they’re already clogging up the thread with complaints about nonexistent rules that would force them to hire black lesbians.

As if they have any hiring power.

Losers.