DEI RIFs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The simultaneous defense of these EOs and disparaging of DEIA, while also defending veterans preference makes my head spin. Talk about a detriment to meritocracy - hiring managers essentially don’t even have the option to pass over a veteran and the bar to prove one is unqualified is near impossible

Complete hypocrisy

False equivalency. Veterans come in all race and both genders and always have. There are black veterans, you know.

There is a genuine argument to be made that people who volunteered to serve the country should receive some kind of Federal preference in hiring.

I am as liberal as they come and I fully support veterans benefits over others. They have sacrificed more than I know, and I’m good with them getting a benefit for that.

The vast majority of veterans never served in combat and worked normal office jobs while on active duty. Yes, they probably moved a lot, but so do diplomats and a lot of
other people.

I don’t think you ever served in the military and you don’t really understand what being in the military entails.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The simultaneous defense of these EOs and disparaging of DEIA, while also defending veterans preference makes my head spin. Talk about a detriment to meritocracy - hiring managers essentially don’t even have the option to pass over a veteran and the bar to prove one is unqualified is near impossible

Complete hypocrisy

False equivalency. Veterans come in all race and both genders and always have. There are black veterans, you know.

There is a genuine argument to be made that people who volunteered to serve the country should receive some kind of Federal preference in hiring.

I am as liberal as they come and I fully support veterans benefits over others. They have sacrificed more than I know, and I’m good with them getting a benefit for that.

The vast majority of veterans never served in combat and worked normal office jobs while on active duty. Yes, they probably moved a lot, but so do diplomats and a lot of
other people.

I don’t think you ever served in the military and you don’t really understand what being in the military entails.

You are correct. I’ve never served in the military. I may not know many military folks, but I do know they all of them voluntarily chose to serve. They made a choice. Only vets who served honorably in combat deserve vet preference. The gravy train needs to end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Got emmmm

This is what it would look like if she was given a different role.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The simultaneous defense of these EOs and disparaging of DEIA, while also defending veterans preference makes my head spin. Talk about a detriment to meritocracy - hiring managers essentially don’t even have the option to pass over a veteran and the bar to prove one is unqualified is near impossible

Complete hypocrisy

False equivalency. Veterans come in all race and both genders and always have. There are black veterans, you know.

There is a genuine argument to be made that people who volunteered to serve the country should receive some kind of Federal preference in hiring.

I am as liberal as they come and I fully support veterans benefits over others. They have sacrificed more than I know, and I’m good with them getting a benefit for that.

The vast majority of veterans never served in combat and worked normal office jobs while on active duty. Yes, they probably moved a lot, but so do diplomats and a lot of
other people.

I don’t think you ever served in the military and you don’t really understand what being in the military entails.

+1 There are a LOT of vets in the workforce who deployed to OIF and OEF and were in some sort of support role and did not see direct combat. My spouse is a former medical service corps officer (allied health profession, doctorate level) and was going from FOB to FOB on Blackhawks treating patients. They were on one that was shot down and took a "hard landing" in January 2007 during the worst of it in Iraq. Has a pretty significant disability rating for it and just started a fed job a few months ago- we are concerned with the probationary memo, although they would make more in private practice, the flexibility and remote work promised in the recruitment notice were worth the pay cut. They were hired under a fully remote announcement. So...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Got emmmm

This is what it would look like if she was given a different role.

The Administration made clear that shuffling people around into different roles would not be tolerated if there's any inkling of DEI in "resistance." If her role changed to something that is clearly not related to DEI with different sets of responsibilities then I imagine she'll be fine but the agencies need to proceed carefully. DEI is dead and over with. I don't doubt the Trump Administration will be appointing people whose job is to investigate and make sure there's no resistance in undercover. They really hate, and with justifiable reasons, unfortunately, the Biden Administration's DEI policies and are determined to eliminate every aspects of it from the entire Federal bureaucracy. Even more unfortunately for at least some of you, these are widely popular reforms to most Americans, who do not support DEI so any concept of a backlash is badly misguided.

Most Americans will not care what happens to the Federal agencies and bureaucracy as long as the entitlement programs aren't touched. Given that there's no need for DEI in the entitlement programs, DEI is on the chopping block.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The simultaneous defense of these EOs and disparaging of DEIA, while also defending veterans preference makes my head spin. Talk about a detriment to meritocracy - hiring managers essentially don’t even have the option to pass over a veteran and the bar to prove one is unqualified is near impossible

Complete hypocrisy

False equivalency. Veterans come in all race and both genders and always have. There are black veterans, you know.

There is a genuine argument to be made that people who volunteered to serve the country should receive some kind of Federal preference in hiring.

I am as liberal as they come and I fully support veterans benefits over others. They have sacrificed more than I know, and I’m good with them getting a benefit for that.

The vast majority of veterans never served in combat and worked normal office jobs while on active duty. Yes, they probably moved a lot, but so do diplomats and a lot of
other people.

I don’t think you ever served in the military and you don’t really understand what being in the military entails.

You are correct. I’ve never served in the military. I may not know many military folks, but I do know they all of them voluntarily chose to serve. They made a choice. Only vets who served honorably in combat deserve vet preference. The gravy train needs to end.

NP but you could use voluntarily to excuse away a lot of benefits. People voluntarily crossed the border illegally with their kids, people voluntarily take on student loans, etc. As a society, at least up until five days ago, we made some efforts to help those individuals. I don’t see a problem with a veteran preference.

[Anonymous]

Has anyone seen a citation for the number of people that were RIFed under the DEI EO?

[Anonymous]

The answer is zero
No one has been fired

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The answer is zero
No one has been fired

They all will be within 60 days per the memo.

[Anonymous]

Yee-hah! No more DEI. Merit is back!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yee-hah! No more DEI. Merit is back!

Back? Meh, merit will never be a thing until there is flat out blind hiring. Give managers qualifications and interviews without faces. Then we can focus on merit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

... nor employees of contractors. The EO Trump removed actually prohibited that. But he stupidly thought it required that. LOL.

Come off it. You're hiding behind semantics. You're not persuading anyone. Employees were legally required to report hiring data on minorities to the Federal government. There was an entire bureaucracy around AA. And as someone who worked in Federal contracting, over the last four years there was definitely, unquestionably, a push to emphasize DEI across contracting and hiring much more explicitly than before.

I'm not hiding anything and when it comes to law semantics matter -- entirely.

The disinformation you are spreading is that these EO or laws required preferential treatment in hiring or quotas. They didn't. Show me the actual text of a law or EO that allowed or required mandatory hiring quotas or preferences in hiring employees based on race, gender, or national origin. [spoiler alert: the EO that Trump just revoked did neither, and in fact prohibited it].

For those who care to understand, affirmative action here actually meant taking affirmative action to make sure that your job opening information reaches a broad audience (i.e., you don't only publish in a newspaper of 100% homogenous town or exclusively recruit on campuses that are homogenous), and that you track applicant and hiring data to periodically make sure that you are reaching a broad pool of applicants and that your data does not suggest a pattern of discrimination; you form "goals" based on what your data shows and track progress toward goals, but you many not ever make a decision based on discriminatory criteria, even to meat those goals. If you don't meet your goals, there is no penalty, you need to review what you are doing in hiring to make sure your goals are still valid and if so that you are not missing your goals due to discrimination. An Affirmative Action Plan, essentially is a record of where you posted jobs, and list of applicants and hires. Very boring documents, and something HR has to do anyway.

The difference now is they don't have to turn that data over to the government, and they won't be audited on it. There were resources out there that made compliance easy, like posting job openings in certain government data bases. Those may go away, except for the ones exclusive to veterans, which is probably less of a big deal now that most hiring is on line -- but when the government first centralized job data bases like this it was novel. Personally, I think it is much ado about nothing, except for the disinformation being spread about what had actually changed based on this particular EO.

NP. As a federal contractor, we were told by our HR that we had to interview more black candidates and more male candidates, and we were told we had to hire from that group.

we were told the same thing and I quietly reported them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The answer is zero
No one has been fired

Ok, the number that has been put on admin leave and will likely be RIFed, according to the OPM memo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is zero
No one has been fired

Ok, the number that has been put on admin leave and will likely be RIFed, according to the OPM memo.

Further, the number that are veterans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The simultaneous defense of these EOs and disparaging of DEIA, while also defending veterans preference makes my head spin. Talk about a detriment to meritocracy - hiring managers essentially don’t even have the option to pass over a veteran and the bar to prove one is unqualified is near impossible

Complete hypocrisy

False equivalency. Veterans come in all race and both genders and always have. There are black veterans, you know.

There is a genuine argument to be made that people who volunteered to serve the country should receive some kind of Federal preference in hiring.

After seeing your comment I just glanced and the 2022 PowerPoint I found said the army was 20% black and Google said the whole US is 13% black. So, if those are correct then rewarding veterans service appears to be a boost for blacks because they are more highly represented in the veterans pool than the general population? Maybe someone has better/more recent stats covering all the services.