Reply to Executive Order on RIFs coming today

Forum Index » Jobs and Careers

Reply to "Executive Order on RIFs coming today"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Meh only Congress can RIF. Waiting for the court ruling in 3,2,1…[/quote]
Yes, RIFs are governed by specific statutes. They don’t just happen because a President arbitrarily orders them. [/quote]

The basis for NO Reduction in Force (RIF) without a reduction in funding primarily stems from federal appropriations law and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) regulations governing RIF procedures. Here are the key legal foundations:

1. Appropriations Clause of the U.S. Constitution
	•	Article I, Section 9, Clause 7: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”
	•	This means the Executive Branch cannot eliminate federally funded positions without congressional authorization unless the appropriated funds are insufficient to sustain them.

2. Federal Personnel and RIF Laws
	•	5 U.S.C. § 3502 (Retention Preferences and RIF Regulations)
	•	Establishes the legal framework for RIFs, stating that they occur when there is a “lack of work, shortage of funds, or reorganization.”
	•	Without a shortage of funds, agencies cannot conduct RIFs simply for management convenience unless Congress authorizes a restructuring.
	•	5 C.F.R. Part 351 (OPM RIF Regulations)
	•	Defines RIF procedures, specifying that an agency must justify the RIF based on lack of work, shortage of funds, reorganization, or the exercise of a reemployment right.
	•	Agencies must follow these regulations when separating, demoting, or reassigning employees.

3. Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. § 681 et seq.)
	•	Prevents the Executive Branch from withholding or delaying congressionally appropriated funds without approval from Congress.
	•	The White House cannot refuse to use allocated agency funds to force layoffs unless Congress explicitly rescinds or reduces those funds.

4. Antideficiency Act (31 U.S.C. § 1341)
	•	Prohibits government officials from making financial commitments exceeding available appropriations.
	•	If an agency is fully funded, ordering a RIF without a funding shortage could be seen as an unlawful refusal to execute appropriated funds.

5. Federal Vacancies Reform Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 3345–3349d)
	•	Limits the President’s ability to bypass Senate-confirmed leadership and appoint temporary officials who could otherwise attempt to execute mass layoffs without proper authority.

Bottom Line:
	•	RIFs require a legal basis—either a funding shortfall, reorganization, or lack of work.
	•	If Congress has fully funded an agency, the White House cannot unilaterally RIF employees unless:
	1.	Congress authorizes a reorganization (e.g., through specific legislation).
	2.	The agency faces a legitimate shortage of work (not just a preference for downsizing).
	3.	Funds are rescinded or restricted by law (requiring a congressional act).

In summary, a lack of reduced funding means an agency has no statutory basis to RIF employees unless Congress explicitly permits it.[/quote]

Can you ELI5?[/quote]

There needs be an actual deficiency in funds (eg, lack of appropriations, work the generates fees) before an agency can undertake a RIF. 
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics