Oooh that is quite a stretch OP. The flyer does talk about undermining public service, loss of expertise, and lack of agency accountability or transparency. And even the issues like lack of respect for fed employees and threatening livelihoods will affect the public when there’s no one competent willing to work for these programs because of the horrible treatment of employees.

There are lots of 2 Fed families, with parents working for totally unrelated parts of the civil service. Those families often can't move outside metro DC without one parent becoming unemployed, so they stay here and try to lateral within the civil service.

Anonymous wrote:the sad thing is, farmers will be thrilled with dismantling USDA.

So long as they remain on the government dole, farmers will always favor a smaller government.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the sad thing is, farmers will be thrilled with dismantling USDA.

Not really. USDA does a ton of loans that keep farms afloat, as well as grant money and free services.

+1. Farmers are reliant on USDA. And they were VERY reliant on USAID as well.

Thanks for sharing!

Protesting is ridiculous - the entire economy is about to collapse, the entire political system is dead - what are you hoping protest will do?

Anonymous wrote:the sad thing is, farmers will be thrilled with dismantling USDA.

Not really. USDA does a ton of loans that keep farms afloat, as well as grant money and free services.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s telling that the flyer focuses primarily on job security and livelihoods, with only a minimal nod to public service. There’s no mention of how these roles serve the broader mission of the country, contribute to national welfare, or involve any real sacrifice. That kind of framing makes it easy for the public to see this more as self-preservation than public duty, which undercuts sympathy and reinforces the idea that these individuals are more concerned with themselves than the people they’re meant to serve.

The top of the list is "dismantles critical programs." The stated problem with the reorg is that it "threatens our livelihoods and undermines public services."

This is a union flyer directed to agency employees. That audience doesn't need to be reminded what the agency does.

Thank you for the clarification.

Claiming the flyer is just for employees misses the point entirely. The way you frame your fight says everything about what you really care about. If job protection takes center stage and the public mission gets a token mention, that reveals priorities.

If this reorg truly threatens critical services, that should be front and center. The fact that it's not makes it clear the driving concern is personal security, not public impact. That kind of messaging doesn't build solidarity. It exposes a workforce more concerned with protecting itself than with protecting the people it's supposed to serve.

Your concern trolling is not warranted because, as stated, "critical programs" is already at the top of the list on that flyer.

What you seem to be saying is that any mention of livelihoods is inappropriate, and that Feds are only allowed to be mad on behalf of their stakeholders and not themselves.
That's nonsense. Most everyone can be mad about two things at once.

But you could always make your own flyer instead of complaining. Please post a copy so we can learn from it!

the sad thing is, farmers will be thrilled with dismantling USDA.

Anonymous wrote:It’s telling that the flyer focuses primarily on job security and livelihoods, with only a minimal nod to public service. There’s no mention of how these roles serve the broader mission of the country, contribute to national welfare, or involve any real sacrifice. That kind of framing makes it easy for the public to see this more as self-preservation than public duty, which undercuts sympathy and reinforces the idea that these individuals are more concerned with themselves than the people they’re meant to serve.

As other said, that is union flyer to its union members. It may not be the protest sign, people can bring their own signs.

Federal workers are essential to carrying out the mission of public service. But beyond their roles, they are also human beings — with families, roots, and lives often deeply settled in one place. Relocation or major disruption isn't just a logistical change; it's a personal and emotional burden that impacts entire households.

Many federal workers will choose not to relocate — not out of unwillingness to serve, but because of deep ties to their communities, families, and responsibilities at home. If forced to move, many will resign, leading to a significant loss of expertise and institutional knowledge. This is not a hypothetical concern; we have already experienced a serious erosion of institutional memory earlier this year due to the sudden loss of experienced employees. Rebuilding that capacity will take years, and the effectiveness of public service will suffer in the meantime.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s telling that the flyer focuses primarily on job security and livelihoods, with only a minimal nod to public service. There’s no mention of how these roles serve the broader mission of the country, contribute to national welfare, or involve any real sacrifice. That kind of framing makes it easy for the public to see this more as self-preservation than public duty, which undercuts sympathy and reinforces the idea that these individuals are more concerned with themselves than the people they’re meant to serve.

The top of the list is "dismantles critical programs." The stated problem with the reorg is that it "threatens our livelihoods and undermines public services."

This is a union flyer directed to agency employees. That audience doesn't need to be reminded what the agency does.

Thank you for the clarification.

Claiming the flyer is just for employees misses the point entirely. The way you frame your fight says everything about what you really care about. If job protection takes center stage and the public mission gets a token mention, that reveals priorities.

If this reorg truly threatens critical services, that should be front and center. The fact that it's not makes it clear the driving concern is personal security, not public impact. That kind of messaging doesn't build solidarity. It exposes a workforce more concerned with protecting itself than with protecting the people it's supposed to serve.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s telling that the flyer focuses primarily on job security and livelihoods, with only a minimal nod to public service. There’s no mention of how these roles serve the broader mission of the country, contribute to national welfare, or involve any real sacrifice. That kind of framing makes it easy for the public to see this more as self-preservation than public duty, which undercuts sympathy and reinforces the idea that these individuals are more concerned with themselves than the people they’re meant to serve.

The top of the list is "dismantles critical programs." The stated problem with the reorg is that it "threatens our livelihoods and undermines public services."

This is a union flyer directed to agency employees. That audience doesn't need to be reminded what the agency does.

Thank you for the clarification.

Anonymous wrote:It’s telling that the flyer focuses primarily on job security and livelihoods, with only a minimal nod to public service. There’s no mention of how these roles serve the broader mission of the country, contribute to national welfare, or involve any real sacrifice. That kind of framing makes it easy for the public to see this more as self-preservation than public duty, which undercuts sympathy and reinforces the idea that these individuals are more concerned with themselves than the people they’re meant to serve.

The top of the list is "dismantles critical programs." The stated problem with the reorg is that it "threatens our livelihoods and undermines public services."

This is a union flyer directed to agency employees. That audience doesn't need to be reminded what the agency does.

It’s telling that the flyer focuses primarily on job security and livelihoods, with only a minimal nod to public service. There’s no mention of how these roles serve the broader mission of the country, contribute to national welfare, or involve any real sacrifice. That kind of framing makes it easy for the public to see this more as self-preservation than public duty, which undercuts sympathy and reinforces the idea that these individuals are more concerned with themselves than the people they’re meant to serve.

Saw it on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/USDA/comments/1mf44u2/reorg_protest_on_monday/