Anonymous
01/22/2025 11:42
Subject: DEI RIFs
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.
Oh come on. Not only were existing jobs transferred / repurposed, but people apply to newly created openings for all the same reasons that anybody applies to any job. Do you think the people who work in procurement are really passionate about buying pencils? Should they be vilified, as individuals, if they work on the purchase of tanks and then a later administration doesn't want tanks?
I’m not the PP but I have compassion for many of the people who may lose their jobs. That’s a terrible situation. However, anyone who applied for these positions should have noted that this was not a long term strategy. Trump or no Trump, it would have faded out. The private sector has slowly been cutting back on these positions and some companies have eliminated them altogether. This isn’t EEO.
And even if the individuals put out some awful webinars, they had to come up with something to meet their metrics. It’s understandable. Unfortunately, it’s also not necessarily value added.
Those are fine reasons to close an office and reassign people or lay them off, but not to act like these individual employees are the problem. That's my point. We all carry out direction from politicals. The next political may disagree with today's direction, but the employee isn't wrong for carrying out today's direction as best they can.
Anonymous
01/22/2025 11:41
Subject: DEI RIFs
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
Hate and revenge? That’s a bit much. Many of the posters here who have criticized this job series aren’t white Christian men.
These positions have been staffed up in the last four years. No, it’s not cool for those people to lose their jobs and I hope they can apply elsewhere. But it not like it’s a foundational part of any agency.
Anonymous
01/22/2025 11:40
Subject: DEI RIFs
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.
Oh come on. Not only were existing jobs transferred / repurposed, but people apply to newly created openings for all the same reasons that anybody applies to any job. Do you think the people who work in procurement are really passionate about buying pencils? Should they be vilified, as individuals, if they work on the purchase of tanks and then a later administration doesn't want tanks?
I’m not the PP but I have compassion for many of the people who may lose their jobs. That’s a terrible situation. However, anyone who applied for these positions should have noted that this was not a long term strategy.
Degrees from diploma mills totally correlate with the capacity for sound judgment and strategic thinking, so...
Anonymous
01/22/2025 11:39
Subject: DEI RIFs
I had no idea that there were actual DEI jobs in the federal government. I thought these were initiatives that were just part of the overall mission and training, but not outright dedicated jobs.
Anonymous
01/22/2025 11:38
Subject: DEI RIFs
The pendulum swung to far on the DEI initiatives. It happened right after COVID. The pendulum needs to swing the other way now. Use this time to repoint your career in a new direction.
Anonymous
01/22/2025 11:35
Subject: DEI RIFs
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.
Oh come on. Not only were existing jobs transferred / repurposed, but people apply to newly created openings for all the same reasons that anybody applies to any job. Do you think the people who work in procurement are really passionate about buying pencils? Should they be vilified, as individuals, if they work on the purchase of tanks and then a later administration doesn't want tanks?
I’m not the PP but I have compassion for many of the people who may lose their jobs. That’s a terrible situation. However, anyone who applied for these positions should have noted that this was not a long term strategy. Trump or no Trump, it would have faded out. The private sector has slowly been cutting back on these positions and some companies have eliminated them altogether. This isn’t EEO.
And even if the individuals put out some awful webinars, they had to come up with something to meet their metrics. It’s understandable. Unfortunately, it’s also not necessarily value added.
Anonymous
01/22/2025 11:28
Subject: DEI RIFs
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.
Oh come on. Not only were existing jobs transferred / repurposed, but people apply to newly created openings for all the same reasons that anybody applies to any job. Do you think the people who work in procurement are really passionate about buying pencils? Should they be vilified, as individuals, if they work on the purchase of tanks and then a later administration doesn't want tanks?
Anonymous
01/22/2025 11:26
Subject: DEI RIFs
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
Anonymous
01/22/2025 11:19
Subject: DEI RIFs
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.
Anonymous
01/22/2025 11:12
Subject: DEI RIFs
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.
The voters chose this. Trump told us he is a vindictive POS who doesn't respect the rule of law or the federal bureaucracy, and this is what voters wanted. He has fewer people around him willing to reign him in. I'd expect constant chaos for the next 4 years.
Anonymous
01/22/2025 10:58
Subject: DEI RIFs
Is DEI = WFH jobs or jobs with family friendly hours?
Anonymous
01/22/2025 10:58
Subject: DEI RIFs
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.
Anonymous
01/22/2025 10:56
Subject: DEI RIFs
How many people are in 'DEI' jobs?
Anonymous
01/22/2025 10:56
Subject: DEI RIFs
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My DH was asked to track his GDEI contacts in a spreadsheet. Like, as in label people by name, industry, etc. He wasn’t allowed to ask them, of course, but was he supposed to guess if they were gay, Latino, Asian, AA and would want to be listed as such? His agency wanted his office to track them so they could report DEI metrics.
His office didn’t do it. They guessed it was a pretty bad idea. The performative tracking was scary.
I’m a minority and my fed DH is white. I said heck no to the secretive tracking.
This is made up
It 100% is not made up. I know, it may seem fake but it’s true. I think DH still has the email. He kept it just in case they got in trouble later. This is moot because they decided not to follow the directive.
It was put in place support their metrics up the chain, not for any other reason. Don’t think this doesn’t happen m.
Anonymous
01/22/2025 10:55
Subject: DEI RIFs
What is a DEI hire?