Anonymous wrote:IRS received the rif notices.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why did he need the excuse of a shutdown to layoff?
Couldn't he do the same layoffs when there was no shutdown?
Yes, but he has to follow the procedures of 'Reduction in Force' and show these jobs are not needed.
That is easy to do when they are deemed non-essential as part of a shutdown.
That's not what "non-essential" means for purposes of a shutdown. It has a specific definition that makes it very limited who qualifies to keep working. It doesn't mean people not working aren't essential to the mission. Furthermore, and I speak from personal experience as someone who has liaisoned with OMB in prior shutdowns, they sometimes use their executive authority to cast the net wider than it needs to be to prove a point or for political reasons. I'd say that happens quite a lot, actually.
I wish people would understand that.
Correct. Contracting officers or HR, for example, might be deemed “nonessential” during a shutdown; however, they certainly become essential once the government re-opens.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why did he need the excuse of a shutdown to layoff?
Couldn't he do the same layoffs when there was no shutdown?
Yes, but he has to follow the procedures of 'Reduction in Force' and show these jobs are not needed.
That is easy to do when they are deemed non-essential as part of a shutdown.
That's not what "non-essential" means for purposes of a shutdown. It has a specific definition that makes it very limited who qualifies to keep working. It doesn't mean people not working aren't essential to the mission. Furthermore, and I speak from personal experience as someone who has liaisoned with OMB in prior shutdowns, they sometimes use their executive authority to cast the net wider than it needs to be to prove a point or for political reasons. I'd say that happens quite a lot, actually.
I wish people would understand that.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why did he need the excuse of a shutdown to layoff?
Couldn't he do the same layoffs when there was no shutdown?
Yes, but he has to follow the procedures of 'Reduction in Force' and show these jobs are not needed.
That is easy to do when they are deemed non-essential as part of a shutdown.
Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile, Mike Johnson is keeping the House closed next week. The earliest they can be in session is now October 20.
Anonymous wrote:Why did he need the excuse of a shutdown to layoff?
Couldn't he do the same layoffs when there was no shutdown?
Anonymous wrote:
The guy is a mutant. So bizarre how he has villified federal employees, as though civil servants are criminals. I'd love to know why he is so full of hate and evil.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why did he need the excuse of a shutdown to layoff?
Couldn't he do the same layoffs when there was no shutdown?
Yes, but he has to follow the procedures of 'Reduction in Force' and show these jobs are not needed.
That is easy to do when they are deemed non-essential as part of a shutdown.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
lol
This is such a screwup. The GOP has so missed the fact that saying you don’t want a shutdown and then RIFing however many more people this represents is at fundamental odds. Vought and Miller and Trump are birds of a feather: little boys being spiteful and destructive without any strategy whatsoever.
Can’t wait for the chickens to come home to roost.
And they're doing it just as things are starting to get bad at airports. I assume they aren't firing any ATCs or TSA, but the general public will just hear that lots of feds are getting fired and then see the delayed flights and packed airports and assume they are connected.
Duffy has said that he will be firing ATC who call out sick, which so far is about 10% of them. Making the current delays at airports permanent.
It's a great plan.