Anonymous wrote:You’ll have to wait until a fed gets “injured” … trying to slow him down with these lawsuits at least as they relate to federal workforce will no longer work in the interim.

Right. And no one is getting fired here, it's a resignation.

Maybe there will be injury to litigate if folks don't get paid because of no funding or something.

Anonymous wrote:Why didn’t they offer a VERA, offer a VSIP, then offer the Fork to the people who didn’t qualify for the other two?

I have the same question. 1/3 of my office will take VERA.

Anonymous wrote:Looks like Fork is on, upheld by judge.

https://wtop.com/government/2025/02/judge-clears-way-for-trumps-plan-to-downsize-federal-workforce-with-deferred-resignation-program/

Fork was not "upheld by a judge." The judge decide not to decide.

Anonymous wrote:Paragraph 2 in my opinion is way more concerning. Basically limits district trial court intervention on future lawsuits associated with federal workforce issues. At least that’s how I’m reading it. If so, you’re looking at a massively serious issue for Feds to litigate in the future.

+1

Anonymous wrote:The unions should just continue to advise employees that the deal is not enforceable. If people want to take it anyway, best of luck to them. Perhaps it is a way to weed out weaker employees.

The unions can’t make that determination. None of us can until the courts decide.

Anonymous wrote:You have to ask if they can really pay after the CR ends. Will the next funding have authorization for forking out pay for no work?
Ask someone who understands the budget process. All spending bulls start in the House.

Do you think it’s likely Congress would cut people/feds off from income that way?

People can fork, get pushed via schedule f or find other work, seems those are the likely choices. Things do not look like they are going back.

Why didn’t they offer a VERA, offer a VSIP, then offer the Fork to the people who didn’t qualify for the other two?

The unions should just continue to advise employees that the deal is not enforceable. If people want to take it anyway, best of luck to them. Perhaps it is a way to weed out weaker employees.

You have to ask if they can really pay after the CR ends. Will the next funding have authorization for forking out pay for no work?
Ask someone who understands the budget process. All spending bulls start in the House.

Anonymous wrote:Paragraph 2 in my opinion is way more concerning. Basically limits district trial court intervention on future lawsuits associated with federal workforce issues. At least that’s how I’m reading it. If so, you’re looking at a massively serious issue for Feds to litigate in the future.

Plaintiffs would have to pursue administrative relief first, if it exists. But federal jurisdiction would apply after admin routes are exhausted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Individual Feds lack the $$$ to bring suits.

It could be brought as a class action but lawyers would need a few people willing to put their name on the pleadings.

And to put up $$$, this is not a class action with overwhelmingly likely damages.

Anonymous wrote:Shocked by this.. does this mean it’s legal?

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-allows-trump-proceed-with-government-employee-buyout-2025-02-12/

It means the judge will not block it.

Anonymous wrote:Individual Feds lack the $$$ to bring suits.

It could be brought as a class action but lawyers would need a few people willing to put their name on the pleadings.

You’ll have to wait until a fed gets “injured” … trying to slow him down with these lawsuits at least as they relate to federal workforce will no longer work in the interim.

More here

https://nxslink.thehill.com/view/6230d9e6c22ca34bdd85c791mz3co.19ws/f1d5d188

People really need to embrace this crazy reality and start looking. Fork can be way better than Schedule F, but if you can get clear with another job, more the better.

I was just in a job hunt in my 50s, I know it’s not easy. But the market is only going to get more saturated.

Best to all who are impacted.