Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:at this point I am operating as though every day I could get fired for no reason, and without severance.

+1 and it feels like a RIF would put me out of my misery.

Anonymous wrote:at this point I am operating as though every day I could get fired for no reason, and without severance.

Anonymous wrote:Oh and if the cuts touch the military - even civilian employees of the different branches - THAT is certainly going to spread across the country.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meh only Congress can RIF. Waiting for the court ruling in 3,2,1…

Yes, RIFs are governed by specific statutes. They don’t just happen because a President arbitrarily orders them.

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.

Is there any law that species that Congress must order the reorganization? It seems to me the Executive could reorganize the Executive Branch. Also, there will likely be many arguments there is a shortage of work. When I worked for the federal government 10 years ago, there were literally 3-4 more employees than work needed. Most people twiddled their thumbs most of the working day. I know it’s not like that in every department of every agency, but I think there’s a legitimate argument to be made that there is a shortage of work to support the workforce in at least some instances.

The bottom line is that I would fully expect that these RIFs will proceed and while the courts could delay them, ultimately, neither Congress nor the courts will stop them.

This is an excellent point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems that these cuts would put the economy into a recession. Everything has a ripple effect. Consumer spending would contract. So everyone/everything the workers spend money on would be affected. Mortgage defaults would increase. And all this would happen at a time when prices will increase because of tariffs. As others noted, most of the federal workforce is outside DMV. This would have ripple effects for the entire nation.

This will undoubtedly have a great impact on the DMV. However, it’s unlikely to impact other localities to even close to the same degree.

It definitely would. There is a huge federal government presence in Kansas City, for one. Huntsville, AL, too. There are FBI field offices across the country. Federal courthouses. The national parks and their tourism $$$. The list goes on and on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meh only Congress can RIF. Waiting for the court ruling in 3,2,1…

Yes, RIFs are governed by specific statutes. They don’t just happen because a President arbitrarily orders them.

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.

I love you!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meh only Congress can RIF. Waiting for the court ruling in 3,2,1…

Yes, RIFs are governed by specific statutes. They don’t just happen because a President arbitrarily orders them.

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.

Is there any law that species that Congress must order the reorganization? It seems to me the Executive could reorganize the Executive Branch. Also, there will likely be many arguments there is a shortage of work. When I worked for the federal government 10 years ago, there were literally 3-4 more employees than work needed. Most people twiddled their thumbs most of the working day. I know it’s not like that in every department of every agency, but I think there’s a legitimate argument to be made that there is a shortage of work to support the workforce in at least some instances.

The bottom line is that I would fully expect that these RIFs will proceed and while the courts could delay them, ultimately, neither Congress nor the courts will stop them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meh only Congress can RIF. Waiting for the court ruling in 3,2,1…

Yes, RIFs are governed by specific statutes. They don’t just happen because a President arbitrarily orders them.

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.

Is there any law that species that Congress must order the reorganization? It seems to me the Executive could reorganize the Executive Branch. Also, there will likely be many arguments there is a shortage of work. When I worked for the federal government 10 years ago, there were literally 3-4 more employees than work needed. Most people twiddled their thumbs most of the working day. I know it’s not like that in every department of every agency, but I think there’s a legitimate argument to be made that there is a shortage of work to support the workforce in at least some instances.

The bottom line is that I would fully expect that these RIFs will proceed and while the courts could delay them, ultimately, neither Congress nor the courts will stop them.

Anonymous wrote:What is RIF?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems that these cuts would put the economy into a recession. Everything has a ripple effect. Consumer spending would contract. So everyone/everything the workers spend money on would be affected. Mortgage defaults would increase. And all this would happen at a time when prices will increase because of tariffs. As others noted, most of the federal workforce is outside DMV. This would have ripple effects for the entire nation.

This will undoubtedly have a great impact on the DMV. However, it’s unlikely to impact other localities to even close to the same degree.

Anonymous wrote:It seems that these cuts would put the economy into a recession. Everything has a ripple effect. Consumer spending would contract. So everyone/everything the workers spend money on would be affected. Mortgage defaults would increase. And all this would happen at a time when prices will increase because of tariffs. As others noted, most of the federal workforce is outside DMV. This would have ripple effects for the entire nation.

Anonymous wrote:It seems that these cuts would put the economy into a recession. Everything has a ripple effect. Consumer spending would contract. So everyone/everything the workers spend money on would be affected. Mortgage defaults would increase. And all this would happen at a time when prices will increase because of tariffs. As others noted, most of the federal workforce is outside DMV. This would have ripple effects for the entire nation.