Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:will they be offered laterals? is it legal to just fire them?

They have been terminated.


https://chcoc.gov/sites/default/files/OPM%20Memo%20Guidance%20Regarding%20RIFs%20of%20DEIA%20Offices%201-24-2025.pdf

Not only terminated but they’ve been classified as DEIA employees as only qualified to work in DEIA and therefore wont be able to qualify for another non-DEIA fed job. Extra cruelty.

When you take a racist job whose sole purpose is to categorize people into racial groups and hire and promote based on that, you should be persona non grata.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The moving of DEI people to EEO offices in some agencies won't last. The executive orders made that explicitly clear, so those people will most likely be made redundant soon enough. Any agency that attempts to maintain some kind of DEI undercover will be ruthlessly reformed. Best is to accept that DEI is over and done with and move on. It's a brave new world.

I'll have to admit if the Biden administration hadn't gone so overboard with DEI and just kept the standard generations old affirmative action approach, all of this probably wouldn't be happening.

Except for veterans, there has never been affirmative action in government hiring.

Affirmative action was a very real presence in the Federal bureaucracy and Federal contracting. 8(a) had a massive influence on contracting and hiring and it is the instrument by which AA spread from the Feds to the contractors and into the private sector. I have no idea what you are trying to pretend otherwise.

At no point has there been affirmative action in the hiring of federal employees.

... nor employees of contractors. The EO Trump removed actually prohibited that. But he stupidly thought it required that. LOL.

Come off it. You're hiding behind semantics. You're not persuading anyone. Employees were legally required to report hiring data on minorities to the Federal government. There was an entire bureaucracy around AA. And as someone who worked in Federal contracting, over the last four years there was definitely, unquestionably, a push to emphasize DEI across contracting and hiring much more explicitly than before.

Nothing you said allows or requires discriminatory hiring and you know it as well as I do. It is NOT semantics. It is law.

Please. Anyone who deals with federal hiring knows there was a finger on the scale for DEI hires.

There wasn't. You are making this up.

Not my prior post, but I saw this at my agency where it seemed that oftentimes clearly less qualified individuals were moved into high-level roles. The only explanation I could conceive of was the optics of not have a proportional percentage of minorities in executive roles relative to their numbers in the general employee population - it just wouldn't look good to have the top ranks be all Caucasian males and females while other demographics disproportionally populated lower grade positions. And, I believe those klnds of measures were tracked and reported, although to whom I do not know, by the agency EEO office. There must have been a reason, but the only obvious one was to be able to presume that minorities should always be present at high grade levels, without regard to other bases for selecting candidates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The moving of DEI people to EEO offices in some agencies won't last. The executive orders made that explicitly clear, so those people will most likely be made redundant soon enough. Any agency that attempts to maintain some kind of DEI undercover will be ruthlessly reformed. Best is to accept that DEI is over and done with and move on. It's a brave new world.

I'll have to admit if the Biden administration hadn't gone so overboard with DEI and just kept the standard generations old affirmative action approach, all of this probably wouldn't be happening.

Except for veterans, there has never been affirmative action in government hiring.

Affirmative action was a very real presence in the Federal bureaucracy and Federal contracting. 8(a) had a massive influence on contracting and hiring and it is the instrument by which AA spread from the Feds to the contractors and into the private sector. I have no idea what you are trying to pretend otherwise.

At no point has there been affirmative action in the hiring of federal employees.

... nor employees of contractors. The EO Trump removed actually prohibited that. But he stupidly thought it required that. LOL.

Come off it. You're hiding behind semantics. You're not persuading anyone. Employees were legally required to report hiring data on minorities to the Federal government. There was an entire bureaucracy around AA. And as someone who worked in Federal contracting, over the last four years there was definitely, unquestionably, a push to emphasize DEI across contracting and hiring much more explicitly than before.

Nothing you said allows or requires discriminatory hiring and you know it as well as I do. It is NOT semantics. It is law.

Please. Anyone who deals with federal hiring knows there was a finger on the scale for DEI hires.

There wasn't. You are making this up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The moving of DEI people to EEO offices in some agencies won't last. The executive orders made that explicitly clear, so those people will most likely be made redundant soon enough. Any agency that attempts to maintain some kind of DEI undercover will be ruthlessly reformed. Best is to accept that DEI is over and done with and move on. It's a brave new world.

I'll have to admit if the Biden administration hadn't gone so overboard with DEI and just kept the standard generations old affirmative action approach, all of this probably wouldn't be happening.

Except for veterans, there has never been affirmative action in government hiring.

Affirmative action was a very real presence in the Federal bureaucracy and Federal contracting. 8(a) had a massive influence on contracting and hiring and it is the instrument by which AA spread from the Feds to the contractors and into the private sector. I have no idea what you are trying to pretend otherwise.

At no point has there been affirmative action in the hiring of federal employees.

... nor employees of contractors. The EO Trump removed actually prohibited that. But he stupidly thought it required that. LOL.

Come off it. You're hiding behind semantics. You're not persuading anyone. Employees were legally required to report hiring data on minorities to the Federal government. There was an entire bureaucracy around AA. And as someone who worked in Federal contracting, over the last four years there was definitely, unquestionably, a push to emphasize DEI across contracting and hiring much more explicitly than before.

Nothing you said allows or requires discriminatory hiring and you know it as well as I do. It is NOT semantics. It is law.

Please. Anyone who deals with federal hiring knows there was a finger on the scale for DEI hires.

I deal with federal hiring and that was never my experience.

Federal contracting, absolutely. The small businesses with the veteran female Pacific Islander owner. Which was official policy, and everyone would tell you about the fraud that happened.

There was never anything remotely comparable in federal hiring. I'm not saying this didn't happen anywhere, anytime, but I rated candidates, I know how the process went, and there was no room where this could have happened.

As if reality/facts matter to the MAGA losers. They would rather die than give up their faux narrative.

Our DEI head is a white conservative veteran. He was wounded in service and was open about how the pain from that event impacted his life. I don’t know if he’s a Trumper, but for reasons, we know he’s conservative.

He is currently on admin leave b/c of DEI hate and I feel for him. He’s one of the nicest ppl. Pushed to improve accessibility improvements for the disabled. Provided a helpful space to process divergent views with management. Processed RA requests.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The moving of DEI people to EEO offices in some agencies won't last. The executive orders made that explicitly clear, so those people will most likely be made redundant soon enough. Any agency that attempts to maintain some kind of DEI undercover will be ruthlessly reformed. Best is to accept that DEI is over and done with and move on. It's a brave new world.

I'll have to admit if the Biden administration hadn't gone so overboard with DEI and just kept the standard generations old affirmative action approach, all of this probably wouldn't be happening.

Except for veterans, there has never been affirmative action in government hiring.

Affirmative action was a very real presence in the Federal bureaucracy and Federal contracting. 8(a) had a massive influence on contracting and hiring and it is the instrument by which AA spread from the Feds to the contractors and into the private sector. I have no idea what you are trying to pretend otherwise.

At no point has there been affirmative action in the hiring of federal employees.

... nor employees of contractors. The EO Trump removed actually prohibited that. But he stupidly thought it required that. LOL.

Come off it. You're hiding behind semantics. You're not persuading anyone. Employees were legally required to report hiring data on minorities to the Federal government. There was an entire bureaucracy around AA. And as someone who worked in Federal contracting, over the last four years there was definitely, unquestionably, a push to emphasize DEI across contracting and hiring much more explicitly than before.

Nothing you said allows or requires discriminatory hiring and you know it as well as I do. It is NOT semantics. It is law.

Please. Anyone who deals with federal hiring knows there was a finger on the scale for DEI hires.

I deal with federal hiring and that was never my experience.

Federal contracting, absolutely. The small businesses with the veteran female Pacific Islander owner. Which was official policy, and everyone would tell you about the fraud that happened.

There was never anything remotely comparable in federal hiring. I'm not saying this didn't happen anywhere, anytime, but I rated candidates, I know how the process went, and there was no room where this could have happened.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The moving of DEI people to EEO offices in some agencies won't last. The executive orders made that explicitly clear, so those people will most likely be made redundant soon enough. Any agency that attempts to maintain some kind of DEI undercover will be ruthlessly reformed. Best is to accept that DEI is over and done with and move on. It's a brave new world.

I'll have to admit if the Biden administration hadn't gone so overboard with DEI and just kept the standard generations old affirmative action approach, all of this probably wouldn't be happening.

Except for veterans, there has never been affirmative action in government hiring.

Affirmative action was a very real presence in the Federal bureaucracy and Federal contracting. 8(a) had a massive influence on contracting and hiring and it is the instrument by which AA spread from the Feds to the contractors and into the private sector. I have no idea what you are trying to pretend otherwise.

At no point has there been affirmative action in the hiring of federal employees.

... nor employees of contractors. The EO Trump removed actually prohibited that. But he stupidly thought it required that. LOL.

Come off it. You're hiding behind semantics. You're not persuading anyone. Employees were legally required to report hiring data on minorities to the Federal government. There was an entire bureaucracy around AA. And as someone who worked in Federal contracting, over the last four years there was definitely, unquestionably, a push to emphasize DEI across contracting and hiring much more explicitly than before.

I'm not hiding anything and when it comes to law semantics matter -- entirely.

The disinformation you are spreading is that these EO or laws required preferential treatment in hiring or quotas. They didn't. Show me the actual text of a law or EO that allowed or required mandatory hiring quotas or preferences in hiring employees based on race, gender, or national origin. [spoiler alert: the EO that Trump just revoked did neither, and in fact prohibited it].

For those who care to understand, affirmative action here actually meant taking affirmative action to make sure that your job opening information reaches a broad audience (i.e., you don't only publish in a newspaper of 100% homogenous town or exclusively recruit on campuses that are homogenous), and that you track applicant and hiring data to periodically make sure that you are reaching a broad pool of applicants and that your data does not suggest a pattern of discrimination; you form "goals" based on what your data shows and track progress toward goals, but you many not ever make a decision based on discriminatory criteria, even to meat those goals. If you don't meet your goals, there is no penalty, you need to review what you are doing in hiring to make sure your goals are still valid and if so that you are not missing your goals due to discrimination. An Affirmative Action Plan, essentially is a record of where you posted jobs, and list of applicants and hires. Very boring documents, and something HR has to do anyway.

The difference now is they don't have to turn that data over to the government, and they won't be audited on it. There were resources out there that made compliance easy, like posting job openings in certain government data bases. Those may go away, except for the ones exclusive to veterans, which is probably less of a big deal now that most hiring is on line -- but when the government first centralized job data bases like this it was novel. Personally, I think it is much ado about nothing, except for the disinformation being spread about what had actually changed based on this particular EO.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The moving of DEI people to EEO offices in some agencies won't last. The executive orders made that explicitly clear, so those people will most likely be made redundant soon enough. Any agency that attempts to maintain some kind of DEI undercover will be ruthlessly reformed. Best is to accept that DEI is over and done with and move on. It's a brave new world.

I'll have to admit if the Biden administration hadn't gone so overboard with DEI and just kept the standard generations old affirmative action approach, all of this probably wouldn't be happening.

Except for veterans, there has never been affirmative action in government hiring.

Affirmative action was a very real presence in the Federal bureaucracy and Federal contracting. 8(a) had a massive influence on contracting and hiring and it is the instrument by which AA spread from the Feds to the contractors and into the private sector. I have no idea what you are trying to pretend otherwise.

At no point has there been affirmative action in the hiring of federal employees.

... nor employees of contractors. The EO Trump removed actually prohibited that. But he stupidly thought it required that. LOL.

Come off it. You're hiding behind semantics. You're not persuading anyone. Employees were legally required to report hiring data on minorities to the Federal government. There was an entire bureaucracy around AA. And as someone who worked in Federal contracting, over the last four years there was definitely, unquestionably, a push to emphasize DEI across contracting and hiring much more explicitly than before.

Nothing you said allows or requires discriminatory hiring and you know it as well as I do. It is NOT semantics. It is law.

Please. Anyone who deals with federal hiring knows there was a finger on the scale for DEI hires.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any agency actually put DEI staff on admin leave?

Mine did, sub component of DHS. They were put on admin leave yesterday and mgt was told they were not allowed to reassign. All will be terminated on the 30th.

You cannot legally prevent someone from resigning (hello, slavery and indentured servitude are still illegal - so far). What a joke these bully losers are.

Calm down. PP said “reassign” not “resign.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The moving of DEI people to EEO offices in some agencies won't last. The executive orders made that explicitly clear, so those people will most likely be made redundant soon enough. Any agency that attempts to maintain some kind of DEI undercover will be ruthlessly reformed. Best is to accept that DEI is over and done with and move on. It's a brave new world.

I'll have to admit if the Biden administration hadn't gone so overboard with DEI and just kept the standard generations old affirmative action approach, all of this probably wouldn't be happening.

Except for veterans, there has never been affirmative action in government hiring.

Affirmative action was a very real presence in the Federal bureaucracy and Federal contracting. 8(a) had a massive influence on contracting and hiring and it is the instrument by which AA spread from the Feds to the contractors and into the private sector. I have no idea what you are trying to pretend otherwise.

At no point has there been affirmative action in the hiring of federal employees.

... nor employees of contractors. The EO Trump removed actually prohibited that. But he stupidly thought it required that. LOL.

Come off it. You're hiding behind semantics. You're not persuading anyone. Employees were legally required to report hiring data on minorities to the Federal government. There was an entire bureaucracy around AA. And as someone who worked in Federal contracting, over the last four years there was definitely, unquestionably, a push to emphasize DEI across contracting and hiring much more explicitly than before.

Nothing you said allows or requires discriminatory hiring and you know it as well as I do. It is NOT semantics. It is law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any agency actually put DEI staff on admin leave?

Mine did, sub component of DHS. They were put on admin leave yesterday and mgt was told they were not allowed to reassign. All will be terminated on the 30th.

You cannot legally prevent someone from resigning (hello, slavery and indentured servitude are still illegal - so far). What a joke these bully losers are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The moving of DEI people to EEO offices in some agencies won't last. The executive orders made that explicitly clear, so those people will most likely be made redundant soon enough. Any agency that attempts to maintain some kind of DEI undercover will be ruthlessly reformed. Best is to accept that DEI is over and done with and move on. It's a brave new world.

I'll have to admit if the Biden administration hadn't gone so overboard with DEI and just kept the standard generations old affirmative action approach, all of this probably wouldn't be happening.

Except for veterans, there has never been affirmative action in government hiring.

Affirmative action was a very real presence in the Federal bureaucracy and Federal contracting. 8(a) had a massive influence on contracting and hiring and it is the instrument by which AA spread from the Feds to the contractors and into the private sector. I have no idea what you are trying to pretend otherwise.

At no point has there been affirmative action in the hiring of federal employees.

... nor employees of contractors. The EO Trump removed actually prohibited that. But he stupidly thought it required that. LOL.

Come off it. You're hiding behind semantics. You're not persuading anyone. Employees were legally required to report hiring data on minorities to the Federal government. There was an entire bureaucracy around AA. And as someone who worked in Federal contracting, over the last four years there was definitely, unquestionably, a push to emphasize DEI across contracting and hiring much more explicitly than before.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The moving of DEI people to EEO offices in some agencies won't last. The executive orders made that explicitly clear, so those people will most likely be made redundant soon enough. Any agency that attempts to maintain some kind of DEI undercover will be ruthlessly reformed. Best is to accept that DEI is over and done with and move on. It's a brave new world.

I'll have to admit if the Biden administration hadn't gone so overboard with DEI and just kept the standard generations old affirmative action approach, all of this probably wouldn't be happening.

Except for veterans, there has never been affirmative action in government hiring.

Affirmative action was a very real presence in the Federal bureaucracy and Federal contracting. 8(a) had a massive influence on contracting and hiring and it is the instrument by which AA spread from the Feds to the contractors and into the private sector. I have no idea what you are trying to pretend otherwise.

At no point has there been affirmative action in the hiring of federal employees.

... nor employees of contractors. The EO Trump removed actually prohibited that. But he stupidly thought it required that. LOL.

Anonymous wrote:Good riddance!

Hater gonna hate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol @ the super dumb poster who thinks veterans preference isn’t part of DEI. It absolutely is. And it particularly falls under the “i.” Damn the American education system is really failing people.

Veterans preference is based on a particular type of work experience that reflects virtue and self-sacrifice - it’s WHAT YOU CHOSE TO DO (serve in the military) versus DEI, which is based on characteristics that are not in your control. Normal people can see the difference.

It’s not based on work experience. It’s literally based on how disabled the veteran is. You can argue the merits of “rewarding” people in that situation, but ceases to be about merit (i.e., innate ability) or any type of work experience if that is the main criteria by which the preference is applied.

Getting blown up at work is work experience. Shove it.

Why should the veteran who didn’t get blown up get less preference?

So your point is that you want veterans to get equal preference? Argue away. Still in a different category than DEI.

No I want you to explain why one type of veteran deserves a higher preference than the other. Your argument is that veterans preference is not DEI because the service experience is work that provides them unique skills that make them more qualified. But how is a disabled veteran MORE qualified than one who isn’t? What additional skill do they have because they developed a service-connected cardiac condition?

Because the literal self-sacrifice of your body at work is different.

What extra skill does the veteran who developed a heart condition have compared to the one who didn’t?

Skill is your word. It doesn’t have to confer a skill to be a work experience. Hating on veterans is a really ugly look, so keep doing it because it’s a great red flag for you to carry.

NP. This is your emotion speaking. You believe that veterans have served their country honorably and should get a leg up in hiring for the federal govt. So you think this is a good thing that the govt favor these folk. For other DEI programs, you don’t think these people are worthy of getting any sort of leg up (which is except for veterans is illegal in hiring in govt) and everything should be based on “merit”. So you celebrate the end of “DEI”. But if you were intellectually honest, you would agree that it’s just a matter of who you think is worthy rather than “merit”.

BTW, despite the fact that I get resumes of tons of unqualified veterans that I had to choose from in hiring, I was ok with the process. If they really were not qualified (didn’t have the type of education or skills), I could look at other candidates. But having to read through the vet resumes to see if they could work was a good exercise and I hired one veteran who is hard working and great.

I consider choosing to serve to be a meritorious decision. I don’t think being a certain race or gender is meritorious.

But how does it make the person better able to do the job?

Reflects pro-social, teamwork, resilience, discipline, all of which are good qualities for jobs.

Sorry but simply being a vet does guarantee that you will have those characteristics. I'll also point out that those are soft skills, not hard skills, that anyone can have - whether they served or not.

The veterans system may need to be reformed, but the original purpose is that among qualified candidates where all else is equal, veterans get preference. It’s also not because of inherent qualities, but because it can be hard for veterans to get a civilian job after years of specialized military service.
It has obviously gotten out of control if people feel they have to hire less qualified veterans.

I don't support Trump or this whole EO nonsense, but it is a fact that veterans were often put forward by HR for jobs they were not qualified for. In fact, for high level jobs, in some cases (like technical jobs) it was nearly impossible for managers to hire someone qualified, because they couldn't make it past the point where HR would weed out anyone who wasn't a veteran or other person they deemed preferable due to reasons having nothing to do with qualifications. I doubt Trump and his minions will fix that at all (looks like there is now a preference for MAGA, which will certainly be worse), but it doesn't change the fact that this was a common occurrence.