Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My initial thought was that this memo, like the hiring freeze one, is vastly better written than the rest. The difference? Only those two list the acting OMB Director, a career civil servant, as the co-issuer. Kinda funny under the circumstances.

He doesn’t write this stuff. They came in with them all already written and just need them signed by the acting stooge.

No. Today’s memo was a clarification of a prior one re RTO. It states:

“The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) are issuing this memorandum to provide further guidance to agencies on implementation of the January 20, 2025, Presidential Memorandum (PM) Return to In-Person Work.”

It was coherently written, unlike the rest.

You can see who wrote them. They forgot to delete the metadata.

https://www.reddit.com/r/fednews/comments/1ibgky0/fyi_all_of_the_recent_memos_have_meta_data/

Two Project 2025 authors. Of course.

While the authors may be objectionable to some, it's not problematic, unless they aren't fed employees. If they aren't however, stuffs gonna go boom.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My initial thought was that this memo, like the hiring freeze one, is vastly better written than the rest. The difference? Only those two list the acting OMB Director, a career civil servant, as the co-issuer. Kinda funny under the circumstances.

He doesn’t write this stuff. They came in with them all already written and just need them signed by the acting stooge.

No. Today’s memo was a clarification of a prior one re RTO. It states:

“The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) are issuing this memorandum to provide further guidance to agencies on implementation of the January 20, 2025, Presidential Memorandum (PM) Return to In-Person Work.”

It was coherently written, unlike the rest.

They have all been coherently written with the exception of the actual original RTO memo. Unfortunately. I read these for a living. They are a million times stronger than last time and are setting forth not just language, but a coherent and extremely aggressive strategy of asserting that the president’s power is constrained only by the constitution. Including rule making and firing.

yeah they are better written than last time but I doubt they have the manpower to actually do the rule making they want to do. Which is ironic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.barrons.com/articles/trump-return-to-office-federal-workers-bb0ea89d

Ignoring a CBA is a breach of contract claim at the US Court of Federal Claims (or Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit).

Why wouldn’t the Court issue a TRO? The law is on the side of the CBAs being enforceable.

In the fall of 2023 the Labor Department ordered workers back 5 days a PP in violation of the CBA. The union tried to negotiate and ultimately sued but I don't think they prevailed. It did delay their RTO until late summer 2024.

False! Please don’t talk about things you know nothing about. Still in litigation . . .

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ed76d613-7e70-4ebc-8d5f-d6095d58d0e9

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My initial thought was that this memo, like the hiring freeze one, is vastly better written than the rest. The difference? Only those two list the acting OMB Director, a career civil servant, as the co-issuer. Kinda funny under the circumstances.

He doesn’t write this stuff. They came in with them all already written and just need them signed by the acting stooge.

No. Today’s memo was a clarification of a prior one re RTO. It states:

“The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) are issuing this memorandum to provide further guidance to agencies on implementation of the January 20, 2025, Presidential Memorandum (PM) Return to In-Person Work.”

It was coherently written, unlike the rest.

You can see who wrote them. They forgot to delete the metadata.

https://www.reddit.com/r/fednews/comments/1ibgky0/fyi_all_of_the_recent_memos_have_meta_data/

Two Project 2025 authors. Of course.

Anonymous wrote:https://www.barrons.com/articles/trump-return-to-office-federal-workers-bb0ea89d

Ignoring a CBA is a breach of contract claim at the US Court of Federal Claims (or Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit).

Why wouldn’t the Court issue a TRO? The law is on the side of the CBAs being enforceable.

In the fall of 2023 the Labor Department ordered workers back 5 days a PP in violation of the CBA. The union tried to negotiate and ultimately sued but I don't think they prevailed. It did delay their RTO until late summer 2024.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The PTO is 94% teleworkers - I think it would collapse. A lot of lawyers would be very unhappy.

The memos exempted them. They are good.

False.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My initial thought was that this memo, like the hiring freeze one, is vastly better written than the rest. The difference? Only those two list the acting OMB Director, a career civil servant, as the co-issuer. Kinda funny under the circumstances.

He doesn’t write this stuff. They came in with them all already written and just need them signed by the acting stooge.

No. Today’s memo was a clarification of a prior one re RTO. It states:

“The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) are issuing this memorandum to provide further guidance to agencies on implementation of the January 20, 2025, Presidential Memorandum (PM) Return to In-Person Work.”

It was coherently written, unlike the rest.

You can see who wrote them. They forgot to delete the metadata.

https://www.reddit.com/r/fednews/comments/1ibgky0/fyi_all_of_the_recent_memos_have_meta_data/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The PTO is 94% teleworkers - I think it would collapse. A lot of lawyers would be very unhappy.

The memos exempted them. They are good.

How so? They didn’t explicitly name them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My initial thought was that this memo, like the hiring freeze one, is vastly better written than the rest. The difference? Only those two list the acting OMB Director, a career civil servant, as the co-issuer. Kinda funny under the circumstances.

He doesn’t write this stuff. They came in with them all already written and just need them signed by the acting stooge.

No. Today’s memo was a clarification of a prior one re RTO. It states:

“The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) are issuing this memorandum to provide further guidance to agencies on implementation of the January 20, 2025, Presidential Memorandum (PM) Return to In-Person Work.”

It was coherently written, unlike the rest.

They have all been coherently written with the exception of the actual original RTO memo. Unfortunately. I read these for a living. They are a million times stronger than last time and are setting forth not just language, but a coherent and extremely aggressive strategy of asserting that the president’s power is constrained only by the constitution. Including rule making and firing.

Anonymous wrote:The PTO is 94% teleworkers - I think it would collapse. A lot of lawyers would be very unhappy.

The memos exempted them. They are good.

The PTO is 94% teleworkers - I think it would collapse. A lot of lawyers would be very unhappy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is TRO?

Temporary restraining order. It’s a type of injunction, which is an order from the court telling someone not to do a specific thing.

It is designed to keep the status quo pending litigation if there is a likelihood the person seeking the TRO will succeed on the merits and there could be irreparable harm (2 part test). Clearly large outlays of money for workplaces + chaos in the lives of Feds is irreparable harm. And te vindictive tone on the memos and correspondence also doesn’t help their case. And the CBAs are valid contracts. High liklihood of success on the merits. I’ve always assumed there would be a TRO at our agency if they ordered people in because our telework CBA is well written and little wiggle room. And RTO would affect tens of thousands in our agency. And we don’t have space right now for most of them. Entering leases to hold people, outfitting workspaces— and losing in a couple years— irreparable harm.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless the CBA is vague, the bargaining history behind a duly bargained and ratified contract between the parties is none of OPM’s f@cking business. Especially since Dump wasn’t even President when this took place.

You’re right, of course. But the Republicans have been teeing up an argument that the SSA telework agreement is an invalid sweetheart deal because O’Malley wanted the union’s support for his DNC run. They’ve argued more broadly that the Biden admin was generous about telework for the same reasons.

That will be totally irrelevant in court, but it’s what they’re going with.

They will lose multiple times in court as hundreds of lawsuits are filed and it will be too much for their pea brains. There is a lot of bravado now to play to the idiot MAGA base, but I don’t think they will ultimately be able to follow through on most of this.

Lol don't be so sure about th courts - they are stacked with Trump appointees now. It's luck of the draw.

I believe CBAs go to the Court of Federal Claims, which is evenly split Biden/Trump, with 6 moderate senior judges.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless the CBA is vague, the bargaining history behind a duly bargained and ratified contract between the parties is none of OPM’s f@cking business. Especially since Dump wasn’t even President when this took place.

You’re right, of course. But the Republicans have been teeing up an argument that the SSA telework agreement is an invalid sweetheart deal because O’Malley wanted the union’s support for his DNC run. They’ve argued more broadly that the Biden admin was generous about telework for the same reasons.

That will be totally irrelevant in court, but it’s what they’re going with.

They will lose multiple times in court as hundreds of lawsuits are filed and it will be too much for their pea brains. There is a lot of bravado now to play to the idiot MAGA base, but I don’t think they will ultimately be able to follow through on most of this.

Lol don't be so sure about th courts - they are stacked with Trump appointees now. It's luck of the draw.

Biden stacked the lower courts, and I doubt that Kavanaugh and Barrett would go along with all of this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My initial thought was that this memo, like the hiring freeze one, is vastly better written than the rest. The difference? Only those two list the acting OMB Director, a career civil servant, as the co-issuer. Kinda funny under the circumstances.

He doesn’t write this stuff. They came in with them all already written and just need them signed by the acting stooge.

No. Today’s memo was a clarification of a prior one re RTO. It states:

“The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) are issuing this memorandum to provide further guidance to agencies on implementation of the January 20, 2025, Presidential Memorandum (PM) Return to In-Person Work.”

It was coherently written, unlike the rest.