Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that they want us in the office but also want a RIF. It would be much easier to fire people while teleworking because they’re isolated. When we get back in the office, it is easier to gang up and form a resistance.

It is a smart way to go about it to see which employees are leaving voluntarily first. And what kind of resistance do you think you can form that would make any difference at all?

Who knows, but people are much more likely to speak freely in person than over a government teams call.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that they want us in the office but also want a RIF. It would be much easier to fire people while teleworking because they’re isolated. When we get back in the office, it is easier to gang up and form a resistance.

It is a smart way to go about it to see which employees are leaving voluntarily first. And what kind of resistance do you think you can form that would make any difference at all?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

“Large outlays of money for workplaces?” That — and every impact you cite — is by definition *not* irreparable harm. Any damages that can be covered by monetary compensation are not irreparable. If someone quits their job because they can’t commute to the office and they win a lawsuit declaring the RTO requirement to be illegal, they can be made whole by monetary damages.

This is accurate. The previous poster had just enough knowledge to spread false hope.

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that they want us in the office but also want a RIF. It would be much easier to fire people while teleworking because they’re isolated. When we get back in the office, it is easier to gang up and form a resistance.

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that they want us in the office but also want a RIF. It would be much easier to fire people while teleworking because they’re isolated. When we get back in the office, it is easier to gang up and form a resistance.

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/

Anonymous wrote:

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:

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.

“Large outlays of money for workplaces?” That — and every impact you cite — is by definition *not* irreparable harm. Any damages that can be covered by monetary compensation are not irreparable. If someone quits their job because they can’t commute to the office and they win a lawsuit declaring the RTO requirement to be illegal, they can be made whole by monetary damages.

This is accurate. The previous poster had just enough knowledge to spread false hope.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

“Large outlays of money for workplaces?” That — and every impact you cite — is by definition *not* irreparable harm. Any damages that can be covered by monetary compensation are not irreparable. If someone quits their job because they can’t commute to the office and they win a lawsuit declaring the RTO requirement to be illegal, they can be made whole by monetary damages.

Anonymous wrote:

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:

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.