Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why would they close fork right after judge says they can proceed with fork if they want more people to accept the fork? weren't they hoping for at least 200,000, and last i heard approximately 65,000 had accepted?

Yes, I’m trying to understand as well. So strange. What could be their motivation? They have figured out a way to fire people without having to pay out for RIFs? I wouldn’t think changing people to schedule F and then firing would be that quick.

So the union wouldn’t have time to appeal

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why would they close fork right after judge says they can proceed with fork if they want more people to accept the fork? weren't they hoping for at least 200,000, and last i heard approximately 65,000 had accepted?

Yes, I’m trying to understand as well. So strange. What could be their motivation? They have figured out a way to fire people without having to pay out for RIFs? I wouldn’t think changing people to schedule F and then firing would be that quick.

There would be hundreds of thousands of lawsuits. Many people could file multiple lawsuits per person depending on the situation. It would be easier to just RIF people because Trump would be out of office before the lawsuits were finished in court. Plus why would they care? They want to reduce headcount as quickly as possible and fighting in court about if a file clerk is a policy position is not a way to do that.

Anonymous wrote:why would they close fork right after judge says they can proceed with fork if they want more people to accept the fork? weren't they hoping for at least 200,000, and last i heard approximately 65,000 had accepted?

Yes, I’m trying to understand as well. So strange. What could be their motivation? They have figured out a way to fire people without having to pay out for RIFs? I wouldn’t think changing people to schedule F and then firing would be that quick.

This whole program has been totally crazy. I'm responsible for answering questions from individual employees and providing retirement guidance to them. We had three or four significant changes during the two week duration of this program that have caused me to give answers to employees that may have been correct at the time, but are now incorrect. I've been working nights and weekends to respond to all the questions, but it still wasn't enough. I was hoping the program would have been extended at least another week or two so I could answer all the questions.

Our agency even sent out guidance tonight at 7PM about the program that answered a lot of the questions everyone had, but we said the Fork was still being offered, but it looks like OPM is saying that it closed already.

I'll probably see an email from OPM tomorrow that officially ends the fork offer.

Now, I'm heading off to some well-earned sleep. 💤 😴

why would they close fork right after judge says they can proceed with fork if they want more people to accept the fork? weren't they hoping for at least 200,000, and last i heard approximately 65,000 had accepted?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes exactly. I'm a lawyer and this seemed obvious from the start.

Is there any injury for relying on an invalid offer/contract? I thought there was case law about you being out of luck if you rely on what some random gov employee tells you and it turns out they're wrong.

The injury will be when they don't pay out as promised, that's a breach of contract. But you need to be careful about what exactly OPM has said and caveats.

Re "random gov employee" yes, if your manager is just like "hey I'll give you 5 years of paid leave if you do X" it's obviously unreasonable to rely on it. This is coming from OPM and agencies are sending it out via email blessing it. So this isn't like a random thing that an unauthorized low-level person promised.

I am not actually saying they are doing it right or defending their motivations or process - just saying it would be a strong claim/lawsuit to bring if the paid admin leave doesn't end up happening. Strong, but not foolproof of course.

The fork says you mostly don’t have to work, but doesn’t guarantee it. It’s very possible you keep having to work until Sep.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes exactly. I'm a lawyer and this seemed obvious from the start.

Is there any injury for relying on an invalid offer/contract? I thought there was case law about you being out of luck if you rely on what some random gov employee tells you and it turns out they're wrong.

The injury will be when they don't pay out as promised, that's a breach of contract. But you need to be careful about what exactly OPM has said and caveats.

Re "random gov employee" yes, if your manager is just like "hey I'll give you 5 years of paid leave if you do X" it's obviously unreasonable to rely on it. This is coming from OPM and agencies are sending it out via email blessing it. So this isn't like a random thing that an unauthorized low-level person promised.

I am not actually saying they are doing it right or defending their motivations or process - just saying it would be a strong claim/lawsuit to bring if the paid admin leave doesn't end up happening. Strong, but not foolproof of course.

I'm the PP (and yes I am a fed employee) and just want to add - people are choosing among a number of bad options here basically. Especially feds who are not in unions and whose jobs seem to fit Schedule F. So nothing is a "great" option, that ship has sailed. Now it's about what is the least worst of most manageable and it obviously is unique to each person's job, finances, yrs of service, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes exactly. I'm a lawyer and this seemed obvious from the start.

Is there any injury for relying on an invalid offer/contract? I thought there was case law about you being out of luck if you rely on what some random gov employee tells you and it turns out they're wrong.

The injury will be when they don't pay out as promised, that's a breach of contract. But you need to be careful about what exactly OPM has said and caveats.

Re "random gov employee" yes, if your manager is just like "hey I'll give you 5 years of paid leave if you do X" it's obviously unreasonable to rely on it. This is coming from OPM and agencies are sending it out via email blessing it. So this isn't like a random thing that an unauthorized low-level person promised.

I am not actually saying they are doing it right or defending their motivations or process - just saying it would be a strong claim/lawsuit to bring if the paid admin leave doesn't end up happening. Strong, but not foolproof of course.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 that individual employees - and not their unions - should have brought the suit. The unions don’t have standing.

Yep, this.

Also, we just had a mass firing at my agency. Some people, anticipating it, had already taken the Fork offer. So it apparently gave them no protection and makes me think others will just get fired even after voluntarily resigning.

So sorry to hear this PP. are you willing/ able to share which agency this is?

Yes- CFPB.

Wouldn’t this give CFPB standing?

Does the union have ability to sponsor these lawsuits?

I think they’re pursuing their options. There’s a lot going on at CFPB right now but people getting fired when they took the Fork deal is a really bad sign for others. Or maybe this administration just hates CFPB that much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes exactly. I'm a lawyer and this seemed obvious from the start.

Is there any injury for relying on an invalid offer/contract? I thought there was case law about you being out of luck if you rely on what some random gov employee tells you and it turns out they're wrong.

Anonymous wrote:I wonder who got in the judge's ear? What threats were made?

You sound like a loon, truly. Why do you care about the fork offer if some people want to take it? Save your outrage for all the feds at USAID and CFPB on admin leave right now. Lots of things are being done to feds that are involuntary!

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes exactly. I'm a lawyer and this seemed obvious from the start.

Anonymous wrote:If you were waiting on this and would like to fork I would send it in immediately, you still might have a chance

Are you a federal employee?

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

Not according to Dear Leader, who thinks they all have several jobs and too much money. 🙄

If you were waiting on this and would like to fork I would send it in immediately, you still might have a chance