Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These rif procedures are insane. They should ask managers who could they cut with the least impacts. My employee who gets the most points would be my worst employee and the first id cut. He has terrible performance ratings too.

If you are giving points to someone who is a retired military person due to them being a "veteran" --- you don't give points to someone who was in the military for 20 yrs unless they got out due to a military connected disability. My DH has 21 yrs in Air Force, but reading the RIF regs, he does not count as a "veteran" and he doesn't get any extra points for his years in the military. So, maybe your co-worker isn't as high on the list as it may seem.

Huh? If your husband was active duty he counts. My coworkers have 4 years then transfer to Fed.

Anonymous wrote:Sooooo....if you're not essential during shutdowns, you're eligible for RIF. Unless you're in an office that performs functions mandated by statute or other law, law enforcement, "public safety" (which is not defined), or immigration enforcement. Am I reading that right?

Anonymous wrote:It says that 'reemployed annuitants' will be separated. Does that mean all military veterans who draw a pension and now work in a fed job?

Anonymous wrote:It says that 'reemployed annuitants' will be separated. Does that mean all military veterans who draw a pension and now work in a fed job?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As of March 14th, there is likely be a "funding shortfall."

The RIF EO supposedly directs agencies to remove any activities that are not specifically required by statute. Of course, that could be read broadly or narrowly. But, it gives agencies plenty of leeway to determine that a reorganization is needed.

For how many things this will be implementable? There are lots of activities that are authorized by law and/or appropriated explicitly, so the “by statute” clause might cover more than the DOGE folks think.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work for fda in a division that does a function that is mandated by a CFR statute for public health… is this type of position safe? Or will this also be subject to RIF?

What do you mean by "a CFR statute"? I think of CFR as being a regulation-- Code of Federal Regulation-- but maybe you are thinking of something different? I would think that a CFR is sort of helpful, but certainly not as helpful to keeping your position safe as a statute that actually names the function your division is doing.

Anonymous wrote:What’s interesting to me, in addition to the fact that they don’t realize we can’t be delinquent on our taxes already nor noncompliant with disclosure requirements, is that they exempt statutorily required offices and activities. Guess what is statute? Appropriations Acts. So hard to see how there’s much an agency does that’s not explicitly or implicitly directed in appropriations.

Anonymous wrote:What’s interesting to me, in addition to the fact that they don’t realize we can’t be delinquent on our taxes already nor noncompliant with disclosure requirements, is that they exempt statutorily required offices and activities. Guess what is statute? Appropriations Acts. So hard to see how there’s much an agency does that’s not explicitly or implicitly directed in appropriations.

Anonymous wrote:A modified hiring freeze and "a large-scale RIF". Whatever that means.