21 ms·

20k federal workers take "buyout" so far, official says

280 points by djoldman 2y ago

jaxnhgds 2y ago
[dead]
anna41517 2y ago
[dead]
kouru225 2y ago
I’d say there’s a 90% chance that they’re never seeing more than 5% of that severance package.
manbart 2y ago
Doubt it... You'd be a fool to think you'd actually get the money
- derektank 2y ago
  There's a lot of people that, due to their living situation, wouldn't be able to comply with the new executive order banning work from home. If the choice is between being fired either way, I can see many people opting to take the possibility of a severance while they find alternative work
  - pixl97 2y ago
    Finding new work is going to be freaking great with rapidly dropping consumer confidence and the random ass tariff changes scaring the hell out of businesses.
    - drawkward 2y ago
      President Trusk is going to completely screw the economy.
  - throwawayguy867 2y ago
    I'm in this situation. I was hired fully remote (and no office to "return" to), many states away from DC and no intention to move (not for an administration that would have no scruples about firing me at any point, for any reason). Since I'm fairly sure my goose is cooked either way, I am considering doing the deferred resignation thing just to get a few more dollars in my pocket before the inevitable comes.
    - throitallaway 2y ago
      All going according to plan.
- axus 2y ago
  This is why the deadline is before the next paycheck :P
- Molitor5901 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - sitkack 2y ago
    I don't know why you keep repeating this everywhere. It is not a sure thing. And legality has no bearing anymore.
  - kgermino 2y ago
    Nope, it's only budgeted through March 14th, noticeably before September 31st
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    Who is going to enforce the law? Trump appointed judges? Even if the lawsuits are successful, our system depends on the Executive branch respecting the verdict. At least during his last term you had Republicans on both the state and federal levels who weren’t sycophants. They’ve all died, retired or are now kissing the ring.
  - neaden 2y ago
    OK so? Do you think the president has to obey the laws? Will the FBI arrest him if they don't? What do you think the consequence will realistically be?
    - justin66 2y ago
      The consequence of those people not being paid is that they'd sue the government as a class, win, and then be paid.
      - tstrimple 2y ago
        You've clearly not been paying any attention to what has happened to the judicial system in this country. Trump and Elon are both infamous for ripping people off and often getting away with it via the (compromised) court system. https://www.reuters.com/legal/elon-musk-beats-500-million-severance-lawsuit-by-fired-twitter-workers-2024-07-10/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/elon-musk-beats-500-million-se...
- desumeku 2y ago
  Is this where we're at now? Thinking that the new administration will just openly refuse to pay people's salaries as part of a formal deal?
  - NickC25 2y ago
    Donald Trump is known for stiffing people. His administration will reflect his pettiness.
  - eigart 2y ago
    Yes.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/... > Donald Trump often portrays himself as a savior of the working class who will "protect your job." But a USA TODAY NETWORK analysis found he has been involved in more than 3,500 lawsuits over the past three decades — and a large number of those involve ordinary Americans, like the Friels, who say Trump or his companies have refused to pay them. > In addition to the lawsuits, the review found more than 200 mechanic’s liens — filed by contractors and employees against Trump, his companies or his properties claiming they were owed money for their work — since the 1980s. The liens range from a $75,000 claim by a Plainview, N.Y., air conditioning and heating company to a $1 million claim from the president of a New York City real estate banking firm. On just one project, Trump’s Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City, records released by the New Jersey Casino Control Commission in 1990 show that at least 253 subcontractors weren’t paid in full or on time, including workers who installed walls, chandeliers and plumbing. > In courtroom testimony, the manager of the general contractor for the Doral renovation admitted that a decision was made not to pay The Paint Spot because Trump “already paid enough.” As the construction manager spoke, “Trump’s trial attorneys visibly winced, began breathing heavily, and attempted to make eye contact” with the witness, the judge noted in his ruling.
  - kgermino 2y ago
    The offer mirrors Elon's offer to Twitter employees and many of them did not receive the money they were promised. Elon doesn't have the legal authority to make this offer today, it's poorly defined, and not a standard separation policy for federal employees. I'm not saying they won't be paid out, but I would't bet my livelihood on it
- 9rx 2y ago
  Of course, if they decide to not pay you it won't matter if you took this or tried to keep your job. So you may get a head start and turn your time to searching for a new job now. If they do end up following through with the buyout payments in the end, that is an added bonus.
techapple 2y ago
Interesting they say their goal is 5-10% when normal attrition is six percent, that means essentially their goal is -6 to 4%
- csa 2y ago
  > Interesting they say their goal is 5-10% when normal attrition is six percent, that means essentially their goal is -6 to 4% Basically, yes. If they had worked within the existing VSIP (voluntary separation) and VERA (early retirement) systems, maybe by tweaking things like max payouts, they could have almost guaranteed 10%+ by September, imho. The haphazard and non-standard way they’ve gone about it, however, makes me think that they will be at the low end of their range. The other possible explanations are: - they don’t really intend to pay those who resign (e.g., via admin leave status and then having a furlough in March) - their ultimate goal is to have people not take the deal so that they can just fire with impunity. Imho, this type of reduction will only work for folks on probation (who, imho, are the only ones who should actually consider taking the resignation offer).
kevmo314 2y ago
> The buyout offer entitles federal employees to stop working more or less immediately and continue to be paid through Sept. 30. > The federal workforce's normal attrition rate is about 6% a year, meaning some of those who've taken the buyout may have been planning to leave government service anyway. Wow, talk about an amazing deal if you already happened to be planning on leaving...
- bilekas 2y ago
  > Critics argue the offer is illegal, there's no real guarantee people will get paid out, and it's something Congress would need to authorize. Give then history of this particular admistration & business', I personally wouldn't be too confident in actually getting paid up to Sept.
  - iancmceachern 2y ago
    Totally, all those Twitter people that never saw it...
  - Molitor5901 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - thesuperbigfrog 2y ago
      >> Congress technically already authorized it when it approved the FY 2025 budget. That's why they are getting paid to September. That money was already approved and appropriated by congress, signed into law, and is the budget for that agency. They're spending that money how congress directed them to, but in a way congress likely never anticipated. No money has been appropriated beyond March 14th. "the promise to pay employees beyond Mar. 14 is unauthorized. The Anti-Deficiency Act prohibits an agency from entering a contract 'before any appropriation is made unless authorized by law.' The deferred resignation program offers employees pay that is not currently appropriated. Current appropriations will expire on Mar. 14th and, therefore, agencies currently lack the legal authority to agree to pay employees beyond this date." Source: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/will-employees-who-resign-have-a-remedy https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/will-employees-who-resi...
francisofascii 2y ago
20K represents "about 1% of the federal workforce"
sampton 2y ago
20k represents 1%. The target is 5-10%. The messaging is 100-200k federal layoff is coming.
- varsketiz 2y ago
  Since the turover rate per year is 6%, implemented hiring freeze would yield theese results.
  - sampton 2y ago
    Does the 6% number includes churn between departments? Unless ICE can absorb 100k+ headcount the number will be much lower this year.
  - pixl97 2y ago
    1) You're assuming these leadership clowns are that smart 2) They are targeting particular employees more.
  - bhouston 2y ago
    Which is exactly what Canadian government has been doing for a while now after the service ballooned during the pandemic, e.g.: https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPublicServants/comments/1g9qy1w/hiring_freeze_budget_cuts_workplaceworkforce/ https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPublicServants/comments/1g9qy...
  - vaccineai 2y ago
    there is a hiring freeze https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/hiring-freeze/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/hiri.... this buyout is meant to accelerate
- s3r3nity 2y ago
  These tend to work through in stages: fastest ones to accept were already looking, and next up are those that are on the fence, and so on... The 8-month buyout offer is significantly better than the one-time offer from Clinton in the 90's [1], even adjusting for inflation, so I'd expect that there's a large group of individuals & families that are just taking the time to evaluate the decision. [https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-the-buyout-program-for-federal-employees https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-the-buyo...]
nielsbot 2y ago
Related: “Will Employees Who Resign Have a Remedy?” https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42950301 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42950301
- mateus1 2y ago
  These topics are being routinely taken down by the mod team.
  - drawkward 2y ago
    HN is sufficiently MAGA as to not require bad faith actions by dang.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
simple10 2y ago
It's interesting that annual attrition rate is 6% according to the article. I hadn't considered that before. The buyouts could end up costing more than they save if the only people who take it were the ones already planning on leaving. But maybe the argument is if enough people take it before the March budget deadline, then each departments budget can be proportionately reduced in the next cycle. Does anyone know the math and politics on this? Why didn't DOGE just put hiring freezes in place and wait for people to leave? Honest question. I'm not looking to bait anyone into mud slinging about Trump and Elon.
- amazingamazing 2y ago
  short answer - takes too long
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- biofox 2y ago
  Without wanting to mud sling, this has not gone through the usual oversight and review committees that something like this usually would, so I suspect it hasn't been planned out and costed (much like other recent policy announcements). When "move fast and break things" meets public finance.
- wbl 2y ago
  I'm going to try not to mud sling but looking at the managerial history of the people involved does not make taking erratic pointless action a total surprise.
- dboreham 2y ago
  Not sure if this is mud but you're analyzing this as if it should make sense. It doesn't need to and doesn't because it's a performance art piece.
- cyberlurker 2y ago
  Move fast and break things mentality over the boring strategy of letting a hiring freeze slowly work. It’s also psychologically challenging the people that stay to “admit” they can’t get a job in the private sector, which helps the Elon narrative. They want to make government employees feel bad. Plus these people are unlikely to ever get paid. This is all operating outside of congress. If the institutions survive at all this could become a mess of expensive lawsuits and settlements. But I suppose their intention is to permanently cut Congress out of the picture.
Shank 2y ago
I think the main issue for anyone wanting to take the offer is simply: this was never authorized by congress, so the money to pay people to September is questionable if it exists at best. Meanwhile, there's a government funding deadline on March 14, 2025. So there's a very real chance at this deal offering something closer to ~1 month of pay before it suddenly gets dropped due to budget negotiations. It would be an incredibly generous and nice buyout package, but obviously if it gets torn up after a month it's not that great of a deal.
- remarkEon 2y ago
  Have the exact payment details been released? Because I understood it as "you will get paid same as always through September, you just don't have to show up to work". Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but that doesn't sound like a "buyout" in the traditional sense.
  - Jtsummers 2y ago
    It is not a buyout. OPM has said that agencies can opt to put people who choose this on administrative leave (but they don't have to, they can keep the people working). So the effect is what the name is "deferred resignation", OPM pinky swears that you won't be cut before 30 September in a RIF or other actions if you take this offer and you'll get your biweekly pay as normal.
    - nkurz 2y ago
      What's your source for the assertion that it's not a buyout and it's up to the individual agency if the employee is required to continue working? You might be right that it's not a buyout, but the official Office of Personnel Management FAQ seems to clearly describe it as one: Q: Am I expected to work at my government job during the deferred resignation period? A: No. Q: Am I allowed to get a second job during the deferred resignation period? A: Absolutely! We encourage you to find a job in the private sector as soon as you would like to do so. The way to greater American prosperity is encouraging people to move from lower productivity jobs in the public sector to higher productivity jobs in the private sector. Q: Will I really get my full pay and benefits during the entire period through September 30, even if I get a second job? A: Yes. You will also continue to accrue annual leave and sick leave during the deferred resignation period until you separate. You will be paid a lump sum for accrued but unused annual leave upon separation. Q: Can I take an extended vacation while on administrative leave? A: You are most welcome to stay at home and relax or to travel to your dream destination. Whatever you would like. https://www.opm.gov/fork/faq https://www.opm.gov/fork/faq Is there an explanation for this apparent discrepancy?
n0rdy 2y ago
I've always found this approach of reducing the number of employees unwise from the company perspective (but pretty good for the employees, though). While the unsatisfied employees are the target, my observations indicate that a high percentage of active and skilled people are willing to take this offer, as they are sure that they will find a new place within a reasonable time, so it's basically, free money. And those are the people that the company should try to keep as much as it could. While the "give me a task with the perfect description, and I will do it" folks will stay until they are kicked out, as, usually, they are not up to taking the initiative. That's why I saw how the companies that were changing the rules in the process: "well, it's an offer, but your manager needs to approve that first", and other tricks to be able to reject it for the top performers. Needless to say, it leads to the bad moral. However, the companies I'm mentioning had way fewer employees than the federal workforce, so the chances are that with that size it's impossible to do it the "right" way.
- neonarray 2y ago
  Yes, but I believe this is the intent. It's not a matter of it being good for the business when the CEO of said business intentionally wants it to fail.
- feoren 2y ago
  > unwise from the company perspective The goal is to destroy most of these federal agencies, so doing things that are "unwise" for the future of those agencies is exactly the point.
  - n0rdy 2y ago
    Yes, indeed, in this particular case it is exactly as you said. However, I've seen this in the tech industry, that's a surprising bit for me
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- orasis 2y ago
outside1234 2y ago
These people are fools. They are never going to get paid as this scheme was illegal. And even if it was legal, see Twitter and severance.
- lawn 2y ago
  And Trump's decades of refusing to pay people.
robomartin 2y ago
The idea that government workers cannot be hired and fired at will is wrong. Government workers should have no more rights than the single mother working at a restaurant or business, or anyone working at any normal business in the US. I other words, they should not have more rights or protections than the people who pay the taxes that pay for their salaries and benefits. One of the most fundamental problems in various types of organizations with these types of protections is what I call "human rot". These are people who are lazy and incompetent and who only remain employed because of these protections as opposed to merit, doing a good job and actually making valuable contributions to the organization. Locally, one of the most disgusting examples I came across is a middle school "science" teacher who is a chiropractor and teaches absolute nonsense and falsehoods to our kids. For example --and this is just one of many-- he has been teaching that the moon does not spin on its axis. Yeah. Beyond that, he is a jerk to the kids and does not allow them to ask questions. He cannot be challenged or fired for any of it. He is protected. And we wonder why our results in education are shit.
- jotux 2y ago
  You're confusing state and federal employees with your teacher example.
  - robomartin 2y ago
    Nope. There are a class of workers who have unfair protections that none of the rest of us have. We pay their salaries. They should be subject the same market forces we are. They should exist under the same rules that the average taxpayer lives under. They should have the same healthcare and benefit that the average taxpayer has. This applies to everyone in government. If we pay their salaries, they cannot have it better than we do on average. They should be competent at what they do. They should be qualified. And they should not be protected from losing their jobs if they are no longer necessary or are bad at what they do. This permeates many levels of society. The local example is just the tip of the iceberg. You could go up the chain to city, state and federal and find similar problems. It's one of the most fundamental questions and one that a lot of people do not understand because they have never run a business (or ran something trivial). There are countries where getting rid of unnecessary or incompetent employees is nearly impossible. This leads to businesses not hiring people because they cannot afford the dead weight or risk involved (also leads to illicit job markets). Being able to manage your workforce is one of the most fundamental tasks in a business. It is no different in schools or government. We cannot optimize for the best people and best outcomes because we cannot get rid of dead weight. We get stuck with the incompetent because they cannot be fired. This is madness. And, judging from the downvotes, the ignorance does not escape some HN readers. I hope one day they are stuck with people who just burn their cash and they get nothing for it. Maybe then they will understand. It is unbelievable to me that such a fundamental understanding is lacking from society. We let idiots burn the cash we send them. There is no such thing as government money, it's our money. And it must be treated with more respect than to burn it on layers of bureaucracy and incompetence.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
[flagged]
- locallost 2y ago
  Plus, the positive side effect of the government sector getting as efficient as the private sector and especially the tech sector, would be the massive expansion of the domestic foosball manufacturing industry.
- scarface_74 2y ago
  You realize that this won’t make a dent in the budget compared to military spending, social security and Medicare?
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
  > The government needs to be downsized by millions Curious about the reason for this. Is there math that shows the first- and second-order effects of specific roles being removed? I ask because I've seen so much talk about the need for this, seemingly without much being supplied in the way of reason.
  - reverendsteveii 2y ago
    this is what you might call a vibes-based analysis. proof that the government needs to be dramatically downsized is found in the way it feels good to say and jives with relevant preconceptions.
    - Xelynega 2y ago
      I feel like there's some famous quote about facts and feelings not caring about one another...
- nilamo 2y ago
  > Unfortunately public sector unions, which shouldn’t even exist You what? Why in the world do you think unions shouldn't exist? I had a parent that did a lot with FEW (Federally Employed Women) and NARFE (National Active and Retired Federal Employees) at TACOM, where I learned how much the union does for federal employees, so your statement sounds like complete nonsense to me.
root_axis 2y ago
My personal and probably not unique prediction is that these people will be let go and not be paid - same thing he did with twitter.
- fred_is_fred 2y ago
  It is worth looking back at President Musk's previous actions here. I know the twitter engineers sued. Was it ever settled?
  - hypothesis 2y ago
    It appears most of those claims went to arbitration, so we are unlikely to learn results… https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/most-lawsuit-over-musks-twitter-layoffs-should-proceed-us-magistrate-rules-2024-12-05/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/most-lawsuit-over-m...
- justin66 2y ago
  There are some pretty significant differences between Twitter employees and federal government employees, starting with the fact that a lot of latter group are part of a powerful union.
  - toss1 2y ago
    Sure, but even in a normal situation, all the Union can do is provide greater resources to initiate legal and possibly work actions. Which, in a normal situation might be very effective. This is NOT anything resembling a normal situation; to treat it as such is merely an exercise in normalcy bias. Under an authoritarian regime, as is being setup as we type, legal actions are irrelevant as the judicial and legislative branches lose independence and serve the executive. Work actions likely result in the union being decertified and dissolved.
  - root_axis 2y ago
    Let's see what happens. At this point, I'm not convinced the union has any leverage.
JackYoustra 2y ago
Who knows how evenly spread it is? It may be that each service gets better, it may be all services stay the same except for, say, NRO, and we miss a nuclear center being built.
- ggreer 2y ago
  I'm guessing you meant the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, not the National Reconnaissance Office. Considering that since the NRC was created in 1975, no nuclear plant license initially submitted to them has begun commercial operations, I think it would be difficult to further impede progress.[1] I have no clue whether these buyouts will be beneficial or not. It really depends on how government responsibilities are structured. If everything operates under the same rules but there are fewer workers to process everything, then it will hurt economic and technological growth. If, on the other hand, there is a lot of dead weight in these departments, or the rules change to streamline certain processes, then it could be a net improvement. It will probably be years before we have a definitive answer. And as you say, it will probably be different for different parts of the government. 1. Some new nuclear power plants have come online since 1975, but they were all from licenses that were initially submitted to the NRC's predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission. Also the NRC did approve two new nuclear reactors at an existing plant, and those did begin commercial operations 19 years after the license was applied for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant#Units_3_and_4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla...
  - panzagl 2y ago
    He means NRO- the US would miss a nuclear center being built in Iran or where ever because all the NRO left to be SpaceX minions.
  - JackYoustra 2y ago
    I meant National Reconnaissance Office - missing a nuke plant being built for weapons in another country. I would be very happy for a more accommodating civilian environment in the US. And if we don't know if it'd be beneficial... idk, I kinda like my life? It can get really really bad? Maybe we shouldn't blindly cut and think about it?
yodsanklai 2y ago
[flagged]
calvinmorrison 2y ago
oh, so we're doing politics on HN now?
- seattle_spring 2y ago
  Your HN profile "about" section is quite literally more political than anything said in this article or thread.
  - calvinmorrison 2y ago
    guess im living rent free
benatkin 2y ago
It’s quite similar to the student loan forgiveness in terms of it being about financial obligations to middle class citizens and it being attempted without Congress, as well as the likelihood for overpromising and underdelivering. The ordinary citizens making a choice in a way that would have an effect like promissory estoppel adds an interesting wrinkle but I don’t see how it changes the constitutionality of it. I think that many of those calling it unconstitutional are being hypocritical, even though they may be right.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- spacemanspiff01 2y ago
  I personally thought that student loan forgiveness was unconstitutional. That being said, alot of the actions of the current admin are designed to push the boarders of executive power. They are trying to move fast and break things and do an end run around congressional oversight, before the courts can catch up. The example of this is USaid, which was probably not legal in the method they went about. But no one will be putting that egg back together. Contrast this to when Biden did his student loan forgiveness, it was telegraphed for months, and a court immediately blocked it pending review. And most importantly it was a single action. All that being said, both are bad, my overall point is that we as Americans deserve better, and 'but they did it first' is not a valid excuse. My hope is that we finally start reducing the power of the executive branch. The past 100 years of congress abdicating it's responsibility has been too much.
excalibur 2y ago
Sellouts
Mithriil 2y ago
> "a senior administration official tells Axios." Another source of misinformation, now, maybe?
- SrslyJosh 2y ago
  Exactly what I was thinking. They can make up any number they want, we have no way to verify it. This could just be a lie to further demoralize workers and/or make them afraid of missing out on the chance to get a buyout.
- skepticATX 2y ago
  Yes, there’s practically no chance that this is true.
jmclnx 2y ago
As someone who has been offered similar buy-outs, the one presented here is a poor deal. I would not have taken that one unless I already had a job waiting for me.
- TMWNN 2y ago
  In what universe, public or private, is nine months of pay a poor deal for a buyout?
  - seattle_spring 2y ago
    The one where it's offered by an administration with a history of lying, particularly around the fulfillment of past contracts. Payment is only guaranteed until mid-March. In other words, this universe.
  - jmclnx 2y ago
    BTW it is 8 months. https://apnews.com/article/trump-buyouts-to-all-federal-employees-f67f5751a0fd5ad8471806a5a1067b5e https://apnews.com/article/trump-buyouts-to-all-federal-empl... But does this include benefits ? How about contributions to the pension, what will be the pension benefits when you retire ? Will you be fully vested when you leave ? What happens to your security clearance (if you have one) There are many unknowns, so to me, if you work for the federal gov, you would be insane to take this package. Unless of course you already have a guaranteed Job you can start when you leave. Plus many IRS employees tried to take this package and was denied, now the Fed has a list of employees that want to leave. Will they be fired once Tax season is over without the 8 month package ?
- elicash 2y ago
  This depends on your situation. For example... Are you someone who took a federal job where you were working from home, and the nearest office near you is 5 hours away? And now you can't sell your home in time for the deadline to start working in the office? Then yeah, you take the gamble on not getting paid. The only problem with this approach is you cannot collect unemployment like you can if you're let go.
numpad0 2y ago
Not an American, but the reported resignation process of just sending arbitrary content email with subject "resign" to "hr@opm.gov" feels like the real aim is to collect emails and response time data to establish cluster system health metric to determine which nodes can be murdered safely. It's almost strange to me that this aspect, and stupidity of injecting non-compiling code to human mainframes collective that runs on legalese in an attempt to collect such data, seem to be rarely discussed.
- toast0 2y ago
  > Not an American, but the reported resignation process of just sending arbitrary content email with subject "resign" to "hr@opm.gov" feels like the real aim is to collect emails and response time data to establish cluster system health metric to determine which nodes can be murdered safely. Is that all it takes? Think they check DKIM and SPF?
  - numpad0 2y ago
    It's all completely crazy. There are rumors that some of offer emails didn't pass DMARC in the first place. Reportedly it started with someone from xAI showing up at an OPM physical location with a computer to plug into the network. People calling it coup or analogizing the ops team to Chinese Red Guards aren't exaggerating.
    - IAmGraydon 2y ago
      You have a source for these rumors, I'm sure?
      - numpad0 2y ago
        I said rumors? e: https://old.reddit.com/r/fednews/comments/1if91mn/opm_fork_in_the_road_server_completely_unsecured/ https://old.reddit.com/r/fednews/comments/1if91mn/opm_fork_i...
  - IncreasePosts 2y ago
duxup 2y ago
Being asked to take a deal that the administration may be offering illegally is a wild situation to be in. Especially when the administration doing so seems to have little regard for the law, and SCOTUS has deemed them above the law to some extent. Are you making a deal they will actually pay, and could it be that the administration simply chooses to ignore the courts?
chairmansteve 2y ago
The plan seems to be to fire almost all government emoloyees. The only historical parallel I can come up with is the De Baathification program in Iraq 2003.
- 9283409232 2y ago
  RAGE is one of the main points of this entire department. Retire All Government Employees.
  - Maxious 2y ago
    For further context, "Retire All Government Employees" is slogan from proponents of what became project 2025 https://www.theverge.com/2024/10/16/24266512/jd-vance-curtis-yarvin-influence-rage-project-2025 https://www.theverge.com/2024/10/16/24266512/jd-vance-curtis... You can read the actual 180 day plan to "deconstruct the Administrative State" in the infamous Project 2025 manifesto https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FUL...
- bgnn 2y ago
  Collapse oc the DDR smd Soviet Union maybe?
- tdeck 2y ago
  Completely destroying a government so that contracfors from the US private sector could sweep in and take over? I fail to see the parallels.
  - headsupernova 2y ago
    Seems 1:1?
  - slt2021 2y ago
    so Trump is doing to USA what USA did to Iraq? Poetic justice
- carabiner 2y ago
legitster 2y ago
Now just imagine every future administration does this, and we have more or less returned to the Spoils System through a loophole. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system
- mcmcmc 2y ago
  Time is a flat circle. All the crypto scamming is just the wildcat banking era come again.
billiam 2y ago
If you are a federal employee that got an email from these scumbags, look at who is extending this "offer." Trump, who has stiffed everyone who ever did work for him, and Musk, who still is being sued by lots of Twitter employees especially execs, for their unpaid severance. They are the most untrustworthy people ever to serve in the federal government.
alberth 2y ago
Just some context: 2.9M federal employees 0.6% have taken buyout https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-people-work-for-the-federal-government/ https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-people-work-for-the-f...
- dpkirchner 2y ago
  And something like 100k retire every year, so I'd bet a lot of these folks are people who were about to retire anyway. https://www.opm.gov/retirement-center/retirement-statistics/ https://www.opm.gov/retirement-center/retirement-statistics/
- NotYourLawyer 2y ago
  [flagged]
sigzero 2y ago
They should have allowed more time to accept it AND explained more what it meant. An FAQ came out later but it was poorly implemented.
seatac76 2y ago
40,000 now according to WSJ
danpalmer 2y ago
I'm sure that the guys who are otherwise being incredibly cruel to almost everyone in the US in some way, but who have offered an uncharacteristically generous severance package, have every intention of honouring that package.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  plus they're known for their honesty!
nrclark 2y ago
So that's another 20k people who are now unemployed. Kind of hard to really count that as a victory.
- int_19h 2y ago
  To people who support all this, public jobs are basically welfare.
  - nrclark 2y ago
    Could be. But people need a sense of purpose. I'd rather have 20k people with a make-work job than 20k people collecting unemployment. Running too lean is also bad for resiliency, which is a lesson that every manufacturing company learned during the pandemic.
throwaway984393 2y ago
[dead]
lend000 2y ago
The quality of the comments is really disappointing. I'll add an optimistic one -- this is the first time in my lifetime that I've felt like the federal government was actually making serious progress on an important problem without being forced to by some emergency. I'm very curious to see what things look like a year from now.
phaedrus441 2y ago
Late to the party, but I know of at least two highly-paid coworkers that already had plans to retire, but are now just hoping for several months of extra pay (it's essentially the only situation where I would recommend someone take this offer-- if it works out, great for them; if it doesn't, well they were going to leave anyway)
- Jtsummers 2y ago
  The other people it makes sense for (assuming they actually follow through) are those who are remote and don't want to or for some reason cannot move. This gives them an exemption to the RTO order and time to find a job.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
Update on this: NYTimes today reported that > Later in the agreement, it makes clear that any of the administration’s obligations “are subject to the availability of appropriations.” In other words, if it's not in an upcoming deal to raise the debt ceiling, then it won't necessarily be funded. As many in this thread have speculated, it is not guaranteed. Federal workers, proceed at your own risk.
42772827 2y ago
This is 1/6th of the normal attrition rate for the year

280 points by djoldman 2y ago

jaxnhgds 2y ago

[dead]

anna41517 2y ago

[dead]

kouru225 2y ago

I’d say there’s a 90% chance that they’re never seeing more than 5% of that severance package.

manbart 2y ago

Doubt it... You'd be a fool to think you'd actually get the money

derektank 2y ago
There's a lot of people that, due to their living situation, wouldn't be able to comply with the new executive order banning work from home. If the choice is between being fired either way, I can see many people opting to take the possibility of a severance while they find alternative work
- pixl97 2y ago
  Finding new work is going to be freaking great with rapidly dropping consumer confidence and the random ass tariff changes scaring the hell out of businesses.
  - drawkward 2y ago
    President Trusk is going to completely screw the economy.
- throwawayguy867 2y ago
  I'm in this situation. I was hired fully remote (and no office to "return" to), many states away from DC and no intention to move (not for an administration that would have no scruples about firing me at any point, for any reason). Since I'm fairly sure my goose is cooked either way, I am considering doing the deferred resignation thing just to get a few more dollars in my pocket before the inevitable comes.
  - throitallaway 2y ago
    All going according to plan.
axus 2y ago
This is why the deadline is before the next paycheck :P
Molitor5901 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- sitkack 2y ago
  I don't know why you keep repeating this everywhere. It is not a sure thing. And legality has no bearing anymore.
- kgermino 2y ago
  Nope, it's only budgeted through March 14th, noticeably before September 31st
- scarface_74 2y ago
  Who is going to enforce the law? Trump appointed judges? Even if the lawsuits are successful, our system depends on the Executive branch respecting the verdict. At least during his last term you had Republicans on both the state and federal levels who weren’t sycophants. They’ve all died, retired or are now kissing the ring.
- neaden 2y ago
  OK so? Do you think the president has to obey the laws? Will the FBI arrest him if they don't? What do you think the consequence will realistically be?
  - justin66 2y ago
    The consequence of those people not being paid is that they'd sue the government as a class, win, and then be paid.
    - tstrimple 2y ago
      You've clearly not been paying any attention to what has happened to the judicial system in this country. Trump and Elon are both infamous for ripping people off and often getting away with it via the (compromised) court system. https://www.reuters.com/legal/elon-musk-beats-500-million-severance-lawsuit-by-fired-twitter-workers-2024-07-10/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/elon-musk-beats-500-million-se...
desumeku 2y ago
Is this where we're at now? Thinking that the new administration will just openly refuse to pay people's salaries as part of a formal deal?
- NickC25 2y ago
  Donald Trump is known for stiffing people. His administration will reflect his pettiness.
- eigart 2y ago
  Yes.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/... > Donald Trump often portrays himself as a savior of the working class who will "protect your job." But a USA TODAY NETWORK analysis found he has been involved in more than 3,500 lawsuits over the past three decades — and a large number of those involve ordinary Americans, like the Friels, who say Trump or his companies have refused to pay them. > In addition to the lawsuits, the review found more than 200 mechanic’s liens — filed by contractors and employees against Trump, his companies or his properties claiming they were owed money for their work — since the 1980s. The liens range from a $75,000 claim by a Plainview, N.Y., air conditioning and heating company to a $1 million claim from the president of a New York City real estate banking firm. On just one project, Trump’s Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City, records released by the New Jersey Casino Control Commission in 1990 show that at least 253 subcontractors weren’t paid in full or on time, including workers who installed walls, chandeliers and plumbing. > In courtroom testimony, the manager of the general contractor for the Doral renovation admitted that a decision was made not to pay The Paint Spot because Trump “already paid enough.” As the construction manager spoke, “Trump’s trial attorneys visibly winced, began breathing heavily, and attempted to make eye contact” with the witness, the judge noted in his ruling.
- kgermino 2y ago
  The offer mirrors Elon's offer to Twitter employees and many of them did not receive the money they were promised. Elon doesn't have the legal authority to make this offer today, it's poorly defined, and not a standard separation policy for federal employees. I'm not saying they won't be paid out, but I would't bet my livelihood on it
9rx 2y ago
Of course, if they decide to not pay you it won't matter if you took this or tried to keep your job. So you may get a head start and turn your time to searching for a new job now. If they do end up following through with the buyout payments in the end, that is an added bonus.

techapple 2y ago

Interesting they say their goal is 5-10% when normal attrition is six percent, that means essentially their goal is -6 to 4%

csa 2y ago
> Interesting they say their goal is 5-10% when normal attrition is six percent, that means essentially their goal is -6 to 4% Basically, yes. If they had worked within the existing VSIP (voluntary separation) and VERA (early retirement) systems, maybe by tweaking things like max payouts, they could have almost guaranteed 10%+ by September, imho. The haphazard and non-standard way they’ve gone about it, however, makes me think that they will be at the low end of their range. The other possible explanations are: - they don’t really intend to pay those who resign (e.g., via admin leave status and then having a furlough in March) - their ultimate goal is to have people not take the deal so that they can just fire with impunity. Imho, this type of reduction will only work for folks on probation (who, imho, are the only ones who should actually consider taking the resignation offer).

kevmo314 2y ago

> The buyout offer entitles federal employees to stop working more or less immediately and continue to be paid through Sept. 30. > The federal workforce's normal attrition rate is about 6% a year, meaning some of those who've taken the buyout may have been planning to leave government service anyway. Wow, talk about an amazing deal if you already happened to be planning on leaving...

bilekas 2y ago
> Critics argue the offer is illegal, there's no real guarantee people will get paid out, and it's something Congress would need to authorize. Give then history of this particular admistration & business', I personally wouldn't be too confident in actually getting paid up to Sept.
- iancmceachern 2y ago
  Totally, all those Twitter people that never saw it...
- Molitor5901 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - thesuperbigfrog 2y ago
    >> Congress technically already authorized it when it approved the FY 2025 budget. That's why they are getting paid to September. That money was already approved and appropriated by congress, signed into law, and is the budget for that agency. They're spending that money how congress directed them to, but in a way congress likely never anticipated. No money has been appropriated beyond March 14th. "the promise to pay employees beyond Mar. 14 is unauthorized. The Anti-Deficiency Act prohibits an agency from entering a contract 'before any appropriation is made unless authorized by law.' The deferred resignation program offers employees pay that is not currently appropriated. Current appropriations will expire on Mar. 14th and, therefore, agencies currently lack the legal authority to agree to pay employees beyond this date." Source: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/will-employees-who-resign-have-a-remedy https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/will-employees-who-resi...

francisofascii 2y ago

20K represents "about 1% of the federal workforce"

sampton 2y ago

20k represents 1%. The target is 5-10%. The messaging is 100-200k federal layoff is coming.

varsketiz 2y ago
Since the turover rate per year is 6%, implemented hiring freeze would yield theese results.
- sampton 2y ago
  Does the 6% number includes churn between departments? Unless ICE can absorb 100k+ headcount the number will be much lower this year.
- pixl97 2y ago
  1) You're assuming these leadership clowns are that smart 2) They are targeting particular employees more.
- bhouston 2y ago
  Which is exactly what Canadian government has been doing for a while now after the service ballooned during the pandemic, e.g.: https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPublicServants/comments/1g9qy1w/hiring_freeze_budget_cuts_workplaceworkforce/ https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPublicServants/comments/1g9qy...
- vaccineai 2y ago
  there is a hiring freeze https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/hiring-freeze/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/hiri.... this buyout is meant to accelerate
s3r3nity 2y ago
These tend to work through in stages: fastest ones to accept were already looking, and next up are those that are on the fence, and so on... The 8-month buyout offer is significantly better than the one-time offer from Clinton in the 90's [1], even adjusting for inflation, so I'd expect that there's a large group of individuals & families that are just taking the time to evaluate the decision. [https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-the-buyout-program-for-federal-employees https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-the-buyo...]

nielsbot 2y ago

Related: “Will Employees Who Resign Have a Remedy?” https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42950301 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42950301

mateus1 2y ago
These topics are being routinely taken down by the mod team.
- drawkward 2y ago
  HN is sufficiently MAGA as to not require bad faith actions by dang.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

simple10 2y ago

It's interesting that annual attrition rate is 6% according to the article. I hadn't considered that before. The buyouts could end up costing more than they save if the only people who take it were the ones already planning on leaving. But maybe the argument is if enough people take it before the March budget deadline, then each departments budget can be proportionately reduced in the next cycle. Does anyone know the math and politics on this? Why didn't DOGE just put hiring freezes in place and wait for people to leave? Honest question. I'm not looking to bait anyone into mud slinging about Trump and Elon.

amazingamazing 2y ago
short answer - takes too long
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
biofox 2y ago
Without wanting to mud sling, this has not gone through the usual oversight and review committees that something like this usually would, so I suspect it hasn't been planned out and costed (much like other recent policy announcements). When "move fast and break things" meets public finance.
wbl 2y ago
I'm going to try not to mud sling but looking at the managerial history of the people involved does not make taking erratic pointless action a total surprise.
dboreham 2y ago
Not sure if this is mud but you're analyzing this as if it should make sense. It doesn't need to and doesn't because it's a performance art piece.
cyberlurker 2y ago
Move fast and break things mentality over the boring strategy of letting a hiring freeze slowly work. It’s also psychologically challenging the people that stay to “admit” they can’t get a job in the private sector, which helps the Elon narrative. They want to make government employees feel bad. Plus these people are unlikely to ever get paid. This is all operating outside of congress. If the institutions survive at all this could become a mess of expensive lawsuits and settlements. But I suppose their intention is to permanently cut Congress out of the picture.

Shank 2y ago

I think the main issue for anyone wanting to take the offer is simply: this was never authorized by congress, so the money to pay people to September is questionable if it exists at best. Meanwhile, there's a government funding deadline on March 14, 2025. So there's a very real chance at this deal offering something closer to ~1 month of pay before it suddenly gets dropped due to budget negotiations. It would be an incredibly generous and nice buyout package, but obviously if it gets torn up after a month it's not that great of a deal.

remarkEon 2y ago
Have the exact payment details been released? Because I understood it as "you will get paid same as always through September, you just don't have to show up to work". Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but that doesn't sound like a "buyout" in the traditional sense.
- Jtsummers 2y ago
  It is not a buyout. OPM has said that agencies can opt to put people who choose this on administrative leave (but they don't have to, they can keep the people working). So the effect is what the name is "deferred resignation", OPM pinky swears that you won't be cut before 30 September in a RIF or other actions if you take this offer and you'll get your biweekly pay as normal.
  - nkurz 2y ago
    What's your source for the assertion that it's not a buyout and it's up to the individual agency if the employee is required to continue working? You might be right that it's not a buyout, but the official Office of Personnel Management FAQ seems to clearly describe it as one: Q: Am I expected to work at my government job during the deferred resignation period? A: No. Q: Am I allowed to get a second job during the deferred resignation period? A: Absolutely! We encourage you to find a job in the private sector as soon as you would like to do so. The way to greater American prosperity is encouraging people to move from lower productivity jobs in the public sector to higher productivity jobs in the private sector. Q: Will I really get my full pay and benefits during the entire period through September 30, even if I get a second job? A: Yes. You will also continue to accrue annual leave and sick leave during the deferred resignation period until you separate. You will be paid a lump sum for accrued but unused annual leave upon separation. Q: Can I take an extended vacation while on administrative leave? A: You are most welcome to stay at home and relax or to travel to your dream destination. Whatever you would like. https://www.opm.gov/fork/faq https://www.opm.gov/fork/faq Is there an explanation for this apparent discrepancy?

n0rdy 2y ago

I've always found this approach of reducing the number of employees unwise from the company perspective (but pretty good for the employees, though). While the unsatisfied employees are the target, my observations indicate that a high percentage of active and skilled people are willing to take this offer, as they are sure that they will find a new place within a reasonable time, so it's basically, free money. And those are the people that the company should try to keep as much as it could. While the "give me a task with the perfect description, and I will do it" folks will stay until they are kicked out, as, usually, they are not up to taking the initiative. That's why I saw how the companies that were changing the rules in the process: "well, it's an offer, but your manager needs to approve that first", and other tricks to be able to reject it for the top performers. Needless to say, it leads to the bad moral. However, the companies I'm mentioning had way fewer employees than the federal workforce, so the chances are that with that size it's impossible to do it the "right" way.

neonarray 2y ago
Yes, but I believe this is the intent. It's not a matter of it being good for the business when the CEO of said business intentionally wants it to fail.
feoren 2y ago
> unwise from the company perspective The goal is to destroy most of these federal agencies, so doing things that are "unwise" for the future of those agencies is exactly the point.
- n0rdy 2y ago
  Yes, indeed, in this particular case it is exactly as you said. However, I've seen this in the tech industry, that's a surprising bit for me
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
orasis 2y ago

outside1234 2y ago

These people are fools. They are never going to get paid as this scheme was illegal. And even if it was legal, see Twitter and severance.

lawn 2y ago
And Trump's decades of refusing to pay people.

robomartin 2y ago

The idea that government workers cannot be hired and fired at will is wrong. Government workers should have no more rights than the single mother working at a restaurant or business, or anyone working at any normal business in the US. I other words, they should not have more rights or protections than the people who pay the taxes that pay for their salaries and benefits. One of the most fundamental problems in various types of organizations with these types of protections is what I call "human rot". These are people who are lazy and incompetent and who only remain employed because of these protections as opposed to merit, doing a good job and actually making valuable contributions to the organization. Locally, one of the most disgusting examples I came across is a middle school "science" teacher who is a chiropractor and teaches absolute nonsense and falsehoods to our kids. For example --and this is just one of many-- he has been teaching that the moon does not spin on its axis. Yeah. Beyond that, he is a jerk to the kids and does not allow them to ask questions. He cannot be challenged or fired for any of it. He is protected. And we wonder why our results in education are shit.

jotux 2y ago
You're confusing state and federal employees with your teacher example.
- robomartin 2y ago
  Nope. There are a class of workers who have unfair protections that none of the rest of us have. We pay their salaries. They should be subject the same market forces we are. They should exist under the same rules that the average taxpayer lives under. They should have the same healthcare and benefit that the average taxpayer has. This applies to everyone in government. If we pay their salaries, they cannot have it better than we do on average. They should be competent at what they do. They should be qualified. And they should not be protected from losing their jobs if they are no longer necessary or are bad at what they do. This permeates many levels of society. The local example is just the tip of the iceberg. You could go up the chain to city, state and federal and find similar problems. It's one of the most fundamental questions and one that a lot of people do not understand because they have never run a business (or ran something trivial). There are countries where getting rid of unnecessary or incompetent employees is nearly impossible. This leads to businesses not hiring people because they cannot afford the dead weight or risk involved (also leads to illicit job markets). Being able to manage your workforce is one of the most fundamental tasks in a business. It is no different in schools or government. We cannot optimize for the best people and best outcomes because we cannot get rid of dead weight. We get stuck with the incompetent because they cannot be fired. This is madness. And, judging from the downvotes, the ignorance does not escape some HN readers. I hope one day they are stuck with people who just burn their cash and they get nothing for it. Maybe then they will understand. It is unbelievable to me that such a fundamental understanding is lacking from society. We let idiots burn the cash we send them. There is no such thing as government money, it's our money. And it must be treated with more respect than to burn it on layers of bureaucracy and incompetence.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

[flagged]

locallost 2y ago
Plus, the positive side effect of the government sector getting as efficient as the private sector and especially the tech sector, would be the massive expansion of the domestic foosball manufacturing industry.
scarface_74 2y ago
You realize that this won’t make a dent in the budget compared to military spending, social security and Medicare?
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
> The government needs to be downsized by millions Curious about the reason for this. Is there math that shows the first- and second-order effects of specific roles being removed? I ask because I've seen so much talk about the need for this, seemingly without much being supplied in the way of reason.
- reverendsteveii 2y ago
  this is what you might call a vibes-based analysis. proof that the government needs to be dramatically downsized is found in the way it feels good to say and jives with relevant preconceptions.
  - Xelynega 2y ago
    I feel like there's some famous quote about facts and feelings not caring about one another...
nilamo 2y ago
> Unfortunately public sector unions, which shouldn’t even exist You what? Why in the world do you think unions shouldn't exist? I had a parent that did a lot with FEW (Federally Employed Women) and NARFE (National Active and Retired Federal Employees) at TACOM, where I learned how much the union does for federal employees, so your statement sounds like complete nonsense to me.

root_axis 2y ago

My personal and probably not unique prediction is that these people will be let go and not be paid - same thing he did with twitter.

fred_is_fred 2y ago
It is worth looking back at President Musk's previous actions here. I know the twitter engineers sued. Was it ever settled?
- hypothesis 2y ago
  It appears most of those claims went to arbitration, so we are unlikely to learn results… https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/most-lawsuit-over-musks-twitter-layoffs-should-proceed-us-magistrate-rules-2024-12-05/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/most-lawsuit-over-m...
justin66 2y ago
There are some pretty significant differences between Twitter employees and federal government employees, starting with the fact that a lot of latter group are part of a powerful union.
- toss1 2y ago
  Sure, but even in a normal situation, all the Union can do is provide greater resources to initiate legal and possibly work actions. Which, in a normal situation might be very effective. This is NOT anything resembling a normal situation; to treat it as such is merely an exercise in normalcy bias. Under an authoritarian regime, as is being setup as we type, legal actions are irrelevant as the judicial and legislative branches lose independence and serve the executive. Work actions likely result in the union being decertified and dissolved.
- root_axis 2y ago
  Let's see what happens. At this point, I'm not convinced the union has any leverage.

JackYoustra 2y ago

Who knows how evenly spread it is? It may be that each service gets better, it may be all services stay the same except for, say, NRO, and we miss a nuclear center being built.

ggreer 2y ago
I'm guessing you meant the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, not the National Reconnaissance Office. Considering that since the NRC was created in 1975, no nuclear plant license initially submitted to them has begun commercial operations, I think it would be difficult to further impede progress.[1] I have no clue whether these buyouts will be beneficial or not. It really depends on how government responsibilities are structured. If everything operates under the same rules but there are fewer workers to process everything, then it will hurt economic and technological growth. If, on the other hand, there is a lot of dead weight in these departments, or the rules change to streamline certain processes, then it could be a net improvement. It will probably be years before we have a definitive answer. And as you say, it will probably be different for different parts of the government. 1. Some new nuclear power plants have come online since 1975, but they were all from licenses that were initially submitted to the NRC's predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission. Also the NRC did approve two new nuclear reactors at an existing plant, and those did begin commercial operations 19 years after the license was applied for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant#Units_3_and_4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla...
- panzagl 2y ago
  He means NRO- the US would miss a nuclear center being built in Iran or where ever because all the NRO left to be SpaceX minions.
- JackYoustra 2y ago
  I meant National Reconnaissance Office - missing a nuke plant being built for weapons in another country. I would be very happy for a more accommodating civilian environment in the US. And if we don't know if it'd be beneficial... idk, I kinda like my life? It can get really really bad? Maybe we shouldn't blindly cut and think about it?

yodsanklai 2y ago

[flagged]

calvinmorrison 2y ago

oh, so we're doing politics on HN now?

seattle_spring 2y ago
Your HN profile "about" section is quite literally more political than anything said in this article or thread.
- calvinmorrison 2y ago
  guess im living rent free

benatkin 2y ago

It’s quite similar to the student loan forgiveness in terms of it being about financial obligations to middle class citizens and it being attempted without Congress, as well as the likelihood for overpromising and underdelivering. The ordinary citizens making a choice in a way that would have an effect like promissory estoppel adds an interesting wrinkle but I don’t see how it changes the constitutionality of it. I think that many of those calling it unconstitutional are being hypocritical, even though they may be right.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
spacemanspiff01 2y ago
I personally thought that student loan forgiveness was unconstitutional. That being said, alot of the actions of the current admin are designed to push the boarders of executive power. They are trying to move fast and break things and do an end run around congressional oversight, before the courts can catch up. The example of this is USaid, which was probably not legal in the method they went about. But no one will be putting that egg back together. Contrast this to when Biden did his student loan forgiveness, it was telegraphed for months, and a court immediately blocked it pending review. And most importantly it was a single action. All that being said, both are bad, my overall point is that we as Americans deserve better, and 'but they did it first' is not a valid excuse. My hope is that we finally start reducing the power of the executive branch. The past 100 years of congress abdicating it's responsibility has been too much.

excalibur 2y ago

Sellouts

Mithriil 2y ago

> "a senior administration official tells Axios." Another source of misinformation, now, maybe?

SrslyJosh 2y ago
Exactly what I was thinking. They can make up any number they want, we have no way to verify it. This could just be a lie to further demoralize workers and/or make them afraid of missing out on the chance to get a buyout.
skepticATX 2y ago
Yes, there’s practically no chance that this is true.

jmclnx 2y ago

As someone who has been offered similar buy-outs, the one presented here is a poor deal. I would not have taken that one unless I already had a job waiting for me.

TMWNN 2y ago
In what universe, public or private, is nine months of pay a poor deal for a buyout?
- seattle_spring 2y ago
  The one where it's offered by an administration with a history of lying, particularly around the fulfillment of past contracts. Payment is only guaranteed until mid-March. In other words, this universe.
- jmclnx 2y ago
  BTW it is 8 months. https://apnews.com/article/trump-buyouts-to-all-federal-employees-f67f5751a0fd5ad8471806a5a1067b5e https://apnews.com/article/trump-buyouts-to-all-federal-empl... But does this include benefits ? How about contributions to the pension, what will be the pension benefits when you retire ? Will you be fully vested when you leave ? What happens to your security clearance (if you have one) There are many unknowns, so to me, if you work for the federal gov, you would be insane to take this package. Unless of course you already have a guaranteed Job you can start when you leave. Plus many IRS employees tried to take this package and was denied, now the Fed has a list of employees that want to leave. Will they be fired once Tax season is over without the 8 month package ?
elicash 2y ago
This depends on your situation. For example... Are you someone who took a federal job where you were working from home, and the nearest office near you is 5 hours away? And now you can't sell your home in time for the deadline to start working in the office? Then yeah, you take the gamble on not getting paid. The only problem with this approach is you cannot collect unemployment like you can if you're let go.

numpad0 2y ago

Not an American, but the reported resignation process of just sending arbitrary content email with subject "resign" to "hr@opm.gov" feels like the real aim is to collect emails and response time data to establish cluster system health metric to determine which nodes can be murdered safely. It's almost strange to me that this aspect, and stupidity of injecting non-compiling code to human mainframes collective that runs on legalese in an attempt to collect such data, seem to be rarely discussed.

toast0 2y ago
> Not an American, but the reported resignation process of just sending arbitrary content email with subject "resign" to "hr@opm.gov" feels like the real aim is to collect emails and response time data to establish cluster system health metric to determine which nodes can be murdered safely. Is that all it takes? Think they check DKIM and SPF?
- numpad0 2y ago
  It's all completely crazy. There are rumors that some of offer emails didn't pass DMARC in the first place. Reportedly it started with someone from xAI showing up at an OPM physical location with a computer to plug into the network. People calling it coup or analogizing the ops team to Chinese Red Guards aren't exaggerating.
  - IAmGraydon 2y ago
    You have a source for these rumors, I'm sure?
    - numpad0 2y ago
      I said rumors? e: https://old.reddit.com/r/fednews/comments/1if91mn/opm_fork_in_the_road_server_completely_unsecured/ https://old.reddit.com/r/fednews/comments/1if91mn/opm_fork_i...
- IncreasePosts 2y ago

duxup 2y ago

Being asked to take a deal that the administration may be offering illegally is a wild situation to be in. Especially when the administration doing so seems to have little regard for the law, and SCOTUS has deemed them above the law to some extent. Are you making a deal they will actually pay, and could it be that the administration simply chooses to ignore the courts?

chairmansteve 2y ago

The plan seems to be to fire almost all government emoloyees. The only historical parallel I can come up with is the De Baathification program in Iraq 2003.

9283409232 2y ago
RAGE is one of the main points of this entire department. Retire All Government Employees.
- Maxious 2y ago
  For further context, "Retire All Government Employees" is slogan from proponents of what became project 2025 https://www.theverge.com/2024/10/16/24266512/jd-vance-curtis-yarvin-influence-rage-project-2025 https://www.theverge.com/2024/10/16/24266512/jd-vance-curtis... You can read the actual 180 day plan to "deconstruct the Administrative State" in the infamous Project 2025 manifesto https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FUL...
bgnn 2y ago
Collapse oc the DDR smd Soviet Union maybe?
tdeck 2y ago
Completely destroying a government so that contracfors from the US private sector could sweep in and take over? I fail to see the parallels.
- headsupernova 2y ago
  Seems 1:1?
- slt2021 2y ago
  so Trump is doing to USA what USA did to Iraq? Poetic justice
carabiner 2y ago

legitster 2y ago

Now just imagine every future administration does this, and we have more or less returned to the Spoils System through a loophole. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system

mcmcmc 2y ago
Time is a flat circle. All the crypto scamming is just the wildcat banking era come again.

billiam 2y ago

If you are a federal employee that got an email from these scumbags, look at who is extending this "offer." Trump, who has stiffed everyone who ever did work for him, and Musk, who still is being sued by lots of Twitter employees especially execs, for their unpaid severance. They are the most untrustworthy people ever to serve in the federal government.

alberth 2y ago

Just some context: 2.9M federal employees 0.6% have taken buyout https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-people-work-for-the-federal-government/ https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-people-work-for-the-f...

dpkirchner 2y ago
And something like 100k retire every year, so I'd bet a lot of these folks are people who were about to retire anyway. https://www.opm.gov/retirement-center/retirement-statistics/ https://www.opm.gov/retirement-center/retirement-statistics/
NotYourLawyer 2y ago
[flagged]

sigzero 2y ago

They should have allowed more time to accept it AND explained more what it meant. An FAQ came out later but it was poorly implemented.

seatac76 2y ago

40,000 now according to WSJ

danpalmer 2y ago

I'm sure that the guys who are otherwise being incredibly cruel to almost everyone in the US in some way, but who have offered an uncharacteristically generous severance package, have every intention of honouring that package.

insane_dreamer 2y ago
plus they're known for their honesty!

nrclark 2y ago

So that's another 20k people who are now unemployed. Kind of hard to really count that as a victory.

int_19h 2y ago
To people who support all this, public jobs are basically welfare.
- nrclark 2y ago
  Could be. But people need a sense of purpose. I'd rather have 20k people with a make-work job than 20k people collecting unemployment. Running too lean is also bad for resiliency, which is a lesson that every manufacturing company learned during the pandemic.

throwaway984393 2y ago

[dead]

lend000 2y ago

The quality of the comments is really disappointing. I'll add an optimistic one -- this is the first time in my lifetime that I've felt like the federal government was actually making serious progress on an important problem without being forced to by some emergency. I'm very curious to see what things look like a year from now.

phaedrus441 2y ago

Late to the party, but I know of at least two highly-paid coworkers that already had plans to retire, but are now just hoping for several months of extra pay (it's essentially the only situation where I would recommend someone take this offer-- if it works out, great for them; if it doesn't, well they were going to leave anyway)

Jtsummers 2y ago
The other people it makes sense for (assuming they actually follow through) are those who are remote and don't want to or for some reason cannot move. This gives them an exemption to the RTO order and time to find a job.

insane_dreamer 2y ago

Update on this: NYTimes today reported that > Later in the agreement, it makes clear that any of the administration’s obligations “are subject to the availability of appropriations.” In other words, if it's not in an upcoming deal to raise the debt ceiling, then it won't necessarily be funded. As many in this thread have speculated, it is not guaranteed. Federal workers, proceed at your own risk.

42772827 2y ago

This is 1/6th of the normal attrition rate for the year