12 ms·

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 questio

by 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?
    - Jtsummers 2y ago
      > I am certain of my decision to resign and my choice to resign is fully voluntary. I understand my employing agency will likely make adjustments in response to my resignation including moving, eliminating, consolidating, reassigning my position and tasks, reducing my official duties, and/or placing me on paid administrative leave until my resignation date. From https://www.opm.gov/fork/ https://www.opm.gov/fork/ That is what resigners agree to. There is no guarantee of leave and it is up to their agency, not OPM. The FAQ has previously contained information contradicting the OPM Fork letter so it's not surprising the two pages disagree still. It's not a buyout because it is not a lump sum severance. The payout for annual leave is given to all departing feds (resigning or retiring or RIF'd), it is not unique to this offer. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/leave-administration/fact-sheets/administrative-leave https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/leave-ad... OPM also says that admin leave authority rests with the agency, not them.
      - Jtsummers 2y ago
        https://www.opm.gov/media/xmxfp34k/opm-memo-legality-of-deferred-resignation-program-2-4-2025-final-1.pdf https://www.opm.gov/media/xmxfp34k/opm-memo-legality-of-defe... Best source for information on this since the FAQ disagrees with the memo and the contents of the letter. > Yes. The decision to grant administrative leave, and for how long, lies largely within the agency’s discretion. That's the official OPM guidance on this, where they're saying that you may have to work and that it is up to the agency and not OPM.
        nkurz 2y ago
        Thanks, this does seem to be a much clearer statement. I appreciate the followup!
656556h56h65h 2y ago
Well it is a good thing Trump and co are so well known for paying what they owe. These people are dumb if they take the offer. Job market has been cooked for 3 years already, these people will not fair well.
- NickC25 2y ago
  Correct. Donald Trump has had a reputation for stiffing people for close to 50 years now. These workers will resign, and won't get paid what they were told they'd get paid. This is a man who is so cheap, so petty, he held up billions of dollars worth of economic relief during COVID just so he could have his signature on a bunch of stimulus checks.
csa 2y ago
> this was never authorized by congress, Correct. > so the money to pay people to September is questionable if it exists at best Incorrect. The money is budgeted through September (end of federal FY). Things are currently only funded through March 15 (CRs and whatnot). The money is or will be there. Historically, even if there is a furlough, this money is backfilled and folks are paid. Note that there will probably be riots if lengthy furloughed folks don’t get back pay. > 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. Correct. The speculation is that: 1. The “resign” folks will be put on admin leave in March 1 (or earlier). 2. Budget impasse in mid-March. Furlough ensues. 3. Folks on admin leave just end up getting cut, or not paid, and/or not back paid due to peculiarities of admin leave. > 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. I think it’s above average, but not “incredibly generous”. People get $25k VSIP and VERA offers all the time. This may not seem like a lot, but many fed employees live in low COL areas and/or earn relatively low wages. The best parts of the package, assuming they deliver, would be things like insurance (for non-retirees) and possibly TSP contributions and matching (if those are allowed). If they want the numbers they say that they want, I think something near this level of package is necessary.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
  If they were not paid because they were on "admin leave", does that look bad for Trump, or does that look bad for Congress? And who in a Republican Congress will want to do that anyway? They're mostly on board for this bullshit aren't they?
  - csa 2y ago
    > If they were not paid because they were on "admin leave", does that look bad for Trump, or does that look bad for Congress? It would be Trump/Elon. Someone told me the details of how they could not pay people. It’s administrivia. It will go unnoticed by most just like how the twitter folks not getting paid went unnoticed by most. > And who in a Republican Congress will want to do that anyway? They give zero fucks about fucking over feds or former Feds, as they are (allegedly) all lazy and useless. The end result will be less money spent (trivial, but still) and a lower head count moving forward. The Republican rhetoric on this largely doesn’t jibe with reality. Yes, there are underemployed people in the federal government (as exist in any large org). Identifying that slack and cutting it is not something that can be done with laser shots from space. They can only be done from the ground, imho. The current way they are doing things is going to end with a lot of unpleasant unintended consequences.
jfkrrorj 2y ago
》 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. I do not see your arguments US has worker protections, even if US government goes bancrupt, it has to pay its obligations. And if government refuses to pay, no worker, even if employed, is getting anything!
- cyanydeez 2y ago
  worker protections exist in a world of laws. This is not the world being offered to them, so good luck doing anything but throwing money at lawyers. everyone who thinks laws are just something you can invoke like magic should go sit down.
- alasdair_ 2y ago
  If congress doesn't allocate the money, they won't be paid, even if they have a contract that says they will. Imagine Trump decided to offer a worker a trillion dollars. He writes a contract with the worker. It is irrelevant - the worker won't be paid because the executive branch is not allowed to spend money that hasn't been authorized by congress.
  - jfkrrorj 2y ago
    [flagged]
- scottLobster 2y ago
  And you think that an offer accepted by sending an email with "Resign" in the subject line is subject to these protections? You think DOGE is even authorized to make said offers? Why, because Elon and Trump said so? Also your last line is just bizarre. The US government can very much selectively pay some parties but not others during a shutdown. That's kind of the definition of a shutdown.... Plus this administration is already brazenly breaking laws. You think they won't violate worker protection laws? Sure, maybe the courts sort it out in a year or two, small comfort to the people who were relying on that income to pay their rent in the meantime.
veggieroll 2y ago
I think the adminstration's plan to execute on this is basically garden leave. They tell the "retiring" employees to stop working, but keep them on the payroll so they keep getting paid. This administration has been playing a lot of games with "budgeted" vs. "delayed" vs. "actively being worked on" (or not). So this isn't really that different than the abrupt cancellations or delays or re-org'ing of funded and legislatively mandated work. The main difference is the uncertainty. IMO anyone would be incredibly foolish to accept a deal from a random email with such limited info on the exact terms of what happens in edge cases like you describe: shutdown, budget shenanigans, actual official RIF, etc.
- bigmattystyles 2y ago
  That sounds illegal
  - dgfitz 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - throwway120385 2y ago
      Sure, but those same employees also had to stay home not working for months while they were getting their clearances, so clearly that's considered reasonable.
    - dcrazy 2y ago
      It’s not illegal to pay someone who is frustrated by circumstance in performing the duties of their government job. It’s possibly illegal to pay someone for a government job that doesn’t exist anymore.
      - nickff 2y ago
        I understand your statement in the de facto sense, but I think the position is still legally authorized by Congress, and thus does exist de jure.
      - 2y ago
causality0 2y ago
It's an even better deal if it gets torn up after a month. You get a one month paid vacation and then go back to work.
- Jtsummers 2y ago
  > You get a one month paid vacation I wrote it elsewhere, but no. It may or may not be a paid vacation. Agencies get to decide themselves, not OPM, whether the employees are put on leave or continue to work. There is zero guarantee that anyone will get administrative leave under the offering.
- scarface_74 2y ago
  You’ve already resigned…
  - lacksconfidence 2y ago
    But that resignation was part of a larger deal. If the deal is thrown out, shouldn't the resignation be thrown out too?
    - scarface_74 2y ago
      And what happens when you try to come back to work? Will Musk pay you or allow you into the office? He literally has control of the federal budget for payments now. We are getting into banana republic territory now with no rule of law.
      - ryandrake 2y ago
        I definitely wouldn't put it past Elon Musk to offer a buyout, collect a list of names who "accept" and then fire them all as disloyal, without any buyout. It would be on-character.
      - Applejinx 2y ago
        Specifically we're getting into territory where political actors choose to behave like there is no rule of law, in hopes they will be believed. Not sure about that one. Nor do I think the election would have gone the way it did if people generally figured their choice was to have Elon Musk's word be law, and everything else including the Constitution to be thrown away as old hat. I really don't think people priced that into their decision, so buyer's remorse becomes a real factor. People may demand that rule of law not be thrown away.
aeternum 2y ago
If the gov will not be funded and you don't believe the gov will honor it's severance agreement why would you believe the employment contract will be honored after March 14?
- Retric 2y ago
  There’s many examples of government shutdowns where workers received back pay even when they didn’t work those hours. So future administrations are likely to retroactively approve payments if it becomes a political issue. Honestly taking the buyout without an act of congress backing it is likely the more risky here unless you where already planning to leave which is likely why most people took it.
  - Jtsummers 2y ago
    By law they have to be paid for the furloughed time in the case of a shutdown, since 2019. Previously, they were typically paid for that time whether they had to work through the shutdown or not but it was not guaranteed. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN12251 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN12251
    - ryandrake 2y ago
      Who's going to enforce that law?
      - Jtsummers 2y ago
        That's a good question, perhaps it should be posed to the members of the so-called party of law and order.
      - mandevil 2y ago
        The employees, suing in Federal court, since they have a clear and obvious loss to point to, they will have standing. Judges can either obey the law or not. If they don't obey the law, then we are much further along on the authoritarian spectrum then everyone thinks, but so far Musk has lost a lot of court cases and has several emergency injunctions against him doing anything.
joe_the_user 2y ago
The question is whether if the deal gets voided by the court, the employee has to still quit or whether they can then return. Especially since the employee wouldn't be formally terminated until the end of the twelve months.
Larrikin 2y ago
Aren't Twitter workers still trying to get their severances and they took the offer when Twitter actually had the money to pay.
- reaperducer 2y ago
  Aren't Twitter workers still trying to get their severances and they took the offer when Twitter actually had the money to pay. Considering that SpaceX is so far behind on its bills that dozens and dozens of companies in Texas have had to place liens against the company, my guess is that neither the Twitter people, nor the SpaceX people, nor the federal buyout people will ever see a dime. For some reason, links to stories about the leins and SpaceX becoming notorious for not paying its bills are hard to come by, but it's in the printed newspapers regularly; as recently as yesterday. Here's and older link I could find: https://www.chron.com/culture/article/spacex-overdue-bills-texas-19454904.php https://www.chron.com/culture/article/spacex-overdue-bills-t...
  - weinzierl 2y ago
    I am complete outsider and know nothing about this so I am sorry to ask but in my view this is a shocking proposition. Can anyone corroborate this? EDIT: Specifically the claim that "SpaceX is so far behind on its bills that dozens and dozens of companies in Texas have had to place liens against the company"
    - hx8 2y ago
      Corroborating complaints about twitter severance [0]. The lawsuit was dismissed because of jurisdiction, not merit. [0] 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...
    - scottyah 2y ago
      They churn through employees fast and they usually exit through burnout (no offloading) and the people wanting to work there skew towards young people who don't know what they're doing. A lot of work gets delayed, dropped, etc and some bad suppliers even take advantage of that ("the last person said they'd do X"). I know it's en-vogue to hate on Elon companies, and a lot of people would love to hear that the World's Richest Man is having financial issues, but in reality it's a bunch of starry-eyed newgrads trying to make the world better but taking on more than they can handle.
olalonde 2y ago
Not American here. Isn't Congress controlled by Republicans? If I understand correctly, it would take 5+ Republicans voting against the party line for a Republican bill to fail to pass? Is this common?
- ojbyrne 2y ago
  I think the number is only 2 or 3 because once some people are confirmed for the cabinet, they have to leave the House of Representatives.
  - djohnston 2y ago
    Really? There must be some replacement who steps in though, no? Otherwise districts would have no representation, which seems unlikely.
    - Jtsummers 2y ago
      For the House of Representatives, the state will hold a special election to fill vacancies: > When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies. - Article I, Section 2 For the Senate, the governor of the state may (per their legislative body's approval) make a temporary appointment and will also hold a special election: > When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. - Amendment XVII https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcri... https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27#toc-amendment-xvii https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27#toc-...
dev_daftly 2y ago
[flagged]
- enragedcacti 2y ago
  Can we not just make things up please? His buyout plan was approved by congress and signed into law before he allowed anyone to opt in which is the entire crux of the issue. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-03-31-mn-40541-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-03-31-mn-40541-...
  - Jtsummers 2y ago
    That option is also available to Trump but it has not been made yet, it's the VSIP option and is an actual buyout.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
unclebucknasty 2y ago
Kind of odd seeing people casually discuss the mechanics/details of what's been going on this last week, as if they whole thing isn't just flagrantly illegal. Reminds me of this: https://www.upworthy.com/hypernormalization-explained https://www.upworthy.com/hypernormalization-explained.
- paulddraper 2y ago
  Please elaborate, what law does administrative leave violate?
- FrontierProject 2y ago
  Ironically, enough, interacting with that website without an adblocker is itself a great example of hypernormalization.
Fomite 2y ago
And proposed by two people, Musk and Trump, who are, shall we say, not great at holding up their end of financial bargains.
zrail 2y ago
It is incredibly foolish to entertain this offer. OPM v Richmond[1] held that the government has effectively zero liability for lying about financial benefits that haven't been specifically authorized by Congress. [1]: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/414/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/414/
kfrzcode 2y ago
The list of expenditures never authorized by Congress is staggering. You're spot-on about the authorization risk but it's just the latest in a perpetual issue. Congress has normalized funding "zombie programs" through autopilot appropriations rather than proper reauthorizations. Notable zombie programs include VA health, women's health spending, NIH research... House Rule XXI (blocking unauthorized spending) gets waived a majority of the time. 50% of expired programs haven't been reviewed in 10+ years. 2023 alone saw $236B in improper payments. So IMO while the buyout could get axed the pattern suggests they'll likely kick the can with another CR. Perhaps this administration will try to force a different tack, I suppose we'll see.
- acomjean 2y ago
  As someone who worked on a NIH funded project whose funding wasn’t renewed last fall after 10 years. Those 10 years included a bunch of renewals. NIH projects aren’t zombie and need constant attention. Plus all research done has to be put in the public domain.
trimethylpurine 2y ago
The government is still an employer and subject to the same liability if not more so. I'd think workers would have a strong case to sue for damages if that happened. I'd take that bet. I can't imagine a situation where a judge wouldn't side with the employee on this.
alkonaut 2y ago
If they don’t fulfill their end of the agreement (paying until the date in question) then surely any agreement to quit in return for X months pay would be broken? So you’d still be employed unless the pay out is made? This is where I go ”I know nothing about US law but if I wouldn’t win this argument in any court even without representation then it must be fundamentally broken” The argument would be ”those who entered the agreement didn’t have the authority to do so” but obviously that can’t hold water.
shusaku 2y ago
I can’t blame anyone for taking the risk. That’s life changing money for normal people. And if you’re in a good spot to get a new job fast, I could see taking a chance on it.
paulddraper 2y ago
Severance packages don't require Congressional approval.
- dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
  Funding can only come from congress. At this scale it will require new funding.
  - paulddraper 2y ago
    The whole idea is to the same or more done with fewer people. According to that hypothesis, it won't require more funding.
User23 2y ago
I think the reason it works is because it’s not technically a buyout. It’s 8 months of reduced duties.
sigzero 2y ago
Well, their positions are funded (depending on how FY25 funds were allocated to the agency). The order just means they can potentially not come to work until September.
goodluckchuck 2y ago
Regardless of what is budgeted, if you have a contract then that can be enforced in federal court.
jcrites 2y ago
Doesn't the budget to pay these people already exist? They are current employees, after all. Their terminations will still shrink the budget, just not as soon as a termination without a severance package. Maybe there are some legal differences in offering what would otherwise be wages as a lump-sum payment, but the budget for those wages already exists (else they could not be employed).
- paulddraper 2y ago
  Correct. The only thing would require more budget is hiring backfills (while paying out the leave). Supposedly, they can get the same work done with fewer people.
verandaguy 2y ago
Fortunately, the current US president has a long and storied history of going out of his way to pay people mutually agreed-upon sums from prior contracts.
- a_victorp 2y ago
  /s
  - verandaguy 2y ago
    Sadly yep.
pfannkuchen 2y ago
Didn’t the budget already include pay for these people through the end of the fiscal year though? Will they need more money if the people stop working now vs stopping in September?
mullingitover 2y ago
The offer can be rescinded, those who take it could just be terminated and per the contract they have absolutely no recourse. It’s arguably an unconscionable contract, it’s so wickedly one-sided.
jonahbenton 2y ago
Trump has never not been, and will never not be, the apocryphal version of PT Barnum.

by Shank 2y ago

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?
  - Jtsummers 2y ago
    > I am certain of my decision to resign and my choice to resign is fully voluntary. I understand my employing agency will likely make adjustments in response to my resignation including moving, eliminating, consolidating, reassigning my position and tasks, reducing my official duties, and/or placing me on paid administrative leave until my resignation date. From https://www.opm.gov/fork/ https://www.opm.gov/fork/ That is what resigners agree to. There is no guarantee of leave and it is up to their agency, not OPM. The FAQ has previously contained information contradicting the OPM Fork letter so it's not surprising the two pages disagree still. It's not a buyout because it is not a lump sum severance. The payout for annual leave is given to all departing feds (resigning or retiring or RIF'd), it is not unique to this offer. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/leave-administration/fact-sheets/administrative-leave https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/leave-ad... OPM also says that admin leave authority rests with the agency, not them.
    - Jtsummers 2y ago
      https://www.opm.gov/media/xmxfp34k/opm-memo-legality-of-deferred-resignation-program-2-4-2025-final-1.pdf https://www.opm.gov/media/xmxfp34k/opm-memo-legality-of-defe... Best source for information on this since the FAQ disagrees with the memo and the contents of the letter. > Yes. The decision to grant administrative leave, and for how long, lies largely within the agency’s discretion. That's the official OPM guidance on this, where they're saying that you may have to work and that it is up to the agency and not OPM.
      - nkurz 2y ago
        Thanks, this does seem to be a much clearer statement. I appreciate the followup!

656556h56h65h 2y ago

Well it is a good thing Trump and co are so well known for paying what they owe. These people are dumb if they take the offer. Job market has been cooked for 3 years already, these people will not fair well.

NickC25 2y ago
Correct. Donald Trump has had a reputation for stiffing people for close to 50 years now. These workers will resign, and won't get paid what they were told they'd get paid. This is a man who is so cheap, so petty, he held up billions of dollars worth of economic relief during COVID just so he could have his signature on a bunch of stimulus checks.

csa 2y ago

> this was never authorized by congress, Correct. > so the money to pay people to September is questionable if it exists at best Incorrect. The money is budgeted through September (end of federal FY). Things are currently only funded through March 15 (CRs and whatnot). The money is or will be there. Historically, even if there is a furlough, this money is backfilled and folks are paid. Note that there will probably be riots if lengthy furloughed folks don’t get back pay. > 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. Correct. The speculation is that: 1. The “resign” folks will be put on admin leave in March 1 (or earlier). 2. Budget impasse in mid-March. Furlough ensues. 3. Folks on admin leave just end up getting cut, or not paid, and/or not back paid due to peculiarities of admin leave. > 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. I think it’s above average, but not “incredibly generous”. People get $25k VSIP and VERA offers all the time. This may not seem like a lot, but many fed employees live in low COL areas and/or earn relatively low wages. The best parts of the package, assuming they deliver, would be things like insurance (for non-retirees) and possibly TSP contributions and matching (if those are allowed). If they want the numbers they say that they want, I think something near this level of package is necessary.

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
If they were not paid because they were on "admin leave", does that look bad for Trump, or does that look bad for Congress? And who in a Republican Congress will want to do that anyway? They're mostly on board for this bullshit aren't they?
- csa 2y ago
  > If they were not paid because they were on "admin leave", does that look bad for Trump, or does that look bad for Congress? It would be Trump/Elon. Someone told me the details of how they could not pay people. It’s administrivia. It will go unnoticed by most just like how the twitter folks not getting paid went unnoticed by most. > And who in a Republican Congress will want to do that anyway? They give zero fucks about fucking over feds or former Feds, as they are (allegedly) all lazy and useless. The end result will be less money spent (trivial, but still) and a lower head count moving forward. The Republican rhetoric on this largely doesn’t jibe with reality. Yes, there are underemployed people in the federal government (as exist in any large org). Identifying that slack and cutting it is not something that can be done with laser shots from space. They can only be done from the ground, imho. The current way they are doing things is going to end with a lot of unpleasant unintended consequences.

jfkrrorj 2y ago

》 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. I do not see your arguments US has worker protections, even if US government goes bancrupt, it has to pay its obligations. And if government refuses to pay, no worker, even if employed, is getting anything!

cyanydeez 2y ago
worker protections exist in a world of laws. This is not the world being offered to them, so good luck doing anything but throwing money at lawyers. everyone who thinks laws are just something you can invoke like magic should go sit down.
alasdair_ 2y ago
If congress doesn't allocate the money, they won't be paid, even if they have a contract that says they will. Imagine Trump decided to offer a worker a trillion dollars. He writes a contract with the worker. It is irrelevant - the worker won't be paid because the executive branch is not allowed to spend money that hasn't been authorized by congress.
- jfkrrorj 2y ago
  [flagged]
scottLobster 2y ago
And you think that an offer accepted by sending an email with "Resign" in the subject line is subject to these protections? You think DOGE is even authorized to make said offers? Why, because Elon and Trump said so? Also your last line is just bizarre. The US government can very much selectively pay some parties but not others during a shutdown. That's kind of the definition of a shutdown.... Plus this administration is already brazenly breaking laws. You think they won't violate worker protection laws? Sure, maybe the courts sort it out in a year or two, small comfort to the people who were relying on that income to pay their rent in the meantime.

veggieroll 2y ago

I think the adminstration's plan to execute on this is basically garden leave. They tell the "retiring" employees to stop working, but keep them on the payroll so they keep getting paid. This administration has been playing a lot of games with "budgeted" vs. "delayed" vs. "actively being worked on" (or not). So this isn't really that different than the abrupt cancellations or delays or re-org'ing of funded and legislatively mandated work. The main difference is the uncertainty. IMO anyone would be incredibly foolish to accept a deal from a random email with such limited info on the exact terms of what happens in edge cases like you describe: shutdown, budget shenanigans, actual official RIF, etc.

bigmattystyles 2y ago
That sounds illegal
- dgfitz 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - throwway120385 2y ago
    Sure, but those same employees also had to stay home not working for months while they were getting their clearances, so clearly that's considered reasonable.
  - dcrazy 2y ago
    It’s not illegal to pay someone who is frustrated by circumstance in performing the duties of their government job. It’s possibly illegal to pay someone for a government job that doesn’t exist anymore.
    - nickff 2y ago
      I understand your statement in the de facto sense, but I think the position is still legally authorized by Congress, and thus does exist de jure.
    - 2y ago

causality0 2y ago

It's an even better deal if it gets torn up after a month. You get a one month paid vacation and then go back to work.

Jtsummers 2y ago
> You get a one month paid vacation I wrote it elsewhere, but no. It may or may not be a paid vacation. Agencies get to decide themselves, not OPM, whether the employees are put on leave or continue to work. There is zero guarantee that anyone will get administrative leave under the offering.
scarface_74 2y ago
You’ve already resigned…
- lacksconfidence 2y ago
  But that resignation was part of a larger deal. If the deal is thrown out, shouldn't the resignation be thrown out too?
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    And what happens when you try to come back to work? Will Musk pay you or allow you into the office? He literally has control of the federal budget for payments now. We are getting into banana republic territory now with no rule of law.
    - ryandrake 2y ago
      I definitely wouldn't put it past Elon Musk to offer a buyout, collect a list of names who "accept" and then fire them all as disloyal, without any buyout. It would be on-character.
    - Applejinx 2y ago
      Specifically we're getting into territory where political actors choose to behave like there is no rule of law, in hopes they will be believed. Not sure about that one. Nor do I think the election would have gone the way it did if people generally figured their choice was to have Elon Musk's word be law, and everything else including the Constitution to be thrown away as old hat. I really don't think people priced that into their decision, so buyer's remorse becomes a real factor. People may demand that rule of law not be thrown away.

aeternum 2y ago

If the gov will not be funded and you don't believe the gov will honor it's severance agreement why would you believe the employment contract will be honored after March 14?

Retric 2y ago
There’s many examples of government shutdowns where workers received back pay even when they didn’t work those hours. So future administrations are likely to retroactively approve payments if it becomes a political issue. Honestly taking the buyout without an act of congress backing it is likely the more risky here unless you where already planning to leave which is likely why most people took it.
- Jtsummers 2y ago
  By law they have to be paid for the furloughed time in the case of a shutdown, since 2019. Previously, they were typically paid for that time whether they had to work through the shutdown or not but it was not guaranteed. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN12251 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN12251
  - ryandrake 2y ago
    Who's going to enforce that law?
    - Jtsummers 2y ago
      That's a good question, perhaps it should be posed to the members of the so-called party of law and order.
    - mandevil 2y ago
      The employees, suing in Federal court, since they have a clear and obvious loss to point to, they will have standing. Judges can either obey the law or not. If they don't obey the law, then we are much further along on the authoritarian spectrum then everyone thinks, but so far Musk has lost a lot of court cases and has several emergency injunctions against him doing anything.

joe_the_user 2y ago

The question is whether if the deal gets voided by the court, the employee has to still quit or whether they can then return. Especially since the employee wouldn't be formally terminated until the end of the twelve months.

Larrikin 2y ago

Aren't Twitter workers still trying to get their severances and they took the offer when Twitter actually had the money to pay.

reaperducer 2y ago
Aren't Twitter workers still trying to get their severances and they took the offer when Twitter actually had the money to pay. Considering that SpaceX is so far behind on its bills that dozens and dozens of companies in Texas have had to place liens against the company, my guess is that neither the Twitter people, nor the SpaceX people, nor the federal buyout people will ever see a dime. For some reason, links to stories about the leins and SpaceX becoming notorious for not paying its bills are hard to come by, but it's in the printed newspapers regularly; as recently as yesterday. Here's and older link I could find: https://www.chron.com/culture/article/spacex-overdue-bills-texas-19454904.php https://www.chron.com/culture/article/spacex-overdue-bills-t...
- weinzierl 2y ago
  I am complete outsider and know nothing about this so I am sorry to ask but in my view this is a shocking proposition. Can anyone corroborate this? EDIT: Specifically the claim that "SpaceX is so far behind on its bills that dozens and dozens of companies in Texas have had to place liens against the company"
  - hx8 2y ago
    Corroborating complaints about twitter severance [0]. The lawsuit was dismissed because of jurisdiction, not merit. [0] 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...
  - scottyah 2y ago
    They churn through employees fast and they usually exit through burnout (no offloading) and the people wanting to work there skew towards young people who don't know what they're doing. A lot of work gets delayed, dropped, etc and some bad suppliers even take advantage of that ("the last person said they'd do X"). I know it's en-vogue to hate on Elon companies, and a lot of people would love to hear that the World's Richest Man is having financial issues, but in reality it's a bunch of starry-eyed newgrads trying to make the world better but taking on more than they can handle.

olalonde 2y ago

Not American here. Isn't Congress controlled by Republicans? If I understand correctly, it would take 5+ Republicans voting against the party line for a Republican bill to fail to pass? Is this common?

ojbyrne 2y ago
I think the number is only 2 or 3 because once some people are confirmed for the cabinet, they have to leave the House of Representatives.
- djohnston 2y ago
  Really? There must be some replacement who steps in though, no? Otherwise districts would have no representation, which seems unlikely.
  - Jtsummers 2y ago
    For the House of Representatives, the state will hold a special election to fill vacancies: > When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies. - Article I, Section 2 For the Senate, the governor of the state may (per their legislative body's approval) make a temporary appointment and will also hold a special election: > When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. - Amendment XVII https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcri... https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27#toc-amendment-xvii https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27#toc-...

dev_daftly 2y ago

[flagged]

enragedcacti 2y ago
Can we not just make things up please? His buyout plan was approved by congress and signed into law before he allowed anyone to opt in which is the entire crux of the issue. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-03-31-mn-40541-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-03-31-mn-40541-...
- Jtsummers 2y ago
  That option is also available to Trump but it has not been made yet, it's the VSIP option and is an actual buyout.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

unclebucknasty 2y ago

Kind of odd seeing people casually discuss the mechanics/details of what's been going on this last week, as if they whole thing isn't just flagrantly illegal. Reminds me of this: https://www.upworthy.com/hypernormalization-explained https://www.upworthy.com/hypernormalization-explained.

paulddraper 2y ago
Please elaborate, what law does administrative leave violate?
FrontierProject 2y ago
Ironically, enough, interacting with that website without an adblocker is itself a great example of hypernormalization.

Fomite 2y ago

And proposed by two people, Musk and Trump, who are, shall we say, not great at holding up their end of financial bargains.

zrail 2y ago

It is incredibly foolish to entertain this offer. OPM v Richmond[1] held that the government has effectively zero liability for lying about financial benefits that haven't been specifically authorized by Congress. [1]: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/414/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/414/

kfrzcode 2y ago

The list of expenditures never authorized by Congress is staggering. You're spot-on about the authorization risk but it's just the latest in a perpetual issue. Congress has normalized funding "zombie programs" through autopilot appropriations rather than proper reauthorizations. Notable zombie programs include VA health, women's health spending, NIH research... House Rule XXI (blocking unauthorized spending) gets waived a majority of the time. 50% of expired programs haven't been reviewed in 10+ years. 2023 alone saw $236B in improper payments. So IMO while the buyout could get axed the pattern suggests they'll likely kick the can with another CR. Perhaps this administration will try to force a different tack, I suppose we'll see.

acomjean 2y ago
As someone who worked on a NIH funded project whose funding wasn’t renewed last fall after 10 years. Those 10 years included a bunch of renewals. NIH projects aren’t zombie and need constant attention. Plus all research done has to be put in the public domain.

trimethylpurine 2y ago

The government is still an employer and subject to the same liability if not more so. I'd think workers would have a strong case to sue for damages if that happened. I'd take that bet. I can't imagine a situation where a judge wouldn't side with the employee on this.

alkonaut 2y ago

If they don’t fulfill their end of the agreement (paying until the date in question) then surely any agreement to quit in return for X months pay would be broken? So you’d still be employed unless the pay out is made? This is where I go ”I know nothing about US law but if I wouldn’t win this argument in any court even without representation then it must be fundamentally broken” The argument would be ”those who entered the agreement didn’t have the authority to do so” but obviously that can’t hold water.

shusaku 2y ago

I can’t blame anyone for taking the risk. That’s life changing money for normal people. And if you’re in a good spot to get a new job fast, I could see taking a chance on it.

paulddraper 2y ago

Severance packages don't require Congressional approval.

dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
Funding can only come from congress. At this scale it will require new funding.
- paulddraper 2y ago
  The whole idea is to the same or more done with fewer people. According to that hypothesis, it won't require more funding.

User23 2y ago

I think the reason it works is because it’s not technically a buyout. It’s 8 months of reduced duties.

sigzero 2y ago

Well, their positions are funded (depending on how FY25 funds were allocated to the agency). The order just means they can potentially not come to work until September.

goodluckchuck 2y ago

Regardless of what is budgeted, if you have a contract then that can be enforced in federal court.

jcrites 2y ago

Doesn't the budget to pay these people already exist? They are current employees, after all. Their terminations will still shrink the budget, just not as soon as a termination without a severance package. Maybe there are some legal differences in offering what would otherwise be wages as a lump-sum payment, but the budget for those wages already exists (else they could not be employed).

paulddraper 2y ago
Correct. The only thing would require more budget is hiring backfills (while paying out the leave). Supposedly, they can get the same work done with fewer people.

verandaguy 2y ago

Fortunately, the current US president has a long and storied history of going out of his way to pay people mutually agreed-upon sums from prior contracts.

a_victorp 2y ago
/s
- verandaguy 2y ago
  Sadly yep.

pfannkuchen 2y ago

Didn’t the budget already include pay for these people through the end of the fiscal year though? Will they need more money if the people stop working now vs stopping in September?

mullingitover 2y ago

The offer can be rescinded, those who take it could just be terminated and per the contract they have absolutely no recourse. It’s arguably an unconscionable contract, it’s so wickedly one-sided.

jonahbenton 2y ago

Trump has never not been, and will never not be, the apocryphal version of PT Barnum.