6 ms·

That sounds illegal

by 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.
  - dgfitz 2y ago
    My understanding is that when a job is available, it is because a job billet has been approved, which means that the position is funded through the lifecycle of the position. The job isn’t going away, the person is going away. Was the job needed? Look at any employer and ask that.
- bigmattystyles 2y ago
  That's because of a then ongoing pandemic and making an allowance. That's completely different than just do nothing for 6+ months then quit. If you can't see that, there's no hope for this discussion.
  - transcriptase 2y ago
    So the OPM grants them a sabbatical or extended vacation or a hundred other things they have the discretion to do. Pretending or hoping everything unorthodox or unprecedented is somehow illegal is already becoming tiresome to read about in comment sections and it hasn’t even been a month of this administration.
    - spacemanspiff01 2y ago
      If they were serious about the offer, they would get it passed through Congress on a party line vote via reconciliation, they have the votes, there is nothing the Dems could do to stop it. The fact that they have not is telling.
      - encoderer 2y ago
        All it tells me is that I agree with you and yes congress would ratify it, so doing this is pointless and only going to slow you down. Why would it make sense for them to do this? Democrats would still howl in disapproval no matter what they did.
        ModernMech 2y ago
        > so doing this is pointless and only going to slow you down. That's a feature. Going slow and giving Democrats a chance to howl is called "democracy". It's our system. Unilaterally moving fast and breaking things without even allowing a chance for debate or input from the minority party is a different system, called "autocracy".
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        encoderer 2y ago
        Americans elected a republican majority in congress and the executive branch. RBG ensured they have a clear majority in the court. Democrats marginalized themselves by catering to their most fringe elements. As they say, elections have consequences.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
cm2187 2y ago
Garden leaves are done all the times in the private sector.
- afavour 2y ago
  …which the public sector is not. It’s highly regulated.
  - stonogo 2y ago
    Nothing is currently highly regulated.
    - afavour 2y ago
      Yes it is. That regulation is just not currently being enforced. Which is an important difference because at some point down the line retroactive enforcement might occur.
      - creer 2y ago
        The way things are escalating between the two parties, perhaps even somewhat likely to occur. But who knows, perhaps presidential pardon can be generalized - before it becomes necessary to reign it back.
ryandrake 2y ago
Almost any reply to a political thread in the next four years is going to be "That sounds illegal" but it's only illegal if the law gets enforced. I encourage anyone responding with "That sounds illegal" or "They can't do that" to also include in their response, "...and it will be enforced by [xxxx]." and try to come up with a realistic xxxx. EDIT: I'm not making any judgment about whether this particular thing is legal or not--just pointing out that it doesn't matter if it's legal if nobody in power intends to enforce the law.
- _qbxi 2y ago
  Illegal acts should be called out, even if our government is failing to enforce the law. Otherwise it will become easy for the acts to get ignored entirely.
  - iamEAP 2y ago
    Unless you’re a member of congress or a civil servant in the executive branch, paying any attention to this is wasted energy. We already saw this play out in his last term. Directing how laws are enforced is a function of the executive branch. Nothing will be done. Your energy is better spent identifying and articulating the values you hold that these actions are an affront to and shouting that out.
    - _qbxi 2y ago
      At minimum, drawing people's attention to the ongoing issues can result in a different batch of congressional representatives in the future. Politics doesn't always act on instant gratification.
      - ryandrake 2y ago
        We are kind of locked into what we have. A single digit percentage of House races are ever contested. The vast majority of House districts are won by the party that already holds them[1]. 1: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/10/30/decade-after-decade-more-than-three-quarters-of-us-house-districts-have-consistently-been-won-by-the-party-that-holds-them/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/10/30/decade-af...
yapyap 2y ago
oh brother, totally agree. but also, legality is a thing of the past in the new way of things it feels.
- mostlysimilar 2y ago
  That's called giving up and it's exactly what they want you to do. Do not concede without a fight. Call your elected representatives and tell them you expect them to hold these people accountable and to be loud about it.
  - dingnuts 2y ago
    which representative? the one that "represents" a cracked district and doesn't see me as a constituent? or the senator who also doesn't see me as a constituent because of my address?
    - ipaddr 2y ago
      Talk about the people you are gathering together in the district.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    They're doing something you don't like so the assumption is that it's illegal, but people aren't even sure what law it's supposed to be. And they're probably right that it's illegal, because there are so many laws that any given thing is a violation of any number of them. But that's the problem. If you actually enforced all of the laws on the books, everyone would be in jail. The only reason they aren't is not that most people are violating precisely zero of the many thousands of laws they've never even heard of, it's strictly a lack of enforcement. Which is where that attitude comes from: If the only reason anybody isn't in jail is that they haven't become a target and so nobody has bothered to look up which laws they're breaking, whether you broke a law or not is no longer relevant because the answer is always yes, and the thing that determines whether you go to jail is who your friends (or enemies) are. If you want to get back to the rule of law, you need to get back to having only laws that ordinary people can understand, remember and follow.

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.
- dgfitz 2y ago
  My understanding is that when a job is available, it is because a job billet has been approved, which means that the position is funded through the lifecycle of the position. The job isn’t going away, the person is going away. Was the job needed? Look at any employer and ask that.
bigmattystyles 2y ago
That's because of a then ongoing pandemic and making an allowance. That's completely different than just do nothing for 6+ months then quit. If you can't see that, there's no hope for this discussion.
- transcriptase 2y ago
  So the OPM grants them a sabbatical or extended vacation or a hundred other things they have the discretion to do. Pretending or hoping everything unorthodox or unprecedented is somehow illegal is already becoming tiresome to read about in comment sections and it hasn’t even been a month of this administration.
  - spacemanspiff01 2y ago
    If they were serious about the offer, they would get it passed through Congress on a party line vote via reconciliation, they have the votes, there is nothing the Dems could do to stop it. The fact that they have not is telling.
    - encoderer 2y ago
      All it tells me is that I agree with you and yes congress would ratify it, so doing this is pointless and only going to slow you down. Why would it make sense for them to do this? Democrats would still howl in disapproval no matter what they did.
      - ModernMech 2y ago
        > so doing this is pointless and only going to slow you down. That's a feature. Going slow and giving Democrats a chance to howl is called "democracy". It's our system. Unilaterally moving fast and breaking things without even allowing a chance for debate or input from the minority party is a different system, called "autocracy".
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        encoderer 2y ago
        Americans elected a republican majority in congress and the executive branch. RBG ensured they have a clear majority in the court. Democrats marginalized themselves by catering to their most fringe elements. As they say, elections have consequences.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

cm2187 2y ago

Garden leaves are done all the times in the private sector.

afavour 2y ago
…which the public sector is not. It’s highly regulated.
- stonogo 2y ago
  Nothing is currently highly regulated.
  - afavour 2y ago
    Yes it is. That regulation is just not currently being enforced. Which is an important difference because at some point down the line retroactive enforcement might occur.
    - creer 2y ago
      The way things are escalating between the two parties, perhaps even somewhat likely to occur. But who knows, perhaps presidential pardon can be generalized - before it becomes necessary to reign it back.

ryandrake 2y ago

Almost any reply to a political thread in the next four years is going to be "That sounds illegal" but it's only illegal if the law gets enforced. I encourage anyone responding with "That sounds illegal" or "They can't do that" to also include in their response, "...and it will be enforced by [xxxx]." and try to come up with a realistic xxxx. EDIT: I'm not making any judgment about whether this particular thing is legal or not--just pointing out that it doesn't matter if it's legal if nobody in power intends to enforce the law.

_qbxi 2y ago
Illegal acts should be called out, even if our government is failing to enforce the law. Otherwise it will become easy for the acts to get ignored entirely.
- iamEAP 2y ago
  Unless you’re a member of congress or a civil servant in the executive branch, paying any attention to this is wasted energy. We already saw this play out in his last term. Directing how laws are enforced is a function of the executive branch. Nothing will be done. Your energy is better spent identifying and articulating the values you hold that these actions are an affront to and shouting that out.
  - _qbxi 2y ago
    At minimum, drawing people's attention to the ongoing issues can result in a different batch of congressional representatives in the future. Politics doesn't always act on instant gratification.
    - ryandrake 2y ago
      We are kind of locked into what we have. A single digit percentage of House races are ever contested. The vast majority of House districts are won by the party that already holds them[1]. 1: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/10/30/decade-after-decade-more-than-three-quarters-of-us-house-districts-have-consistently-been-won-by-the-party-that-holds-them/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/10/30/decade-af...

yapyap 2y ago

oh brother, totally agree. but also, legality is a thing of the past in the new way of things it feels.

mostlysimilar 2y ago
That's called giving up and it's exactly what they want you to do. Do not concede without a fight. Call your elected representatives and tell them you expect them to hold these people accountable and to be loud about it.
- dingnuts 2y ago
  which representative? the one that "represents" a cracked district and doesn't see me as a constituent? or the senator who also doesn't see me as a constituent because of my address?
  - ipaddr 2y ago
    Talk about the people you are gathering together in the district.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  They're doing something you don't like so the assumption is that it's illegal, but people aren't even sure what law it's supposed to be. And they're probably right that it's illegal, because there are so many laws that any given thing is a violation of any number of them. But that's the problem. If you actually enforced all of the laws on the books, everyone would be in jail. The only reason they aren't is not that most people are violating precisely zero of the many thousands of laws they've never even heard of, it's strictly a lack of enforcement. Which is where that attitude comes from: If the only reason anybody isn't in jail is that they haven't become a target and so nobody has bothered to look up which laws they're breaking, whether you broke a law or not is no longer relevant because the answer is always yes, and the thing that determines whether you go to jail is who your friends (or enemies) are. If you want to get back to the rule of law, you need to get back to having only laws that ordinary people can understand, remember and follow.