3 ms·

> It’s unclear how many people are being let go, but multiple sources tell WIRED that list could be upwards of 70 if not more. Prior, there were around 650 TTS

> It’s unclear how many people are being let go, but multiple sources tell WIRED that list could be upwards of 70 if not more. Prior, there were around 650 TTS employees. So the worst case scenario that anyone can imagine numbers for is that this department gets hit with 10% layoffs. That's not fun for anyone involved, but it's also not exactly crisis mode yet, and it seems like there are bigger things that this administration is doing to focus our pitchforks on? There's a very real risk of burning out people's ability to be indignant if we get up in arms about every obscure department that suffers moderate layoffs. Let's save our outrage for the really important things.

Kapura 2y ago
To characterize this as a "department [getting] hit with 10% layoffs" is completely disingenuous. This isn't a department cutting staff; it's an unelected body going around and firing people out of the government for reasons spanning malice, cronyism, and corruption.
- demosthanos 2y ago
  This executive branch department is cutting staff on the orders of the chief executive who is taking advice from a body he put together to find places to cut. They may have ulterior motives for giving that advice, but what is happening is technically perfectly legal because Trump is (unfortunately) the elected chief executive and is ultimately all of these people's boss. I don't like Trump any more than you do, but mischaracterizing what is happening isn't helping the situation. The people who are pro-Trump or in the middle see through it, and the people who are already anti-Trump already agree with you.
  - scroot 2y ago
    > but what is happening is technically perfectly legal because Trump is (unfortunately) the elected chief executive and is ultimately all of these people's boss This is not correct. Normally civil servants need to be fired "with cause," as called for by statute. Larger scale Reductions in Force (RIFs) -- which EOs say are coming -- must be approved by Congress, again according to law. The President does not have supreme authority in these matters, at least not on paper. We are about to find out what that paper's worth.
    - demosthanos 2y ago
      You assert that very confidently, but a (admittedly not very thorough) search isn't turning up any citation for this. Do you mind linking to the law that says this so the rest of us can read the primary source?
    - 93po 2y ago
      5 CFR Part 351 specifically allows RIFs due to budget cuts, reorgs, or lack of work. Though the RIFs have to be done with certain considerations. Ultimately it is allowed for some reasons, and it's really up to the courts to decide if those are the real reasons for it happening.
    - ripjaygn 2y ago
      Yes it's almost impossible to fire govt employees like you say, which is why many get away with doing the bare minimum, if that. That's natural human tendency. If fired, they can appeal to the MSPB and then file lawsuits, as a manager, it's not worth it spending all your time trying to get rid of one underperformer. It's free taxpayer money after all and not like your company will become uncompetitive or bankrupt if it has hundreds of thousands of underperformers.
- hintymad 2y ago
  [flagged]
- bufferoverflow 2y ago
  Trump has been talking openly about starting DOGE during his campaign. People voted for it.
  - intended 2y ago
    Yes! this is a point people need to remember. At the same time, a large number of people who voted also opposed this. So its both people kinda doing their thing? People who arent in power discussing their fears online. People in power doing their thing. That sounds fair right?
  - lavezzi 2y ago
    Citations? As far as I can tell, the first mention of a "Department of Government Efficiency" came from a Musk tweet a few weeks before the election. And Trump announced he would implement the idea during an announcement in early September (https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-elon-musk-government-efficiency-commission-e831ed5dc2f6a56999e1a70bb0a4eaeb https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-elon-musk-government...). Hardly a key pillar of Trump's campaign. In fact, I can't find anything specifically related to government efficiency in any of the decisive reasons as to why people voted for Trump (https://navigatorresearch.org/2024-post-election-survey-the-reasons-for-voting-for-trump-and-harris/ https://navigatorresearch.org/2024-post-election-survey-the-...). Ironically, one of the listed reasons was that people believed he would "fight for and protect Medicare and Social Security, with no cuts."
    - bufferoverflow 2y ago
      There you go, you found your own citations. Trump announced it in September (that's before the election). He also talked about it at the Economic Club of NY in September: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leomt_FY_zw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leomt_FY_zw I never claimed it was the main reason people voted for him, that's your straw man argument.
      - lavezzi 2y ago
        > I never claimed it was the main reason people voted for him, that's your straw man argument. I never said you claimed that either. But if "people voted for it" (with the "it" being DOGE or whatever it was called at the time of announcement) then you would expect that topic to be listed within the 20 top items people cited as their reason for voting. If you're now trying to equate electoral victory with blanket policy approval then I don't know what to tell you.
ripjaygn 2y ago
TTS hired 150 new employees just in the past year but that's never mentioned in these "news" stories because biased "journalism".

Kapura 2y ago

To characterize this as a "department [getting] hit with 10% layoffs" is completely disingenuous. This isn't a department cutting staff; it's an unelected body going around and firing people out of the government for reasons spanning malice, cronyism, and corruption.

demosthanos 2y ago
This executive branch department is cutting staff on the orders of the chief executive who is taking advice from a body he put together to find places to cut. They may have ulterior motives for giving that advice, but what is happening is technically perfectly legal because Trump is (unfortunately) the elected chief executive and is ultimately all of these people's boss. I don't like Trump any more than you do, but mischaracterizing what is happening isn't helping the situation. The people who are pro-Trump or in the middle see through it, and the people who are already anti-Trump already agree with you.
- scroot 2y ago
  > but what is happening is technically perfectly legal because Trump is (unfortunately) the elected chief executive and is ultimately all of these people's boss This is not correct. Normally civil servants need to be fired "with cause," as called for by statute. Larger scale Reductions in Force (RIFs) -- which EOs say are coming -- must be approved by Congress, again according to law. The President does not have supreme authority in these matters, at least not on paper. We are about to find out what that paper's worth.
  - demosthanos 2y ago
    You assert that very confidently, but a (admittedly not very thorough) search isn't turning up any citation for this. Do you mind linking to the law that says this so the rest of us can read the primary source?
  - 93po 2y ago
    5 CFR Part 351 specifically allows RIFs due to budget cuts, reorgs, or lack of work. Though the RIFs have to be done with certain considerations. Ultimately it is allowed for some reasons, and it's really up to the courts to decide if those are the real reasons for it happening.
  - ripjaygn 2y ago
    Yes it's almost impossible to fire govt employees like you say, which is why many get away with doing the bare minimum, if that. That's natural human tendency. If fired, they can appeal to the MSPB and then file lawsuits, as a manager, it's not worth it spending all your time trying to get rid of one underperformer. It's free taxpayer money after all and not like your company will become uncompetitive or bankrupt if it has hundreds of thousands of underperformers.
hintymad 2y ago
[flagged]
bufferoverflow 2y ago
Trump has been talking openly about starting DOGE during his campaign. People voted for it.
- intended 2y ago
  Yes! this is a point people need to remember. At the same time, a large number of people who voted also opposed this. So its both people kinda doing their thing? People who arent in power discussing their fears online. People in power doing their thing. That sounds fair right?
- lavezzi 2y ago
  Citations? As far as I can tell, the first mention of a "Department of Government Efficiency" came from a Musk tweet a few weeks before the election. And Trump announced he would implement the idea during an announcement in early September (https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-elon-musk-government-efficiency-commission-e831ed5dc2f6a56999e1a70bb0a4eaeb https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-elon-musk-government...). Hardly a key pillar of Trump's campaign. In fact, I can't find anything specifically related to government efficiency in any of the decisive reasons as to why people voted for Trump (https://navigatorresearch.org/2024-post-election-survey-the-reasons-for-voting-for-trump-and-harris/ https://navigatorresearch.org/2024-post-election-survey-the-...). Ironically, one of the listed reasons was that people believed he would "fight for and protect Medicare and Social Security, with no cuts."
  - bufferoverflow 2y ago
    There you go, you found your own citations. Trump announced it in September (that's before the election). He also talked about it at the Economic Club of NY in September: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leomt_FY_zw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leomt_FY_zw I never claimed it was the main reason people voted for him, that's your straw man argument.
    - lavezzi 2y ago
      > I never claimed it was the main reason people voted for him, that's your straw man argument. I never said you claimed that either. But if "people voted for it" (with the "it" being DOGE or whatever it was called at the time of announcement) then you would expect that topic to be listed within the 20 top items people cited as their reason for voting. If you're now trying to equate electoral victory with blanket policy approval then I don't know what to tell you.

ripjaygn 2y ago

TTS hired 150 new employees just in the past year but that's never mentioned in these "news" stories because biased "journalism".