4 ms·
> but what is happening is technically perfectly legal because Trump is (unfortunately) the elected chief executive and is ultimately all of these people's bos
by 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 agoYou 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 ago5 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 agoYes 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.