4 ms·

There are a couple of comments here dismissing firing 10% of the workforce as not all that impactful, but they're missing some important context. Despite the c

There are a couple of comments here dismissing firing 10% of the workforce as not all that impactful, but they're missing some important context. Despite the common "wisdom" that the federal government is universally bloated, there's little evidence to suggest the forest service has an excessive number of employees given the size of their job. For context they're less than half the size of Facebook, and my non-expert hot take is that managing all that federal land sounds like the more complicated and labor intensive job. If they were running pretty lean already, firing 10% of the workforce could potentially result in job functions with no one to do them, and that goes downhill pretty fast. The firings were also exclusively focused on firing new employees, regardless of role or performance, simply because they were easy to fire. That makes the forest service (and every other federal agency) as unattractive employer, which will make it much harder to recruit new employees as people naturally retire or leave. That 10% reduction is going to snowball into a larger number over time, even if more people don't get fired, which I suspect they will. Less important but worth noting is that while the stated goal is to "drain the DC deep state swamp" or whatever, what that apparently really translates into is firing forest service employees, who are spread out all over the country and not what most people think of when it comes to "the deep state". In the name of fighting the bureaucratic boogeyman, they're hurting people like this.

whamlastxmas 2y ago
I think part of the argument on the other side is that if the forest service better managed its finances and revenues they wouldn’t have to lay people off. I am positive there is a way they could have kept those employees but they (possibly correctly) prioritized spending elsewhere
- jacobjjacob 2y ago
  AFAIK, this affected probationary employees of all or most agencies. So I’m not sure how this argument makes sense as something the Forest Service did wrong or could have prevented. Also, the government should be efficient but shouldn’t be required to break even or profit… it’s a public good.
- stvltvs 2y ago
  There's very little evidence that actual financial mismanagement determined what departments were targeted for layoffs so far. They might say that's why they're doing it, but are tight lipped with any evidence to support it. From the outside, it seems like they just want to cut as many federal jobs as they can get away with without consideration for the impacts because they want to destroy the administrative state and maybe privatize its functions.
- text0404 2y ago
  government agencies sometimes operate at a loss. that's fine - as citizens of a functioning society, we pay taxes to maintain services which improve shared, public life.
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  They don’t get to decide that. They are paid by the federal government, any revenue they get goes back to the federal government. Trump/Musk are laying off federal workers regardless of how much revenue they bring in, or if their jobs are self sustaining or even profitable based on the fees they bring in. For example, he laid medical equipment inspector whose jobs are completely paid for by fees.
- rainsford 2y ago
  That argument only makes sense if you don't know how government spending works or what the top-down direction was. Agencies generally aren't just given a big sack of money to do whatever with. It's allocated for specific types of things in specific amounts, and in particular, employee pay is separate from other things and governed mostly by a given number of employee slots rather than a specific dollar amount. The forest service couldn't save those jobs by just shifting funding from, say, vehicle purchases without much higher level approval. It doesn't really matter though because the direction to the forest service and everyone else wasn't "reduce your budget by $Y". It was "fire all your new employees immediately". There was no opportunity for the forest service to "better manage its finances". I think giving the forest service and other agencies time and flexibility to figure out how to be more efficient based on specific domain knowledge is a fantastic idea. Even if that ultimately did lead to layoffs, at least it would be an informed decision. That's not at all what's happening, and whatever excuses proponents of this approach come up with, firing people like the woman in the article is exactly what was expected.
_DeadFred_ 2y ago
They fired anyone in a 'probationary period'. That includes everyone who got a promotion within the last 2 years, because the probationary period applies to them as well. They literally targeted some of the best or most involved people (those that were promoted). Any talent actively recruited and brought in to address specific topics? Probationary period.
- jaybrendansmith 2y ago
  They are trying to completely destroy the federal government. These departments will start spiraling down the drain, and essential services will begin to fall apart. These people are literally looking to destroy our government from within. Good luck, America, this is what you voted for, you gorgeous morons.

whamlastxmas 2y ago

I think part of the argument on the other side is that if the forest service better managed its finances and revenues they wouldn’t have to lay people off. I am positive there is a way they could have kept those employees but they (possibly correctly) prioritized spending elsewhere

jacobjjacob 2y ago
AFAIK, this affected probationary employees of all or most agencies. So I’m not sure how this argument makes sense as something the Forest Service did wrong or could have prevented. Also, the government should be efficient but shouldn’t be required to break even or profit… it’s a public good.
stvltvs 2y ago
There's very little evidence that actual financial mismanagement determined what departments were targeted for layoffs so far. They might say that's why they're doing it, but are tight lipped with any evidence to support it. From the outside, it seems like they just want to cut as many federal jobs as they can get away with without consideration for the impacts because they want to destroy the administrative state and maybe privatize its functions.
text0404 2y ago
government agencies sometimes operate at a loss. that's fine - as citizens of a functioning society, we pay taxes to maintain services which improve shared, public life.
seanmcdirmid 2y ago
They don’t get to decide that. They are paid by the federal government, any revenue they get goes back to the federal government. Trump/Musk are laying off federal workers regardless of how much revenue they bring in, or if their jobs are self sustaining or even profitable based on the fees they bring in. For example, he laid medical equipment inspector whose jobs are completely paid for by fees.
rainsford 2y ago
That argument only makes sense if you don't know how government spending works or what the top-down direction was. Agencies generally aren't just given a big sack of money to do whatever with. It's allocated for specific types of things in specific amounts, and in particular, employee pay is separate from other things and governed mostly by a given number of employee slots rather than a specific dollar amount. The forest service couldn't save those jobs by just shifting funding from, say, vehicle purchases without much higher level approval. It doesn't really matter though because the direction to the forest service and everyone else wasn't "reduce your budget by $Y". It was "fire all your new employees immediately". There was no opportunity for the forest service to "better manage its finances". I think giving the forest service and other agencies time and flexibility to figure out how to be more efficient based on specific domain knowledge is a fantastic idea. Even if that ultimately did lead to layoffs, at least it would be an informed decision. That's not at all what's happening, and whatever excuses proponents of this approach come up with, firing people like the woman in the article is exactly what was expected.

_DeadFred_ 2y ago

They fired anyone in a 'probationary period'. That includes everyone who got a promotion within the last 2 years, because the probationary period applies to them as well. They literally targeted some of the best or most involved people (those that were promoted). Any talent actively recruited and brought in to address specific topics? Probationary period.

jaybrendansmith 2y ago
They are trying to completely destroy the federal government. These departments will start spiraling down the drain, and essential services will begin to fall apart. These people are literally looking to destroy our government from within. Good luck, America, this is what you voted for, you gorgeous morons.