3 ms·

You're not getting downvoted because "people don't want facts" but because your list is misleadingly incomplete or, in some instances, wrong. - The workers wer

You're not getting downvoted because "people don't want facts" but because your list is misleadingly incomplete or, in some instances, wrong. - The workers were put on paid leave pending termination, for procedural reasons (they could not legally be fired immediately). - Only ten were reinstated, and nobody knows why. The agency that reinstated them (NINDS) is not the same agency that issued the firing (HHS directly) - The staff in question were explicitly told a "computer error" (quotes as such in the article) led to their termination notices. This is not how a functioning management system works. It's also not an effective way to operate a government research program. There's no hyperbole here; it's just bad work.

somenameforme 2y ago
Look at the comments in this post. People think they were fired, because that's what the article claims. You have people in the top post of this thread social mediaizing each other about how now they'll get to renegotiate their contracts, or maybe not even come back, and all this nonsense. Except none of this is true. Similarly, look at how everybody is interpreting "coding error." As the editor certainly intended, everybody is just assuming it means programming, and just jumping off the deep end from there. Everything I have said would lead a person reading it to understand the facts with near to complete accuracy (I do agree I should have added that they were put on paid leave pending dismissal). Yet in this thread people are discussing the article with basically 0% accuracy, so far as the facts are concerned. And this is a recurring trend in these topics.
- ascorbic 2y ago
  This is semantics though. They were for all intents and purposes fired. Being placed on leave pending termination has been the standard playbook for most of these RIFs, and I would bet is what happened to all of the others that were fired at the same time as these researchers and weren't reinstated.
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    If people interpret something you say in a wildly different way then what happened, then it's not simply semantics. People are talking about issues and other aspects of this that simply do not exist, because they're being actively misinformed by the article's headline. Obviously people should read entire articles and not just headlines, but of course that's not what happens in practice.

somenameforme 2y ago

Look at the comments in this post. People think they were fired, because that's what the article claims. You have people in the top post of this thread social mediaizing each other about how now they'll get to renegotiate their contracts, or maybe not even come back, and all this nonsense. Except none of this is true. Similarly, look at how everybody is interpreting "coding error." As the editor certainly intended, everybody is just assuming it means programming, and just jumping off the deep end from there. Everything I have said would lead a person reading it to understand the facts with near to complete accuracy (I do agree I should have added that they were put on paid leave pending dismissal). Yet in this thread people are discussing the article with basically 0% accuracy, so far as the facts are concerned. And this is a recurring trend in these topics.

ascorbic 2y ago
This is semantics though. They were for all intents and purposes fired. Being placed on leave pending termination has been the standard playbook for most of these RIFs, and I would bet is what happened to all of the others that were fired at the same time as these researchers and weren't reinstated.
- somenameforme 2y ago
  If people interpret something you say in a wildly different way then what happened, then it's not simply semantics. People are talking about issues and other aspects of this that simply do not exist, because they're being actively misinformed by the article's headline. Obviously people should read entire articles and not just headlines, but of course that's not what happens in practice.