Random Politics Thread

[Virtual ghost]

So what is your point? You seem to be stating the obvious. So you're just saying our two major parties don't care about LGBT rights and perhaps other minority rights in general because they aren't pushing for living wages and the like? That's not rocket science. The thing that I would disagree on is that the Democrats kind of care because it fits their image that makes them all warm inside about being the "Party of Caring" but they have not really been successful at it -- partly because the Republicans don't seem to give a shit in any way (so they can't get things through without a clear majority) + because the Dems take a half-assed approach to everything and never go the full mile. And with the GOP controlling grassroots media and now taking over MSM via the oligarchs who own them, and because of gerrymandering, they have seen they can win elections out of apathy regardless and have no reason to care.

I prefer Dems than GOP's in office because the latter REALLY seems to enjoy fucking over minorities they do not like, and I take less damage with Dem regime, but neither party is really that helpful nor really committed.

What Coriolis says is correct as far as that goes

Yes, I am saying the obvious.

I suppose I am just "amazed" to what degree the base was unable to push fixing of obvious flaws in the party.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I mean I am watching what is going on and I am under impression that the party learned pretty much nothing out of what happened in November.

Therefore I am just saying the obvious.

 

[Totenkindly]

I got curious and logged in to check my e-mail. My letter arrived around 8pm est.

It's a bit much and it's amazing how you just feel like you're being grifted when dealing with these people even when they are trying to be eloquent or allay your suspicions.

There's not really much of a "deal" being offered, except if you are younger / have a ways to go until retirement, and you would like to be ensured eight months of pay and benefits while you look for new work. The text insinuates you could be put on administrative leave rather than working those full eight months, even if you are getting your pay, but hey that just gives you more time to look for work.

If you do not accept the offer, then you face the possibility of having your position terminated / reconsolidated and/or being reclassified as "work for hire." So you're taking your fate in your hands. While they claim they will treat you with dignity and "afforded the protections in place for such positions," it's worded so arduously that you get the idea that if they can strip away protections by redefining your position and status so they'd technically not be lying, then they would.

They really do not understand that most people aren't here to max out their bank accounts or acquire a lot of personal power. The people I work with want to provide people in need with benefits to help them survive. They are doing this work regardless of any problems or difficulties because it's a personal mission and they feel like they are doing something good for others. It's kind of insulting to have them just try to brush you off or pay you off (and we're not really getting paid off -- basically they are just promising to support you another eight months if you agree to resign), and meanwhile also there's a lot of specific institutional knowledge that they apparently care nothing for, that you acquire by experience at this agency, without which the mission of the agency will not be accomplished. That's the bottom line: Some agencies actually are services-oriented, you invest money in them to serve the constituents. They only seem interested in acquiring wealth.

I also see this as their attempt to "thin out the ranks" and get rid of the willing without any kind of court cases or legal issues, before they start actually trying to cull positions.

The deadline to voluntarily resign is February 6, one week from tomorrow.

 

[Coriolis]

I really wonder how you managed to miss the point that was obvious (in my book).

What I said was basically that various minorities need to work for a living. Therefore if you don't provide at least half decent worker rights for them and everyone else you aren't genuine protector of minorities (or people in general). For example if you fail to provide over the years living wage for LGBT community you aren't really pro LGBT person (especially if you aren't really trying too hard over the issue). However this has practical implications, which become serious when election day comes and people stay home. Allowing someone to adopt children without providing livable wage and some free time is nothing burger at the end of the day. If you don't provide round up picture for the people you are simply loosing distinction from the other party. What leads to confused electorate (what is something that you want to avoid).

And you are missing my point. It is that historically, improvements for workers leave minority workers behind. Increasing wages and benefits doesn't do you any good if people won't hire you because you are gay, or Muslim, or whatever else. Until it is made clear and demonstrated that improvements will help all workers, and bring equal benefits and opportunity to minority workers, minority workers will not be convinced.

And then this is fascinating to me. I had not gotten this e-mail since I Ieft in mid-afternoon. I guess my getting "no weird e-mails" today was premature.

Trump administration offering "deferred resignation" to government workers unwilling to return to office

The White House expects up to 10% of federal employees to quit in a program meant to end work-from-home practices, senior administration officials said.

www.cbsnews.com

So I love how they make themselves sound like they are dignifying us, when they really have not been. But it's definitely a catch-22. Eight months of pay and benefits and no RTO + paying lip service to the Executive Branch by not causing problems, or be forced to come back to work AND risk losing your job anyway.



While the bolded sounds nice, I have no faith in being "treated with dignity" and "afforded protections" honestly.

This looks like some huge bait and switch. The government is running on a continuing resolution. There isn't money to make payouts to any significant number of civil servants taking up such an offer. The departures will leave agencies short staffed. The leadership purge will leave them ill managed. there is no way even to process the departures and payments, assuming funds could be found. The short deadline is just like the pressure tactics sleazy salesmen use to try to get you to buy now, before it is gone tomorrow. Anyone who leaves based on this offer will likely get nothing, not even unemployment benefits.

I can only hope the federal workforce isn't stupid, and ignores this just like the OPM blast email inviting them to inform on their coworkers. Just keep your mouths shut and your heads down.

 

[Totenkindly]

This looks like some huge bait and switch. The government is running on a continuing resolution. There isn't money to make payouts to any significant number of civil servants taking up such an offer. The departures will leave agencies short staffed. The leadership purge will leave them ill managed. there is no way even to process the departures and payments, assuming funds could be found. The short deadline is just like the pressure tactics sleazy salesmen use to try to get you to buy now, before it is gone tomorrow. Anyone who leaves based on this offer will likely get nothing, not even unemployment benefits.

I can only hope the federal workforce isn't stupid, and ignores this just like the OPM blast email inviting them to inform on their coworkers. Just keep your mouths shut and your heads down.

Yeah. As I said, most people here don't actually want to leave, they work for our agency for a reason -- it's a personal mission.

Considering Musk pulled the exact same thing (same title) with X folks and apparently didn't fulfill his end of the bargain, how could one ever trust this?

But I'll just state again that there is no "payment being made" -- basically the deal is "I won't fire you if you promise to resign in eight months." There is no "payout" here. You are not getting a severance. You are just being promised the paycheck and benefits you would have already been receiving, for eight more months, if you then agree to go quietly; and the only real incentive (aside from being assured eight months to find new work) is that you don't have to RTO either.

I'm sure it will be talked about tomorrow, and I think a lot of people will just ignore it.

It's just crazy they think they can just get rid of all of these federal employees without crashing everything. But maybe that is what their plan is.

 

[SensEye]

It will be interesting to see how many of the "expected" 10 percent actually take the deal. I agree it's much of a deal. Since there are no layoffs announced, I don't think the implied threat will do the job. Typical Trump though, announce first, worry about even the most initial concept of a plan later.

The civil service (in Canada anyways) could easily do with a 10% culling, but the union is too strong for it to ever happen. Depends on the department though, some provide direct services and need their staff, and some do god knows what.

 

[Virtual ghost]

And you are missing my point. It is that historically, improvements for workers leave minority workers behind. Increasing wages and benefits doesn't do you any good if people won't hire you because you are gay, or Muslim, or whatever else. Until it is made clear and demonstrated that improvements will help all workers, and bring equal benefits and opportunity to minority workers, minority workers will not be convinced.

I am not missing. For me all of that belongs to workers rights (since it is in the domain of work).
In a sense all of this just furthers my point since the situation is even worse than I through. If you can't prevent open discrimination among citizen then you evidently aren't entitled to their vote.

 

[Totenkindly]

I'm unclear what they are doing payment-wise if someone chooses the deal and they decide to just put them on admin leave. technically they are still employed and technically they are just getting their regular benefits + salary through the end of the government fiscal year. (Our year ends on Sept 30. Hence, the date chosen.) But they wouldn't actually be doing work.

There are also limits to actual payouts (of 25K), and you can't dole out lump sums beyond that legally.

I'm sure the lawyers are all digging into this, this morning, as I sit here and try to focus on work.

The general consensus currently is "F those guys" and "This is slimy and illegal" and I haven't talked to anyone who seems to be considering it at this stage. Plus, frankly, no one trusts them. If they are offering this, it's not out of kindness but because it's better for them in some way. THey don't understand service organizations. And I even had someone suggest they had been considering going elsewhere, but now they're digging in simply because this was so obnoxious. So I'm not sure it will have the intended results. People really have not been taking kindly to the first week of shenanigans.

 

[Totenkindly]

Hmmm. At the meeting with my supervisor. She says "There are a number of people from our [broad office] who are accepting this offer."

They are scrapping the PACS/review system for something that "promotes excellence." Whatever that means. I do fully expect the typical disciplinary process to be modified/shortened. (Typically when someone doesn't pass muster, there's a specified course of action that must be followed. I expect people to be fired more quickly if they fail to meet the nebulous standard.)

Someone asked if this is all legal. I love my supervisor but she needs a remedial civics course. "It's the executive branch, so they can decide what is legal." The immediate response was, "no, the executive branch is not in charge of legality. That falls under the judicial branch." So now they have dropped back to, "Well, if no one intervenes, then he can do what he wants."

In any case, I am assuming if people take this offer, it's because they have made the future so uncertain and unpalatable working here that people are mitigating risk.

Waiting to see how the lawsuits sift out over the next week.

Along with people who just want eight months of pay to cover their new job search, this would likely also include the remote workers who are going to be reassigned to areas that could be 50 miles or more away and likely will not want to relocate and would rather find new work.

Also, "We don't have enough space to seat you all together, so while we are mandating RTO for 'collaboration' purposes, we are now splitting you up to different groups and buildings so you can't collaborate well." Love it.

I will say they have managed to kill any interest in people joining fedgov as an employer probably for years to come. One of the few perks of this job was relative stability. Who wants to join a workforce that you're terrified of things changing every week, including the rules and obligations of the job?


edit: From NYT article

...The payout plan is part of a raft of changes that Mr. Trump envisions for the federal civil service, some of which were detailed in the email sent by the O.P.M. They include ending remote work, changes to performance standards to ensure that all employees are “reliable, loyal, trustworthy,” and the reclassification of some workers to what is known as “at-will status,” in effect making them easier to fire.

Who is Eligible?

The O.P.M. said that all federal workers were eligible, with the exception of military personnel, postal workers and employees involved with immigration enforcement or national security. Individual agencies could also exclude specific staff members or positions from the offer, it said.

What happens to those who don't take the offer?

The letter says that the deferred resignation offer is “completely voluntary,” and that employees who don’t respond to the email will retain their jobs.

But it warns those who choose to remain in their positions that retaining their jobs is not guaranteed.

“At this time, we cannot give you full assurance regarding the certainty of your position or agency but should your position be eliminated you will be treated with dignity and will be afforded the protections in place for such positions,” the letter said.

Is the offer legal?
Much about the plan remained unclear, including whether the administration can legally offer such a sweeping buyout package without budget authorization from Congress. On the Senate floor Tuesday night, Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, urged federal workers not to resign, and warned that the administration was not legally bound to pay them after they stopped working.

“The president has no authority to make that offer. There’s no budget line item to pay people who are not showing up for work,” Mr. Kaine said. “If you accept that offer and resign, he’ll stiff you.”

The American Federation of Government Employees, which represents 800,000 federal workers and is the largest union of federal employees, condemned the offer, which its president said would “cause chaos for the Americans who depend on a functioning federal government.”

The White House is already facing mounting legal challenges to the flood of executive orders Mr. Trump has issued in the nine days since he was inaugurated. This week, a federal judge halted a Trump administration order to pause billions of dollars in federal grant and loan programs. Another temporarily blocked Mr. Trump’s order ending birthright citizenship.

 

[Coriolis]

I'm unclear what they are doing payment-wise if someone chooses the deal and they decide to just put them on admin leave. technically they are still employed and technically they are just getting their regular benefits + salary through the end of the government fiscal year. (Our year ends on Sept 30. Hence, the date chosen.) But they wouldn't actually be doing work.

There are also limits to actual payouts (of 25K), and you can't dole out lump sums beyond that legally.

I'm sure the lawyers are all digging into this, this morning, as I sit here and try to focus on work.

The general consensus currently is "F those guys" and "This is slimy and illegal" and I haven't talked to anyone who seems to be considering it at this stage. Plus, frankly, no one trusts them. If they are offering this, it's not out of kindness but because it's better for them in some way. THey don't understand service organizations. And I even had someone suggest they had been considering going elsewhere, but now they're digging in simply because this was so obnoxious. So I'm not sure it will have the intended results. People really have not been taking kindly to the first week of shenanigans.

I don't see any efficiency in paying a bunch of people to do nothing for 8 months. Yet more hypocrisy from this charlatan administration.

 

[Totenkindly]

I don't see any efficiency in paying a bunch of people to do nothing for 8 months. Yet more hypocrisy from this charlatan administration.

I know, rite? It's all about balance sheets and who can pocket what, not excellence.

---

Got an e-mail a moment ago from our current Acting Director (who came up through Operations, worked in the field, etc); they still don't know a lot and all they know is what OPM has up, but basically said we are already excellent, trustworthy, loyal to the American people, and do our very best, and right now we just need to hang tough and keep focus on our work in serving the public. Steady as she goes.

Now there is an actual leader.

 

[Totenkindly]

So on the OPM website FAQ, the very first question:

Q: Am I expected to work during the deferred resignation period?
A: No. Except in rare cases determined by your agency, you are not expected to work.

So this is a little different from the wording in the e-mail we got.
And yes, then that would be a buyout, if you are not required to work at all.

Later, it has this gem:
Q: Why am I being offered deferred resignation?
A: The federal workforce is expected to undergo significant near-term changes. As a result of these changes (or for other reasons), you may wish to depart the federal government on terms that provide you with sufficient time and economic security to plan for your future -- and have a nice vacation.

God, that's so demeaning. They have been ridiculing fedgov as "lazy" and not working while at home, then turn around to bait their offer by saying, "Hey, we'll even pay you for eight months to take time off and not do anything!" Hypocrites.

 

[The Cat]

​

 

[ceecee]

It will be interesting to see how many of the "expected" 10 percent actually take the deal. I agree it's much of a deal. Since there are no layoffs announced, I don't think the implied threat will do the job. Typical Trump though, announce first, worry about even the most initial concept of a plan later.

The civil service (in Canada anyways) could easily do with a 10% culling, but the union is too strong for it to ever happen. Depends on the department though, some provide direct services and need their staff, and some do god knows what.

So in what other industry would you be cheerleading for people to lose their jobs?

Here's what will happen. Any person who may have wanted to work for the USG or the US in some other capacity (NIH, CDC, US Parks service...) won't. Like my kids - one who is being recruited by the NIH. Or was. She is looking outside the US. They will look elsewhere and when the idiot brain surgeon conservatives and Republicans start crying about how no one wants to work anymore, just remember that they caused this issue. 100%. But first they can cry about not having anything to eat as it rots in the fields and orchards without anyone to harvest it. Until they have slaves, I mean prison labor, of all the undocumented, to do it for free.

Everything Trump is doing is designed to injure the people he hates the most. Americans.

 

[ceecee]

​

I mean I don't know how no one sees this coming. Don't need to watch a video.

 

[The Cat]

 

[Totenkindly]

I mean I don't know how no one sees this coming. Don't need to watch a video.

I suppose we can appreciate he didn't waste any time.

Pretty much did the power grab right out of the gate (and was kind of champing at the bit ahead of time), so it's obvious this was the plan all along.

So instead of just marinating in the boiling water, the frog is now actually all jumpy as it realizes what is happening. Too little too late.

 

[Totenkindly]

I'm honestly not sure how strong the union actually is right now (at least the AFGE).

When I started here, they were very dominant and actually had an office in our building.
By partway through Trump's first term, they were driven out of the building and felt very ineffectual and voiceless.
They had no real impact on the telework restrictions that he was already levying in March 2020, but then COVID blew everyone out of the water.

They only recently felt like they had started to get a voice or play any real role again, and now all this -- who really knows whether they will have an impact?

 

[Totenkindly]

 

[The Cat]