Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Deferred resignation email to federal employees

opm.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 167 posts

Re: Deferred resignation email to federal employees

#141

Post by spencerflem »

rayiner wrote: post #97
andy_ppp wrote: post #23

Anyone else think it’s likely America ends up without being a meaningful democracy by the end of this? I am skeptical the stated goal is efficiency it’s loyalty to MAGA. Imagine how extreme they will get if you can never vote them out.

This is a pro-democracy move! Elections being accompanied by a large scale shakeup to help the elected president enact the agenda people voted for is a good thing actually. Ideally, every federal employee would respond to an election by maximally pushing to achieve the president’s agenda, like at a startup. That would be responsive democracy, where voting yields immediate and visible changes. If you mean something ot…

I think they mean democracy, as in, if he's willing to disregard laws passed by congress and the constitution, and has been caught on record demanding poll workers to "find" votes, and has disbanded all oversight -

why would you expect future elections to be free and fair?

Re: Deferred resignation email to federal employees

#142

Post by telotortium »

ceejayoz wrote: post #134
rayiner wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump literally got up on stage with Elon promising to do what he’s doing. Elon spent the entire last week before the election in Pennsylvania, a major swing state, telling people what the administration was to do. Trump also got up on stage with many of his key appointees, who were outspoken about what they were going to do. Now, they’re all doing those things. Like, you can say his policies are bad and you don’t li…

Oh, come on. They lied through their teeth. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-i-have-nothing-t... > Former President Donald Trump denied any connection to Project 2025, the handbook for a new conservative government written by the Heritage Foundation and several right-wing think tanks, in his Sept. 10 debate with Vice President Kamala Harris. > “I have nothing to do with Project 2025,” Trump said in the ABC…

Not necessarily a lie on Trump's part. Trump wants to retain independence - he's not going to agree to implement a think tank's program by name. For example, he notably distanced himself from making promises on abortion policy during the 2024 campaign, and indeed so far the only move he's made to benefit pro-lifers is freeing protesters imprisoned under the Biden administration.

Also, much of the energy behind Trump and MAGA is rejecting the dominant conservative think tank culture that's existed since the Reagan administration. This is seen by them as only fighting for the interests of large corporations - notably including completely selling out American workers in favor of immigration and offshoring - while losing every cultural battle in the last few decades from being too conciliatory to the liberal establishment that dominates the cities where these think tanks are based.

Many of these think tanks (including the Heritage Foundation, which is why Project 2025 takes the tone that it does) are in the process of being replaced by younger right-wingers more aligned by MAGA - they often reject the label of "conservative" as denoting a failed movement, preferring "dissident right" or similar terms. They want a counterrevolution - "what is there left to conserve", they say. But until their takeover is complete (which will probably happen in Trump's term, and will definitely be complete if Republicans win in 2028), it's understandable why younger Republicans would reject any explicit association with the old conservative think tanks.

Re: Deferred resignation email to federal employees

#143

Post by tptacek »

rayiner wrote: post #132
tptacek wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roberts Seila Law decision explicitly states that Congress can --- outside of the situation of heads of single-director independent agencies --- limit the removal powers of the President. Further, the logic you're using implies that the entire federal workforce is exempt from literally any employment law of any sort. You may respond that the administration's pointy eggheads are going to craft persuasive arguments to…

The politics is inextricable from this since we’re talking about separation of powers. There is always a tension between democracy and the government’s status as an employer or contracting party. But if the political issue is loyalty of the federal bureaucracy to the agenda of the elected president, can Congress constrain the president’s ability to act on that political issue? I think that’s a very different analysis…

None of this is responsive to anything I just wrote.

Re: Deferred resignation email to federal employees

#144

Post by bufferoverflow »

intermerda wrote: post #104
bufferoverflow wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is president ordering to work from the office or resign - an end to democracy? This narrative is pure bs.

Are you being intentionally bad faith? Or did you not read the memo?

Great rebuttal. You're so convincing.

Re: Deferred resignation email to federal employees

#145

Post by rayiner »

tptacek wrote: post #143
rayiner wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The politics is inextricable from this since we’re talking about separation of powers. There is always a tension between democracy and the government’s status as an employer or contracting party. But if the political issue is loyalty of the federal bureaucracy to the agenda of the elected president, can Congress constrain the president’s ability to act on that political issue? I think that’s a very different analysis…

None of this is responsive to anything I just wrote.

It’s responsive to this point:

> You may respond that the administration's pointy eggheads are going to craft persuasive arguments to that effect, but I'd be happy to put money on their likelihood of success.

I’m saying the arguments might be more persuasive than you think given the context in which they will arise. Separation of powers cases often arise against the background of novel political situations that require application of abstract separation of powers principles to novel situations.

We are facing such a situation today. Prior to 2017, we had never confronted before the issue of federal employees declaring they would use their employment to frustrate the legitimate political objectives of the duly elected president. That then became a major issue in which Trump campaigned, and won. (It’s point #9 on the GOP 2024 platform: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2024-republican-pa....)

All this is relevant not because politics, but because it starkly illustrates a constitutional issue. Voting for the president is the means by which democratic influence is exercised over the exercise of executive power. Invoking generic employment law to frustrate the ability of the president to effectuate the very executive reforms on which he campaigned raises a specific constitutional issue.

The opposing view here is that, if voters want to effectuate significant reforms in the structure and behavior of the executive, then Congress must be the one to do that. Maybe that’s true but it seems very odd to me.

Re: Deferred resignation email to federal employees

#146

Post by rayiner »

ceejayoz wrote: post #134
rayiner wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump literally got up on stage with Elon promising to do what he’s doing. Elon spent the entire last week before the election in Pennsylvania, a major swing state, telling people what the administration was to do. Trump also got up on stage with many of his key appointees, who were outspoken about what they were going to do. Now, they’re all doing those things. Like, you can say his policies are bad and you don’t li…

Oh, come on. They lied through their teeth. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-i-have-nothing-t... > Former President Donald Trump denied any connection to Project 2025, the handbook for a new conservative government written by the Heritage Foundation and several right-wing think tanks, in his Sept. 10 debate with Vice President Kamala Harris. > “I have nothing to do with Project 2025,” Trump said in the ABC…

Trump he was very open about the policies he did support: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2024-republican-pa.... He never disavowed any of these policies. He talked about them all the time at his rallies and podcasts.

The “Project 2025” thing was an effort to pin him to Heritage Foundation policies on abortion. He correctly pointed out that Heritage didn’t speak for him. You can’t say that Biden’s platform is the same as Sunrise’s platform just because they agree on some things.

Re: Deferred resignation email to federal employees

#147

Post by dnissley »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #126
rayiner wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s what DOJ is for. He’s got the pointiest eggheads working for him now. He should litigate everything. And if people don’t like where we’re at in 2 years or 4 years, they’ll vote accordingly! AP is reporting 8 months severance: https://apnews.com/article/trump-buyouts-to-all-federal-empl...

This letter does not say severance. It is deferred resignation. During the 'notice period' of 8 months, as far as I can tell the only definite derogation is that there will be no return to office required during those 8 months. While I'm sure some people will end up with gardening leave for those 8 months, it's not guaranteed by the letter (my emphasis): > If you resign under this program, you [..] will be exempted f…

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42861210 provides more context:

"Employees who accept deferred resignation should promptly have their duties re-assigned or eliminated and be placed on paid administrative leave until the end of the deferred resignation period (generally, September 30, 2025, unless the employee has elected another earlier resignation date), unless the agency head determines that it is necessary for the employee to be actively engaged in transitioning job duties, in which case employees should be placed on administrative leave as soon as those duties are transitioned."

Re: Deferred resignation email to federal employees

#148

Post by rayiner »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #110
johnny22 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He won the popular vote though, unless I'm misunderstanding your point. I think the distinction here is that only about 1/2 the population even voted.

No, the distinction is that 1.5% more voters chose Trump than chose Harris, but that still didn’t push Trump over 50% of the vote, so it’s correct to say that most voters didn’t vote for Trump, but to win the popular vote he only needed the most votes.

This whole thing verges on “silent majority” thinking. The people who don’t vote have no bearing in this calculation. If they cared either way, they would have voted.

It’s particularly suspect with Trump, because of his strength among infrequent voters. https://abcnews.go.com/538/vote-back-trump/story?id=10909062...

“But among respondents who were old enough to vote but voted in none of those three elections, Trump crushed Biden 44 percent to 26 percent.”

Re: Deferred resignation email to federal employees

#149

Post by tptacek »

rayiner wrote: post #145
tptacek wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of this is responsive to anything I just wrote.

It’s responsive to this point: > You may respond that the administration's pointy eggheads are going to craft persuasive arguments to that effect, but I'd be happy to put money on their likelihood of success. I’m saying the arguments might be more persuasive than you think given the context in which they will arise. Separation of powers cases often arise against the background of novel political situations that requi…

The clearly expressed will of Congress is that federal employees are not typically to be classed as at-will employees. This current Supreme Court majority explicitly said Congress has the authority to constrain executive branch HR policy. I'm not sure I've read an opinion before where Congress made a black-letter declaration of some policy, and the court overturned it because of the perceived will of the narrow majority of voters for the President, but hey, you do you.

I really don't much care about the underlying principles here. I'm a fan of at-will employment. I generally (though with nothing resembling the fervor of this administration) think that the federal employment rolls are bloated and inefficient. But I also believe what I learned in St. Barnabus Elementary about the separation of powers: Congress makes the laws, the President executes them.

Re: Deferred resignation email to federal employees

#150

Post by sershe »

hedora wrote: post #44
spencerflem wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuinely, who are you expecting to stand up against it? The Democrats in Congress? Massive public demonstration? It feels all but inevitable to me

The Calexit people are gathering signatures right now: https://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/news-releases-and-advi...

According to Brennan center, CA is number one at losing people relative to other states.

If it hypothetically exits to prevent other states from making it more like them and less like itself, that would presumably accelerate.

Did you budget for a DMZ or a Berlin wall to keep newly minted California citizens in? Especially those that pay all the taxes, like e.g. myself (I bailed in 2015)

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/how-...

Post reply on HN