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

151–160 of 167 posts

Re: Deferred resignation email to federal employees

#151

Post by seanmcdirmid »

rayiner wrote: post #148
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

If we just talk about the people who voted, and who they voted for, then almost half of them voted for Trump, almost half of them voted for Harris (although a slightly lesser "half" than Trump).

If you want talk about people who didn't vote and how they would vote, young people (over 18 but under 30) are less likely to vote and participate in polling services like KnowledgePanel. But they didn't vote so whatever.

Re: Deferred resignation email to federal employees

#152

Post by Jtsummers »

oldwebguy94 wrote: post #93
Jtsummers wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Basically: the people getting the offer now have protections set up by Biden in response to Trump's Schedule F, that Trump would like to buy them out of. This offer has gone out to all feds, not just those falling under Schedule F. You've not been paying attention if you believe the statements you've written.

Of course it has. I read that. But that's exactly the point, isn't it!? Many, many of these jobs going up the seniority scale will reappear but be recreated as Schedule Policy/Career. (Schedule F no longer exists, I think) I mean, I might be wrong. But wait and see: I don't think I am going to be wrong. It is abundantly clear that Trump and the people around him are trying to create a civil service that is loyal to t…

The letter this submission is about went to many people who do not fall under policy/career. It went to everyone including people like admin staff and IT technicians who could not be put into Schedule Policy/Career per the OPM guidance.

You can read the guidance here: https://www.chcoc.gov/content/guidance-implementing-presiden...

There's no way that a GS-9 or GS-11 2210 network tech taking this deferred resignation option would be hired back under this schedule because they do not qualify for it (unless they happen to be part of union leadership or something, but that's a very small number compared to the whole).

And even if they could hire back a non-policy position under a policy schedule, this resignation/rehiring you've suggested is very roundabout. It's completely unnecessary so doesn't even make sense, they can convert those positions without the need for a resignation and rehiring the individual.

It would actually have made more sense to convert all these positions that wouldn't fall under Policy/Career (that you for some reason believe could) and then to dismiss the individuals without offering this deferred resignation.

Re: Deferred resignation email to federal employees

#153

Post by archagon »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #64

The thing that's interesting to me is how the Trump Republicans used tactics so effectively to accuse the Dems, "deep state", etc. of all this nefarious conduct, and then explicitly embraced that conduct as openly and vigorously as possible. E.g accuse career civil servants of being secretly partisan, and then explicitly kick out anyone who isn't loyal to Trump and demand Trump loyalty, countering ~150 years of Ameri…

DARVO: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO

Re: Deferred resignation email to federal employees

#154

Post by orwin »

nickpp wrote: post #130
orwin wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're only 1/3 right. Saved money isn't lent, nor spent (lending is just creating money). It's invested, 95% in the secondary market (probably more in the US). If the secondary market isn't correlated to actual production (and nowadays, it actually isn't, even in mining, prospecting and future are the main beneficiaries, which to me is crazy. One of the only exceptions is the energy sector), that money won't create…

What do you think those sellers on the secondary markets do with the money they get? At the end of the investing chain it’s always jobs, products and services - or bank deposits. Any money not physically hidden in a cash vault or under a mattress takes part in the economy.

Re-invest in crypto or other, already-existing stocks. The secondary market is so huge nowadays, and uncorrelated from dividends, mainly because growth (followed by regular buybacks), not dividends, is now the main way to pay investors, but not only. In fact, what Jacques Richard call "futuristic accounting" (his research is available in english [0]) is basically helping big companies to decorrelate real profits from dividends.

[0] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265171038_The_dange...

Re: Deferred resignation email to federal employees

#156

Post by mckn1ght »

stogot wrote: post #155
mckn1ght wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, a democratic one. So?

There is a distinct difference between democracy and republics

They aren’t mutually exclusive.

What general point are you trying to make? That there is no democratic process in the USA? Because we have federal and state level democratic processes.

Re: Deferred resignation email to federal employees

#157

Post by rayiner »

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://x.com/DOGE/status/1884600568863162708

Re: Deferred resignation email to federal employees

#158

Post by maeil »

spencerflem wrote: post #137
maeil wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're talking about them as separate groups, but it's likely that the majority of Americans who consider themselves part of "the left" have been voting for these piss-poor Dem candidates that have indeed willfully have led to this, for at least the last 3+ elections. If no one considering themselves part of "the left" would've gone out and voted for HRC and the dems got sent home with 40% of the vote back then, the…

i'm not convinced that the Dems are actually doing everything they can to win elections. my guess is, unforntunately, that we'd be doomed either way

Oh you're 100% right! All evidence points toward them not doing so! My (potentially hot) take is that if they'd gottten spanked with 40% the first time around, or Biden had lost, there'd have been much more external pressure for meaningful change to start trying to win elections.

Re: Deferred resignation email to federal employees

#159

Post by oldwebguy94 »

Jtsummers wrote: post #152
oldwebguy94 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it has. I read that. But that's exactly the point, isn't it!? Many, many of these jobs going up the seniority scale will reappear but be recreated as Schedule Policy/Career. (Schedule F no longer exists, I think) I mean, I might be wrong. But wait and see: I don't think I am going to be wrong. It is abundantly clear that Trump and the people around him are trying to create a civil service that is loyal to t…

The letter this submission is about went to many people who do not fall under policy/career. It went to everyone including people like admin staff and IT technicians who could not be put into Schedule Policy/Career per the OPM guidance. You can read the guidance here: https://www.chcoc.gov/content/guidance-implementing-presiden... There's no way that a GS-9 or GS-11 2210 network tech taking this deferred resignation…

> It would actually have made more sense to convert all these positions that wouldn't fall under Policy/Career (that you for some reason believe could) and then to dismiss the individuals without offering this deferred resignation.

They cannot, as I understood it, get the loyalty boost they want from converting a position to an F (Policy/Career) position because of the laws Biden introduced to protect roles from that kind of interference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy/Career_appointment#Repe...

In April 2024, the Biden administration put into effect a regulation named "Upholding Civil Service Protections and Merit System Principles" (89 FR 24982) that allows employees to keep existing job protections even if their positions were reclassified, preventing most of the effects of a reinstatement of Schedule F.

So, again, getting these employees to leave of their own accord allows them to convert as many to Schedule Policy/Career as possible without the employee in the seat. Because Biden and Congress introduced protections that would have stopped them being dismissed.

And did you not read what Miller is quoted as saying? I don't know why you are arguing against the idea that the intent here is about loyalty to Trumpism, when they are saying that with their creepy little outside voices.

Re: Deferred resignation email to federal employees

#160

Post by Jtsummers »

oldwebguy94 wrote: post #159
Jtsummers wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The letter this submission is about went to many people who do not fall under policy/career. It went to everyone including people like admin staff and IT technicians who could not be put into Schedule Policy/Career per the OPM guidance. You can read the guidance here: https://www.chcoc.gov/content/guidance-implementing-presiden... There's no way that a GS-9 or GS-11 2210 network tech taking this deferred resignation…

> It would actually have made more sense to convert all these positions that wouldn't fall under Policy/Career (that you for some reason believe could) and then to dismiss the individuals without offering this deferred resignation. They cannot, as I understood it, get the loyalty boost they want from converting a position to an F (Policy/Career) position because of the laws Biden introduced to protect roles from that…

> They cannot, as I understood it, get the loyalty boost they want from converting a position to an F (Policy/Career) position because of the laws Biden introduced to protect roles from that kind of interference.

Read your own reference. Not a law, in the sense that it was passed by Congress, but a regulation created by the executive branch for the executive branch. It can be undone. If they want to loyalty test people, they can undo the regulation and perform the conversion later. This letter is not about getting people to resign and then rehiring them (as you strangely suggested in your first reply to me) under Schedule Career/Policy. I say that because the vast majority of the 2.5 million civil servants that it was sent to cannot be hired as Schedule Career/Policy per the OPM guidance I shared in my previous response.

Post reply on HN