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

20k federal workers take "buyout" so far, official says

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 579 posts

Re: 20k federal workers take "buyout" so far, official says

#151

Post by mikeyouse »

ToValueFunfetti wrote: post #118
scottLobster wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you think that an offer accepted by sending an email with "Resign" in the subject line is subject to these protections? You think DOGE is even authorized to make said offers? Why, because Elon and Trump said so? Also your last line is just bizarre. The US government can very much selectively pay some parties but not others during a shutdown. That's kind of the definition of a shutdown.... Plus this administration…

The requirements for making a contract are minimal. If your friend says "I bet you a hundred dollars that you can't run over there and back in less than a minute" and you say nothing in response but start running, you've entered into a binding contract. Your other points still stand, but an email that makes an offer and makes it clear that you accept by responding "Resign" and a response to that email that says "Resi…

Your example of a binding contract isn’t a binding contract since there’s no consideration to the person who made the bet.

Re: 20k federal workers take "buyout" so far, official says

#152

Post by nilamo »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #92

[flagged]

> Unfortunately public sector unions, which shouldn’t even exist

You what? Why in the world do you think unions shouldn't exist? I had a parent that did a lot with FEW (Federally Employed Women) and NARFE (National Active and Retired Federal Employees) at TACOM, where I learned how much the union does for federal employees, so your statement sounds like complete nonsense to me.

Re: 20k federal workers take "buyout" so far, official says

#153

Post by roughly »

desumeku wrote: post #68
manbart wrote: post #2

Doubt it... You'd be a fool to think you'd actually get the money

Is this where we're at now? Thinking that the new administration will just openly refuse to pay people's salaries as part of a formal deal?

All of that's handled by the treasury department payment systems, so as long as those are left alone, I'm sure it'll be fine.

Re: 20k federal workers take "buyout" so far, official says

#154

Post by root_axis »

justin66 wrote: post #120
root_axis wrote: post #93

My personal and probably not unique prediction is that these people will be let go and not be paid - same thing he did with twitter.

There are some pretty significant differences between Twitter employees and federal government employees, starting with the fact that a lot of latter group are part of a powerful union.

Let's see what happens. At this point, I'm not convinced the union has any leverage.

Re: 20k federal workers take "buyout" so far, official says

#155

Post by ahi »

justin66 wrote: post #120
root_axis wrote: post #93

My personal and probably not unique prediction is that these people will be let go and not be paid - same thing he did with twitter.

There are some pretty significant differences between Twitter employees and federal government employees, starting with the fact that a lot of latter group are part of a powerful union.

patco was also a powerful union. Trump has already declared he will nullify the AFGE contract (legality be damned).

Re: 20k federal workers take "buyout" so far, official says

#156

Post by throwawayguy867 »

derektank wrote: post #7
manbart wrote: post #2

Doubt it... You'd be a fool to think you'd actually get the money

There's a lot of people that, due to their living situation, wouldn't be able to comply with the new executive order banning work from home. If the choice is between being fired either way, I can see many people opting to take the possibility of a severance while they find alternative work

I'm in this situation. I was hired fully remote (and no office to "return" to), many states away from DC and no intention to move (not for an administration that would have no scruples about firing me at any point, for any reason).

Since I'm fairly sure my goose is cooked either way, I am considering doing the deferred resignation thing just to get a few more dollars in my pocket before the inevitable comes.

Re: 20k federal workers take "buyout" so far, official says

#158

Post by spacemanspiff01 »

transcriptase wrote: post #140
bigmattystyles wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because of a then ongoing pandemic and making an allowance. That's completely different than just do nothing for 6+ months then quit. If you can't see that, there's no hope for this discussion.

So the OPM grants them a sabbatical or extended vacation or a hundred other things they have the discretion to do. Pretending or hoping everything unorthodox or unprecedented is somehow illegal is already becoming tiresome to read about in comment sections and it hasn’t even been a month of this administration.

If they were serious about the offer, they would get it passed through Congress on a party line vote via reconciliation, they have the votes, there is nothing the Dems could do to stop it.

The fact that they have not is telling.

Re: 20k federal workers take "buyout" so far, official says

#159

Post by miltonlost »

Majromax wrote: post #63
tombert wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that's what I mean, "efficiency" is a term that doesn't mean anything in isolation, and because of that they can define it to mean whatever they want it to mean and declare victory as a result. I also think there might be some shady math going on; they're counting every canceled thing as "savings", but I don't think they're going to count the cost of rehiring the lost workers and redoing these contracts.

> Well that's what I mean, "efficiency" is a term that doesn't mean anything in isolation, and because of that they can define it to mean whatever they want it to mean and declare victory as a result. Efficiency does have a sensible definition in isolation: an efficient system is one in which there are no more Pareto improvements. From the government perspective, you could consider this in terms of the cost/service f…

Pareto Efficiency should not be the be-all-end-all (and only one subset of "efficiency", so your definition is only useful in isolation to Pareto Efficient). It only guarantees nothing is worse off, but that's only a relative comparison. A result of 99% of the wealth goes to 1 individual and 1% of the wealth is with everyone else is Pareto Efficient but not a good world! Efficiency can also be used amorally, e.g., Death Camps are an efficient way to kill undesirables!

Re: 20k federal workers take "buyout" so far, official says

#160

Post by scarface_74 »

tombert wrote: post #145
scarface_74 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re-hire people for what? They don’t want a functioning government

I suspect that after all these cuts, they're going to realize that some of these things actually are required in order for the American people not to complain too much. I just remember in Trump's first term, and this is something that has stuck with me since, was how he promised, on day one, to "repeal and replace" the Affordable Care Act, only for a few weeks after taking office saying "Nobody knew health care could…

The only thing that saved the ACA was McCain who saved it as the last great act at the end of his life.

All of the sensible, principled Republicans have died or retired. The modern Republican Party seem willing to go off the cliff with him.

The tech sector is firmly in his pocket and all of the news media are owned by corporate giants who are literally bribing him to get what they want by “settling lawsuits”.

I always thought it was silly when people said they are leaving the country if $x wins even during the first Trump administration. But I’ve never seen anything like this or imagined the complete disregard for the law by either party before and I’m 50.

Post reply on HN