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

DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack

404media.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 413 posts

Re: DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack

#31

Post by sitkack »

hiatus wrote: post #10
anothername12 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article outlines some reporting changes (from OMB to White House chief of staff??) to get around that apparently

That remains to be seen. From the same article: > "Just changing the name alone under the Executive Order doesn't affect DOGE's recordkeeping status,” Jason R. Baron, professor at the University of Maryland and former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration told 404 Media in a phone call. “The administration apparently has made a determination that DOGE will be a presidential compon…

DOGE is not acting as an oversight agency, they are locking people out of systems and modifying code, so they can't be an oversight agency.

Congress needs to do their job here.

Re: DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack

#32

Post by ropetin »

rayiner wrote: post #27
9283409232 wrote: post #4

I thought the whole point was transparency and auditing? Are you telling me Musk was lying!?! So who watches the Watchmen?

[flagged]

Wouldn't it be the AGs who recently got 'let go'?

And why did you go straight to whataboutism? Just because one person does bad things it doesn't excuse other people from doing the same bad things. You don't see serial killers lawyers arguing, "I know my client killed 17 people, but what about that Jeffrey Dahmer, eh?"

Re: DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack

#33

Post by byroot »

cluckindan wrote: post #15
lenerdenator wrote: post #5

[flagged]

Heads would roll. Literally.

Probably not, but there would definitely be some sort of resistance, strikes, refusal to comply, etc.

In France public service employees have a very high level of protection (they're very hard to fire), and are legally allowed to disobey "obviously illegal" orders, I suppose this case would qualify?

All of this was implemented immediately after WW2 as a way to prevent a potential authoritarian ruler from using public administrations for nefarious things. So it seems quite fitting.

Re: DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack

#34

Post by sitkack »

slowmovintarget wrote: post #9
anothername12 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article outlines some reporting changes (from OMB to White House chief of staff??) to get around that apparently

The article is fairly sloppy and uses lots of scare-quotes, but basically it's saying that communications for the DOGE team will report in to the Chief of Staff making them subject to the Presidential Records Act instead of the general reporting conditions for the OMB. The article also states that 'DOGE is gutting...' when that's not true. They're advising the President, and the President is cleaning house. They inve…

[flagged]

Re: DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack

#35

Post by code_runner »

rayiner wrote: post #26
BryantD wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The President decides..." within the limits of his constitutional powers. Which do not include, for example, impoundment or unilaterally shutting down agencies authorized by Congressional acts.

People are throwing around the word "impoundment" lately. But it has a very specific meaning, and no impoundment has happened.

only because the courts stopped it

Re: DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack

#36

Post by nilamo »

waltercool wrote: post #19

What? Why are you protecting Slack business? Even at my company I was in charge to replace Slack because is damn expensive in comparison to other options like Teams or Rocket Chat.

> damn expensive in comparison to [...]

why would you compare Slack to half baked products that have only some of Slack's features?

Re: DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack

#37

Post by code_runner »

ropetin wrote: post #32
rayiner wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Wouldn't it be the AGs who recently got 'let go'? And why did you go straight to whataboutism? Just because one person does bad things it doesn't excuse other people from doing the same bad things. You don't see serial killers lawyers arguing, "I know my client killed 17 people, but what about that Jeffrey Dahmer, eh?"

"there are a lot of unsolved murders out there. aren't those people free? my client should be free too!"

Re: DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack

#38

Post by code_runner »

byroot wrote: post #33
cluckindan wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heads would roll. Literally.

Probably not, but there would definitely be some sort of resistance, strikes, refusal to comply, etc. In France public service employees have a very high level of protection (they're very hard to fire), and are legally allowed to disobey "obviously illegal" orders, I suppose this case would qualify? All of this was implemented immediately after WW2 as a way to prevent a potential authoritarian ruler from using public…

I assume that federal employees are also allowed to disobey "obviously illegal" orders, but I suppose the difference is that they can be retaliated against. Its odd that the president can act out of his authority and make orders that illegal, but still be able to fire the people who won't do those things.

In the case of USAID workers, its entirely possible that the organization will be explicitly NOT under executive authority (my understanding is that they are a legislative branch creation).... but I guess the executive branch can still order them to stop working and return to the US? Its all very murky

Re: DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack

#39

Post by thaumasiotes »

byroot wrote: post #33
cluckindan wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heads would roll. Literally.

Probably not, but there would definitely be some sort of resistance, strikes, refusal to comply, etc. In France public service employees have a very high level of protection (they're very hard to fire), and are legally allowed to disobey "obviously illegal" orders, I suppose this case would qualify? All of this was implemented immediately after WW2 as a way to prevent a potential authoritarian ruler from using public…

> In France public service employees have a very high level of protection (they're very hard to fire), and are legally allowed to disobey "obviously illegal" orders

This would seem to imply that a French public servant who obeys an "obviously illegal" order is both knowingly (it's obvious) and willfully (there's no requirement to obey) breaking the law.

What are the penalties for that?

Re: DOGE employees ordered to stop using Slack

#40

Post by tester756 »

rhubarbtree wrote: post #24
waltercool wrote: post #19

What? Why are you protecting Slack business? Even at my company I was in charge to replace Slack because is damn expensive in comparison to other options like Teams or Rocket Chat.

More expensive and more better.

Is it?

Discord seems to be way better

Teams are good enough

Post reply on HN