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

421–430 of 579 posts

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

#421

Post by snowwrestler »

ryandrake wrote: post #161
bigmattystyles wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds illegal

Almost any reply to a political thread in the next four years is going to be "That sounds illegal" but it's only illegal if the law gets enforced. I encourage anyone responding with "That sounds illegal" or "They can't do that" to also include in their response, "...and it will be enforced by [xxxx]." and try to come up with a realistic xxxx. EDIT: I'm not making any judgment about whether this particular thing is le…

It will be enforced by a future administration, is the answer.

If a federal civil servant receives payroll, but does no work, for months on end, they have not taken a buyout, they have defrauded the federal government. What is the statute of limitations for that crime? Longer than 4 years. And Trump is term-limited.

That said, I agree with others that the more likely outcome in this specific case is that everyone who takes the “buyout” simply has their payments cut off rather quickly.

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

#422

Post by dcist »

flustercan wrote: post #234
bmitc wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The federal employee unions have incredible power, often to the detriment of the government.

That power comes from the idea that the federal employees can shut down government operations if they stop working. This administration (supposedly) wants dearly to shut down government operations, so the union doesn't have any power.

Federal employees are not permitted to strike. See 5 USC § 7311.

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

#423

Post by bagels »

creer wrote: post #342
ryandrake wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost any reply to a political thread in the next four years is going to be "That sounds illegal" but it's only illegal if the law gets enforced. I encourage anyone responding with "That sounds illegal" or "They can't do that" to also include in their response, "...and it will be enforced by [xxxx]." and try to come up with a realistic xxxx. EDIT: I'm not making any judgment about whether this particular thing is le…

I expect a vast sea of lawsuits. There are multiple ways that things can be enforced or not. But for some things, sure, if say, both enforcement duty and presidential pardons are used or not used to fit, then for these cases, illegal doesn't matter anymore. "It's not illegal if the president does it", was it? In the case of taking early retirement, or accepting a pile of money for doing X / nothing, then you better b…

Let's say the lawsuits are won. Here are the two inevitable outcomes for the ones that matter:

Appealed to Supreme Court which is overrepresented by Trump cultists.

Trump's DOJ refuses to enact whatever verdict the court determines.

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

#424

Post by ryan_lane »

asperous wrote: post #365
flustercan wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That power comes from the idea that the federal employees can shut down government operations if they stop working. This administration (supposedly) wants dearly to shut down government operations, so the union doesn't have any power.

Federal employees are not allowed to strike

Confidently incorrect. Federal employees marked as "mission critical" cannot strike, but other federal employees can. Unions take this into account and have workers strike on-behalf of mission critical employees.

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

#425

Post by umeshunni »

s3r3nity wrote: post #26
sampton wrote: post #9

20k represents 1%. The target is 5-10%. The messaging is 100-200k federal layoff is coming.

These tend to work through in stages: fastest ones to accept were already looking, and next up are those that are on the fence, and so on... The 8-month buyout offer is significantly better than the one-time offer from Clinton in the 90's [1], even adjusting for inflation, so I'd expect that there's a large group of individuals & families that are just taking the time to evaluate the decision. [ https://www.presidenc…

Amazing. That offer (and website in general) look and sound identical to what the current administration is proposing.

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

#426

Post by refurb »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #412
ryandrake wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost any reply to a political thread in the next four years is going to be "That sounds illegal" but it's only illegal if the law gets enforced. I encourage anyone responding with "That sounds illegal" or "They can't do that" to also include in their response, "...and it will be enforced by [xxxx]." and try to come up with a realistic xxxx. EDIT: I'm not making any judgment about whether this particular thing is le…

True. The rule of law died on Jan 20. Musk is likely doing a lot of things that are strictly illegal, but it seems quite likely that Trump has assured him he has his back with pardons if need be. Also, Trump controls federal law enforcement agencies that have likely been told to look the other way. The only legal vulnerability would be at the state level and they're not doing things there.

> The rule of law died Jan 20

This kind of hyperbole isn’t helpful when the outgoing President hands out pardons like they were coupons, nor when the President can’t remember signing EOs and is known to have limited mental faculties for the past few years, all while being shielded by his inner circle. I mean the Constitution is pretty specific about a President not fit to do their job.

If you had said “the rule of law stayed dead on Jan 20th” I might disagree but it’s at least a defensible opinion.

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

#427

Post by heylook »

vaccineai wrote: post #406
n0rdy wrote: post #40

I've always found this approach of reducing the number of employees unwise from the company perspective (but pretty good for the employees, though). While the unsatisfied employees are the target, my observations indicate that a high percentage of active and skilled people are willing to take this offer, as they are sure that they will find a new place within a reasonable time, so it's basically, free money. And thos…

Good, we want the competent and skilled people within government to go to private enterprise in big numbers, so they can amplify their skills and effect in private enterprise. Then we can reduce the number of government agencies, because they are always less effective than private enterprises. The problem is when we have the lazy and incompetent bureaucrats sticking around, and us the taxpayers are paying for their p…

> because they are always less effective than private enterprises.

I think this is one of those ideas that has been spouted for so long that we don't really stop to think about whether it is true. Private and public entities (and employees) certainly have different incentives, but they also have different mandates, and I've certainly known plenty of inefficient private enterprises and efficient public ones. Do you have any way of verifying or proving this idea that you can share?

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

#428

Post by atkailash »

reaperducer wrote: post #192
Larrikin wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't Twitter workers still trying to get their severances and they took the offer when Twitter actually had the money to pay.

Aren't Twitter workers still trying to get their severances and they took the offer when Twitter actually had the money to pay. Considering that SpaceX is so far behind on its bills that dozens and dozens of companies in Texas have had to place liens against the company, my guess is that neither the Twitter people, nor the SpaceX people, nor the federal buyout people will ever see a dime. For some reason, links to st…

[dead]

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

#429

Post by Spooky23 »

casenmgreen wrote: post #254
reaperducer wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't Twitter workers still trying to get their severances and they took the offer when Twitter actually had the money to pay. Considering that SpaceX is so far behind on its bills that dozens and dozens of companies in Texas have had to place liens against the company, my guess is that neither the Twitter people, nor the SpaceX people, nor the federal buyout people will ever see a dime. For some reason, links to st…

Is it possible Mr. Musk's companies are actually in deep trouble financially, and this political stuff is actually a means to an end?

Tesla is a fraud just short of Enron. (Enron was a complete fabrication. Tesla is a real company with fabricated valuation.) The valuation is based on hand wavey gibberish. The company has repeatedly sold consumers products that don’t exist. The concepts of duty of care, loyalty, and obedience are foreign concepts to the owner of the company.

JP Morgan’s analyst position on the company really says it all: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/jpmorgan-deeply-skeptical-wal...

The scary thing is that the lie is so big, everyone is exposed to it — TSLA is 2% of VTI’s holdings.

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

#430

Post by csomar »

robocat wrote: post #250
reaperducer wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't Twitter workers still trying to get their severances and they took the offer when Twitter actually had the money to pay. Considering that SpaceX is so far behind on its bills that dozens and dozens of companies in Texas have had to place liens against the company, my guess is that neither the Twitter people, nor the SpaceX people, nor the federal buyout people will ever see a dime. For some reason, links to st…

The article mentions $2.5MM liens which is drastically less than 1% of expenses of $1445MM ("[SpaceX] generated $55 million in profit on $1.5 billion in revenue during the first quarter of 2023") It don't appear to be because SpaceX is having trouble paying. I would guess SpaceX are delaying payment as much as possible because it is cheap lending and because it's run as an extremely mercenary company. Their costs of…

That’s still an expense even if they didn’t pay. Same as when you bill a customer, it’s considered revenue even if they didn’t pay. They probably have cash flow issues since it reached the lien stage.
Post reply on HN