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

561–570 of 579 posts

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

#561

Post by protocolture »

jameshart wrote: post #524
protocolture wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would have to go pretty far to prove to a standard I would accept that "Go work from home, and do nothing, we will keep paying you" is an illegal order. Firstly: Its telling these people to work from their principle place of work, their home. Something thats been commonplace since covid. Secondly, "Do Nothing" seems like a very legal thing for these people to be doing. I suspect that theres not a court in the lan…

Very unclear to me that ‘do nothing and get paid for it with congressionally appropriated funds earmarked for doing something’ is legal.

In the context of general employment, "do nothing", is legal. "Wait" is legal.

Orchestrating a grand plan to waste government money by requesting multiple staff to stop working might be a grey area that the courts will decide on. But no employee would be expected to take it to court to test its validity instead of following a lawful direction.

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

#562

Post by staticman2 »

protocolture wrote: post #561
jameshart wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very unclear to me that ‘do nothing and get paid for it with congressionally appropriated funds earmarked for doing something’ is legal.

In the context of general employment, "do nothing", is legal. "Wait" is legal. Orchestrating a grand plan to waste government money by requesting multiple staff to stop working might be a grey area that the courts will decide on. But no employee would be expected to take it to court to test its validity instead of following a lawful direction.

Musk is not "requesting multiple staff to stop working" he's asking people to voluntarily resign and promising if they do they get paid until September 30 as if they had not resigned.

It's not clear to me that this is even a "direction" never-mind a "lawful direction".

The way the staff member opts into this arrangement is to write "I resign" in an email. There is no "direction" telling them to do this. It is entirely voluntary behavior on the part of the federal employee.

The issue being discussed I believe was whether they have any legal protections if they don't get paid.

I don't think anyone was claiming they'd go to jail for resigning or anything like that.

Since the promise to pay staff who resigned doesn't necessarily appear to be legal it doesn't appear they necessarily have recourse if not paid given their resignation was voluntary.

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

#563

Post by refurb »

error_logic wrote: post #532
refurb wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 la…

The reason it's defensible is that now checks and balances are gone because there aren't even token checks/balances from partisanship--the remaining functions of government are controlled by a single party, purging anyone who isn't loyal and willing to do whatever they deem justified. They're paving a road to hell.

> the remaining functions of government are controlled by a single party

You realize that the check and balances never required that different parties head each branch of government?

I'm not sure you have even a basic understanding of how the US government is organized by the US constitution.

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

#564

Post by krapp »

refurb wrote: post #563
error_logic wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason it's defensible is that now checks and balances are gone because there aren't even token checks/balances from partisanship--the remaining functions of government are controlled by a single party, purging anyone who isn't loyal and willing to do whatever they deem justified. They're paving a road to hell.

> the remaining functions of government are controlled by a single party You realize that the check and balances never required that different parties head each branch of government? I'm not sure you have even a basic understanding of how the US government is organized by the US constitution.

>You realize that the check and balances never required that different parties head each branch of government?

They do in effect, because the existence of political parties means there is no reason for members of the same party to check and balance each other across different branches, as opposed to collaborating across branches to consolidate their power.

Which is exactly what's happening.

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

#565

Post by refurb »

krapp wrote: post #564
refurb wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the remaining functions of government are controlled by a single party You realize that the check and balances never required that different parties head each branch of government? I'm not sure you have even a basic understanding of how the US government is organized by the US constitution.

>You realize that the check and balances never required that different parties head each branch of government? They do in effect, because the existence of political parties means there is no reason for members of the same party to check and balance each other across different branches, as opposed to collaborating across branches to consolidate their power. Which is exactly what's happening.

No, the checks and balances are defined as simply different people, not different parties.

The Democratic and Republican parties are not monolithic. They don't always agree and there are plenty of differences across individuals.

Hence, the Founding Fathers never required that a different party sit in the executive and legislative functions.

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

#566

Post by abduhl »

infecto wrote: post #527
abduhl wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Most large projects have some percentage of total project value in liens. I hate to be this guy but please provide a source for this. I’ve been involved in the construction industry for quite a while, almost exclusively on large and mega projects, and “most” of my jobs have not had any percentage of their total project value in liens. One company that refused to pay for work my (then) company performed is SpaceX.…

My experience with projects and AP in general. ~$2mm across 70 liens without any split between contractors vs spacex is not that interesting. Did not look like they even accounted for a chain of liens based on the same original unit of work. The report came out in 2024 and the count and $ sum was from 2019, so over 5 years including COVID years. During COVID liens jumped quite a bit and on projects that span multiple…

There are disputes about payment on lots of projects I've worked on. That wasn't your claim. You claimed that liens were filed and perfected on "most" jobs, and that is not my experience.

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

#567

Post by ModernMech »

encoderer wrote: post #558
ModernMech wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biden was my 10th option for POTUS, and I felt about his overreach the same way I feel about Trump's. But Biden is gone, Trump is POTUS, and what Trump is doing still represents a new overreach into territory that, again, the other side would not like if it were applied to them, yet you seem to be reveling in it. > It must have been deeply upsetting when the White House press secretary yes. > And I’m sure you’ll feel…

Possibly you’re a victim of the super polarized environment today but this is hard to believe. You’ve written dozens of comments attacking the current administration. How much ink did you spill over Biden 4 years ago?

How about instead of questioning me personally we focus on the discussion at hand? My personal politics don't matter, but since you're making it about that, I'm a leftist so I don't see how it's hard to believe I don't agree with Biden on most things.

Like most people on HN, I don't comment about politics here often, but I made my displeasure known at the time in other social circle. I'm here now, as I think most people are, because this is some next-level shit. Comparisons to anything Biden did are strained.

I generally don't find it hard to maintain a consistent view of executive power no matter who is wielding it, because it always comes back to: what if it was wielded against you? This is the question everyone who is in support of this right now needs to be asking themselves.

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

#568

Post by robomartin »

robomartin wrote: post #543
Xelynega wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe instead of punching down("everyone should have to live as bad as I do/did") you should be raising people up("everyone should live as good as they do/did")? Why not ask yourself what is stopping yourself from having those protections in the private industry(hint: some people do have those protections in private industry) instead of focusing on taking them away from others?

> Why not ask yourself what is stopping yourself from having those protections in the private industry Easy: Reality. Read on if you care to understand. > Maybe instead of punching down("everyone should have to live as bad as I do/did") you should be raising people up You are looking at this from the wrong perspective. What some of these protected groups have is a fantasy, a Ponzi scheme, that is only sustainable bec…

The math on the inflation is wrong BTW. I computed 5% every 5 years. I am not going to bother doing the 5% per year case because people just don't care to understand reality. I'll just say the numbers would be huge.

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

#569

Post by encoderer »

ModernMech wrote: post #567
encoderer wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly you’re a victim of the super polarized environment today but this is hard to believe. You’ve written dozens of comments attacking the current administration. How much ink did you spill over Biden 4 years ago?

How about instead of questioning me personally we focus on the discussion at hand? My personal politics don't matter, but since you're making it about that, I'm a leftist so I don't see how it's hard to believe I don't agree with Biden on most things. Like most people on HN, I don't comment about politics here often, but I made my displeasure known at the time in other social circle. I'm here now, as I think most peo…

The last time democrats wielded this much power they created the new deal.

The last time republicans wielded this much power we became a global power.

Both Roosevelts.

Both hated by their opposition.

History looks kindly on both.

Trump is not a Roosevelt, but in a way neither were they in their day.

I’m a centrist. I believe the greatest living president is Clinton and it’s not even close. I hope leftsts become pragmatic again and choose a Clintonesque nominee next time.

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

#570

Post by Xelynega »

robomartin wrote: post #543
Xelynega wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe instead of punching down("everyone should have to live as bad as I do/did") you should be raising people up("everyone should live as good as they do/did")? Why not ask yourself what is stopping yourself from having those protections in the private industry(hint: some people do have those protections in private industry) instead of focusing on taking them away from others?

> Why not ask yourself what is stopping yourself from having those protections in the private industry Easy: Reality. Read on if you care to understand. > Maybe instead of punching down("everyone should have to live as bad as I do/did") you should be raising people up You are looking at this from the wrong perspective. What some of these protected groups have is a fantasy, a Ponzi scheme, that is only sustainable bec…

How do companies with unions survive and thrive if all of your assumptions are correct and generally applicable?
Post reply on HN