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

Gov workers say their shutdown out-of-office replies were forcibly changed

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 133 posts

Re: Gov workers say their shutdown out-of-office replies were forcibly changed

#81

Post by bbatsell »

mcmcmc wrote: post #27
plantwallshoe wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not factual that democratic senators are blocking the bill. Republicans have a majority in both houses and can pass the bill at any time.

Budget resolutions require 60 votes to pass, so they really can’t. But they know that and their refusal to negotiate is blocking it. Dems are doing what’s best for their constituents by not voting for a budget that would skyrocket healthcare costs for millions of Americans. Meanwhile the GOP is spreading misinformation that Dems want to fund healthcare for illegal immigrants, who have NEVER been eligible for it.

Budget resolutions for quite some time have used the reconciliation process, which only requires a simple majority (but imposes some restrictions). The problem is that they shoved through the “OBBBA” using the process intended for the budget, and now it’s no longer available. You can only use the process once per year per subject (spending, revenue, debt limit), and the OBBBA used up all three.

Re: Gov workers say their shutdown out-of-office replies were forcibly changed

#82

Post by quantified »

eastbound wrote: post #74
passive wrote: post #4

This weaponization of public resources for partisan purposes is hardly surprising, but given the government is shut down, I would imagine black or even grey hats might feel like it's open season on .gov, so I would be surprised to see much durability in their attempts.

It’s barely anything to get a stroke upon: The article didn’t quote the text directly and paraphrased it. It means it is not persuasive per se , or it would have been used as proof. Since the raw text couldn’t serve as proof, an entire article had to be mounted to create the feeling of being appalling. It’s an opinion piece. And that’s all it always it: People getting hung up over principles and theories. The proof t…

In this administration only, for the coherent sentences you have written.

Re: Gov workers say their shutdown out-of-office replies were forcibly changed

#83

Post by quantified »

philipallstar wrote: post #6
Simulacra wrote: post #3

That's ridiculous, and could be illegal, because in changing the response, they are taking on the speech of the named employee. If that's not a first amendment violation, I don't know what is. Federal employees are not allowed to be involved in politics while they are employed by the federal government, I know there's exceptions and everything, but at its core this action is repugnant.

> in changing the response, they are taking on the speech of the named employee Would you say that a company adding a standard footer to your outgoing emails is taking on your speech?

Government is not a company. It's less about overriding each person's OOO message (it is about in a small way) and much more about what the message is.

Just poison throughout from this admin.

Re: Gov workers say their shutdown out-of-office replies were forcibly changed

#84

Post by lesuorac »

sunnyps wrote: post #57
Alupis wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate on which part you believe isn't true? The bill already passed the House. The Democrats have a minorotiy in the Senate. 60 votes are required to pass the bill - and Democrats are holding it up, deliberately for political reasons. It's entirely factual.

Republicans can end the filibuster in the Senate with a simple majority after which they can pass the funding bill with a simple majority. But of course, they won't do that since it opens up other bills to be passed with a simple majority too in the future. So it's not factual. edit: This is what they would need to do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

Its weird how restoring congress to how the framers intended (majority vote) is called the "Nuclear option".

Re: Gov workers say their shutdown out-of-office replies were forcibly changed

#85

Post by quantified »

briandear wrote: post #10
Simulacra wrote: post #3

That's ridiculous, and could be illegal, because in changing the response, they are taking on the speech of the named employee. If that's not a first amendment violation, I don't know what is. Federal employees are not allowed to be involved in politics while they are employed by the federal government, I know there's exceptions and everything, but at its core this action is repugnant.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Did congress pass a law I missed? Government communication isn’t a 1st Amendment issue. When you work for any employer, you are subject to the wh…

This isn't a 1st Amendment issue.

Re: Gov workers say their shutdown out-of-office replies were forcibly changed

#86

Post by ranger_danger »

immibis wrote: post #44
Alupis wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> It's factual. Nobody asked why Republicans, which control every branch of government, need Democrats to cooperate with them to pass a budget, which only requires 50% to pass due to the special process for budget bills. Oh, right. Because they mislabeled the One Big Beautiful Bill as a budget bill, which means they've used up their one special budget bill for the year and now the actual budget bill has to play by th…

> only requires 50% to pass

This is incorrect.

The bill that just failed (https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/5371), is an appropriations bill.

60 votes are needed, and the final vote was 55-45.

https://apnews.com/article/democrats-republicans-shutdown-ne...

What you are referring to with the "50%" is a reconciliation bill (which is what the OBBB was), which requires a simple majority (50% + 1) to pass, and cannot be filibustered.

Appropriations bills are what keep the government open. Reconciliation bills do not have this effect.

The OBBB could not have been an appropriations bill because those are designed to make changes to mandatory spending programs and taxes, while reconciliation bills are for funding discretionary government operations annually.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1

https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/13/politics/budget-resolution-re...

Re: Gov workers say their shutdown out-of-office replies were forcibly changed

#87

Post by [deleted] »

culi wrote: post #45
razster wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This post from Reddit’s Redding, California community is definitely weaponized. https://old.reddit.com/r/Redding/comments/1nvgu8b/guess_i_wo...

Nothing to do with Redding. It's all over the USDA website: https://www.fs.usda.gov/ > The Radical Left Democrats shut down the government. This government website will be updated periodically during the funding lapse for mission critical functions. President Trump has made it clear he wants to keep the government open and support those who feed, fuel, and clothe the American people.

[deleted]

Re: Gov workers say their shutdown out-of-office replies were forcibly changed

#88

Post by fragmede »

SpaceNoodled wrote: post #79
smelendez wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on what the footer says. This isn't a company though, it's the government, and it's generally considered unprofessional if not illegal for federal employees to make partisan statements on the job. There's also the fact that, in my experience, out-of-office autoreplies are generally drafted by the employee while footers are often standardized by the employer. Additionally, there are strict rules on what fed…

It's illegal, as it's a violation of the Hatch Act.

The official interpretation of the Hatch act was changed in April of this year, so it's likely not.

Re: Gov workers say their shutdown out-of-office replies were forcibly changed

#89

Post by fragsworth »

culi wrote: post #73
jghn wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not phrase it as "The Republican-controlled Congress is blocking things by not presented a bill amenable to a supermajority of the Senate"? Both are obviously factual, as you say.

60 votes are needed to pass so we can agree both parties are at fault when it comes to any individual bill. But the last time Democrats negotiated a bill Trump decided to simply not appropriate the funds Congress passed. Something no passed president has ever done. Republicans are responsible for creating the environment where legislation passed can be selectively implemented

The party in charge generally decides the content of the bills they choose to vote on.

It's the party in charge that wrote a bill they knew that no Democrats could accept.

Re: Gov workers say their shutdown out-of-office replies were forcibly changed

#90

Post by rufus_foreman »

rolph wrote: post #28
briandear wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Did congress pass a law I missed? Government communication isn’t a 1st Amendment issue. When you work for any employer, you are subject to the wh…

actually, governments are severly limited in compelling or interfering with political speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act

Governments are not limited by the Hatch Act, civil service employees are. And the limitations are mainly around elections, so for example under the Hatch Act a civil service employee may not "use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election", may not "knowingly solicit, accept, or receive a political contribution from any person", may not "run for the nomination or as a candidate for election to a partisan political office", and may not "knowingly solicit or discourage the participation in any political activity" of someone who the civil service employee is interacting with.
Post reply on HN