Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I don't disagree with anything you say troph.  I'm just saying that this particular deal was a voluntary deal.  Surge it's part of the plan, but swaths of folks are getting RIFed as part of the overall plan. 

I agree.  Let's base opposition on what they do.  Enough to be outraged about what they do when they do it.   

I'm repeating myself.  I'll just wait and eat crow at some point within the next year. 

And me eating crow has nothing to do with the pain administering that this administration revels in.  

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

I don't disagree with anything you say troph.  I'm just saying that this particular deal was a voluntary deal.  Surge it's part of the plan, but swaths of folks are getting RIFed as part of the overall plan. 

I agree.  Let's base opposition on what they do.  Enough to be outraged about what they do when they do it.   

I'm repeating myself.  I'll just wait and eat crow at some point within the next year. 

And me eating crow has nothing to do with the pain administering that this administration revels in.  

It’s not really voluntary. If you are considering being the inside opposition, this is a signal that you best leave now, otherwise your agency or your job may just be eliminated, legalities be damned. Again what they do (violate the law with impunity), not what they say. 

Edited by troph
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, Bevo in VA said:

Not a huge impact.  My agency and position (as have most other government agencies) have been deemed eligible for Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA) BUT only if you take Elon's  Fork in the Road offer.  For my wife (same job I have) and I, the VERA is the most important aspect of the whole deal.  Under that, you can retire with full benefits immediately (i.e. start receiving a pension, keep your health insurance).  So for our agency, the VERA is authorized until the end of September so by sticking around until then, we'll get that time credited to service length and still accumulate leave while (in theory) still get paid.  We would have gladly stayed on working until September but that option wasn't given.  Return to Office wasn't an issue for us - we work full time from home and there wasn't much chance of us getting called back into the office due to space constraints (Agency employs 14000 people and we have room for 1300).

 

I'm hearing rumors at work that my position is going to be eliminated and I would have been demoted if I had chosen to stuck around, so I thought it was worth the risk taking the offer.  Never expected my career to end this way but we'll be ok either way.  I look at others going through the same thing and feel terrible about what he's doing to the Federal workforce.  If we were 20 years out rom retirement, we'd pretty much be screwed.

Thanks for the complete response. I wish you luck and hope you find retirement a great opportunity to pursue something you love doing and maybe turn it into another source of income! 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted
13 hours ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Well, we'll see.  They've essentially given their 8-month notice of resignation.  

They should be suing in a couple of weeks now.  

CFPB employees about to really be screwed.  

 

Let me ask this question.  You're company tells you on January 12, 2025 that you can resign effective September 1, 2025 and you don't have to report in.   You don't do any work for three months, and get paid not doing it, and on April 12, 2025, you're company does a huge RIF (lack of funding) where everyone in your department is fired, including you.  Instead of resigning effective January 12, 2025, you are separated on April 12, 2025.

What are your damages?  Under what theory?   

What are the damages of the folks who didn't take the deal and worked January 12, 2025 - April 12, 2025?  What theory.

 

 

 

Not an employment lawyer, but those that resigned and took severance are no longer at-will employees, but governed by a contract to pay severance for a set term in order to terminate employment.    At minimum, there's a promissory estoppel/detrimental reliance problem for the employer.

You seem to imply that before resigning for severance, they were at-will employees and could have no expectation of continued employment/salary.  The resignation/severance agreement changes all that.

As noted in the lawfare article I have posted twice, that's not a clear thing with the federal government as an employer.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Not an employment lawyer, but those that resigned and took severance are no longer at-will employees, but governed by a contract to pay severance for a set term in order to terminate employment.    At minimum, there's a promissory estoppel/detrimental reliance problem for the employer.

You seem to imply that before resigning for severance, they were at-will employees and could have no expectation of continued employment/salary.  The resignation/severance agreement changes all that.

As noted in the lawfare article I have posted twice, that's not a clear thing with the federal government as an employer

All of this is based on not seeing any release doc they may have signed. 

I don't think they were ever truly employment at will but doesn't matter because they resigned.

The release will govern what was actually promised.  I think the pinch points are in the garden leave aspects of the agreement.  That's where the mischief will likely lie.

As to promissory estoppel, that's going to be fact specific.  That's where all of us will get screwed in terms of the cost of the lawsuits.

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

All of this is based on not seeing any release doc they may have signed. 

I don't think they were ever truly employment at will but doesn't matter because they resigned.

The release will govern what was actually promised.  I think the pinch points are in the garden leave aspects of the agreement.  That's where the mischief will likely lie.

As to promissory estoppel, that's going to be fact specific.  That's where all of us will get screwed in terms of the cost of the lawsuits.

That lawfare article I think addresses all of these issues including the causes of action screwed employees may have and the weaknesses thereof.

I disagree that this is truly voluntary in the sense that I think many that take the deal are essentially being defrauded, but time will tell.

However, like Bevo in VA, many do seem to be going into this with their eyes open so to speak.  And those may be the biggest brain drain of all.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

those that resigned and took severance are no longer at-will employees, but governed by a contract to pay severance for a set term in order to terminate employment

Which would be enforced by the government?  One party to said contract?

Posted
4 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Which would be enforced by the government?  One party to said contract?

If serious, a private sector at-will employee would normally have no cause of action/lawsuit for wrongful termination or breach of contract if fired/laid off for budgetary (non-discriminatory) reasons.

However, one under a resignation/severance agreement probably has a lawsuit/cause of action for breach of that agreement, even if, in the absence of the contract, they could have been fired at any time for any (non-discriminatory) reason, the usual hallmark of at-will employees.

Federal employees are not strictly at-will, I don't believe, but continued employment depends on continued funding of their employer by Congress.   A contract for severance pay would seem to alter that relationship into one governed by the contract, but there are all kinds of problems with suing the federal government even on a contract.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

All of this is based on not seeing any release doc they may have signed. 

I don't think they were ever truly employment at will but doesn't matter because they resigned.

The release will govern what was actually promised.  I think the pinch points are in the garden leave aspects of the agreement.  That's where the mischief will likely lie.

As to promissory estoppel, that's going to be fact specific.  That's where all of us will get screwed in terms of the cost of the lawsuits.

Nothing involving government is ever mundane employment law stuff. It just isn't. Go ask Mike Leach (RIP). Your faith that somehow the existence of an agreement means that agreement is actually enforceable against the Federal Government is misplaced and laughable. That isn't how these cases work. Ever. And it sure as shit isn't how its worked out for Elon's employees, and there Elon didn't even have King's X card to play. 

Edited by Dahobbs
Posted
4 hours ago, immamac said:

Thanks for the complete response. I wish you luck and hope you find retirement a great opportunity to pursue something you love doing and maybe turn it into another source of income! 

if I go to retire and someone tells me to turn my hobbies into paying work, I'm kicking their shin. the whole point of retirement is to stop working. if you're still working, you're not retired. /rantover

Posted
9 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

if I go to retire and someone tells me to turn my hobbies into paying work, I'm kicking their shin. the whole point of retirement is to stop working. if you're still working, you're not retired. /rantover

What? I don't think you read my post right. I said exactly that. Have fun and if it turns into money that's a plus. 

Posted
46 minutes ago, immamac said:

What? I don't think you read my post right. I said exactly that. Have fun and if it turns into money that's a plus. 

I don't think serial masturbator is a high demand profession.  

Posted
12 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't think serial masturbator is a high demand profession.  

There is probably a niche audience he could find to start an onlyfans account.

Posted
29 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't think serial masturbator is a high demand profession.  

"If ya do something you love, you'll never work a day in your life!"

  • Haha 1
Posted
On 2/14/2025 at 2:11 AM, Bevo in VA said:

I took the offer so I'll update as far as getting paid.  Got a contract to sign today.  Last day of work is Feb 28th - turn in all of my equipment at that time.  I would have gladly continued working up until the Sept 30th resignation date but that wasn't presented as an option.  Was given instructions that after Feb 28th, my timekeeper and/or boss would enter all hours into my time sheet as Administrative Leave.  I'm only a couple of years from retirement eligibility anyways, so I plan on taking early retirement in September with minimal hit to my benefits.

 

I took it, but I have been retirement eligible for 8 years anyway and was planning on retiring later this year.  I've only worked this long because I like my job and believe my agency performs a critical function.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
22 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

if I go to retire and someone tells me to turn my hobbies into paying work, I'm kicking their shin. the whole point of retirement is to stop working. if you're still working, you're not retired. /rantover

some people find making money fun. making money, eating good food, travel and getting laid are probably my four favorite things in life. it's how they make it and the demand that they have to make it and in a certain amount that isn't fun. retirement is a choose your own adventure, I highly suspect I will need a business endeavor or at least a business-like problem to solve (example board service for non-profits) in order to be happy. but the daily grind of working and billing hours, yeah gtfooh.



×
×
  • Create New...