Russ Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said on the social media site X that the “RIFs have begun,” referring to reduction-in-force plans aimed at reducing the size of the federal government.
The White House previewed that it would pursue the aggressive layoff tactic shortly before the government shutdown began on Oct. 1, telling all federal agencies to submit their reduction-in-force plans to the budget office for its review. It said reduction-in-force could apply for federal programs whose funding would lapse in a government shutdown, is otherwise not funded and is “not consistent with the President’s priorities.”
Federal workers have some civil service protections, and there are complex bumping rules in the event of a Reduction-in-Force, but ultimately, if the Administration is willing to eliminate functions the government performs, and Congress is unwilling to stop them, then a lot of people are going to be out of a job without recourse.
As someone who retired earlier this year after 40 years in the federal civil service (looks like I timed that right), I have been affected by every shutdown since 1990 except for the 1995 “Christmas shutdown,” although there was one where, as a DoD employee, I was called back after about a week while most of the rest of the government stayed closed a few weeks longer.
Greetings from the hostage cellar! Today marks two full weeks I and 1.4 million of my closest friends have been without a paycheck over an issue we have nothing to do with and can’t fix. I mean, sure, we could be at work, doing our jobs, and nothing about the subsidy situation would be any different, but then we couldn’t serve as political pawns.
Is there any way we can get people on ACA subsidies to get furloughed instead? They’re the ones asking for free money because they “rely on it.” I rely on my paycheck, but that seems to fall on deaf ears. Can we get them laid off somehow instead of me?
It astonishes me that they expect people to work apparently indefinitely without getting paid…and now with the threat of never being paid. People who work for a living just cannot do that. They really have no clue.
I haven’t been paying TOO terribly much attention - the whole situation is so blindingly inexcusable that I’m not going to try to make sense out of it. But I think the discussion concerns not paying folk who are on furlough during the shutdown. People who have been told to not report to work. What used to be called non-essential employees, and now may be called non-excepted. Historically, those folk have gotten paid afterwards.
I have not yet heard any suggestion of not paying “excepted” employees - folk (like me) who have been required to work, but are not getting paid on time. I’m not sure how that could possibly be justified. The words “involuntary servitude” come to mind.
However, excepted employees who wish to take leave - annual/sick - during the shutdown are placed on temporary furlough. So, instead of using your vacation, you run the risk of not getting paid for taking time off. I’m not certain, but I believe Columbus Day was classified as furlough time.
We’ve been told we cannot report our work time in our timekeeping program (WebTA). Instead, we daily report our hours worked to our supervisors, and someone will presumably have to enter it into WebTA after the shutdown. Just yesterday we got an email instructing us how to report our time in WebTA for this pay period because of an early closeout. Caused me to briefly worry that I had been reporting my time incorrectly. But I asked my supervisor - she said I was doing it right, and she also was confused about the recent email guidance.
Like I said, the whole thing is so damned irrational, that I don’t try to figure out all of the ins and out. Instead, I just try to keep my head down and trust it will come out OK for me in the end. Just a total waste of effort.
keep in mind trump - or more importantly the people using him as their puppet - really want you to blame others, just like you are doing here, instead of them.
That’s precisely what I intend to do. The Republicans and one Democrat in the House passed a budget. The Republican President is ready to sign is. The Republican Senators and some Democrats have voted for the bill. But there’s this weird, nonsensical narrative that goes something like “Republicans won’t negotiate with us, so we shut down the government. Also, we didn’t shut down the government.” I’m supposed to blame people voting for opening the government, and not people voting against it?
It takes 60 votes to pass spending bills on the Senate. Not 60 Republican votes. Not 60 Democratic votes. 60 votes. The onus is on those who hold the reins of every branch of government to propose legislation that gets enough votes. That means negotiating.
I was about to type “repeating that the Democrats shut down the government” over and over despite the fact that it isn’t true won’t get you anywhere, then I realized that is exactly what the right does. Repeat their version of “reality” over and over and over and soon a big chunk of the country believes it is true. meanwhile, well-meaning people are exhausted with talking about it.
Repeating “you have to negotiate, you have to negotiate” doesn’t make it true, either. No. No they don’t. The negotiation already happened. Clean CR.
The only reason you guys aren’t seeing it for what it is is because you’re deeply partisan. When Republicans shut down the government over border wall funding in 2018, you screamed “Republican shutdown! Clean CR!” not “Democrats should negotiate!”. When Republicans held the House and Democrats, the Senate in 2013, you screamed “Republican shutdown!” not “The onus is on Democrats to propose legislation that will clear the House!” No matter who’s in charge or who wants changes to the status quo, you blame the party you don’t like, and your evidence is only “I don’t like those other guys.”
Let’s review. In 2018, the House passed a bill with $5 billion in border wall funding. Minority Democrats filibustered in the Senate. The SDMB all said “pass a clean CR! We won’t negotiate while the American people are held hostage. Open the government and we’ll talk wall money.” In 2025, the House passed a bill with a clean CR. Minority Democrats filibustered in the Senate. The SDMB is now “No clean CR! The majority must negotiate. Also, this isn’t no hostage taking.” The hypocrisy is mind-boggling.
In case you’ve forgotten, I’ll say it again… there’s no reason Democrats can’t vote for a CR, open the government, and then advocate for ACA subsidy extensions.
Exactly. If you want to talk the merits of a filibuster and the righteousness of shuttering America to fight for some cause, then that’s one thing. But filibustering a bipartisan bill that’s cleared the other chamber and the President approves, and then denying that you’re doing that very thing? Ridiculous. At least own it. Say out loud “We’re shutting down the government to fight for everyday Americans” or something. There’d be some honor in doing it. What’s happening instead is cowardice and, as is typical, a lack of leadership.
In my opinion, it reflects a perceptual error to view the current “shutdown” as an isolated event, independent of the budget and funding efforts that preceded it. As I view it, Congress as a whole bears the responsibility of ensuring that a wide range of public services are provided on an ongoing basis. In a two-party system, unless one party enjoys an overwhelming majority, ensuring such ongoing services REQUIRES some degree of negotiation and cooperation with the minority party.
DISCLOSURE - I am not expert in the nuances of how various measures make it through Congress, when a majority is sufficient and when filibuster applies, etc.
When the Republicans passed the budget, they did so without even attempting to obtain any buy-in from Dems. In that budget, they drastically reduced spending in areas favored by Dems, extended tax benefits to the wealthiest, and greatly increased spending in areas Dems opposed. This was just one step in this year’s consistent Repub effort at hollowing out many social services, slashing the bureaucracy, and minimizing the influence of anyone but hardcore far right supporters. If the Repubs wished to take such a “my way or the highway” approach, it might have been incumbent upon them to ensure that the road ahead was free from speed bumps in which they might NEED Dem cooperation - such as the present.
Given that consistent ongoing history, you believe it is somehow improper for the Dems to try to take advantage of this opportunity to try to save a program they consider vital and that a large majority of voters support?
It is fine for you to view it that way. I just do not share your perception.
Please dispel my ignorance - what negotiation took place in formulating this “clean CR”?
I suggest there is one very good reason, and that is that there is no reason to anticipate that the Repubs will be at all receptive to any such advocacy. That is why the Dems are advocating now. The Repubs have proven that they enjoy playing hardball. They should not be surprised if the party they have consistently demeaned gives back a little of their own medicine.
Please educate me - the CR proposed by the house is a bipartisan bill? I did noto realize that.