True, though the less experienced new hire may not be as efficient or effective an employee as the one recently let go. And I was told within my private sector company that you can’t just lay someone off and then post the same job because that’s admitting that you really needed someone in that role.
I assume the companies pay fees for the evaluations and reviews provided by the inspectors. If the inspectors are all laid off, industry will no longer pay the fees.
Thanks all for your responses. I think I get it now. Musk walks in and does what private corporations do in at-will states with mass layoffs and fire-to-hire cheaper. Thing is, he never researched if that works the same with government employees. Apparently it does not.
You missed the parts where a) Musk was not elected, nor appointed with this explicit authorization b) his actions were unconstitutional as they undermined Congress’ exclusive control of financial and budgetary matters, c) government and business are not at all the same, business is ideally about making money for its owners, government is about serving the needs of the people; to confuse government as a business is to fundamentally mis-understand what government is, and d) Musk is an objectively terrible businessman who has a history of ruining companies and does not have the capacity to rework the structure of the federal government,
Most of your post addresses the fact that these firings had NOTHING to do with efficiency. Which is 100% accurate. I don’t believe there has ever been an attempt to identify the savings resulting from these firings - other than simply reduced workforce. But no assessment at all as to the quality of services provided.
A slightly different issue is the manner in which these were done. A month or 2 ago, when these were happening, I was pretty up on the intricacies of what was going on. But since my job was not ended, so much other crap has gone on that I forget the specifics.
With most of the folk who were fired, they included language about poor performance. The only explanation for that was intentional cruelty. Many of those folk had recently received glowing reviews and/or promotions.
Some people were in their probationary periods - usually 2 years, sometimes 1. Those folk can be fired at will. Many of those folk were fired - despite the fact that they performed vital duties. Some of them were rehired. The clear intention was simply to fire ANYONE who could be fired - with ZERO assessment of whether doing so would increase efficiency (or not cause harm.)
There was another group of folk who were probationary as a result of recent promotions. Folk who had worked for a number of years, done well and gotten promoted. But in their new position they are probationary for 1-2 years. I think there was an issue with the apparent inconsistency between favorable reviews and poor performance language.
Then there were folk who were not probationary, who were fired seemingly inconsistent with their collective bargaining agreements. A lot of stuff was done which seemed blatantly inconsistent with CBAs. My impression (which I believe is correct) is that the admin was happy to simply fire whomever/do whatever they wanted, and force the individuals harmed to challenge the actions. Assuming that as time passed, many people would get other jobs, whatever. The initial court challenge by the unions went nowhere, as the courts (IIRC) held that the sole recourse was through the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). At the time, the MSPB did not even have a quorum, had a huge backlog, and is notoriously slow. Not sure if they have a quorum now.
I just offer this to suggest that the issue of federal firings is somewhat complex, involving differently situated groups.
Who are these agency heads, and who appointed them?
Did I really?
Yes, exactly this. It is the same thing Musk did at Twitter. Fire everyone you can, see what breaks, and hire back people to fix those things. If someone is gone, and nothing breaks, then obviously whatever they were doing wasn’t important. At Twitter, maybe it goes offline for a bit, or videos don’t work for an afternoon. Everyone will forget in a day or two. In the government, people die. Of course none of the people doing the firings care about that.
What is this “legally”? The power to fire derived from the office of the president, and if the firings are allowed to stand, then that is clearly a power the president now has, regardless of what any old laws or rules happened to say.
Musk would show up with police, so definitely a threat of violence for anyone resisting. Again, it is a matter of just do a thing, and if nobody stops you, then that is clearly a thing you’re allowed to do.
In time, hopefully we’ll all learn these are not things they’re allowed to do, and they have been stopped from doing them.
Yes you did, reall, or at least you don’t seem terribly bothered by the fact that someone with no authorization did indeed dismantle large parts of the federal government, especially the parts that we’re investigating him.
It was a coup and by definition not legal.
I’ve spent nearly my entire career in federal employ and am nearing retirement. For the first 38 years of my employ, pretty much the primary concerns for ANY action - large or small - was:
- who has the authority to take a specific action/make a decison?
- what is the specific legat authority governing the action/decision?
- what is the specific process that must be followed?
This applied to decisions as to hiring, firing, statutory interpretation, or the ordering of paper clips.
My lengthy service has convinced me that those are the basic concerns across all of federal government. I have limited experience with private industry, where I suspect there might be some greater “looseness” WRT how some decisions are made. Yeah, it can be viewed as red tape, but it also works to ensure consistency, transparency, and all manner of good stuff I want of my government.
As a longtime government lawyer, it is hard to overstate the shock of having decisions made and actions taken by people who have no apparent authority to take those actions (i.e. DOGE accessing secure networks), no legal authority for the specific actions (i.e. deportations), or the actions appear CONTRARY to clear law (i.e. requiring return to office contrary to CBAs.)
If you do not work in or closely with the government, you may not really appreciate the astounding shift in these past few months, not to mention the skeletal staffs just going through the motions, waiting for the next axe to fall. To the extent some metrics are apparently improving - such as reduced backlogs or wait times, I suggest it reflects a great number of people just not giving a shit aymore, and tossing out decisions of lower and lower quality. I GUESS that could be considered efficient…
If Elon signed the termination paperwork himself, I assume that would not be legal as he has no power to do so since he has never been approved by the Senate. So clearly he told someone else to implement it.
Except my posts elsewhere on this Board is the opposite of what you just said.
Except that Congress has passed law- signed by prior Presidents and now law- that protects many of those employee. The Executive office can not fire them.
This seems to be a bit on an update-
But this happened in dozens of offices and involved thousands of people. If they ALL had just refused and stayed put-- then what??
Depends. Are they singing in four-part harmony?
Have you never worked anywhere that you needed an ID badge to enter the facility - possibly past an armed security guard, as well as to access your computer. What do you do when your ID is invalidated remotely. Heck, in my office, I need to leave my secure space to use the bathroom. I’m supposed to piss and shit in my trash can?
Even if you refuse to leave and don’t get physically removed, don’t you get hungry after you’ve emptied out the break room fridge?
And you keep hanging on, washing up in the bathroom sink, despite having your paychecks stop? Meanwhile, who feeds your cat and picks your kids up from daycare.
These are just regular schmoe bureaucrats. Sure they believe their work is in the public interest. But they didn’t sign up to engage in civil resistance - especially to armed security and superiors with ostensible authority.
Instead, they pursuing redress through legal avenues - the system they thought they were working within.
Musk did not have the authority for the firings because the president didn’t have the authority for the firings.emphasized text
In electrical engineering we call that “Muntzing”:
It is not considered good design practice. I can’t see how it is good HR practice.