Deferred resignation email to federal employees

https://www.opm.gov/fork

by dnissley • 1 year ago

164 125 1 year ago

opm.gov

ceejayoz2• 1 year ago

I wonder how many spoofed "From: potus@whitehouse.gov" "Subject: Resign" emails they're about to get.

hedora5• 1 year ago

Yeah. I also wonder how many spoofed responses they will get in general.

avs7333• 1 year ago

And what plan they have to tell those apart (hint: none).

Doing so is exactly the type of abusive behavior abusive ex partners are known for.

Agree with it in principle or not, this system really belies the stupidity behind these scenes.

Governments and employers don’t do paperwork around hiring for fun - they do it for an auditable paper trail which has real and important value.

kstrauser2• 1 year ago

One more now.

nullc• 1 year ago

Impersonating a federal officer or employee is a crime. 18 U.S. Code § 912

(technically you have to obtain a document, money, or other thing of value to run afoul of that particular law, but getting a reply to a successful spoof might qualify, and who knows whatever other laws it might violate, 25 CFR § 11.432 perhaps).

unsnap_biceps• 1 year ago

The federal workforce should be comprised of employees who are reliable, loyal, trustworthy, and who strive for excellence in their daily work. Employees will be subject to enhanced standards of suitability and conduct as we move forward.

Has there ever been a loyalty component to rank and file federal employment before? This seems to go against the meritocracy they claim to want.

If you do a great job, anything else shouldn't matter...

hedora5• 1 year ago

There’s nothing in there about being qualified for the job, so this is definitely not a meritocracy play.

The bit right after the piece you quoted is interesting:

Employees who engage in unlawful behavior or other misconduct will be prioritized for appropriate investigation and discipline, including termination.

I hope they start at the top!

andy_ppp3• 1 year ago

It depends who is deciding what illegal is…

rahimnathwani2• 1 year ago

  There’s nothing in there about being qualified for the job,

Yes there is:

  Performance culture: The federal workforce should be comprised of the best America has to offer. We will insist on excellence at every level — our performance standards will be updated to reward and promote those that exceed expectations and address in a fair and open way those who do not meet the high standards which the taxpayers of this country have a right to demand.

adbachman• 1 year ago

No. Federal employees take an oath to defend the Constitution, not the current executive.

Civil service in the US has been neutral politically and merit based for the last 140 years. It stands directly opposed to the "spoils system" which awarded positions to friends, campaign contributors, family members, etc. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system

calrain2• 1 year ago

Future America will understand that you don't treat government like a company.

The money government spends on salaries is money directly injected back into the economy, it could be seen as a form of social welfare.

compass_copium3• 1 year ago

Yes, but they can get the same effect by buying military hardware--and that has the added benefit of making Raytheon management and shareholders richer. When you just directly pay an employee with government money, there's no way to do that!

thwarted• 1 year ago

The military industrial complex in the United States is a socialist jobs program (with the added benefit of making the management and shareholders of contractors richer).

jfengel2• 1 year ago

"Future America" is sounding increasingly oxymoronic.

Hatchback7599• 1 year ago

You know what else injects money back into the economy? Letting tax payers keep more of their tax dollars.

smcin• 1 year ago

But still less than if the federal employee was providing any ROI whatsoever on their salary. Why not instead talk about which federal departments (or agencies) provide an ROI, and how that can be measured in a nonpartisan way.

(In any case, US federal debt interest payments will be ~$952b in 2025, out of $7.5 trillion budget. That's >> more than the $271b on total salaries for all civilian employees (or the $4.7 trillion tax cuts which expire end 2025). So, intentionally crippling the federal govt still wouldn't touch either the debt or interest payments; except as a blunt instrument to kill govt programs and bypass Congress.)

compass_copium3• 1 year ago

For low-wage employees who spend almost all of their income on goods and services, yes.

For highly compensated employees who save the majority of their money, no.

hedora5• 1 year ago

My retirement account already has a big hole in it from Trump’s first round of tax hikes and tariffs.

I seriously doubt it’ll be any different this time around.

calrain2• 1 year ago

Lowering government expenses will not reduce the tax burden of the majority of Americans.

Trumps original tax plan benefits the higher income earners at the expense of lower and middle income earners.

Source: https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/donald-trump-...

bigstrat2003• 1 year ago

Much like Hatchback said, I don't see why it is a good thing to inject money into the economy versus not taking it in the first place. I'm not saying that these efforts are going to work to make the bureaucracy more efficient (I simply don't have the expertise to judge that), but I think any attempted solution is better than deliberately allowing inefficiency to fester as a form of social welfare. The federal bureaucracy has been a literal joke for longer than I've been alive because of how much it wastes resources. Something has to change, even if these current steps don't turn out to be the right ones.

By all means, we should be critical and say "this plan isn't going to work because xyz". That's an important part of the process. But at some point we do have to try something and see how it pans out, then try to adjust the plan based on the results.

nxobject• 1 year ago

That presumes that the intent of this effort – regardless of how it's spun – is to make government more efficient. It's hard to take spin like this at face value: voluntary departures may equally make programs less efficient since understaffed or more reliant on contractors, for example.

ndiddy• 1 year ago

Here's the OPM guidance memo to department heads about this program: https://chcoc.gov/sites/default/files/OPM%20Guidance%20Memo%...

Key quote:

"Employees who accept deferred resignation should promptly have their duties re-assigned or eliminated and be placed on paid administrative leave until the end of the deferred resignation period (generally, September 30, 2025, unless the employee has elected another earlier resignation date), unless the agency head determines that it is necessary for the employee to be actively engaged in transitioning job duties, in which case employees should be placed on administrative leave as soon as those duties are transitioned."

araes• 1 year ago

Only a couple days and it's already File Not Found. Here's a different link that appears to still work:

https://chcoc.gov/sites/default/files/OPM%20Guidance%20Memo%...

Here's the FAQ that got put up on OPM.

https://www.opm.gov/fork/faq/

Note: This is pretty much every single one of the federal employees (2.2 million) other than: "military personnel of the armed forces, employees of the U.S. Postal Service, those in positions related to immigration enforcement and national security, and those in other positions specifically excluded by your employing agency."

The quotes are predictably demeaning: Am I allowed to get a second job?

"Absolutely! We encourage you to find a job in the private sector as soon as you would like to do so. The way to greater American prosperity is encouraging people to move from lower productivity jobs in the public sector to higher productivity jobs in the private sector."

Poster (YouDoHaveValue) on Reddit had a pretty great take:

Typical indicators of a scam:

  - Sounds too good to be true
  - Urgent requests or threats, FOMO
  - Spelling / grammar errors
  - Payments via unconventional / insecure means
  - Links or attachments prompting you to provide personal information

There have already been legal fights about the mass mailings from new OPM addresses as reported by (Wired) https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-lackeys-office-personn...:

"Last week, federal employees across the government received emails encouraging them to turn in colleagues who they believed to be working on diversity, equity, inclusion, and access initiatives (DEIA) to the OPM via the email address DEIAtruth@opm.gov"

Also, this story seems to have sank remarkably quickly...

roland352• 1 year ago

Seems like an Elon email!

pwg• 1 year ago

The subject line is identical to the subject line he used for the "leave or become hardcore" email to twitter just after the buyout.

freshnode• 1 year ago

Came here to say the same. Got musk written all over it

avs7333• 1 year ago

Including the typos in the first draft they posted

jfengel2• 1 year ago

Loyalty to whom? Your spouse? The country? Your immediate supervisor? Your coworkers?

It's the things that aren't said that make it feel so Orwellian.

rahimnathwani2• 1 year ago

From the letter (emphasis mine):

  If you choose to remain in your current position, we thank you for your renewed focus on serving the *American people* to the best of your abilities and look forward to working together as part of an improved federal workforce.

avs7333• 1 year ago

“American people”

andy_ppp3• 1 year ago

Anyone else think it’s likely America ends up without being a meaningful democracy by the end of this? I am skeptical the stated goal is efficiency it’s loyalty to MAGA. Imagine how extreme they will get if you can never vote them out.

CalRobert3• 1 year ago

I very much agree, and it's part of why I live abroad.

I don't understand why the people behind January 6 would then go on to allow free and fair elections and politely hand back power when they lose.

euroderf• 1 year ago

I moved abroad decades ago and have now spent more than half my life out of the US, but it's only nowadays that I thank my lucky stars.

laidoffamazon2• 1 year ago

I think the chance is about 10%.

That's too high of a chance, IMHO.

spencerflem9• 1 year ago

Genuinely, who are you expecting to stand up against it?

The Democrats in Congress? Massive public demonstration?

It feels all but inevitable to me

verelo• 1 year ago

Ends up…i think it’s just happened. Been on this path for a while but the simple fact its treaties mean nothing totally trashes any reputation that was left, and it’s clear it’s run by the ultra wealthy. The people are just bystanders.

hn_throwaway_992• 1 year ago

and it’s clear it’s run by the ultra wealthy. The people are just bystanders.

The first part is true, the second is not. Yes, it's run by the ultra wealthy. But the people wanted this. The election wasn't in debate, and this wasn't a case of a popular vote/electoral college split. Also, for all of Trump's faults, hidden agendas really aren't one of them. People know exactly who he is, he said pretty much exactly what he would do, and a majority voted for this.

I think that's why so many "on the left" are resigned. Y'all voted for this shit, so knock yourself out. We may be looking at some massive cases of "But I never thought the leopard would eat MY face!" in the future, but at this point IDGAF, people voted for this.

rayiner10• 1 year ago

Trump literally got up on stage with Elon promising to do what he’s doing. Elon spent the entire last week before the election in Pennsylvania, a major swing state, telling people what the administration was to do. Trump also got up on stage with many of his key appointees, who were outspoken about what they were going to do. Now, they’re all doing those things.

Like, you can say his policies are bad and you don’t like them for whatever reason. But the “false consciousness” argument applies to Trump the least of any president in my lifetime. He won spending less money both times, with the uniform hostility of big, centralized media. Trump’s big thing this campaign was in person rallies and podcasts.

I don’t watch mainstream media. I listen to some podcasts twice a week driving to work, and follow some people on X. Nothing Trump has done came as any surprise at all to me.

ergonaught• 1 year ago

There are a number of major systemic risks.

As ever, the problem is compounded by the chunk of population who enable it, and the typically larger chunk of population who are unable or unwilling to recognize clear and present danger.

Or: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee6-sI9rdtA

AlexandrB• 1 year ago

Clearly the Democrats think American democracy is secure because they insist on running terrible candidates and pursuing unpopular policies. It's funny how the politicians yelling about how Trump 2 is an existential risk seem to be more concerned about their careers than this "threat to democracy". I'm frankly tired of taking this stuff seriously.

spencerflem9• 1 year ago

I'm with you fwiw. Except I think its less that MAGA isn't an exstisential threat to democracy (they are) but that the Democrats are really just that useless.

dillondoyle2• 1 year ago

Yes. I sadly agree with obama: we can survive 4 years. I don't know we can survive 8.

“I think that four years is OK,” Obama said. “Take on some water, but we can kind of bail fast enough to be OK. Eight years would be a problem. I would be concerned about a sustained period in which some of these norms have broken down and started to corrode.”

We're already far beyond some norms breaking down...

Sadly I can't find a great source for that quote. just found it on scmp and jp. weird. I swear I have this memory of that being in politico or nytimes at the time. iirc was from an 'otr' towards the end of his term.

hug• 1 year ago

It was indeed an off the record chat, made public.

https://www.benzinga.com/government/22/10/29111070/obamas-ta...

bufferoverflow2• 1 year ago

How is president ordering to work from the office or resign - an end to democracy?

This narrative is pure bs.

intermerda• 1 year ago

Are you being intentionally bad faith? Or did you not read the memo?

verzali• 1 year ago

There's four more years of this. I no longer think there's a happy ending here, and we're way past the point of being merely concerning.

rayiner10• 1 year ago

This is a pro-democracy move! Elections being accompanied by a large scale shakeup to help the elected president enact the agenda people voted for is a good thing actually. Ideally, every federal employee would respond to an election by maximally pushing to achieve the president’s agenda, like at a startup. That would be responsive democracy, where voting yields immediate and visible changes.

If you mean something other than “democracy” then say it.

stogot2• 1 year ago

It’s actually a republic

spencerflem9• 1 year ago

I think they mean democracy, as in, if he's willing to disregard laws passed by congress and the constitution, and has been caught on record demanding poll workers to "find" votes, and has disbanded all oversight -

why would you expect future elections to be free and fair?

tmaly• 1 year ago

Albert Einstein once said “Compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world. He who understands it, earns it; he who doesn't, pays it”

hn_throwaway_992• 1 year ago

The thing that's interesting to me is how the Trump Republicans used tactics so effectively to accuse the Dems, "deep state", etc. of all this nefarious conduct, and then explicitly embraced that conduct as openly and vigorously as possible. E.g accuse career civil servants of being secretly partisan, and then explicitly kick out anyone who isn't loyal to Trump and demand Trump loyalty, countering ~150 years of American policy. Accuse Democrats of stealing an election, and then attempt to violently overturn the results of an election after essentially every claim of election malfeasance was laughed out of court.

Even how they painted Biden's pardons was pretty brilliant IMO. Trump had already pretty much telegraphed that he would pardon anyone who kissed up to him, and had been explicit about how he would use federal power to seek revenge. So while I was very much against Biden's pardon of his family, I'm sure Biden was probably like "F this shizz, it's not like holding the moral high ground is doing anyone any favors." But now, of course, anyone with Trump's blessing will get a pardon regardless of what they do, and they can point to Biden's pardons as "Dems did it first".

I think we are truly and surely fucked in the mid-long term - what we're going through looks pretty much exactly what all previous empires looked like when they fell into decline. It's just kind of stunning to watch with so much transparency.

archagon• 1 year ago

DARVO: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO

fooker• 1 year ago

Wow, I have morbid curiosity about how this will work out.

Democrats better hope that this crashes and burns, because if this shows any chance of being effective, we're in for a tough authoritarian ride.

swagaccident• 1 year ago

Has something like this ever happened before? Did it feel this bad last time around?

This seems especially spooky.

tptacek5• 1 year ago

Federal employees have statutory no-cause termination protection, and the President presumably can't simply reclassify the federal workforce as "at-will".

rayiner10• 1 year ago

Article II says: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” I doubt it’s constitutional for employment law to preclude the president from firing any executive branch employee.

It’s quite possible it’s constitutional to have contractual remedies for termination. I suspect that’s why there’s an 8 month severance.

tptacek5• 1 year ago

I mean, if you want to see him set the land-speed record on getting a TRO, beating today's performance, by all means let's see him try. Your guess is good as mine which way Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will go on admin-law/separation-of-powers issues. Maybe it'll be resolved before the midterms!

My read of this is that no 8-month severance has been offered, for whatever that's worth.

theyinwhy• 1 year ago

There is a huge difference between "creating lists for further use" and "offering buyouts". You sure those lists are only for offering buyouts, just because a notorious liar tells you so?

Discussion at reddit: https://old.reddit.com/r/fednews/comments/1ibbbh7/this_was_p...

12345hn6789• 1 year ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42849061

apexalpha• 1 year ago

So when they said they would run the government 'like a business' they actually meant a Private Equity hostile take-over informed by 1970 McKinsey consultants.

It's day 8. Good luck all.

lifestyleguru• 1 year ago

Welcome to the era of private jets, record-setting yachts, prime real estate, and Russian prostitutes. Tremendous. PS you're not working hard enough and salaries are frozen.

Deferred resignation email to federal employees

Related Stories