+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: What we all knew: despite Musk’s claims, DOGE firings were not based on employees performance (/showthread.php?tid=295179)
Pages:
1
2
What we all knew: despite Musk’s claims, DOGE firings were not based on employees performance - pdq - 03-22-2025
…and the Trump administration knew it too (duh!)
Propublica:
On Feb. 20, nearly 7,000 probationary employees at the Internal Revenue Service began receiving an unsigned letter telling them that they had been fired for poor performance.
Trump administration lawyers insist that the IRS and other federal agencies have acted within their authority when they ordered waves of mass terminations since Trump took office. But according to previously unreported emails obtained by ProPublica, a top lawyer at the IRS warned administration officials that the performance-related language in his agency’s termination letter was “a false statement” that amounted to “fraud” if the agency kept the language in the letter.
…Joseph Rillotta, a senior IRS lawyer, wrote that “no one” at the IRS had taken into account the performance of the probationary workers set to be fired. Rillotta urged that the language be struck from the draft termination letter.
Anyone with a brain knew this was the case. A bunch of 19 year old computer-nerd dropouts can’t do a performance review of thousands and thousands of employees in days. It’s farcical on its face.
No one appeared to respond to Rillotta’s first email. In a follow-up email, he said he was “pleading with you to remove the clause,” adding: “It is not an immaterial false statement, because it is designed to improve the government’s posture in litigation (to the detriment of the employees that we are terminating today).”
Because it was not true, he wrote, “That renders it, as I see it, an anticipatory fraud…
Rillotta was again ignored.
And it was untrue:
In fact, many of the employees had received laudatory reviews with no hint of any concerns.
Two things: unless the court system completely collapses, even as probationary employees, these people seem to have a pretty slam-dunk case, which means they will either have to be rehired, or compensated for lost wages, or both. This brain-dead approach is going to cost us more tax money, not save it.
Secondly, we ought to consider sending some love (and maybe $, which I did) toward ProPublica (with which I have no connection). With the major networks news cowed (or actively cheering Trump), PP is one of a very few news/investigatory organizations I’ve seen that has the guts to find, and tell us, the truth.
Re: What we all knew: despite Musk’s claims, DOGE firings were not based on employees performance - cbelt3 - 03-22-2025
I’m assuming the criteria included some sort of “social credit score” using China’s AI driven engine to identify people less likely to be less loyal to King Musk.
Hail Hydra…
Re: What we all knew: despite Musk’s claims, DOGE firings were not based on employees performance - pdq - 03-22-2025
cbelt3 wrote:
I’m assuming the criteria included some sort of “social credit score” using China’s AI driven engine to identify people less likely to be less loyal to King Musk.
Hail Hydra…
Maybe, but honestly, I think they probably just targeted probationary employees in pretty much all these things.
Low-hanging fruit - just tell people that they’re “poor performers” - they probably don’t have much of a personnel file on them yet to point to in defense.
Re: What we all knew: despite Musk’s claims, DOGE firings were not based on employees performance - Acer - 03-22-2025
As I understand it, and it's probably been said here before but I'll add it for the new people: "Probationary" included persons who had recently been promoted or otherwise moved to a different position but had been government employees already. You could theoretically have had a 30 year work history within the very same department, and just get that step up from Whatever Rank 3 to Whatever Rank 4, as civil service jobs are often structured...and been cut for "performance."
Re: What we all knew: despite Musk’s claims, DOGE firings were not based on employees performance - wurm - 03-22-2025
Acer wrote:
...You could theoretically have had a 30 year work history within the very same department, and just get that step up from Whatever Rank 3 to Whatever Rank 4, as civil service jobs are often structured...and been cut for "performance."
Sometimes that's legit (Peter Principle), but I'm sure for these DOGE numbskulls it was just a convenient excuse.
Re: What we all knew: despite Musk’s claims, DOGE firings were not based on employees performance - Diana - 03-22-2025
Acer wrote:
As I understand it, and it's probably been said here before but I'll add it for the new people: "Probationary" included persons who had recently been promoted or otherwise moved to a different position but had been government employees already. You could theoretically have had a 30 year work history within the very same department, and just get that step up from Whatever Rank 3 to Whatever Rank 4, as civil service jobs are often structured...and been cut for "performance."
Unless things have changed (and I haven’t looked at this in the last twenty years, so it could have):
The rank and file fall under a wage/step system: a particular job has a wage associated with it, with the range in wage encompassed by “steps”. In other words, they could pay a wage ranging from x to y; as long as you stayed in the position AND had good performance reviews you could advance to the next pay step until you hit the maximum, where you would stay unless you went for another position. A step increase might take two years to achieve; performance reviews are yearly. It was not like you would/could refuse a step increase! It was pretty much automatic unless you really were a screwup and were on the way out the door anyways. If the individual was considered probationary with every step increase, then they would never get out of the probationary period. When I was there, it was a one-year probationary period from the date of hire, not the date of the last “promotion”.
Re: What we all knew: despite Musk’s claims, DOGE firings were not based on employees performance - RAMd®d - 03-22-2025
I don't know if it's the case in this instance, but in my experience, 'probationary' status means one can be fired/laid off without cause whatsoever.
Labeling it job performance related is just for show, to make those doing the firing seem legitimate.
It's easy to defend, inspire of any employees' accolades on record, because no actual justification is needed to fire someone on probation.
This may be completely different in the Federal arena, or over various Federal arenas.
Re: What we all knew: despite Musk’s claims, DOGE firings were not based on employees performance - SDGuy - 03-22-2025
Acer wrote:
As I understand it, and it's probably been said here before but I'll add it for the new people: "Probationary" included persons who had recently been promoted or otherwise moved to a different position but had been government employees already. You could theoretically have had a 30 year work history within the very same department, and just get that step up from Whatever Rank 3 to Whatever Rank 4, as civil service jobs are often structured...and been cut for "performance."
Yes (this is 2nd hand now, but I trust the source - a coworker from before I retired a few years ago):
At my former workplace (a DoD laboratory), he knows of folks (longtime employees, as in decades) who that happened to.
They put in their time, were finally recognized for their abilities, and got their promotions - then summarily fired.
I see my former coworker a few times a month - I'll have to ask him if those folks were rehired; if I hadn't retired back during COVID, this easily could have been me. I think if it did happen to me (and they offered to bring me back shortly afterwards), I would suddenly have an attitude adjustment on how much I wanted to contribute to work moving forward.
Re: What we all knew: despite Musk’s claims, DOGE firings were not based on employees performance - vision63 - 03-22-2025
They are specifically carving out colored people.
Re: What we all knew: despite Musk’s claims, DOGE firings were not based on employees performance - Ombligo - 03-22-2025
Expect that Joseph Rillotta will be fired for poor performance.