- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Anyone understand how federal government workers can be fired?
Posted on 9/25/25 at 10:35 am
Posted on 9/25/25 at 10:35 am
I would have thought that the president could cut 20% across the board. But apparently he can only cut workers “appointed”, not sure? So when the term started, he got rid of everyone on a probation status, meaning all new hires. Not that the new hires deserved it, it probably would have been much more efficient to fire dead weight middle managers, but apparently he could only get rid of those on probation. One big clusterfuk.
So now they are acting like they can lay off anyone deemed non-essential during a government shutdown. I’m all for it, but is there some sort of legal trigger that kicks in upon a shutdown that now allows the ceo to fire the work force legitimately?
So now they are acting like they can lay off anyone deemed non-essential during a government shutdown. I’m all for it, but is there some sort of legal trigger that kicks in upon a shutdown that now allows the ceo to fire the work force legitimately?
6
Posted on 9/25/25 at 10:37 am to Padme
If you cant pay the workforce because there is no appropriations bill can't he RIF (Reduction in Force/Lay-off) workers
Posted on 9/25/25 at 10:39 am to tigeraddict
That’s what it sounds like, but does that mean once a deal happens, they can keep them layed off? Thats the big question
Posted on 9/25/25 at 10:42 am to Padme
What ChatGPT says:
So to answer your question directly:
A shutdown doesn’t create a “legal trigger” to let the president or agencies fire employees. It just pauses their pay/work status. To permanently cut workers, the administration would need Congressional funding changes (forcing RIFs) or go through the established disciplinary/removal process.
So to answer your question directly:
A shutdown doesn’t create a “legal trigger” to let the president or agencies fire employees. It just pauses their pay/work status. To permanently cut workers, the administration would need Congressional funding changes (forcing RIFs) or go through the established disciplinary/removal process.
Posted on 9/25/25 at 10:50 am to Padme
There are procedures they have to go through because non-policy making employees have civil service protection. It doesn't mean that it can't be done, just that it can't be done with the stroke of a pen.
Posted on 9/25/25 at 10:51 am to Padme
I don't understand how the rats in DC let this happen.
If they are part of the executive branch, the head of the executive branch should be able to terminate them.
If they are part of the executive branch, the head of the executive branch should be able to terminate them.
Posted on 9/25/25 at 10:55 am to Padme
15+ year federal employee here...
there are protections in place to keep fed employees from being fired based on "political influence". Once you get head scientist, doctors etc biased with political options there can be tons of issues.
That being said, on way to legally do it is cut funding. Trump cannot directly cut funding but he can 'advise' congress to do so. No funding=no pay=no jobs. Checks and balances.
All that said, there are MANY federal agencies that MAKE money for the fed gov. Things like application fees, leases, etc. The office I work for is ~80% reimbursable funds, meaning that 80% of our annual operating budget comes from non-congressionally appropriated funds (there is overhead charge to that which goes back to the higher ups). But, because we fall under the federal gov umbrella, we are subject to RIF's. furloughs etc.
there are protections in place to keep fed employees from being fired based on "political influence". Once you get head scientist, doctors etc biased with political options there can be tons of issues.
That being said, on way to legally do it is cut funding. Trump cannot directly cut funding but he can 'advise' congress to do so. No funding=no pay=no jobs. Checks and balances.
All that said, there are MANY federal agencies that MAKE money for the fed gov. Things like application fees, leases, etc. The office I work for is ~80% reimbursable funds, meaning that 80% of our annual operating budget comes from non-congressionally appropriated funds (there is overhead charge to that which goes back to the higher ups). But, because we fall under the federal gov umbrella, we are subject to RIF's. furloughs etc.
This post was edited on 9/25/25 at 10:56 am
Posted on 9/25/25 at 11:02 am to Padme
I used to work at a federal agency. I was excepted service, so my position is a little bit different, but generally a federal employee has a probation period when they start. Mine was 2 years. During that period, the employee can be fired for any reason or no reason—completely at-will. After that period, the employee typically can only be fired for cause or through a RIF.
Cause is difficult to establish. Even if a supervisor does everything correctly in terms of documenting non-performance and giving proper cure periods/ PIPs, this can take well over a year. And then, once you get to the point where you’re able to establish a termination, the employee is almost always union represented. The union then gets involved and advises the employee to allege misconduct by the supervisor—usually sexual harassment or some other hostile work environment claim. This puts enormous pressure on the supervisor as they’re often suspended once these allegations come out.
Because supervisors don’t want to be attacked by the full force of the union, they usually don’t even attempt to fire for cause. They’ll shuffle the non-performing employee over to another division (usually one dealing with administration or some other made-up job) and the employee will basically retire in place and continue to move up the pay scale and do no work.
Essentially, a RIF is the only way to get rid of a federal employee once they’re past the probationary period.
Cause is difficult to establish. Even if a supervisor does everything correctly in terms of documenting non-performance and giving proper cure periods/ PIPs, this can take well over a year. And then, once you get to the point where you’re able to establish a termination, the employee is almost always union represented. The union then gets involved and advises the employee to allege misconduct by the supervisor—usually sexual harassment or some other hostile work environment claim. This puts enormous pressure on the supervisor as they’re often suspended once these allegations come out.
Because supervisors don’t want to be attacked by the full force of the union, they usually don’t even attempt to fire for cause. They’ll shuffle the non-performing employee over to another division (usually one dealing with administration or some other made-up job) and the employee will basically retire in place and continue to move up the pay scale and do no work.
Essentially, a RIF is the only way to get rid of a federal employee once they’re past the probationary period.
Posted on 9/25/25 at 11:04 am to Padme
A hiring freeze followed by attrition works.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News