“They wanted to show they were gutting the government, but there was no thought about what parts might be worth keeping,” said one FDA staffer who was fired and rehired. “Now it feels like it was all just a game to them.”
“They wanted to show they were gutting the government, but there was no thought about what parts might be worth keeping,” said one FDA staffer who was fired and rehired. “Now it feels like it was all just a game to them.”
I know people in charge of staffing various departments at various military bases, and they have hundreds of open positions they can’t fill because the people who took the buyout are still technically in those positions.
So they’re double fucked. These are critical positions like medical and mechanical.
Even after DRP, we get the spots back at a 4:1 ratio…
So if 12 took it, 3 can be hired
yeah, it’s a pretty shitty deal all around for the people trying to keep shit functioning.
On a long enough timeline this is just a speed bump
No matter what trump tries, he won’t match the number of separations under Clinton, and we won’t end up with a lower number after
They’re both pretty much the same, coincidentally enough we had just gotten back up to pre-Clinton number of feds, so the comparison is easy.
But because a Republican did it instead of a Dem, we’re likely to bounce back much faster this time.
What a bunch of false nonsense.
Who knows, maybe you have more decades of federal service than me which incentivized you to learn more about past events affecting the federal workforce…
But I’m often right about this stuff.
Quick edit:
In case youre out righting doubting the Clinton reduction and made the comment instead of googling:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-trump-federal-workers/
trump won’t match those numbers, because Feds trusted the programs under Clinton. No one left in the Fed trusts trump to hold up his end of any programs.
There’s a shit ton of nuance that you’re leaving out. According to the article you posted, it took 6 months just for the review process to see what could be done. Then years later for that number to be reached. Even states in the article that both aren’t similar.
It’s not that you’re wrong, it’s that you’re presenting it poorly.
The purpose isn’t just similar, it’s exactly the same: reduce the federal workforce.
Your “argument” is that Clinton did it better, which is literally what I just said:
Under trump it’s been an absolute shit show with no one having any idea what is going on. Under Clinton it was expansion of existing programs after investigating the situation.
Like, you’re saying I’m wrong but you’re agreeing with me and claiming I’m explaining it poorly?
I don’t think that’s what happening here. So I’m going to take steps from it happening again later.
Think about all the money the government is saving, though.