What We Know So Far About The OPM “Buy Out”

Is it even a traditional "Buy Out" and is it already in conflict with OPM statutes?

[One more update: Public Policy Professor Don Moynihan has posted a must read on this topic. I’ll try to summarize it in a future post. In the meantime, I suggest everyone who is curious to learn more about this topic read it.]

Yesterday, the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM) sent Federal workers in the Executive Branch an email that everyone had been expecting since Inauguration Day. Entitled “Fork in the Road,” the email (posted in its entirety on the OPM site) After laying out the “Four Pillars” of the workforce under President Trump (Return to Office, Performance culture, More streamlined and flexible workforce, and Enhanced standards of conduct*), it then provides all workers who receive it with a choice: Agree to work under these new standards (which really boils down to “Return to Office”) or accept a deferred resignation:

If you choose not to continue in your current role in the federal workforce, we thank you for your service to your country and you will be provided with a dignified, fair departure from the federal government utilizing a deferred resignation program. This program begins effective January 28 and is available to all federal employees until February 6. If you resign under this program, you will retain all pay and benefits regardless of your daily workload and will be exempted from all applicable in-person work requirements until September 30, 2025 (or earlier if you choose to accelerate your resignation for any reason). The details of this separation plan can be found below.

So if you decide to resign by the end of next week, does that mean you are getting nine months (ish) of pay for doing nothing? According to an accompanying FAQ that the OPM has posted, maybe:

Am I expected to work during the deferred resignation period?
No.  Except in rare cases determined by your agency, you are not expected to work.

Is anyone willing to bet on how “rare” those cases will be? According to the FAQ, this order applied to a very wide range of Executive Branch workers:

Deferred resignation is available to all 2 Million full-time federal Executive-branch employees except for 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.

Given the breadth of people who can take this opportunity and the fact that, taken at their word, this is potentially a nine-month (ish) buyout for doing nothing, we may be about to see a huge exodus of government workers, many of whom are mid-project.

I’ve read through the FAQs, and as far as I can tell, there is no discussion of transition or wind-down periods (and that’s not something the FAQ addresses). That means, unless there is further clarification, people can stop where they are in their project and, other than out of a spirit of comradery and pity on those who will come after them, don’t have to leave any documentation.

Two Three Four big hot takes:

1a. This isn’t really a buyout in the traditional sense. While people are being offered a sweet deal not to work, it’s not necessarily a “buy out” in so much as it is not a lump sum payment. That may make this much more enforceable (see 1b).

1b. Once again, it looks like no one checked the fine print before rolling out a policy. Yesterday in the comment thread on Malicious Compliance With Radical Orders I mentioned we’re once again seeing the results of sloppily and rushed policies. Andy pushed back that the current Trump administration is more competent than the first one. In my agreement with him and revision/refinement of my position, I responded with:

I think what we are seeing here is a different sort of incompetence–having people who still have relatively little experience with the intricacies of the actual implementation of these orders drafting them with a focus on surviving legal scrutiny in the ways you describe.

This is a common occurrence when you have an ideologues driving policy (and a discussion I’ve had with former ideologues who later seriously confronted the issues with their poorly drafted legislation and policy).

[Updated update: After adding the following struck section of the article, Jen gave me an opportunity to get more practice saying “I was wrong” in public. She correctly points out that this policy only applies to “lump-sum” amounts. It appears that in this case, most people who take advantage of the program will just continue to draw their existing salary for doing nothing. I’ll leave the following in to preserve the error (and a reminder that, just as with comments, it’s a good idea not to immediately update posts without triple checking what you wrote).

For all their sins, it does appear that they did check the existing policy.]

Case and point, there is existing OPM policy that restricts “buy outs” in the Executive Branch to $25,000:

The Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment Authority, also known as buyout authority, allows agencies that are downsizing or restructuring to offer employees lump-sum payments up to $25,000 as an incentive to voluntarily separate. When authorized by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), an agency may offer VSIP to employees who are in surplus positions or have skills that are no longer needed in the workforce who volunteer to separate by resignation, optional retirement, or by voluntary early retirement, if approved.

I’m most familiar with Executive Branch jobs related to Civic Tech, and I can assure you that a nine-month buyout of most of them would greatly exceed $25,000. Of course, the question is who will be willing to actually conduct the oversight to throw a wrench into those works? That’s TBD given the Democrats do not currently control either branch of the Legislature.

Still this could easily throw government workers who accept this offer into limbo. And those types of disruptions (potentially taking the offer, then having it rescinded or changed) are not going to help service delivery or the effective functioning of government between now and the end of Q3.

H/t to Stormy Dragon for the heads up on this one.

2. From fiscal management and government service delivery perspectives, this has the makings of a disaster. It’s hard to see how this is a win for anyone other than for people who are, by nature or upbringing, resentful of all government workers. There has been no apparent consideration for how this blanket of a program will potentially impact the functioning of the Executive Branch (which, as we’ve seen in the last few days, trickles down to the State and Local level in ways people don’t appreciate). Service delivery will be negatively impacted, and, as I’ve written before, that will have profound and negative impacts not just on the operation of government but everyday people. If as many people take advantage of this offer as I expect will, there’s no way direct government services like Medicaid or getting a passport to indirect government-funded services like Meals on Wheels and Headstart will avoid the negative impacts.

Unless of course, the architects of this plan suddenly discover that, in order to keep the government working, exceptions won’t be as “rare” as they promised.

We’re also facing the very realistic probability that, during the next nine months, the government will end up paying more than twice as much for less work that is being done today (as some positions will invariably have to be filled–which includes hiring costs–and will incur restart costs due to gaps in service). It’s possible that some of the gaps will be filled via external contracts–but to my knowledge there hasn’t been a corresponding jump in Requests for Proposals (RfPs). That could come in the days to come.

In business, this type of huge one-time cost can be made up through improved profits and shareholder value. The issue is that the Federal Government isn’t a business and (outside of the Post Office) isn’t expected to generate a profit. While the administration will tout the job savings, starting in 2026, from this action, the reality remains that Federal Salaries and Benefits are discretionary spending. Discretionary spending only accounts for 27% of the overall Federal Budget. While roughly 45% of federal discretionary spending is on salaries and benefits, much of that spending is related to armed forces and veterans, rather than government workers targeted by this order. Sure there will be savings, though the question remains if they will be worth the resulting impact to service delivery.

3. If this approach sounds familiar, that’s because it is! As ABC White House policy reporter Cheyenne Haslett points out, this approach, down to the email subject line, mirrors what Elon Musk did when he took over Twitter (or Xitter for those in the know). From X:

NEW: The memo sent to government employees this evening offering them buyouts very closely mirrors an email Musk sent to Twitter employees in 2022 — down to the same subject line “A Fork in the Road.”

The 2022 email tells Twitter employees, “Only exceptional performance will constitute a passing grade.” Compare that to memo: “The federal workforce should be comprised of the best America has to offer. We will insist on excellence at every level…”

And another similarity: in the same way the OPM memo requires employees to only respond “Resign” to the email to seal the deal, Musk asked Twitter employees to “click yes on the link below” if they wanted to stay on at Twitter.

“Whatever decision you make, thank you for your efforts to make Twitter successful,” Musk wrote in 2022. And this evening, the closing message to government employees by OPM: “Whichever path you choose, we thank you for your service to The United States of America.”

[Source thread starts here]

Everyone’s mileage with Musk varies. Many will say “look people predicted that Twitter would collapse after the exodus of employees and it didn’t so clearly that will apply here.” Those people would be correct in that X still exists. At the same time, it’s hard to say that, under the new management, the platform is (a) more stable or (b) flourishing in terms of business metrics. By some recent estimates, the site has lost 80% of it’s value from when Musk purchased it. That doesn’t bode particularly well for the Federal Government.

In the weeks and months to come, I’ll keep watching and updating OTB as things evolve around this topic.


* – One thing that didn’t fit well in the main body of this article is the rather ominous wording of the “Enhanced standards of conduct”:

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

[Emphasis mine – MB]

The fact is this has been a longstanding expectation of all Federal Employees.** What stands out is the unmodified “reliable, loyal, trustworthy?” My immediate question is to what or whom. In the past, this wouldn’t have been a question most people would ask in so much as it was implied that this was to the Constitution and the offices derived from it. However, that assumption is called into question by the multiple reports about ongoing loyalty-to-Trump screenings.

Again, MAGA themed readers might be ok with this idea given their support of the current President. That said, I ask them to consider how they would feel if a Democratic administration had done the same thing. What we are seeing is more or less a return to a patronage system of government–as we all know those always function efficiently, right?

**- note for the whataboutists out there: I fully acknowledge that some have fallen far short of that, and they shouldn’t be tolerated regardless of whichever administration is in office. I also humbly suggest that there is no evidence that malfeasance occurs at any higher rate among federal employees than in any other professional walk of life.

FILED UNDER: 2024 Election, Borders and Immigration, Deficit and Debt, The Presidency, US Constitution, US Politics, , , , , , , ,
Matt Bernius
About Matt Bernius
Matt Bernius is a design researcher working to create more equitable government systems and experiences. Matt's most recent work has been in the civic tech space, working as a researcher and design strategist at Code for America and Measures for Justice. Prior to that he worked at Effective, a UX agency, and also taught at the Rochester Institute of Technology and Cornell. Matt has an MA from the University of Chicago.

Comments

  1. DK says:

    Given the breadth of people who can take this opportunity and the fact that, taken at their word…

    That’s the key. Trump is not only a rapist and felon who publicly sexualized his own daughter and praised his pal Epstein for liking women “on the younger side,” Trump is also a fraudster, con artist, and pathological liar, infamous for never paying contractors.

    Trump’s word is as good as a used scrap of toilet paper. He promised to reduce prices and end Putin’s genocidal Ukraine war on day one. Trump lied again, of course: his early moves will increase prices. He took an oath to defend the constitution and instead incited the Jan 6 terror attack, to stage a coup.

    So there is no reason to believe his promise to pay workers who fall for this devil’s bargain.

    12
  2. Stormy Dragon says:

    One important thing to note is that under current federal law, executive branch buyouts are limited to a maximum of $25,000

    8
  3. DK says:

    There has been no apparent consideration for how this blanket of a program will potentially impact the functioning of the Executive Branch

    Epstein-bestie rapist Trump and Nazi-saluting, illegal immigrant oligarch Musk explicitly want to government services not to function — so Republicans can give billionaires trillions in tax cuts and corporate socialism.

    This is program fake, as congress has not budgeted for paying months of salary to government employees who are not working. By law, such buyouts are capped. This is an illegal, authoritarian scam and should be analyzed as such.

    12
  4. Matt Bernius says:

    @DK:

    There is no reason to believe his promise to pay workers who fall for this devil’s bargain.

    That isn’t correct–there’s a lot of ways that federal workers (especially those who are in unions–which is another thing I couldn’t fit in this article) should be able to collect that pay.

    Where the devil is will be in the details–in particular who will be in the “rare” positions that have to continue to work during this period.

    Trump is infamous for never paying contractors.

    Or his bills to cities and rally venues that hosted campaign events–but, believe it or not, they all have far fewer legal protections than Federal Workers (or exempt employees at places like Twitter). If they decide to “fuck around” they are going to find out.

    4
  5. Matt Bernius says:

    @Stormy Dragon:

    One important thing to note is that under current federal law, executive branch buyouts are limited to a maximum of $25,000

    Oh, I didn’t know that. Do you have a source on this one?
    Thanks for the heads up… funny to discover that really well documented on another OPM page:

    The Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment Authority, also known as buyout authority, allows agencies that are downsizing or restructuring to offer employees lump-sum payments up to $25,000 as an incentive to voluntarily separate.
    https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/workforce-restructuring/voluntary-separation-incentive-payments/

    Sigh, looks like I have to immediately update this to three hot takes.

    1
  6. Stormy Dragon says:
  7. Jen says:

    Of course, the people most likely to jump on this are those who have opportunities elsewhere–meaning, the most in-demand positions.

    Again, this goes to the false mentality endemic on the right that government employees do nothing, are completely expendable, and don’t earn their salaries. Those who stay are going to be subjected to awful conditions.

    8
  8. DK says:

    @Matt Bernius:

    should be able to collect that pay…they all have far fewer legal protections than Federal Workers

    Mmm hmm. The inspectors general Trump just fired “should” have been protected by a whole, well-established congressional law.

    9
  9. Jen says:

    @Matt Bernius: That’s a lump-sum payment. Are there different provisions for those who just continue to take a salary until September? Meaning, if you’re earning ~$5K/mo. and you take the buyout, that’s 5 months of salary, but if you just stick around until end of September, at ~$5K/mo. that’s $40K.

    Having a bunch of FEMA employees depart in the middle of hurricane season seems like a not-so-good idea to me, but what do I know?

    5
  10. Sleeping Dog says:

    Two things; Congress will need appropriate the funds for this fiasco, not a sure thing, and the retired government workers will be replaced by private sector contractors that will cost the taxpayer more than the salaries and benefits of employees.

    8
  11. Kathy says:

    Is anyone willing to bet on how “rare” those cases will be?

    Easy: no more than 24 hours per day, no more than 7 days per week, but only in days that end in “y” and weeks that are part of a month.

    As to twitter, nazi in chief Xlon destroyed it. Xitter is not what twitter used to be.

    2
  12. Fortune says:

    AP calls it a buyout but reports it says “If you resign under this program, you will retain all pay and benefits regardless of your daily workload and will be exempted from all applicable in-person work requirements until September 30”. If so, it wouldn’t need to be funded and wouldn’t be a single payment.

  13. Fortune says:

    Am I expected to work during the deferred resignation period?
    No. Except in rare cases determined by your agency, you are not expected to work.

    If you’re unfireable, guaranteed pay, and exempt from going into the office, who would care if their agency expected them to work?

    1
  14. Matt Bernius says:

    @Jen & @Fortune:
    Correct. I’ve updated the post to correct (and preserve) that issue.

    I am curious, and will eventually look into, how they will handle things if they eventually need to hire for those positions. That seems like an area that the administration could be significantly budget-constrained on.

    2
  15. Scott says:

    those in other positions specifically excluded by your employing agency.

    I have real doubts that any existing agency can identify and designate positions to be excluded by decision time. Especially by political appointees who don’t even understand the organization that they were put in charge of.

    As a retiree, my direct interfacing with the Federal Government is primarily Social Security, Medicare, Tricare, Defense Accounting and Finance, Defense Health Agency, Military ID cards, National Parks and eventually National Cemeteries, at which point it will be my wife and kids suffering.

    I’m not the sort that prefers a human interface to deal with issues but the few times I did it was painful and the agencies weren’t manned appropriately even then. Can’t imagine a “streamlined” workforce.

    3
  16. Matt Bernius says:

    @Fortune:

    If you’re unfireable, guaranteed pay, and exempt from going into the office, who would care if their agency expected them to work?

    I’m curious, which actual facts or experience are you basing this hot take on? It would be great if you avoid nutpicking a single egregious example or a singular anecdote.

    Yes, it is challenging to fire federal employees, but a dereliction of duty is one of the areas where you can get fired.

    4
  17. Joe says:

    I wonder whether the term “deferred resignation” is designed to get around the idea of a “buy out” with its federal cap, but that still creates a risk on the employees who take this path only to be told a few years from now that they need to repay their salary in excess of $25,000 following their commitment to “resign in September.”

    3
  18. Jen says:

    @Sleeping Dog: My hunch is that they will argue the funds have already been appropriated, since people will be receiving their salaries, which ostensibly have been approved/funded.

  19. Grumpy realist says:

    I received the OPM “a fork in the road” email yesterday. Immediately followed by our union saying don’t respond to it and that they will be sending around another email analyzing it later.

    There’s a strong stench of spoiled fish about the OPM email. Artificial urgency, making a nebulous “offer” with ridiculously short deadlines. (You have to sign up NOW to get this magnificent offer!)

    If Musk & co were really interested in improving efficiency of the US government, they wouldn’t be doing it this way. They’d be adding more teleworking, and if they wanted to offer a buy-out, they would make sure that they a) had the money to cover it b) would be able to answer all questions as to how this will impact government pensions, being able to take our health insurance with us, how this interacts with vesting dates, and all the nitpicky little questions that would come to mind to a competent person in charge, and c) give people a reasonable period of time to make the decision. As it is, it looks likes they’re trying to stampede people into resigning from the government under artificial deadlines and with the carrot of an indefinite buyout promine held just before our noses.

    12
  20. Sleeping Dog says:

    @Jen:

    Perhaps, but that money was designated for salaries and defined benefits, not buyouts, which as someone pointed out, do exist in the Fed Gov, but are capped. So the issue would become, can the prez reallocate appropriations for projects different than congress specified. That is at least the 5th time we’ve started on that path since the 20th and he lost a couple of those cases in his first admin.

    2
  21. Mikey says:

    @Jen: Funds have been appropriated for the current Continuing Resolution, which expires March 14. After that date, there are no guarantees.

    5
  22. Fortune says:

    @Matt Bernius: We agree they’d be guaranteed pay and exempt from going into the office as long as they’re employed, right? A federal worker past the 1-year probationary period can be fired for gross violations with a 30-day notice. For poor performance a supervisor typically has to wait until the midyear or annual review, submit a Performance Improvement Plan, then document the employee isn’t meeting the plan, then issue the 30-day notice. If uncontested the process takes about a year. Supervisors are discouraged from initiating the process.

    I’m making assumptions , but an understaffed supervisor isn’t going to initiate the process with an understaffed, overwhelmed HR department, for a few months’ salary. An employee could do the minimum and avoid it.

  23. Scott says:

    @Mikey: Oops. O what a tangled web…

    1
  24. Jen says:

    @Mikey: Ah, thanks. I had forgotten about that particular dangling thread.

    @Sleeping Dog: Yes–but this “plan” does not mention those buyouts, and doesn’t appear to be structured as a buyout. That’s the loophole. By stating they are paying salaries, they get around the buyout provision, is my guess.

    I wouldn’t trust anyone offering this as far as I could throw them. There’s too much of a chance that they come back and, say, decide that since one isn’t performing duties as assigned, they are being terminated with cause and all further payments are void.

    5
  25. charontwo says:

    @Jen:

    I wouldn’t trust anyone offering this as far as I could throw them.

    When people show you who they are, believe them. Trump loves to stiff whomever he deals with, if he deems it practical. Musk is a flake.

    4
  26. Bruce Vail says:

    We have seen, over the years, many players in the private sector (from doctors’ offices to Walmart) adjust their business practices so as to provide little to no customer service, all the while maximizing their short-term profits and reducing or outsourcing their contact with customers to the fullest extent possible. And there’s been little customer resistance to this.

    We are now seeing a similar approach in our representative democracy, as politicians and government officials increasingly trade constituent service efforts designed to objectively improve our quality of life (individually or collectively) for deceptive partisan policy objectives, personal political gains (getting reelected), and financial self-enrichment (Fox News appearances, podcasts, etc.). And here, too, there is little constituent (i.e., voter) resistance. To the contrary, a large group of voters were told to expect the preceding if they voted a certain way, and they did just that.

    Will the OPM “buyout” improve the value we receive from the government in exchange for our taxes? No. Will blanket prohibitions on agencies communicating with us (i.e., taxpayers) benefit us? No, not in any objective sense. But these and other efforts WILL achieve Project 2025 and Heritage Foundation objectives and enhance partisan loyalty among some.

    Call me cynical, but I don’t expect either trend I’ve identified to change until a majority of us collectively demands it. And even then, it will take time.

    14
  27. Matt Bernius says:

    @Fortune:

    I’m making assumptions , but an understaffed supervisor isn’t going to initiate the process with an understaffed, overwhelmed HR department, for a few months’ salary. An employee could do the minimum and avoid it.

    Doing “the minimum” IS meeting base job expectations. I’m told that’s pretty common in the corporate sector as well.

    That’s different than:

    @Fortune:

    If you’re unfireable, guaranteed pay, and exempt from going into the office, who would care if their agency expected them to work?

    I guess I’m being uncharitable (which I think your initial snark was), but it feels like you just moved the goalposts there.

    Or maybe I’m just missing your point. I’m largely reading that as some type of critique of “work from home” folks as having no oversight and being able to get away with not working. If that was the case, why haven’t we seen a significant decrease in government efficiency since 2020?

    That’s before we get to the fact that many people who have joined the executive branch since 2020 don’t live remotely close to their “home” offices. Also, perhaps I’m lucky, but most of the Federal Employee’s I’ve worked with actually believed in public service and take great pride in their work. I’m not sure if they will continue that service, but I expect a lot of them would work for most of that period (if for no other reason to ensure that there is some sort of continuity and transition… or at the very least, documentation of what they were doing).

    8
  28. just nutha says:

    @Sleeping Dog: True, but didn’t SCOTUS settle the question in its determination last year that, essentially, the things the President does are “the duties of the office” and thus, exempt from legal review?

    3
  29. just nutha says:

    @Jen: I would have gone with “throw a potato chip,” but I worked in truck loading and unloading, so I can throw a person much farther, short as that throwing distance will still be.

    1
  30. just nutha says:

    @Matt Bernius: Matt, Fortune is an idealogue (as are we all here, in fact) who will deconstruct whatever topic is under consideration to match his worldview/argument (as do significant numbers of the rest of us frequently, again in fact). I’ve demonstrated this process for my students in the past so that they would know how to recognize it for analyzing research evidence (what further use they put the skill to is for them to decide, and I make no judgements as to what ends people put their skills and agency).

    You be you, but understand that seeking consensus under such conditions may be pointless. If following through serves other agendas, carry on.

    3
  31. Matt Bernius says:

    @just nutha:
    FWIW, I agree with what you said–including the application of that to all of us.

    I don’t think consensus is always possible–especially not in the short term. I also see value in trying to plant seeds for the person I’m engaging with and with other readers.

    I also am trying to model what I think good conversational engagement looks like (including intentionally admitting when I am wrong or acknowledging when I shift my argument). YMMV with all of that. That said, I don’t always do the best job in modelling that–it’s something I am trying to work on.

    4
  32. Sleeping Dog says:

    @just nutha:

    The breadth of that ruling has yet to be determined. The SC opened a can of whataboutism that will have the courts adjudicating what that ruling really means for a long, long time.

    1
  33. ptfe says:

    @Matt Bernius: I think you’re mis-reading what he was saying, which was only that even if an employee took the offer of admin leave and were subsequently asked to work, there’s no reason to expect they would. In this case, I think he’s off-base because these jobs are not at all secure – the Executive so far has shown no compunction to follow laws, let alone procedures, and would probably simply fire people.

    2
  34. Fortune says:

    @ptfe: Not worth the effort to explain it to them, but thanks for reading and understanding. I think you’re wrong about an administration being able to fire a minimal worker in a timely manner though. A supervisor can do it, and an administration can encourage a supervisor to do it, but probably not a supervisor trying to cover untasked assignments.

  35. DK says:

    @Matt Bernius: @Fortune:

    …it feels like you just moved the goalposts there…I’m largely reading that as some type of critique of “work from home” folks as having no oversight and being able to get away with not working. If that was the case, why haven’t we seen a significant decrease in government efficiency since 2020?

    This is where a non-ideologue would answer your question and walk back their reflexive, contorted defenses of Trump’s chaotic overreach.

    @Grumpy realist:

    Artificial urgency, making a nebulous “offer” with ridiculously short deadlines. (You have to sign up NOW to get this magnificent offer!)

    Scammers gonna scam.

    3
  36. Grommit Gunn says:

    @Grumpy realist: Agreed. No way I’m replying to that.

    @ptfe: I agree with the “jobs not that secure” piece, also. This paragraph in the deferred resignation letter could be twisted in all sorts of ways to get out of keeping folks on the books:

    “I am committed to ensuring a smooth transition during my remaining time at my employing agency. Accordingly, I will assist my employing agency with completing reasonable and customary tasks and processes to facilitate my departure.”

    1
  37. Matt Bernius says:

    @ptfe

    I think you’re mis-reading what he was saying, which was only that even if an employee took the offer of admin leave and were subsequently asked to work, there’s no reason to expect they would.

    Oh, thank you–that wasn’t clear. Sorry for not understanding what you were trying to communicate, Fortune.

    Having gone through other downsizing like this one, many ways exist to “force” people to continue to work. I suspect similar things will be attempted.

    @Fortune:

    Not worth the effort to explain it to them, but thanks for reading and understanding.

    Seriously, why do you think it’s not “worth the effort?” I’ll be the first to admit that I misread things (see above). Obviously, no need to respond.

    I think you’re wrong about an administration being able to fire a minimal worker in a timely manner though. A supervisor can do it, and an administration can encourage a supervisor to do it, but probably not a supervisor trying to cover untasked assignments.

    Again, with @ptfe this feels like it’s taking a short sighted view. Especially, given the increased authority supervisors seem to be given under the new administration. I completely agree with @Grommit Gunn:

    This paragraph in the deferred resignation letter could be twisted in all sorts of ways to get out of keeping folks on the books:

    “I am committed to ensuring a smooth transition during my remaining time at my employing agency. Accordingly, I will assist my employing agency with completing reasonable and customary tasks and processes to facilitate my departure.”

    I’ve seen very similar in mass corporate layoffs (see the start of the post). My expectation is that they will attempt to apply something like this here. Especially if the departures go way too deep.

    2
  38. Kevin says:

    So, just to add to the weirdness/horribleness/stupidity of the whole thing:

    1) It appears that the people who are “running” this offer are two relatives of Elon Musk’s who are young enough that Wired was unwilling to print their names. (https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-lackeys-office-personnel-management-opm-neuralink-x-boring-stalin/)

    2) The email server used to send this message is . . . well, it’s unclear. Apparently the folks above have set up a new email server and connected it to the OPM network, and are bypassing the systems set up to do things like send out mass emails, and ignoring the laws that guide such things as well. (https://fedscoop.com/opm-email-federal-workforce-lawsuit-server-privacy-security/)

    Anyone who brings up “her server” in the future should be ignored and laughed from the room, and ideally drummed from polite society. It was always a distraction, and now, well . . .

    4
  39. Matt Bernius says:

    One more update: Public Policy Professor Don Moynihan has posted a must read on this topic. I’ll try to summarize it in a future post. In the meantime, I suggest everyone who is curious to learn more about this topic read it.

    https://donmoynihan.substack.com/p/compelling-mass-civil-servant-resignations

    3
  40. Matt Bernius says:

    @Kevin:
    Thanks for the heads up about that. I haven’t checked Fed Scoop yet and that makes a ton of sense.

    I will say that folks on Federal Employee reddit are not feeling this plan: https://www.reddit.com/r/fednews/comments/1icj3wc/this_non_buyout_really_seems_to_have_backfired/?rdt=49863

    Again, this matches the interactions I’ve had with people who are proud to be members of the Federal Government. YMMV.

    2
  41. Jen says:

    @Matt Bernius: Ha, that Reddit thread is something! Wow.

  42. Matt Bernius says:

    @Jen:
    Not gonna lie–I needed to get reminded of how awesome Federal employees can be. The entire subred is pretty inspiring at the moment:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/fednews/

    3
  43. Kathy says:

    @Matt Bernius:

    This sounds almost exactly like what many airlines did with the paycheck protection program money in 2020. They offered their most experienced (ie longest serving) pilots early retirement. Then faced a pilot shortage when flights resumed.

    The big difference is government work is not going to stop or go down sharply in volume in the meantime.

    1
  44. Kurtz says:

    @Fortune:

    An employee could do the minimum and avoid it.

    Good.

    That’s what the minimum is for. Anything more, the employee is providing value to their employer, but not getting paid for that extra value.

    Not too fond of one receiving the fruits of one’s labor, huh? Shocking.

  45. Kurtz says:

    @Matt Bernius:

    I guess I’m being uncharitable (which I think your initial snark was), but it feels like you just moved the goalposts there.

    Yes, they did.

    As well as admitting that he is making an ass out of both of you. If I were you, I’d be upset at having no say in that.

    1
  46. Fortune says:

    @Kurtz: Perhaps I should have said “the minimum to avoid firing” and given a for instance like 5 hours of typing per week, but if you’re just going to assume I’m commenting in bad faith you’d find something else to complain about right? Whatever, someone might have read the comment and understood what I meant, and thought for a second, and it’s too late for you to stop them.

  47. restless says:

    @Kevin:

    Regarding legality-

    I’m guessing we’ll never know if Musk did this with Trump’s knowledge, since questioning presidential staff isn’t allowed because of immunity?

    I would think the head of DOGE, a department under US Digital Policy, would be considered staff.

  48. Gustopher says:

    @Fortune:

    you’re just going to assume I’m commenting in bad faith

    To be fair, you comment in bad faith so often that it’s a pretty straightforward assumption to make.

    Bad faith, bad faith, butt hurt, bad faith, bad faith, butt hurt…

    5
  49. Gustopher says:

    @just nutha:

    True, but didn’t SCOTUS settle the question in its determination last year that, essentially, the things the President does are “the duties of the office” and thus, exempt from legal review?

    I believe the Supremes only ruled that the President could not be personally prosecuted for criming done “in the duty of the office.” The actions themselves are subject to review.

    1
  50. Ken_L says:

    The “nah you won’t have to keep working” FAQ was presumably intended to encourage people to take the offer. However the terms of the offer itself say almost the opposite: “I understand my employing agency will likely make adjustments in response to my resignation including moving, eliminating, consolidating, reassigning my position and tasks, reducing my official duties, and/or placing me on paid administrative leave until my resignation date.” I interpret this to mean the OPM will leave it to individual agencies what work employees will be required to keep doing during their notice period.

    There’s an angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin argument over at ‘Lawyers Guns & Money’ about how a court would interpret these conflicting provisions in deciding the terms of a supposed new contract which resigning would create, but I regard it as irrelevant nonsense. An employee who refuses to do the tasks for which they continue to be paid would most likely be fired, and it’s extremely unlikely a court would find the government had an obligation to keep paying an employee even though the employee has ceased to provide any valuable consideration in return.

    I really can’t see why any employee would accept the deal if they didn’t absolutely hate having to resume working in the office. On the other hand, I don’t understand why the OPM didn’t simply order everyone back to the office and fire those who refused.

    6
  51. Kurtz says:

    @Fortune:

    I assume nothing. You have posted enough that assumptions are no longer necessary.

    You are an excellent carrier of water. That water may spread dysentery, but you are damn good at carrying it. That is the one positive remark I have about your persona here.

    So let me avoid any risk of bad faith on my part: you are, at best, unthinking and ignorant. At worst, you are some variety of authoritarian. The truth is likely somehwere in the middle–you are just an active idiot.

    But I doubt you care about what I think.

    4
  52. just nutha says:

    @Gustopher: Thanks for the expansion.

  53. Katharsis says:

    @Ken_L: Probably because of the Telework Enhancement Act of 2010 that as a statute supersedes even an EO.

    https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-111publ292

    2
  54. charontwo says:
  55. Fortune says:

    @Kurtz: I care whether you think. I don’t know if you’re one of the non-thinkers here though.

    Up until yesterday, the deal was a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. Now it’s pay without work, or possibly some work in rare circumstances. I don’t like the deal but it makes sense. The worst case scenario I’ve seen in these comments is a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work through September.

  56. Eusebio says:

    The worst-case scenarios discussed here include being terminated before Sep 30th despite having signed on to the “fork in the road” agreement.

    Also, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich posted Some advice to federal workers on his substack this morning.

    1
  57. Liberal Capitalist says:

    One of the interesting comments on Bluesky:

    At first, Trumps actions seemed overwhelmingly intimidating, but now we see that it is the same bumbling incompetence as his first term, if not even worse.

    Now is the time to speak out and resist because they have nothing.

  58. Kevin says:

    Holy fuck. I knew they were incompetent, but those servers they set up at OPM are apparently open to the world, and the mailing lists they set up are public, so entire random federal organizations are currently getting emails from, well, everyone.

    What the fuck.

  59. Lois Lane says:

    This is the beginning of the “Fork in the Road” for all civil service employees, expecially those in national security and homeland security positions — loyalty to their oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and demanded personal loyalty to The Leader.

  60. Raine says:

    @Matt Bernius: I was raised by a malignant narcisisst who happens to love trump, he’s also a veteran and worked in national security. He’s also a serial liar, abuser, and womaniser, on his 3rd wife… no wonder he loves trump. The point I’m trying to make in relating to your comment is, Malignant narcissists wear down the people with the intent of breaking you. Once broken and now needing help or having mental health issues, they then declare, “See, I told you s/he was crazy or whatever else fit’s their narrative…” The very fact that trump and his admin are supposedly offering this 8 months severance package of basically sitting around and doing nothing…. it becomes convenient vehicle for them, because now they have set you up to be fired for doing nothing. This is so typical in the malignant narcississt playbook. As a wife of a veteran and government worker, this rings alarm bells for us both. Malignant narcissists are the kind of people that are so incredibly stupid that they literally cut off their own noses to spite their faces. Just on Reich’s subreddit: Trump has a long history of stiffing workers and contractors.

    So, for that matter, does Musk. During the pandemic, Musk gave Tesla employees permission to remain at home if they didn’t feel comfortable reporting to the factory. Then he sent them termination notices alleging “failure to return to work.” This is how these monsters work… it’s all a lie to set you up to fail.