Government employee thread! (Being a government employee is sweet) (1 Viewer)

[McBokonon]

If you don’t try and make it about fraud, it becomes harder to defend their actions. That’s why.

 

[TripItUp]

This is my question too. Its pretty clear that it isn't about fraud. Hiring and firing people doesn't address the fraud claim.

I think it's clear that cutting spending is an objective. I also think it's clear they are and will be looking for fraud, waste and abuse.

Both can be true.(doesn't mean I agree with them)

 

[djmich]

This is my question too. Its pretty clear that it isn't about fraud. Hiring and firing people doesn't address the fraud claim.

I think it's clear that cutting spending is an objective. I also think it's clear they are and will be looking for fraud, waste and abuse.

Both can be true.(doesn't mean I agree with them)

Correct. If 25% of the employees don't respond to the email then I think that signals an issue beyond employment fraud as it's being discussed here. Less fraud and more potential abuse.

 

[TheAristocrat]

625 cases in the US with a median of $120,000 lost per case equals $75M dollars in occupational fraud (most often caused by the owner). In the world wide economy of $85T (2020), they found, as you point out, $3.6B of this kind of fraud.

Am I reading this correctly?

It was a study. The 625 cases in the US were out of 2,110 cases covered by the study. So doesn't extrapolate to either the U.S. or global economy without knowing how many cases occur every year.

The point is that ghost fraud happens

Amongst many other types of fraud covered in the study [Page 10]. With the biggest dollar/case losses by fraud in Financial Statement Fraud (like improper asset valuations) and Corruption (like conflicts of interest, bribery, or extortion) [Page 9].

It certainly happens. Doesn't seem like the primary way to defraud someone or some entity.

 

[KarmaPolice]

This is my question too. Its pretty clear that it isn't about fraud. Hiring and firing people doesn't address the fraud claim.

I think it's clear that cutting spending is an objective. I also think it's clear they are and will be looking for fraud, waste and abuse.

Both can be true.(doesn't mean I agree with them)

I agree the bolded is what is said they are doing, but their actions don't back that up, and often their words don't either. I think it's more about gutting the government and removing people and ideas that they don't agree with, and cloaking with the excuse of cutting spending and looking for fraud and waste.

Hard to trust much of anything when somebody who benefits from government contracts to the tune of billions of dollars is the one largely deciding what goes and stays. To me that is the definition of fraud and abuse of the system.

 

[BobbyLayne]

This is my question too. Its pretty clear that it isn't about fraud. Hiring and firing people doesn't address the fraud claim.

I think it's clear that cutting spending is an objective. I also think it's clear they are and will be looking for fraud, waste and abuse.

Both can be true.(doesn't mean I agree with them)

Payroll makes up around 6% of the Federal Budget

 

[Sparky Polastri]

This is my question too. Its pretty clear that it isn't about fraud. Hiring and firing people doesn't address the fraud claim.

I think it's clear that cutting spending is an objective. I also think it's clear they are and will be looking for fraud, waste and abuse.

Both can be true.(doesn't mean I agree with them)

Then they should say that and they should also point out that the "fraud" they are finding will likely amount to a rounding error in terms of the total debt and what it costs to service it.

 

[TripItUp]

Then they should say that and they should also point out that the "fraud" they are finding will likely amount to a rounding error in terms of the total debt and what it costs to service it.

Based on what they've stated, I don't believe they believe it will be a "rounding error". I believe they are targeting 1 trillion in spending cuts...but there are so many tweets I get them confused.

 

[TripItUp]

I agree the bolded is what is said they are doing, but their actions don't back that up, and often their words don't either. I think it's more about gutting the government and removing people and ideas that they don't agree with, and cloaking with the excuse of cutting spending and looking for fraud and waste.

It's only week 4.

 

[TripItUp]

Payroll makes up around 6% of the Federal Budget

Makes sense.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

This is my question too. Its pretty clear that it isn't about fraud. Hiring and firing people doesn't address the fraud claim.

I think it's clear that cutting spending is an objective. I also think it's clear they are and will be looking for fraud, waste and abuse.

Both can be true.(doesn't mean I agree with them)

Correct. If 25% of the employees don't respond to the email then I think that signals an issue beyond employment fraud as it's being discussed here. Less fraud and more potential abuse.

Aren't there entire divisions of the workforce being instructed NOT to respond? Lack of response by itself is circumstantial at best and incomplete for the purposes of decision making.

 

[TripItUp]

I think it's more about gutting the government and removing people and ideas that they don't agree with, and cloaking with the excuse of cutting spending and looking for fraud and waste.

I don't know about the "cloaking" part of that sentence, but I do agree that they are "gutting" parts of the govt they don't agree with...that is where one's definition of "waste" comes into play. That's a loaded word. Every Tom, **** and Harry has their own ideas of where the govt is "wasting" money.

 

[djmich]

This is my question too. Its pretty clear that it isn't about fraud. Hiring and firing people doesn't address the fraud claim.

I think it's clear that cutting spending is an objective. I also think it's clear they are and will be looking for fraud, waste and abuse.

Both can be true.(doesn't mean I agree with them)

Correct. If 25% of the employees don't respond to the email then I think that signals an issue beyond employment fraud as it's being discussed here. Less fraud and more potential abuse.

Aren't there entire divisions of the workforce being instructed NOT to respond? Lack of response by itself is circumstantial at best and incomplete for the purposes of decision making.

Well yah, you'd want to remove the populations instructed not to respond...

 

[TripItUp]

Then they should say that and they should also point out that the "fraud" they are finding will likely amount to a rounding error in terms of the total debt and what it costs to service it.

Yeah, I think my biggest criticisms of DOGE are the communication and overall lack of compassion in that communication. Which doesn't surprise me. Elon is self admitted on the spectrum...compassion and "on the spectrum" don't exactly go hand in hand.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I agree the bolded is what is said they are doing, but their actions don't back that up, and often their words don't either. I think it's more about gutting the government and removing people and ideas that they don't agree with, and cloaking with the excuse of cutting spending and looking for fraud and waste.

It's only week 4.

Not sure your point.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Then they should say that and they should also point out that the "fraud" they are finding will likely amount to a rounding error in terms of the total debt and what it costs to service it.

Based on what they've stated, I don't believe they believe it will be a "rounding error". I believe they are targeting 1 trillion in spending cuts...but there are so many tweets I get them confused.

Can't really take them at what they've stated can we? But lets say this is their goal. That trillion in cuts will account for a year's interest on the debt. Today, it's almost $900B in interest a year paid on our debt. If we take them at their word and they've recovered $1B in three weeks. They won't hit $20B by the end of the year.

 

[Max Power]

Alright... now I'm concerned. Our Assistant Chief of Staff just sent out 5x draft bullets they want us to all use should we have to comply with the OPM email.

I understand SES/HQ level does more meet and greets and policy stuff, but holy cow were those bullets underwhelming. My GG-13 bullets for what I actually did last week are much more impactful.
lol at this whole exercise.

 

[TripItUp]

Not sure your point.

Fraud and Abuse in particular take a while to identify.

 

[TripItUp]

Alright... now I'm concerned. Our Assistant Chief of Staff just sent out 5x draft bullets they want us to all use should we have to comply with the OPM email.

I understand SES/HQ level does more meet and greets and policy stuff, but holy cow were those bullets underwhelming. My GG-13 bullets for what I actually did last week are much more impactful.
lol at this whole exercise.

Yeah, that feels like the wrong direction. You could see that being interpreted the wrong way by DOGE.

I would definitely not like that and might actually send both in my email response.(management's bulletpoints and my bulletpoints)

 

[Sparky Polastri]

This is my question too. Its pretty clear that it isn't about fraud. Hiring and firing people doesn't address the fraud claim.

I think it's clear that cutting spending is an objective. I also think it's clear they are and will be looking for fraud, waste and abuse.

Both can be true.(doesn't mean I agree with them)

Correct. If 25% of the employees don't respond to the email then I think that signals an issue beyond employment fraud as it's being discussed here. Less fraud and more potential abuse.

Aren't there entire divisions of the workforce being instructed NOT to respond? Lack of response by itself is circumstantial at best and incomplete for the purposes of decision making.

Well yah, you'd want to remove the populations instructed not to respond...

Want to try something different and ask a question. Do you agree that there can be a multitude of reasons (both legit and nefarious) why they would have X% not to respond?

 

[AAABatteries]

I agree the bolded is what is said they are doing, but their actions don't back that up, and often their words don't either. I think it's more about gutting the government and removing people and ideas that they don't agree with, and cloaking with the excuse of cutting spending and looking for fraud and waste.

It's only week 4.

Oh ****! It can get worse?!?

 

[Max Power]

Alright... now I'm concerned. Our Assistant Chief of Staff just sent out 5x draft bullets they want us to all use should we have to comply with the OPM email.

I understand SES/HQ level does more meet and greets and policy stuff, but holy cow were those bullets underwhelming. My GG-13 bullets for what I actually did last week are much more impactful.
lol at this whole exercise.

Yeah, that feels like the wrong direction. You could see that being interpreted the wrong way by DOGE.

I would definitely not like that and might actually send both in my email response.(management's bulletpoints and my bulletpoints)

Then the chain of command writes you up for insubordination. #winning

 

[TripItUp]

Then the chain of command writes you up for insubordination. #winning

Ugh, really tough spot.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Not sure your point.

Fraud and Abuse in particular take a while to identify.

So you agree you don't accomplish that by hacking x% of a workforce or department. I would also add that it is not accomplished by people with big conflicts of intrest. (Which i personally place under fraud and abuse).

 

[TripItUp]

So you agree you don't accomplish that by hacking x% of a workforce or department. I would also add that it is not accomplished by people with big conflicts of intrest. (Which i personally place under fraud and abuse).

I think you can eliminate some fraud and abuse certainly by cutting headcount, but it's hard to know the details. Fraud and abuse typically takes months to identify and verify not weeks.

"Waste" on the other hand is the word that one could interpret as the justification for many of these cuts as "waste" is obviously open to broad interpretation.(I'm not saying it's a good justification)

 

[SFBayDuck]

How much worker productivity is being lost while our government employee friends are having to deal with all of this nonsense? I'd posit it's likely well north of the "savings" DOGE claims to have gained.

 

[djmich]

This is my question too. Its pretty clear that it isn't about fraud. Hiring and firing people doesn't address the fraud claim.

I think it's clear that cutting spending is an objective. I also think it's clear they are and will be looking for fraud, waste and abuse.

Both can be true.(doesn't mean I agree with them)

Correct. If 25% of the employees don't respond to the email then I think that signals an issue beyond employment fraud as it's being discussed here. Less fraud and more potential abuse.

Aren't there entire divisions of the workforce being instructed NOT to respond? Lack of response by itself is circumstantial at best and incomplete for the purposes of decision making.

Well yah, you'd want to remove the populations instructed not to respond...

Want to try something different and ask a question. Do you agree that there can be a multitude of reasons (both legit and nefarious) why they would have X% not to respond?

Of course. Let me try this. Do you agree that as an employer the lack of response might be concerning in many instances.

 

[djmich]

How much worker productivity is being lost while our government employee friends are having to deal with all of this nonsense? I'd posit it's likely well north of the "savings" DOGE claims to have gained.

If your productivity is hampered by writing five high level bullets on what you did last week...then I think that sort of proves out the use case of the emails.

 

[Desert_Power]

Not sure your point.

Fraud and Abuse in particular take a while to identify.

Not all. Some are clear a lot sooner than 4 weeks.

 

[Stoneworker]

This is my question too. Its pretty clear that it isn't about fraud. Hiring and firing people doesn't address the fraud claim.

I think it's clear that cutting spending is an objective. I also think it's clear they are and will be looking for fraud, waste and abuse.

Both can be true.(doesn't mean I agree with them)

Then they should say that and they should also point out that the "fraud" they are finding will likely amount to a rounding error in terms of the total debt and what it costs to service it.

The IRS hired 1,500 new employees and as of last year had found a grand total of $1B in back taxes unpaid by millionaires.

Do you similarly want the IRS to stop that fraud pursuit because it's a "rounding error?"

 

[AAABatteries]

How much worker productivity is being lost while our government employee friends are having to deal with all of this nonsense? I'd posit it's likely well north of the "savings" DOGE claims to have gained.

If your productivity is hampered by writing five high level bullets on what you did last week...then I think that sort of proves out the use case of the emails.

I think it’s the unnecessary anxiety they are creating. Almost anybody who works for a living can relate to being concerned about losing your job and understands how distracting and demoralizing that can be. Maybe you can’t relate but I absolutely can.

 

[SFBayDuck]

How much worker productivity is being lost while our government employee friends are having to deal with all of this nonsense? I'd posit it's likely well north of the "savings" DOGE claims to have gained.

If your productivity is hampered by writing five high level bullets on what you did last week...then I think that sort of proves out the use case of the emails.

That would be like 20th on the list of what's been happening that would negatively impact worker productivity, but look at all of the reports of comms going around internally on how different groups should (or shouldn't) respond. Think that isn't distracting from the mission? But sure, it's probably not up there with firing and then having to scramble to immediately rehire a bunch of people once they actually realized what those employees did.

 

[scorchy]

Want to try something different and ask a question. Do you agree that there can be a multitude of reasons (both legit and nefarious) why they would have X% not to respond?

Of course. Let me try this. Do you agree that as an employer the lack of response might be concerning in many instances?

OPM is not my employer. They are a government personnel agency. If my actual employer, meaning my Department's leadership (leadership that was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate) asks me to respond, I will - even if I think it's a wrong-headed exercise. If they tell me not to do so, as is the case for many agencies including the FBI and its new head Kash Patel, I won't.

 

[djmich]

How much worker productivity is being lost while our government employee friends are having to deal with all of this nonsense? I'd posit it's likely well north of the "savings" DOGE claims to have gained.

If your productivity is hampered by writing five high level bullets on what you did last week...then I think that sort of proves out the use case of the emails.

I think it’s the unnecessary anxiety they are creating. Almost anybody who works for a living can relate to being concerned about losing your job and understands how distracting and demoralizing that can be. Maybe you can’t relate but I absolutely can.

Of course I can relate...been there myself a number of times, as have many of us based on other responses, under much more difficult circumstances than being asked to reply to an email. It sucks, it happens nearly everywhere, at some point people have to compartmentalize the ask, focus, and respond. Talking about the productivity lost in the context of "its not worth the gains, so don't do it" is what I'm responding to.

 

[djmich]

Want to try something different and ask a question. Do you agree that there can be a multitude of reasons (both legit and nefarious) why they would have X% not to respond?

Of course. Let me try this. Do you agree that as an employer the lack of response might be concerning in many instances?

OPM is not my employer. They are a government personnel agency. If my actual employer, meaning my Department's leadership (leadership that was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate) asks me to respond, I will - even if I think it's a wrong-headed exercise. If they tell me not to do so, as is the case for many agencies including the FBI and its new head Kash Patel, I won't.

You sir get a promotion.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

Just wanted to send thoughts and positive vibes to government workers that understandably have little or no clarity on what to do or what their future holds. While the concept that government is bloated and needs to be trimmed down is reasonable, I think that doing so in a manner that is surgical, fair, transparent, and feels well thought out would certainly be more digestible. I want to make 10000% clear and transparent that my post is not intended to be political—and is solely for showing empathy and sending positive thoughts to those directly involved. We all like to have a certain level of clarity and control over our careers and financial futures—and being in a fog in regards to that really sucks. I speak from recent firsthand experience on this matter. Good luck to all.

 

[Sammy3469]

How much worker productivity is being lost while our government employee friends are having to deal with all of this nonsense? I'd posit it's likely well north of the "savings" DOGE claims to have gained.

If your productivity is hampered by writing five high level bullets on what you did last week...then I think that sort of proves out the use case of the emails.

If my job was riding on how some AI engine is going to interpret what I wrote (because presumably my manager knows what I'm doing and not writing this for them), I sure as hell would be spending a whole heck of a lot of time today writing them in a manner that would both show value and not trigger an AI engine.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

How much worker productivity is being lost while our government employee friends are having to deal with all of this nonsense? I'd posit it's likely well north of the "savings" DOGE claims to have gained.

If your productivity is hampered by writing five high level bullets on what you did last week...then I think that sort of proves out the use case of the emails.

If my job was riding on how some AI engine is going to interpret what I wrote (because presumably my manager knows what I'm doing and not writing this for them), I sure as hell would be spending a whole heck of a lot of time today writing them in a manner that would both show value and not trigger an AI engine.

After reading what power DOGE really has in this case, and the pushback that agency heads - which includes more than one put there by Trump himself - have given, I think my email would honestly (no really, honestly) be:
1. Drove to work
2. Did my morning work
3. Ate lunch
4. Did my afternoon work
5. Drove home from work

I think this is barely one level above jiggling your mouse to confirm to the monitors that you're actually sitting at your WFH desk.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Please let's avoid accusing others of making bad faith arguments. This thread is supposed to be for information and not trying to win a debate.

 

[Capella]

How much worker productivity is being lost while our government employee friends are having to deal with all of this nonsense? I'd posit it's likely well north of the "savings" DOGE claims to have gained.

We had a 45 minute meeting about it this afternoon. Apparently our legal team met about it all morning. We can’t just openly disclose our work. Then it came out we don’t have to respond if we don’t want to. Much efficiency.

 

[beer 30]

How much worker productivity is being lost while our government employee friends are having to deal with all of this nonsense? I'd posit it's likely well north of the "savings" DOGE claims to have gained.

If your productivity is hampered by writing five high level bullets on what you did last week...then I think that sort of proves out the use case of the emails.

If my job was riding on how some AI engine is going to interpret what I wrote (because presumably my manager knows what I'm doing and not writing this for them), I sure as hell would be spending a whole heck of a lot of time today writing them in a manner that would both show value and not trigger an AI engine.

After reading what power DOGE really has in this case, and the pushback that agency heads - which includes more than one put there by Trump himself - have given, I think my email would honestly (no really, honestly) be:
1. Drove to work
2. Did my morning work
3. Ate lunch
4. Did my afternoon work
5. Drove home from work

I think this is barely one level above jiggling your mouse to confirm to the monitors that you're actually sitting at your WFH desk.

I told someone today I don't think this has anything to do with what you do at work. It's an easy exercise to see who responds to the email. No reply? Your name gets moved into a category. And probably not a category that equals long term government employment. Simple way to cull the herd by another 20,000.

Even if you use AI to look at the drivel you're going to get back, who's going to action it?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

How much worker productivity is being lost while our government employee friends are having to deal with all of this nonsense? I'd posit it's likely well north of the "savings" DOGE claims to have gained.

If your productivity is hampered by writing five high level bullets on what you did last week...then I think that sort of proves out the use case of the emails.

If my job was riding on how some AI engine is going to interpret what I wrote (because presumably my manager knows what I'm doing and not writing this for them), I sure as hell would be spending a whole heck of a lot of time today writing them in a manner that would both show value and not trigger an AI engine.

After reading what power DOGE really has in this case, and the pushback that agency heads - which includes more than one put there by Trump himself - have given, I think my email would honestly (no really, honestly) be:
1. Drove to work
2. Did my morning work
3. Ate lunch
4. Did my afternoon work
5. Drove home from work

I think this is barely one level above jiggling your mouse to confirm to the monitors that you're actually sitting at your WFH desk.

I told someone today I don't think this has anything to do with what you do at work. It's an easy exercise to see who responds to the email. No reply? Your name gets moved into a category. And probably not a category that equals long term government employment. Simple way to cull the herd by another 20,000.

Even if you use AI to look at the drivel you're going to get back, who's going to action it?

That's what I was trying to say earlier - but apparently not doing a very good job of it.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

This is my question too. Its pretty clear that it isn't about fraud. Hiring and firing people doesn't address the fraud claim.

I think it's clear that cutting spending is an objective. I also think it's clear they are and will be looking for fraud, waste and abuse.

Both can be true.(doesn't mean I agree with them)

Correct. If 25% of the employees don't respond to the email then I think that signals an issue beyond employment fraud as it's being discussed here. Less fraud and more potential abuse.

Aren't there entire divisions of the workforce being instructed NOT to respond? Lack of response by itself is circumstantial at best and incomplete for the purposes of decision making.

Well yah, you'd want to remove the populations instructed not to respond...

Want to try something different and ask a question. Do you agree that there can be a multitude of reasons (both legit and nefarious) why they would have X% not to respond?

Of course. Let me try this. Do you agree that as an employer the lack of response might be concerning in many instances.

Ok, so if there are a bunch of different reasons this could be (both legit and nefarious) why immediately jump to "fraud"?

And to answer your question, yes, lack of response MIGHT be concerning. It depends on many things and would require more research/investigation as to why there were no answers. As a result, I'd NEVER immediately tie no response to anything good or bad. There'd have to be more.

 

[Harry Manback]

Not sure your point.

Fraud and Abuse in particular take a while to identify.

It's amusing you think that's what is happening.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

This is my question too. Its pretty clear that it isn't about fraud. Hiring and firing people doesn't address the fraud claim.

I think it's clear that cutting spending is an objective. I also think it's clear they are and will be looking for fraud, waste and abuse.

Both can be true.(doesn't mean I agree with them)

Then they should say that and they should also point out that the "fraud" they are finding will likely amount to a rounding error in terms of the total debt and what it costs to service it.

The IRS hired 1,500 new employees and as of last year had found a grand total of $1B in back taxes unpaid by millionaires.

Do you similarly want the IRS to stop that fraud pursuit because it's a "rounding error?"

I didn't ever say that the answer was to stop the pursuit of fraud. I am simply pointing out what kinds of "savings" they will be finding in the grand scheme of things and trying to understand why people think that savings is worth all the ******** these poor employees are going through. If we are to believe them, the "savings" of this effort would be right around the same amount of money we could save if we stopped subsidizing Space X.

You bring up a good illustration of the ROI we need to be looking for. 1500 employees at say $125K is $187M. Spend $187M to find a claw back a billion? Yes please....sign me up every day and twice on Sunday. We need to dump as much into that kind of ROI as possible. Hire another 1500. And I just made up the salary. I have no idea what IRS agents make.

 

[Dezbelief]

Ghost employees drawing paychecks, I saw that on the Sopranos.

 

[Harry Manback]

What is the government employee annual golf budget? Around $100m?

 

[Ministry of Pain]

You could make an argument that this is a coincidence of sorts. I don't want to discuss it politically here, but the reputation of the parties is certainly small govt conservatism vs big government spending - so of course if you're just tracking waste, you'd look at all the stuff you think is wasteful first, which would likely be anything that extends beyond the "small govt" ideology.

I think it would be difficult to untangle the two because, for example, one persons idea of waste could be "not achieving the agency's mission in the most efficient possible manner" while another could be "anything in support of a mission that in itself is wasteful".

The FFA probably isn't the place for debating what is or isn't a wasteful mission, but I don't think it's remotely ground breaking, surprising, or sinister that things might line up that way quickly in execution of a huge waste reduction initiative.

Thank you.

I agree with you this doesn't seem groundbreaking it would line up this way.

And please, let's drop it there and keep this to the topic of non partisan information and helping people affected by this navigate. The "what is wasteful spending" or "look at how dumb these people are" stuff is political forum talk.

Please let's keep this thread alive if possible and avoid taking it there.

I'm glad you popped in here because I want to ask a couple tough questions and you are the guy to set the narrative or keep us on track

-#1 I've seen it with people from ALL walks of life on the TV, ALL Networks...with these potential mass layoffs, many of us have family members that we do not associate with a particular political party. They are just regular people like the rest of us. And some of these people are being shown the door or walked out or asked to voluntarily resign.

How do you accept that innocent folks are having their entire lives turned upside down?
It feels very unsettling, my brother has worked for Veterans Affairs for years and I'm afraid that time is coming to an end. He is in IT-CyberSecurity so I have no doubt he will land on his feet but that choice should not have been forced on him IMHO. He sacrifices a lot of potential paycheck by working as a government employee and part of that his dedication to other Veterans that have put their lives on the line so we can all enjoy the freedoms of this country. My brother was a Navy Corpsman

#2 Is it natural to support some of these cuts in government while at the same time also feeling disturbed by some of the folks that are being forced out of their careers?

I believe that is as far as I can really take it. I just want others out there going thru this either themselves or family members, you're not alone.
I am concerned many of these folks are likely living paycheck to paycheck, people with families/children could lose their homes as this unfolds.

Thanks JB

It’s interesting to watch how this is being viewed when this happens in the private sector every day. It’s accepted because, “Capitalism”, but we expect more from government. And maybe that is the discussion - should government be run like a for-profit organization? I suppose you can then have a discussion around the morality of Capitalism.

I can only speak for myself but I have a huge problem with how many companies have almost no loyalty to their employees. If that’s a byproduct of capitalism then I’m fine with saying capitalism can **** right off. Greed is ruining our country and the world in general - although, same as day 1.

What do you mean by loyalty? The job position should be maintained just because someone needs it even if the company doesn't?

I've been downsized/outsourced in 4 of the last 5 full time jobs I've had (I left the 5th because it sucked) so I have some experience at having the rug pulled out. But that's just how it goes when you're an employee IMO.

One of those posts back and forth where I like both what AAA said and AD, is that so wrong?
I like the way both of you land the plane, both opinions and summaries are valid

 

[BassNBrew]

How much worker productivity is being lost while our government employee friends are having to deal with all of this nonsense? I'd posit it's likely well north of the "savings" DOGE claims to have gained.

If your productivity is hampered by writing five high level bullets on what you did last week...then I think that sort of proves out the use case of the emails.

If my job was riding on how some AI engine is going to interpret what I wrote (because presumably my manager knows what I'm doing and not writing this for them), I sure as hell would be spending a whole heck of a lot of time today writing them in a manner that would both show value and not trigger an AI engine.

After reading what power DOGE really has in this case, and the pushback that agency heads - which includes more than one put there by Trump himself - have given, I think my email would honestly (no really, honestly) be:
1. Drove my Tesla to work
2. Did my morning work
3. Ate lunch and added to my Tesla stock, compared Cybertruck models, and gathered pay stubs to be approved for a Tesla loan for a Cybertruck
4. Did my afternoon work
5. Drove home from work in my Tesla

I think this is barely one level above jiggling your mouse to confirm to the monitors that you're actually sitting at your WFH desk.

Improved response

1. Drove my Tesla to work
2. Did my morning work
3. Ate lunch and added to my Tesla stock, compared Cybertruck models, and gathered pay stubs to be approved for a Tesla loan for a Cybertruck
4. Did my afternoon work
5. Drove home from work in my Tesla

 

[ChiefD]

I like the way both of you land the plane

I'm stealing this for my shtick repertoire.