as my wife pointed out earlier today, they weren't fired. she said the best term she could come up with at that exact moment was something like furloughed. They're getting paid for months without having to show up and clock in.
that is not fired.
thank you for proving my point though. Probationary employees won't have their employment renewed, and everyone else you're calling "fired" was furloughed. Since she's a government employee, i tend to listen to her, rather than some other government mouthpiece over in Britain.
Your wife seems to be confused and is probably lumping together the previous round of voluntary deferred resignations with the more recent round of firings and layoffs.
The exact word used by both the USDA spokesperson and NNSA email was "termination" with the latter specifically saying "effective today"[1]. These are the words directly from the people whose job it is to communicate on behalf of this administration.
This matches the pattern of what has been happening to other federal workers who have generally had their termination letters cite "performance", regardless of their past reviews, as the reason for the termination[2], presumably so they can be let go without any notice or severance pay.
the first article you linked uses the phrases "terminated, fired, laid off, mass firings, termination notifications, ending contracts"
Do you see how you're not actually getting any information from that?
the second article isn't any better "fired", "laid off", "sent letters that were lying", “The U.S. Department of Transportation finds, that based on your performance you have not demonstrated that your further employment at the Department of Transportation would be in the public interest,” the letter to fired staffers read. “For this reason, the Department of Transportation is removing you from your position with the Department of Transportation and the federal civil service effective today.”
That letter was to probationary employees. maybe. I've never seen a nat-pop in a news article like that before. It is in reference to something near the top, maybe?
What you're reading and linking to me is fuel. It isn't useful information.
people who get fired for being poor at their jobs - do they usually own up to it? or do they squawk about how unfair everything is. "i'm not poor at my job and my supervisor said so" yeah does your supervisor still work there or? There's poor management; just like employees, C levels, and politicians.
>Do you see how you're not actually getting any information from that?
I don't know what to tell you. There is information in these articles and you don't even need to trust the journalists who are reporting them. All these articles have included quotes directly from the relevant government officials and emails.
Here is another article[1] with a direct quote from the following:
-White House deputy press secretary saying "Any key positions that were eliminated are being identified and reinstated rapidly"
-Trump's Secretary of Energy saying "When we made mistakes on layoffs at NNSA, we reversed them immediately, less than 24 hours."
- Even Elon Musk saying "We are moving fast, so we will make mistakes, but we'll also fix the mistakes very quickly."
And yet you are still refusing to admit what the people directly involved are telling you is true? You still think I'm just being misled by bad journalism?
so the secretary called them "layoffs"? Alright, so they weren't fired? Thanks again. I said they weren't fired. The comment you replied to originally was about the threat of auditing agencies is kicking up a lot of ruckus.
It is fine if you think these layoffs, firings, or whatever are not necessary, even if the only reason you think that is msm reporting and a dislike of elon and donald. I don't really care.
The journalists you assure me are doing just fine used 5 different words that have different meanings to convey that the people were no longer "employed".
If you can get real information from that, great. I'd argue that you don't, since i've spent 3 comments arguing that.
that is not fired.
thank you for proving my point though. Probationary employees won't have their employment renewed, and everyone else you're calling "fired" was furloughed. Since she's a government employee, i tend to listen to her, rather than some other government mouthpiece over in Britain.