According to one laid off federal employee,

[surfered]

This was not a layoff. These employees were all given the same reason in their termination letters: “poor performance “ even though they had good evaluations from their supervisors.

Due to the “poor performance “ reason, they may not be able to collect unemployment and finding another job will be made more difficult.

Once again, this was not surgical or targeted for efficiency as evidenced by mistakenly firing nuclear weapons workers and bird flu scientists and then having to turn around and rehire them. It’s just an across the board reduction in force, disguised as performance based.

Just like their claims of fraud evidence, I’m betting they have no documentation supporting their poor performance claim.

Lawyers for these laid off should have a field day and the resulting settlements will greatly reduce their inflated claims of government savings. Meanwhile, services and protections we have taken for granted will be greatly diminished, if not eliminated. Imagine your worst local Department of Motor Vehicles experience and extrapolate that to the entire federal government.

[Walleye]

1. Well, they couldn't find any fraud so they had to perpetrate some on us

[Joinfortmill]

7. This!

[EndlessWire]

8. They have simply cloaked the whole operation

in the guise of "fraud and corruption" when that applies to themselves. "Poor performance" will apply to anyone who is simply being cast aside.

[Walleye]

9. They just make a general accusation after spending a generation getting people to hate the government

They never come up with any specific examples of fraud, waste, or abuse.

[JHB]

39. Well, not any factual ones, but they have their made-up "examples" that the MAGAts will eat up

"Alternative facts," known to most people as "complete horseshit."

[Beartracks]

26. As per usual, Republicans are the fraud they claim to seek. n/t

[Cha]

57. So they not only Fired them.. they Cruelly tried to make sure

No one else would.

I hope they have their Good Performance Papers from their Supervisors.

[KPN]

62. If they are on probationary status, they may not have any performanve evaluation

on record. In my career with DOI, performance evaluations and ratings were given annually. There mid- year reviews - but they focused on progress toward achieving performance goals and objectives and the need for adjustment — in the goals and objectives or workload, not performance rating. Probationary period is 1 year.

[Random Boomer]

67. Probationary status does not mean they were new employees

Many of those "probationary" employees were simply in the probation period of a promotion. In other words, they were good enough in their jobs to merit a promotion, so the firings were of some of the best employees in those departments. Which isn't a mistake, per se, since Musk's goal is to cripple the departments, and what better way to do that than remove experience staff.

[Lovie777]

2. Lawsuit - class action ....

[OldBaldy1701E]

14. Well...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220047352#:~:text=So%2C%20Trump%20has%20just%20told%20a...

[modrepub]

23. Add unemployment compensation loss

To the cost of this crap.

Wonder if M$M will report how much all this costs compared to how much was “saved”?

[Cirsium]

24. Won't work

The administration will defy any court ruling. We just watched Trump being dragged into court for 8 years and that helped rather than hurt him. While we file lawsuits, they are consolidating power and dismantling the government.

[DENVERPOPS]

37. Just wait until

Trump, the Republican Senate and Republican House find a way to outlaw "Class Action Lawsuits" I am sure that the Republican's "Wholly Owned Subsidiary", AKA the USSC. will hand them a win on that one......

That will make it impossible for groups to gang together to make it worthwhile for a lawyer to take the case......The Republicans have attempted to get rid of Class Action Lawsuits several times in recent history, but failed. Now it seems inevitable...............

No single party (person) will ever take on a giant corporation by themselves........

They also will CONTINUE to focus on appointing large numbers of Appellate Judges across the nation. (as they have been focused on doing for the past many years.) If a lower court gives a guilty verdict.......the minute it hits one of these Republican appointed appellate judges, it is thrown out....

This would be a tremendously profitable, double win for corporations.......Not only do they NOT have to worry about possible huge payouts for settlements, but they can also cut the number of corporate lawyers they have to keep around and pay......

[Cirsium]

42. "Tort reform"

Republicans have long pushed "tort reform" to protect corporations from consumers seeking damages. Their propaganda campaign has been so successful that I wouod bet there are a bunch of Democrats who think it is a good idea.

Republicans love the justice system when it goes after workers, those in minority populations and poor people. Not so much when it goes after the wealthy and powerful.

In the United States (‘US’), for three decades, advocates on behalf of business and professional interests have been claiming that American tort law is out of control, imposing unjustified costs on defendants amounting to billions and billions of dollars annually. American juries, which decide most torts cases, have been attacked as either wholly unpredictable or else predictably pro-plaintiff in their verdicts, as incapable of fairly resolving complex and often technically difficult issues presented to them, and as all too willing to award enormous sums to victims for ‘pain and suffering’ and ‘punitive damages.’

...

Lawyers representing plaintiffs offer counterarguments to all these assertions. They strongly defend the jury as a vital American institution, viewing jury-based US tort law as a crucial form of consumer protection against the callous exercise of economic might by business interests who put profit ahead of safety. Large jury verdicts are said to properly reflect an easily affordable award of well-deserved compensation to people who have suffered terrible injuries. Victim advocates point out that the imposition of punitive damages is actually rather uncommon, and argue that, even if the instances in which they are awarded are a bit unpredictable, in a world in which not all egregious forms of misconduct can be identified and punished, unpredictability actually helps to keep management on its toes.

...

Defence interests have mounted a multi-pronged effort, seeking both to make tort law generally more favorable to their side and to restrict the ability of juries to make blockbuster awards in individual cases. One strategy has been to try to influence judicially-determined common law developments. Because elected Governors in most States play key roles in appointing judges, especially to the State appellate courts, political pressure has mounted on Republican Governors to appoint judges who are pro-defendant. In the media, well-funded pro-business campaigns have widely publicised complaints about tort law. Although causal connections are difficult to establish, the upshot has been that, starting in the 1990s, many State courts have become less pro-plaintiff in their decisions. Moreover, lawyers for victims argue that pro-business efforts have also influenced jury attitudes, claiming that their clients now often receive lower tort damage awards than they would have won in the past for the same injuries.

A second strategy has been to carry the tort reform campaign to State legislatures, with the result that lawmakers are increasingly intruding in a pro-defence way on what traditionally has been an almost entirely judicially-created common law system. Along side broad-based pro-business groups, other defendant special interests have also pushed their own narrowly tailored agendas for tort relief. Physicians are the most important example, but by no means the only one. The alcohol, tobacco, and gun industries have also pushed narrow tort reform laws, as have municipal governments and privately owned public utilities.

https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/United_States_Tort_Reform_Wars_A.TORTS.pdf

[DENVERPOPS]

58. Hey Circium

thank you for that reply, I found it most interesting..............

There was a movie where John Travolta? played an attorney, taking on a huge mega corporation, and losing everything and personally being destroyed........It really sticks with you.
Probably a lot more realistic than Erin Brokovich??????

I can't think of the title, but you can go up to IMDB web site and check on John Travolta's movie history......If you don't know about IMDB, you should. it is beyond incredible for any actors or movies ever done.......

Think about watching it, like I said, it really sticks with you.......

[Cirsium]

59. Thanks

I'll check it out. I saw a pretty good film once with John Cusack and Gene Hackman about a young couple who went after a gun manufacturer in court.

[DENVERPOPS]

60. this was taking on a corporation

that caused a major environmental pollution haz mat site like love canal.................

[Hekate]

27. That's really their only hope. Individual lawsuits are very expensive for ordinary folks ...

…already in dire circumstances.

[Wiz Imp]

40. Yep. The Federal Government has broad discretion to layoff employees.

However, there are still very specific rules they must follow. If they don't follow those rules, then they are very much open to a class action suit. "Firing" employees is more difficult. Firing employees for "poor performance" who can prove they had all outstanding Performance evaluations would almost certainly be considered illegal.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12908
In the federal government, layoffs are referred to as reduction in force (RIF) actions

Retention Registers
After establishing competitive levels, the agency establishes
a retention register for each competitive level. The
retention register is the ranking of each employee subject to
RIF within a competitive level after the agency applies four
retention factors required by law (5 U.S.C. §3502):
1. Tenure of employment,
2. Military preference (also referred to as
veterans’ preference),
3. Length of service, and
4. Efficiency or performance ratings.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/are-trumps-mass-firings-federal-workers-legal-2025-02-13/#:~:text=As%20president%2C%20Trump%20has%20broad,they%20are%20let%20go%20arbitrarily.
Explainer: Are Trump's mass firings of federal workers legal?

HOW MUCH POWER DOES TRUMP HAVE TO FIRE OR LAY OFF WORKERS?
As president, Trump has broad authority to shrink the federal workforce, but slashing headcount may not be straightforward.

Most civil service employees can be fired legally only for bad performance or misconduct, and they have a host of due process and appeal rights if they are let go arbitrarily. Probationary employees - typically those with less than a year of service - have fewer legal protections.

Federal agencies can trim headcount through so-called reductions in force, but that can be a complicated process governed by rules and regulations dictating the scope and order of firings. The process can take months to a year or longer, and employees must be given notice and in some cases the opportunity to take a different government job.

Federal employees can appeal firings to the Merit Systems Protection Board, an independent agency that enforces laws protecting civil service workers from political retaliation and other prohibited employment practices.

[kelly1mm]

3. They can (and should) still file for UE. The .gov can chose to challenge the application for UE based on the firing

being 'for cause'. The employee can then appeal and it will be heard by a state administrative law judge. The .gov will have the burden of proof (at least in MD) by a preponderance of the evidence that the firing was for cause. If the state administrative law judge awards UE benefits they will be paid from the state UE compensation fund, not directly from the feds so not subject to DOGE freeze.

Longer term this may be a problem if the feds just stop paying UE fees/taxes to the states ......

[rzemanfl]

29. The STATES should stop paying taxes to this fascist government. n/t

[kelly1mm]

34. The states, except in the limited capacity of employers of state employees do not 'pay' taxes the the feds. Payments

of income/FICA tax withholdings are paid by employers directly to the feds. Sacramento or Albany have no way to intercept those payments.

Further, any attempt to do so would be enjoined within minutes by the federal courts due to the Supremacy Clause.

[rzemanfl]

36. The fascists pay no attention to the Constitution or the Courts.

Playing by the rules is not working out well.

[kelly1mm]

50. So explain to me how say, California would intercept payments going from it's residents employers to the feds

on their employee's behalf?

Are you promoting a state actively ignoring a federal court ruling? You do at least acknowledge this 'plan' would be in direct violation of the Supremacy Clause, right? Seems a little 1950's Alabama like to me but if you are willing to go down that road .......

[rzemanfl]

56. We have scofflaws in the Executive Branch or

just proclaiming themselves part of it. If a state enacted a law prohibiting sending withholding from in wages earned in the state out of that state, it would prove interesting, to say the least. Kind of the reverse of saying a resident of the state could not leave it for medical care. Didn't TSF tell a court yesterday or today the administration would ignore its rulings. I don't see an end to this shitshow happening easily and quietly.

[Wiz Imp]

4. I'm finding no evidence of any state denying unemployment benefits to someone who was terminated

due to poor performance. For those people claiming this is being done so they can't collect unemployment, I'd like to see some proof of benefits being denied because the termination was stated as due to poor performance.

[surfered]

15. The fired federal employee on CNN had not filed for unemployment yet, but she thought it would make it more difficult.

In my red state, people fired for cause (poor performance) have been denied state unemployment insurance

[Wiz Imp]

18. What state is that? I'm not doubting you but I've looked thoroughly online across almost all

states and have not found a single one who can legally deny unemployment for poor performance. It can be denied for misconduct. Misconduct exists only when an employee’s work behavior shows a willful and substantial disregard of the employer’s interests and expected standards of behavior. The state generally defines misconduct as deliberate and/or willful acts by the employee that violate local, state or federal laws, or acts that could cause injury to another person, or violate a company’s policy after prior warnings that place the employee’s job in jeopardy. The mere inability to do the job on a consistent basis will not be considered misconduct, even if warned that continued substandard performance will result in discharge.

[surfered]

19. Texas and I was a witness at the hearing

[surfered]

20. Due to the cost of attorney, etc the employee did not appeal

[Wiz Imp]

25. Interesting. According to their website, you should be eligible for benefits unless you're fired for misconduct.

https://www.twc.texas.gov/programs/unemployment-benefits/eligibility-benefit-amounts#:~:text=You%20may%20be%20eligible%20for%20benefits%20if%20you%20were%20fired,are%20capable%20of%20doing%20so.

Fired
If the employer ended your employment but you were not laid off as defined above, then you were fired. If the employer demanded your resignation, you were fired.

You may be eligible for benefits if you were fired for reasons other than misconduct. Examples of misconduct that could make you ineligible include violation of company policy, violation of law, neglect or mismanagement of your position, or failure to perform your work adequately if you are capable of doing so.

[surfered]

35. Yes, I already read that. The case I witnessed was 20 years ago.

Maybe those rules were written subsequently. Maybe the employee would have prevailed on appeal, but did not choose that route for the reason explained.

It’s intimidating for many to represent themselves, not knowing the procedure or laws. Hired counsel is expensive relative to the benefit they would get.

Maybe that’s what DOGE is counting on. Intimidation is what this Administration excels at.

I would still advise the employees to file or band together to share the cost of counsel.

[Wiz Imp]

41. I'm absolutely sure Trump & Musk are counting on most workers not to fight back

Intimidation is what this Administration excels at.

You got that right!

I would still advise the employees to file or band together to share the cost of counsel.

I agree. I'm guessing there are quite a few lawyers or law firms out there willing to take on these cases in a class action or something similar.

[surfered]

46. I hope so as we are going to lose a lot of valuable knowledge

I’m not opposed to efficiency but I really don’t believe that was really the goal here. I’m sure buried in the damage is a rule, regulation, investigation that someone didn’t want or a disadvantage to a competitor or an opportunity that someone did want. Judges all their actions, these are dishonest, untrustworthy people

[nilram]

44. What do you think "failure to perform your work adequately if you are capable of doing so"

means that "poor performance" doesn't mean?

But absolutely these federal workers should still file, but they may have a few extra hoops to jump through.

[enigmania]

55. I was sneered at,

then denied unemployment in South Carolina once. The office was packed with smirking rednecks, gleefully screwing people.

[Backseat Driver]

49. Ohio is written like that too.

[meadowlander]

5. I'm willing to bet it will come out in the many, many wrongful termination lawsuits this will spawn

that Elon's little DOGE bros who have never held a real job and/or the AI they used to generate the letter don't know the difference between a probationary period for new employees or employees in a new role and a performance plan for employees with poor performance. They were trying to fire who they thought were the "problem" employees and ended up indiscriminately firing everyone in a new role.

If I'm wrong, it will only be because it comes out earlier than the lawsuits.

[Johnny2X2X]

17. They are using AI

Basically just giving AI some loose criteria to come up with a list. This is both unethical and illegal.

And this is Elmo we're talking about here, do not be surprised if it's found out he ws using race as a criteria on who to fire. He's a white supremacist.

[spooky3]

48. There may be some "disparate impact" cases too.

Since newer workers and those hired to work in “DEI” functions MAY be disproportionately people of color or women, this could be a “facially neutral” severance that has greater negative impact on women and minorities than on white men, and it would be VERY hard imho to demonstrate “business necessity.”

I’m not a lawyer.

[4catsmom]

6. they won't get severance either

Trump doesn't pay what he owes

[Wiz Imp]

22. Severance Pay Eligibility in Federal Government Positions

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-administration/fact-sheets/severance-pay/

[newdeal2]

10. Zuck just did this at Meta

Labeled everyone who was cut as a low performer. Many are complaining that it’s not true and are suing.

[wiggs]

52. No. Not the same as what TSF/M are doing. They are purging fed gov like they purged the gop. It's not for

efficiency, it's not for low performance, it's not for saving money. It's for installing loyalists. Simple.

[malaise]

11. Effin evil

Rec

[70sEraVet]

12. I dont know how it works with Federal government jobs.....

But my experience in the working world has been, if you get REhired, you start as a new-hire -- you loose your seniority (back to one week vacation per year, etc). And perhaps you face a pay cut.
Anyone know how it works for these workers?

[surfered]

16. Federal Civil Service has a process of mitigation by the employee of the reason for poor performance

and/or transfer to another employee.

This process is being ignored and it appears DOGE has targeted probationary employees (new hires) who have less civil service protections than longer term employees.

[Wiz Imp]

31. If they were rehired into the same position shortly after being let go...

https://www.opm.gov/job-seekers/reinstatement
I'm pretty sure, they would return at the same pay level and seniority level, etc. as when they left.

There was actually a new rule set by OPM recently allowing the Fed Government to rehire you at a higher rate of pay. I'm sure that doesn't really apply here.

https://www.fedmanager.com/news/opm-releases-new-rule-former-feds-can-be-re-hired-at-a-higher-pay-scale

OPM Releases New Rule: Former Feds Can Be Re-hired at a Higher Pay Scale

A final rule released by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on June 8, 2021 would make it easier for federal agencies to bring back former employees at a higher pay scale. Prior to the release of this rule, agencies could bring back ex-employees, but at the same pay grade they were receiving before they left federal service.

OPM recognizes the tendency of younger workers to move more freely than previous generations from one job to another. Additionally, the skills these workers can gain from other jobs in the private sector or academia could be useful when they return to work for government.

OPM wrote in the final rule, “Facilitating the return to Government of people who have broadened their work experience in this way advances the civil service’s goal of an effective and efficient government. Apart from providing the agency with additional choices in making selections for current vacancies, it enables agencies to build a workforce of individuals who bring a variety of knowledge, training and experiences to their work.”

Former federal workers who spent three years or less in federal service have a three-year window to return to their jobs. Those who worked for the government longer than three years have no limitations on when they can be rehired. In order to be considered, former federal workers must have been given a fully successful performance rating in their final year of service before leaving government.

https://www.opm.gov/job-seekers/reinstatement

[mwmisses4289]

13. Remember, this is all about the money.

These folks see the federal government as their private piggy bank. Any money going to employees, service members, ss recipients, etc., is money not going into their pockets.

[JoseBalow]

33. This is absolutely the point of it all

It's not complicated, they want the money for themselves.

[wiggs]

53. this isn't about saving money that will then be skimmed...although they will certainly get a taste somewhere. It's

about wholesale replacement of gov employees with loyal soldiers. Expertise and efficiency don't mater, loyalty does. they have much bigger plans than merely pocketing the savings from cutting jobs.

The GOP was purged of moderates and country-first patriots....TSF and Musk are doing the same with fed govt.

[Dem4life1234]

64. Exactly, they are thieves

[cksmithy]

21. My husband was a California State employee, and a supervisor

for over 20 years. If he ever gave an employee a poor performance evaluation, the last sentence informed the employee who to contact to appeal their performance evaluation. Husband then would be required to supply information, etc, for his evaluation to manager. Permanent employees get a hearing, while probationary employees get nothing. For an employee to be laid off for poor performance, It just didn't happen. They would get put on an improvement program, training, etc. You could be fired if you were on probation. He never had to fire anyone, but he gave more than one poor performance evaluation, that always included what the employee needed to do to improve and keep their job.

Federal employees are civil servants and should have the same rights even if they are not union, because they are working for the federal government. Hope they all have the ability to file suits. I know all rules are off and they are not playing fair.

[Klarkashton]

32. This poor performance shit never works.

It always goes in favor of the employee.
The only way a person loses unemployment benefits is if they actually quit the job.

The trump administration is going to be fucked.

[cksmithy]

51. I hope so.

[spanone]

28. The cruelty is on purpose.

[William Seger]

30. I hope they can sue Musk personally, or whoever claimed the authority to fire them

I don't want taxpayers paying for his fuck-ups!

[lame54]

38. Class action suit

[Cirsium]

43. Class action

We need take action as a class, that's for certain.

[BComplex]

45. What a f***ing asshole!!!

Due to the “poor performance “ reason, they may not be able to collect unemployment and finding another job will be made more difficult.

There is NO excuse for this. It is sheer cruelty for cruelty's sake.

[Dem4life1234]

65. They make my blood boil so much

What pisses me if, all of this could have been avoided had the justice system thrown his ass in prison.

[BComplex]

66. Or if Mitch McConnell hadn't whipped the republicans into voting NOT to remove him from office after TWO impeachments.

And then helped trump install THREE supreme court (in)justices!!!!

So much of this mess lands directly on mitch mcconnell.

[Emile]

47. Fascists are not happy unless they're screwing

someone over.

[RhapsodyFav]

54. The point is fear

Plain and simple. Making people worry about how they are going to pay bills, eat and have ANY healthcare, or even losing their house. If people are absolutly scared they want them to accept the horrible money grabs and loss of rights.

[DET]

61. Correct me if I'm wrong, but...

I believe I read that Musk made Government managers identify a certain (very high) percentage of their employees as ‘poor performers’ to be fired, presumably so that Musk can then try to justify the terminations when he is sued. He probably then fired the managers.

Federal Government employees have always had exceptionally good protection against termination. As a Government contractor, I worked around a couple of Government employees who literally did not show up to work for weeks. But their managers knew that it would take huge amounts of time and tons of documentation to get rid of them, so they did nothing. I’m not saying that’s the norm, but it used to be pretty easy to get away with a lot as a Government worker.

On the other hand, one private company I worked for fired an entire department unexpectedly on a Friday afternoon. And if a contract is abruptly terminated, the staff are usually let go of immediately. You learn to expect the unexpected as a Government contractor. But most Government workers have never seen that. The mass firings must have shaken them to the core, especially given the incredibly cruel way in which they were conducted. They’re probably going to need psychological help - when they can afford it. Of course, we’re all going to need psychological help after this debacle.

[Dem4life1234]

63. This is what happens when people elect a criminal as a leader

Expect criminal activities.

I pray all of these people get their jobs back and justice is served.

[Happy Hoosier]

68. A Claim of "poor performance" is a positive claim....

Which means it can be litigated. The goverment would have to prove "poor performance," and I bet they can't.

This actually happened to a guy I know. He and his boss did NOT get along. He was terminated for "poor performance," and the boss even fabricated some evidence (mitigation plans, etc) that were not signed and never seen by the employee (at least, not that could be proven).

He sued. Got back pay, legal costs, AND the boss was demoted. This was in the early 2K's.