OPM Says Federal Unions Are Misinforming Workers About Voluntary Resignation Contracts

Diogenes

Diogenes

Nemo me impune lacessit
ItyHduNY



​


Federal employees considering the buy-out offer initiated by President Donald Trump shortly after his inauguration should ignore “misinformation” from government worker unions, according to a U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) spokesman.

“Union leaders and politicians telling federal workers to reject this offer are doing them a serious disservice,” OPM’s Director of Communications McLaurine Pinover told The Epoch Times. “This is a rare, generous opportunity; one that was thoroughly vetted and intentionally designed to support employees through restructuring.”

“Instead of spreading misinformation and using workers as political pawns, they should be making sure federal employees have the facts and freedom to make the best decision for themselves and their families,” Pinover added.

The buyout offer allows federal workers who accept it to receive full pay and benefits coverage for eight months, exempts them from newly issued orders to return to work at their official duty stations on a daily basis, and protects them against Reductions-in-Force (RIF) processes that are expected to begin in the near future in many federal departments and agencies.

There are 2.3 million civilian federal workers, the vast majority of whom are careerists who receive above-average pay and benefits as well as a host of legal job protections overseen by OPM and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).

The average federal employee salary, according to OPM data, is $106,382. The median average household income for all Americans is $75,149, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

The buyout offer must be accepted by Feb. 6 and OPM officials today circulated a “template contract” to all agencies and departments that will be the basis for the voluntary resignations under the “Deferred Resignation Program (DRP).”

The OPM comments came in response to multiple statements from the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and Democrats in Congress saying that the buyout offer was not legal and President Donald Trump lacks the legal authority to make such a proposal.



OPM Says Federal Unions Are Misinforming Workers About Voluntary Resignation Contracts | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com www.zerohedge.com
 
Several past administrations have offered buyouts, known officially as Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments (VSIP), to federal employees as a means to downsize or restructure government agencies.

Here are some notable examples:
  • Clinton Administration: During the Clinton administration in the 1990s, there were significant downsizing efforts, and buyouts were used extensively. The Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994 provided authority for agencies to offer buyouts during downsizing, which aimed at reducing the size of the federal government.
  • George W. Bush Administration: In 2005, following the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the integration of multiple agencies into DHS, buyouts were offered to manage workforce transitions and reduce redundancy. Also, in response to budget constraints and other restructuring efforts, buyouts were used in various departments.
  • Obama Administration: Buyouts were offered in various instances, particularly as a tool for managing budget cuts or reorganizations. For example, after the 2011 Budget Control Act, which led to sequestration and forced spending cuts, agencies like the Department of Defense announced buyout offers to reduce workforce size.
  • Trump Administration (First Term): Although not as widespread as in some previous administrations, there were buyout offers during Trump's first term, particularly in departments like the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to meet workforce reduction goals.
These buyout programs generally involve offering a lump sum payment (up to $25,000) to employees who voluntarily resign or retire, thereby helping agencies to avoid more costly or disruptive measures like reductions in force (RIFs). Each administration's use of buyouts was tailored to specific agency needs, budget constraints, or policy goals, and the specifics of eligibility and implementation varied.

@Grok
 
This from the Clinton administration when he did the same thing.

“The Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994 provided the legal basis for the federal buyout program. It allowed federal agencies to offer buyouts to reduce the workforce without needing additional congressional approval for each instance, as long as they adhered to the act's budgetary and procedural guidelines.


@Grok
 
Diogenes said:
Did any JPP lefties grouse when Clinton or Obama offered buyouts?
Click to expand...
Trump wants to save the government money = BAD!
The national debt is 37 trillion dollars = GOOD!
Un-elected person is giving Trump advice = BAD!
Un-elected persons ran the Government for brain dead Biden = GOOD!

I hope that was helpful.
 
Of course, unions are misleading workers. What's new about that? Unions want dues paying members and for those members to pay dues until they die if possible. Everything else is secondary to that.
 
Blowjob Bill Clinton implemented one of the largest buyout programs in the 1990s.

Federal workforce reduction has been a recurring theme in U.S. government policy, often driven by the goals of reducing government size, cutting costs, or restructuring federal agencies. Here's an overview based on historical and current efforts:
Historical Context:
  • Reagan Administration (1980s): Ronald Reagan aimed to reduce the size of government significantly. His administration used buyouts and other methods to shrink the federal workforce.
  • Clinton Administration (1990s): Bill Clinton's "Reinventing Government" initiative included one of the largest buyout programs, offering buyouts to over 100,000 federal employees as part of an effort to streamline government operations.
  • Post-9/11: There was initially a growth in the federal workforce due to security enhancements, but subsequent administrations looked for efficiencies, although the growth in certain sectors like homeland security persisted.
Methods for Reduction:
  • Voluntary Early Retirement (VERA) and Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments (VSIP): These programs offer incentives for employees to retire or resign earlier than they might have planned.
  • Hiring Freezes: Various administrations have imposed hiring freezes to control the growth of the federal workforce.
  • Attrition: Allowing positions to remain unfilled when employees leave due to retirement or resignation.
  • Reorganization: Restructuring agencies, combining functions, or outsourcing to reduce redundancy and increase efficiency.


@Grok
 
Federal hiring freezes in the United States have been used by various administrations as a tool to manage government spending, reduce the size of the federal workforce, or restructure government operations. Here's a detailed look at federal hiring freezes based on historical and recent actions:

  • Carter and Reagan Administrations: Peanuts Carter and Ronald Reagan both implemented hiring freezes. Carter did so multiple times during his term, while Reagan's was part of his broader agenda to shrink government.
  • Trump's First Term (2017): Donald Trump announced a 90-day hiring freeze upon taking office in 2017. This was later lifted, but it was part of a strategy to reorganize government, with agencies tasked to develop plans to reduce their workforce through attrition or efficiencies.


@Grok
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I know it for a fact. Union bosses have on more than one occasion even awkwardly admitted it.
Click to expand...


I suspect that you're correct.

Based on the search results provided, there isn't explicit evidence stating that union bosses have on more than one occasion admitted that paying dues is secondary to everything else. However, the information does provide some insight into the nature of union dues and priorities:
  • Union Dues and Representation: The web results discuss the purpose and structure of union dues, which are intended to fund union operations such as contract negotiations, representation, legislative advocacy, and member services. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) information emphasizes unions' responsibility to represent all employees in a bargaining unit, regardless of dues payment (web:10). This suggests that while dues are crucial for funding union activities, the primary mission of unions includes representation and advocacy for all members, not just those who pay dues.
  • Dues as an Investment: Several sources explain that union dues are seen as an investment in the benefits and protections unions provide, such as better wages, health insurance, pensions, and job security (web:5, web:14). This framing implies that the actual services and protections offered by unions might be considered more central than the act of paying dues itself.
  • Right-to-Work Laws: Discussions around right-to-work laws and the Janus v. AFSCME decision highlight debates about mandatory dues versus voluntary contributions, where the focus often shifts to the right of representation without compulsory payment (web:20). This indirectly touches on the notion that the core function of unions (representation) might be seen as more fundamental than the financial aspect of dues in certain contexts.
  • Criticism and Perspective: There's some critique from union members and observers about the value of dues, especially in contexts where unions might not visibly represent or benefit members directly (web:19). However, this doesn't equate to union leaders admitting that dues are secondary; rather, it shows a member's perspective on the value they perceive from their contributions.
  • Legal and Ethical Considerations: The legal framework around union dues, as highlighted by various sources, indicates a balance between union funding needs and members' rights, where dues are necessary for union sustainability but the primary role of unions is to negotiate and represent workers' interests.
Conclusion: While the search results do not provide direct quotes or admissions from union bosses stating that paying dues is secondary to everything else, the broader context suggests that unions prioritize representation, advocacy, and member benefits as their primary functions, with dues being a means to support these goals. Any admissions or statements would likely be nuanced, focusing on the strategic use of dues to achieve these objectives rather than explicitly stating one is secondary to the other.


@Grok
 
Past Presidents cut the workforce, and used targeted buyouts to do that. trump has made no attempt to cut the workforce, but has offered to pay random people not to work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top