How does the shutdown end?

[hislegacy]

Since the shutdown is hitting his base the most I'm surprised his support is not eroding at a faster pace.

It is? I haven’t seen that.

 

[LostMarbels]

I have no idea what RIF means.

RIF is Reduction In Force. I think there will be a Yuge sweeping layoff.

I think you mean Donald could be trying to trim the budget by removing some number of federal employees he considers not to be necessary. He made the remark, once, that by holding him up, the Democrats are only hurting people who are Democrats. I am not saying this is correct, but he said it. He could later claim that the shutdown helped to remove employees who had been coasting in unnecessary jobs created by the previous Democratic operations. And so, he might say, yes I did drain the swamp.

Correct. That is my line of thinking.

 

[Belk]

It is? I haven’t seen that.

Have you looked? Farmers and other blue collar workers are the first ones feeling the effects. As the economy starts to become affected these will become more pronounced.

 

[hislegacy]

Have you looked? Farmers and other blue collar workers are the first ones feeling the effects. As the economy starts to become affected these will become more pronounced.

I did see the President addressing the Farmers just recently to a really great round of applause and cheers from them.

 

[FenderTL5]

The Senate relents and allows a resolution bill to go to the President, who won't sign it, and is over rode by a sufficient majority. It's the only way.

Agree.

As of the moment, the Republicans are trying to convince Americans that Trump didn't take ownership and that he (along with the rest of the GOP) are justified in trying to shift the blame to the democrats.
How long it takes depends on the success or failure of that argument.
They are pretending that the exchange in this video did not take place and dependent on enough to fall for yet another lie.

 

[SimplyMe]

RIF is Reduction In Force. I think there will be a Yuge sweeping layoff.



Correct. That is my line of thinking.

And, from what I know of things, Trump can't lay off workers who haven't been to work for 30 days when it is the government who has said they can't come in and work. Basically, the 30 days only applies when they are missing scheduled days of work -- which most government workers are not.

Now, you might be right that he is hoping many government workers will quit -- the issue is, in those cases, you are going to be losing the "wrong" workers. The workers who will quit are the ones that actually have the skills that will get them good jobs in the private sector -- basically, the ones that you believe are "coasting" and just collecting a paycheck aren't going to be leaving. In essence, you'll lose all those that are currently working and doing the work in the government while keeping those that are just there for the paycheck.

This is particularly true since it is the ones who are "necessary," and are being required to work, can't get a second job without either quitting or calling in sick. While it won't effect military personnel (since they would be charged with desertion) it could cripple things like the TSA and Air Traffic controllers, which would bring air travel in the country to a crawl -- not just during the shutdown but even after (as they struggle to hire and train replacements quickly). Worse, you likely have to raise their pay rates, since you need to hire replacements quickly (to get air traffic back to pre-shutdown levels) and you need to overcome the fact that these new hires (as well as those that are currently working) will have the fear that they might have to survive another government shutdown.

 

[evoeth]

I did see the President addressing the Farmers just recently to a really great round of applause and cheers from them.

You've discovered that people who choose to show up at presidential propaganda rallies, like the president.

What an amazing discovery that surely has greater implications for the population the rally was drawn from! /s

 

[LostMarbels]

And, from what I know of things, Trump can't lay off workers who haven't been to work for 30 days when it is the government who has said they can't come in and work. Basically, the 30 days only applies when they are missing scheduled days of work -- which most government workers are not.

Is that the wording of the law in its body of text?

"Trump can't lay off workers who haven't been to work for 30 days when it is the government who has said they can't come in and work."

Or is this your opinion/understanding? Because the law itself literally names government shutdown as a legitimate causation of RIF.

Now, you might be right that he is hoping many government workers will quit -- the issue is, in those cases, you are going to be losing the "wrong" workers. The workers who will quit are the ones that actually have the skills that will get them good jobs in the private sector -- basically, the ones that you believe are "coasting" and just collecting a paycheck aren't going to be leaving. In essence, you'll lose all those that are currently working and doing the work in the government while keeping those that are just there for the paycheck.

This is particularly true since it is the ones who are "necessary," and are being required to work, can't get a second job without either quitting or calling in sick. While it won't effect military personnel (since they would be charged with desertion) it could cripple things like the TSA and Air Traffic controllers, which would bring air travel in the country to a crawl -- not just during the shutdown but even after (as they struggle to hire and train replacements quickly). Worse, you likely have to raise their pay rates, since you need to hire replacements quickly (to get air traffic back to pre-shutdown levels) and you need to overcome the fact that these new hires (as well as those that are currently working) will have the fear that they might have to survive another government shutdown.

I think this is along the lines of his intentions.

 

[SimplyMe]

Is that the wording of the law in its body of text?

"Trump can't lay off workers who haven't been to work for 30 days when it is the government who has said they can't come in and work."

Or is this your opinion/understanding? Because the law itself literally names government shutdown as a legitimate causation of RIF.

And, if that is the case in the law, I suspect you'll see the federal courts block those workers being fired. I'd love to see the full text of the law, though,

I think this is along the lines of his intentions.

Except, looking at the RIF regulations, there is no way for RIFs to be accomplished while the government is shutdown -- not unless you are going to bring a number of workers back to perform the RIFs. To quote from the OPM policy pages, "An agency must use the RIF regulations before separating or demoting an employee because of an organizational reason such as reorganization, including lack of work, shortage of funds, insufficient personnel ceiling, or the exercise of certain reemployment or restoration rights. In fact, virtually all RIF actions are the result of a reorganization (e.g., the agency reorganizes as the result of a shortage of funds, lack of work, restructuring, etc.)."

As such, unless the plans for reorganization, for basically every department in the government, are already in place and were started to be implemented before the shutdown there seems to be little chance that a RIF could be successfully made. This becomes even more true with the short lead time between when Trump made the decision to shut down the government and the government being shut down (and if they had been made, it likely would be reported on now).

The fact remains, RIF is a process that needs to be completed and, without the people at work completing the process, it would appear that legally the required process cannot be completed. Now, I'll admit, there is a great deal of law that covers the RIF regulations and process (5 U.S.C. 3501-3503) and I don't have the time or inclination to read though all of that to find what loopholes and exceptions there are. From what I'm reading, however, it does not appear to be legally possible to do a RIF based solely on this shutdown.

 

[Belk]

I did see the President addressing the Farmers just recently to a really great round of applause and cheers from them.

Yes. As I said I am surprised he is not losing support at a rate faster then he currently is.

 

[LostMarbels]

And, if that is the case in the law, I suspect you'll see the federal courts block those workers being fired. I'd love to see the full text of the law, though,

I keep stating this as my belief, understanding, and guess for a reason. The question I asked you was genuine. I do not have this completely figured out myself yet. So I'm not debating a point here.

Except, looking at the RIF regulations, there is no way for RIFs to be accomplished while the government is shutdown -- not unless you are going to bring a number of workers back to perform the RIFs. To quote from the OPM policy pages, "An agency must use the RIF regulations before separating or demoting an employee because of an organizational reason such as reorganization, including lack of work, shortage of funds, insufficient personnel ceiling, or the exercise of certain reemployment or restoration rights. In fact, virtually all RIF actions are the result of a reorganization (e.g., the agency reorganizes as the result of a shortage of funds, lack of work, restructuring, etc.)."

As such, unless the plans for reorganization, for basically every department in the government, are already in place and were started to be implemented before the shutdown there seems to be little chance that a RIF could be successfully made. This becomes even more true with the short lead time between when Trump made the decision to shut down the government and the government being shut down (and if they had been made, it likely would be reported on now).

The fact remains, RIF is a process that needs to be completed and, without the people at work completing the process, it would appear that legally the required process cannot be completed. Now, I'll admit, there is a great deal of law that covers the RIF regulations and process (5 U.S.C. 3501-3503) and I don't have the time or inclination to read though all of that to find what loopholes and exceptions there are. From what I'm reading, however, it does not appear to be legally possible to do a RIF based solely on this shutdown.

Again... It is my guess this is Trump's line of thinking. I do not know enough to debate it as a platform I myself hold to.

 

[Sparagmos]

Maybe you want to edit this??

I have no idea what RIF means. I will try to look it up. Not all of us are experts on the subject.

I think you mean Donald could be trying to trim the budget by removing some number of federal employees he considers not to be necessary. He made the remark, once, that by holding him up, the Democrats are only hurting people who are Democrats. I am not saying this is correct, but he said it. He could later claim that the shutdown helped to remove employees who had been coasting in unnecessary jobs created by the previous Democratic operations. And so, he might say, yes I did drain the swamp.

Using anything for his purpose.

Is this what you mean? In any case, let me go try to find "RIP" . . . oops . . . "RIF". Or, do you mean "RIP" for pork jobs????

thanks I edited it

 

[Sparagmos]

I don't think this happens while he is being influenced by Stephen Miller.

Yeah it’s a long shot but so is EVERYTHING else right now. Trump is so much more desperate than the last time a DACA deal was on the table. So I’m thinking he needs to offer the Dems something HUGE.

 

[evoeth]

I voted for "Trump gets bypassed with a veto proof majority," but after the BuzzFeed article, I think "Trump resigns or is impeached" is climbing...

 

[ml5363]

The Senate relents and allows a resolution bill to go to the President, who won't sign it, and is over rode by a sufficient majority. It's the only way.

I think this would cost Mitch his power though

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I did see the President addressing the Farmers just recently to a really great round of applause and cheers from them.

You do realize that that video is from November 1, right? In other words, before the shutdown. How does his reception at a rally a month and a half before the shutdown have any bearing on his current support among those same people?

 

[loveofourlord]

even his die hard supporters that support the wall and trump to the death, are losing support for the shutdown as it hurts them. it's one thing to say, "I will defend this." and another to say, "I will defend this while I'm losing money or being hurt."

 

[hislegacy]

You do realize that that video is from November 1, right? In other words, before the shutdown. How does his reception at a rally a month and a half before the shutdown have any bearing on his current support among those same people?

January 14 was not in November

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...8062a6-1835-11e9-8813-cb9dec761e73_story.html

 

[loveofourlord]

January 14 was not in November

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...8062a6-1835-11e9-8813-cb9dec761e73_story.html

Then perhaps you should post that one in the first place, not a link to a video from november 1st huh?

You really have a terrible track record of posing bad articles might want to think before posting.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

January 14 was not in November

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...8062a6-1835-11e9-8813-cb9dec761e73_story.html

Fair, but that's not the link you originally posted. Despite my continued efforts, I'm still unable to read minds...