Trump forced to RE-Hire Federal workers he laid off

모든 토론 > Steam 포럼 > Off Topic > 제목 정보

Brian9824 2025년 3월 13일 오후 12시 27분

https://www.yahoo.com/news/tens-thousands-fired-federal-workers-163555218.html

Violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) (29 USC 2100 et. seq.) by not giving notice.

So he can still fire them, but he has to re-hire them, reissue them equipment, passwords etc.

Then he has to follow the law and give them 60 days notice of mass layoffs before they can be let go.

Now everyone who was fired and missed payments on houses, bills, etc has grounds to sue the government over expenses they incurred as a result of their illegal firing.

Brian9824 님이 마지막으로 수정; 2025년 3월 13일 오후 12시 59분

< >

전체 댓글 122개 중 46~60개 표시 중

Immortalis 2025년 3월 13일 오후 3시 34분

Ȼħⱥꞥꞥēł8753452님이 먼저 게시:
Immortalis님이 먼저 게시:

So no, you cannot provide a reference as to why firing people goes against the Constitution.

And firing people without notice is not bad when there is no law that requires notice to be provided and the people in question are on probation.
That's the entire point of the system, to gauge whether an employee would actually be a useful addition to the company - or in this case the federal agency - or not.

The funny thing about evolved societies is that we don't rely on feelings to determine whether something is illegal or unlawful.
There are written laws for that.
And there is no law, statute, regulation, absolutely nothing that demand notice to be provided to federal employees in the case of a mass layoff.
Can you not read buddy?? I clarified my statement! You're ignoring it and going on a side tangent

Firing people without notice is not bad when those people are on probation.
Keeping tens of thousands of people on a taxpayer funded payroll when they contribute nothing of value to those taxpayers is bad.
Regardless, "bad" is not a legal definition.
What matters is whether the act was lawful or unlawful. And in this case I provided references to actual, written law as to why it was lawful whereas you lot can only keep spouting "the judge said so" to prove it was unlawful.

And no, you didn't clarified your statement at all.
You stated that Trump has been going against the Constitution.
I asked you to provide sources as to why firing federal employees is against the Constitution.
And your "clarification" was "Trump has also been going against the Constitution".
If you're unfamiliar with the concept you might want to look up circular reasoning because that's all you're doing here.

#46

Tito Shivan 2025년 3월 13일 오후 3시 49분

Råb!d님이 먼저 게시:
In the end, Trump/Musk will have cost US citizens thousands upon thousands of $$$, and the US as a whole $Millions.

It's already costing the US way a lot more than just money.

#47

unskilled- 2025년 3월 13일 오후 3시 56분

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A091RC1Q027SBEA

#48

Immortalis 2025년 3월 13일 오후 4시 03분

unskilled-님이 먼저 게시:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A091RC1Q027SBEA

And you know how it gets even more grotesque?

As of last quarter, the USA are spending more on interests on the national debt than they are spending on national defense
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FDEFX

But hey, we wouldn’t want a president to actually trim the waste off the federal budget..

#49

unskilled- 2025년 3월 13일 오후 4시 09분

Immortalis님이 먼저 게시:
unskilled-님이 먼저 게시:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A091RC1Q027SBEA

And you know how it gets even more grotesque?

As of last quarter, the USA are spending more on interests on the national debt than they are spending on national defense
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FDEFX

But hey, we wouldn’t want a president to actually trim the waste off the federal budget..

They do, just not Trump.

Orange Man Bad even when doing things that will stave off financial Armageddon.

#50

Ulfrinn 2025년 3월 13일 오후 4시 30분

Tito Shivan님이 먼저 게시:
Ulfrinn님이 먼저 게시:

Where did you hear that ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥? They fired probationary employees. Do you know what those are?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g3nrx1dq5o

Roflmao, BBC? Look how often that article sites "according to media outlets" as their source for their statements. That would be the first indication to most people that this is not credible information. None of this is credible information, none of it is a first party source, none of it is verifiable. It's all hearsay from another media outlet. That's propaganda, not journalism.

Again, it was a very small amount of probationary hires. That means people who have been employed for less than a year. They're not giving people who have been working there less than a year important jobs.

"The US government is trying to rehire nuclear safety employees it had fired on Thursday, after concerns grew that their dismissal could jeopardise national security, US media reported."

"US media reported that more than 300 NNSA staff were let go, citing sources with knowledge of the matter. That number was disputed by a spokesperson for the Department of Energy, who told CNN that "less than 50 people" were dismissed from NNSA."

"The Thursday layoffs included staff stationed at facilities where weapons are built, according to CNN."

"The Trump administration has since tried to reverse their terminations, according to media outlets"

#51

Holografix 2025년 3월 13일 오후 4시 54분

Immortalis님이 먼저 게시:
Holografix님이 먼저 게시:
Right, because attacking me is really proving your point. Take the L and walk it off, buddy.

How about debating the point then?

A Judge ruled. It's over. All points are moot.

Holografix 님이 마지막으로 수정; 2025년 3월 13일 오후 4시 55분

#52

Tito Shivan 2025년 3월 13일 오후 4시 59분

Ulfrinn님이 먼저 게시:
Tito Shivan님이 먼저 게시:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g3nrx1dq5o

Roflmao, BBC? Look how often that article sites "according to media outlets" as their source for their statements.

Would an official document from a US Senator acknolwedging the fact suffice?
https://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/nnsa_firing_letter.pdf
(Inb4 'he's a democrat lel, facts be dammned')

Ulfrinn님이 먼저 게시:
Again, it was a very small amount of probationary hires. That means people who have been employed for less than a year.

Did you know promotions or agency transfers can be probationary too?

DOGE has been firing longstanding employees that moved agencies or were recently promoted just because the dorks doing the job simply did a search for 'probation' and didn't look deeper.

That level of incompetence from DOGE shouldn't be surprising at all, given his 'director' (whatever unofficial charge Elon holds at his unofficial non-goverment agency dismantling goverment) has a history of firing people when on a tantrum only to have to rehire them later.

#53

Gamboll 2025년 3월 13일 오후 5시 00분

Couldn't give a weasel's ass about that. I'm only interested in my portfolio going up 🥵🥵

#54

Immortalis 2025년 3월 13일 오후 5시 02분

Holografix님이 먼저 게시:
Immortalis님이 먼저 게시:

How about debating the point then?
A Judge ruled. It's over. All points are moot.

And we can add a complete ignorance of how any legal system works to the list.

But I agree, talking with you is indeed moot.

#55

Agenda 2025 2025년 3월 13일 오후 5시 05분

Obama changed the law making you a easily fired "probationary" Federal Civil Servant if you had less than 2 years of service.
Used to be 1 year, before Obama. That dude gutted the Department of Defense and killed off Unions.

#56

Holografix 2025년 3월 13일 오후 5시 05분

Immortalis님이 먼저 게시:
Holografix님이 먼저 게시:
A Judge ruled. It's over. All points are moot.

And we can add a complete ignorance of how any legal system works to the list.

But I agree, talking with you is indeed moot.

because getting salty and insulting me proves your point, right?

Holografix 님이 마지막으로 수정; 2025년 3월 13일 오후 5시 05분

#57

pants 2025년 3월 13일 오후 5시 05분

anyone could have told him it was going to happen and they either didn't or didn't think it would matter, and i think both options are damning. i have no doubt that there is a lot of federal waste but there are also a lot of federal laws that are supposed to be followed in the cutting of that waste, and i think that it says a lot about a government if it is willing to flout those laws instead of simply soaking up a tiny little bit of extra time in order to enact its agenda

pants 님이 마지막으로 수정; 2025년 3월 13일 오후 5시 05분

#58

Dom 2025년 3월 13일 오후 5시 18분

We know that Trump signs mountains of ILLEGAL executive orders.

This failed president is getting desperate now, especially when he has already caused quite a bit of destruction for the economy and things look very bad!

Cannot play by the rules (law). That's how you know he has already lost.

And by the way, would you expect convicted felons to care much about the law?
Trump is a criminal.

#59