I'd hate to be a government worker under...this.
Glad you got your job back? Well, it's gone again.
this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2025
222 points (99.1% liked)
politics
27122 readers
2917 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The deal used to be that you took a pay cut relative to the private sector for better job security and sometimes benefits. I don’t see why anyone would accept lower pay to work for the government now unless they were truly desperate.
Coincidentally this is an effective way for the party of "government doesn't work" to sabotage government for the long term.
This was their goal and has been for decades. A self-fulfilling prophecy that the government doesn't work spoonfed to you by the billionaires who are actively breaking it.
Well, and some people legitimately love the work and/or their country and serving it. If they are going to get a slap in the face from assholes like Taco who think they are a king, I don't see why anyone would bother, though. Taco and the Confederates do so very much to destroy civic pride and civic engagement.
The Karens that wave the flag while clutching "the" bible don't love this country. Not really.
I mean, not being forced to work while not being paid sounds like an ok deal, especially when the odds are pretty good the courts are going to force the administration to give you backpay for all the time you weren't working and hire you back anyway
It sounds like a "pretty good deal"...?
That's if said administration does. Don't put it past them.
No, it's not, it's if said administration is allowed to. They're not nearly as powerful as they want us to believe, they have been told no by court decisions and public outrage and been forced to back down on a variety of things already, and that's probably going to happen more often as their stupidity causes more things to break down in highly public ways that are impossible to spin and they have to find more scapegoat enemies and distracting spectacles, which will cause more things to break down and etc.
Not a great deal though. It's also a lot of stress and hardship and uncertainty in the meantime.
It's not like time off where you can just take a vacation. It's a lot harder to spend money on something like that when you don't have stable income.
The shutdown is bad for literally everyone, including the billionaires who think they're benefiting.
If Harris won I would've joined the FTC. They were actually starting to do their jobs for once.
Dems need to demand all of these people are hired back as part of any deal to reopen the government
e; unless general public outrage forces them to do it before Dems even have a chance to negotiate (arc), I guess
Or demand ICE funding is cut to match.
They aren't laying off anyone they didn't already plan to let go.
For real. Do as we say or we are laying off these people. You do what that say and they lay off the people anyways.
Yes, but I also doubt they're putting much thought or effort into who they get rid of. At least beyond skin color, gender, or political affiliation.
So this is going to be "doge" dumbassery 2.0? I wonder how many of these workers they will have to try to coax back later?
They’re targeting democrats for layoffs. That’s why they wanted all the voter registrations turned over the DOJ.
Strip external agencies of personnel, remove efficacy and therefore concentrate more power in trump’s cronies.
Sounds like they should use this time to organise a general strike (which is probably impossible given they are already not being paid).
Cre - Ate jobs.
Republicans really have something against the cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency, it seems to get targeted at every opportunity.
Edit: as it turns out, republicans really do have a grudge against the agency, they've been targeting it since before Trump got reelected: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/22/conservatives-cyber-cisa-politics-00122794 Countering misinformation campaigns was a bridge too far for republicans.
Don't forget, the Democrats chose to run a 564 year-old candidate whose brain was melting long before he was even elected.
I'm not saying that this is the result the Democrats wanted, but I am saying this is the outcome they prefer to letting any left-wing populist or Democratic Socialist run for president.
Edit: I'm not trying to dissuade anyone one from voting Democrat. I just want everyone on the same page about what actions the Democrats took that helped get us here, so we can try and stop them from doing it all over again.
The Democratic Party ran someone 19 years younger than trump and you used the wrong gender pronoun for her.