[LeanderK]

As someone from europe, I am baffled by the ability to just fire everyone on the spot. Are there no job-protections for federal employees? This makes agencies really dependent on the political climate, right? Can he really just fire everyone? Isn't there even a 3 months notice or something?

A separate, connected thought is that I wonder why you would choose being a federal employee then. Here, the government promises job security but it usually means less pay and slower processes compared to industry. If you don't have job security, is then the government forced to be more competitive with industry positions in pay/processes?

[WarOnPrivacy]

> I am baffled by the ability to just fire everyone on the spot.

It often isn't about ability. Many of these are being challenged and courts are ordering reinstatements.

It's about leveraging sensitive, protected processes to generate so many constitutional crisis and other chaos knowing that Congress won't exercise it's safeguarding duties.

That leaves the public to engage a limited number of courts to issue orders against individual whitehouse actions - and the whitehouse undermining or outright ignoring those orders because the white house controls federal law enforcement.

[andrewflnr]

Historically (for decades), stability has also been the pitch in the US, with the same tradeoff in pay and bureaucracy. I'm not sure about the exact legal authority, but no one has attempted it before. So much of our legal system depends on convention and what a given judge feels like on a given day that it's really hard to say whether this is "legal" or not.

[reaperducer]

As someone from europe, I am baffled by the ability to just fire everyone on the spot. Are there no job-protections for federal employees?

There are, but these actions are intentionally designed to be so rapid and so numerous that the media and the legal system can't keep up.

The White House hasn't even been shy about it. They're calling it "flooding the zone," itself a sports reference.

[crooked-v]

There are protections, but not for 'probationary' employees (anyone who's been hired or transferred within the past X months).

As for the rest, they're not 'being fired', they're 'being placed on administrative leave', which is a paper-thin excuse but one that will have to wind its way through the court system like all the other bullshit the administration is pulling.

[bink]

There absolutely are protections for probationary employees, just not as many as there are for those not in probationary status. Courts are already re-instating people who were clearly fired without cause. Our courts just aren't equipped to deal with these types of events as frequently and widely as they are happening now.

[LeanderK]

ah ok, thanks for the clarification! But there shouldn't be too many probationary employees, right?

So what's administrate leave exactly? Just relieved from your responsibilities? I guess you still get paid.

[leptons]

Republicans want to privatize everything. They want to make their rich friends richer by doing this. It's going to be a disaster for the average citizen.

[cemerick]

VOA/RFE operations were actually run by a separate non-profit org that got the vast majority of its operating funds from the feds. So, federal worker protections aren't relevant by dint of the org(s) being set up at arm's length.

That said, the current regime has had no problem acting outside of the law and existing federal employee union contracts. Tell people they're dismissed, cut off the email and building access, wait for the lawsuits, and then simply ignore the decisions weeks/months later and/or follow them with as much malicious compliance as they need to achieve their original aims.

tl;dr: No, employment protections fundamentally don't exist in the US, and doubly so for those employed by the federal government within an atmosphere of rampant lawlessness.

[netbioserror]

Article II of the Constitution exists and you can read it anytime:

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/

In short: Job protection for executive employees defeats the entire point of an executive that is accountable to the people. Major magistrate positions are subject to Senate approval before being vested authority, but they are appointed and serve at the behest of the president, who literally embodies the executive.

[LeanderK]

I am having trouble understanding the document. Where is it stated? I can not exactly follow your argument. I am not sure why being accountable to the people necessitates having not any job protection?

I would have expected this to be codified (What is accountability for a federal employee). I mean regulatory bodies should also be accountable but also shielded from political influence, right?

[kennysoona]

> As someone from europe, I am baffled by the ability to just fire everyone on the spot. Are there no job-protections for federal employees?

There is, but Trump is ignoring them, and no one in his administration is enforcing those rules. Additionally, as of today he has started ignoring court orders.

[bagels]

Trump and Musk have done a coup and are violating the constitution and law. It doesn't matter though because Republicans in the Senate are complicit and the supreme court has granted Trump unlimited power with the immunity ruling.