Karen Finney to Scott Jennings: FAA Cut OK 'If Someone Dies?

O'LEARY: I think the issue is they're not whacking enough. There's this concept in private equity when you get a bankrupt company and you go in there, you cut 20 percent more than your initial read. And then you find like a pool of mercury, the organization gels back together again. Always cut deeper, harder when there's fat and waste.

Lets cut 20% of everything the government is paying Musk, but demand the same product or service.   As for o Leary, he makes 10's of millions or more in income every year.  Is he paying 35% in federal taxes on that income? If not he should shut the fuck up. 

Lets cut 20% of everything the government is paying Musk

20% of zero is still zero

Is it okay with you to chop critical jobs such as those at the FAA which deal with public safety without first ensuring that these cuts will not compromise public safety?

He is paid billions of dollars for his products and services. He provides the US with space exploration initiatives.  Lets cut what we pay him by 20% without any loss in the quality of products and services he sells the US. 

chop critical jobs such as those at the FAA

How do you know those jobs that are being eliminated are critical?

Do you agree with democrats blaming Trump for the crash in Canada yesterday?

Is it okay with you to chop critical jobs such as those at the FAA which deal with public safety without first ensuring that these cuts will not compromise public safety?

Fortunately, I am sure they aren't cutting "critical" jobs. There is so much fat in the federal bureaucracy that they can afford it. Did you have a problem with Clinton/Gore wanting to make 12% of federal job cuts back in '93? They never did shit (and don't try pushing that "but Clinton balanced the budget" bullshit.

As president, Bill Clinton famously   declared   that "the era of big government is over." Weeks into his term, Clinton had   announced   "a national performance review" (NPR) to "reinvent" government. He put Gore in charge of the project, which was later codified into law by the   Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 .

A dedicated   website   said the NPR initiative—later renamed the National Partnership for Reinventing Government—would make government "work better, cost less, and get results American [ sic ] care about."

The NPR issued its first report in September 1993,   From Red Tape to Results: Creating a Government That Works Better and Costs Less .   It listed 1,200 recommendations across the entire government that, if implemented, it said could save $108 billion in five years ($235 billion in 2024 dollars).

reason

He is paid billions of dollars for his products and services. He provides the US with space exploration initiatives. 

No, "HE" isn't. His companies are. And last I saw, those products and services are provided for the betterment of the US and therefore, should be paid. If they weren't, they would be on the back burner instead of front and center.

How do you know those jobs that are being eliminated are critical?

I asked about jobs that are critical, I did not state which ones were.   

Do you agree with democrats blaming Trump for the crash in Canada yesterday?

No.   You continue to demonstrate that you operate from a ridiculously simplistic stereotype and do not understand my positions.

Fortunately, I am sure they aren't cutting "critical" jobs.

How exactly do you know this?  

Do you have evidence that Musk, et. al. are doing the hard work of analyzing federal operations, understanding processes, and eliminating jobs that are unnecessary?

Did you have a problem with Clinton/Gore wanting to make 12% of federal job cuts back in '93?

Always deflection.   Focus, Jim, on what we are talking about.

As for cutting waste, I am, and have always been, a fiscal conservative.   I want small, limited government.    So I applaud efforts to achieve that state as long as the efforts are actually trimming fat rather than simply brute force quota-based cutting.

So, again, do you have any evidence that Musk, et. al., are doing the hard work of identifying unnecessary jobs rather than merely demanding quota-based staff reductions?

Do you agree with democrats blaming Trump for the crash in Canada yesterday?

Of course they do, A nomadic goat herder in Afghanistan stubbed his toe on a rock yesterday because of trump.

Is it okay with you to chop critical jobs such as those at the FAA which deal with public safety without first ensuring that these cuts will not compromise public safety?

Didn't you just post "critical" without knowing what is and isn't? Yes, yes you did. 

I asked about jobs that are critical, I did not state which ones were.

Then you can't possibly know which are being cut with that and I would posit, that much of the commentary from the left comes from Chicken Little lore.

So, again, do you have any evidence that Musk, et. al., are doing the hard work of identifying unnecessary jobs rather than merely demanding quota-based staff reductions?

Do you have any evidence that they aren't?

Always deflection

Not a deflection. Practically the same. It's the same fucking thing without the "D" behind it. Trump is doing what he, and THEY, promised. Deal with it............or not your choice of course.

Didn't you just post "critical" without knowing what is and isn't? Yes, yes you did. 

Even when explained you insist on getting this wrong.  Of course, it is easier to debate if you make up your interlocutor's argument.

Last time:  I specifically used the adjective 'critical' to focus on jobs that are critical.   I did not ask about jobs that are not critical.   So, Jim, are you okay with chopping critical jobs (examples of which would be FAA jobs dealing with public safety) without first ensuring that these cuts will not compromise safety?

Then you can't possibly know which are being cut ...

Faux obtuseness.

Show me evidence that Musk, et.al. are trying to be careful.   From what I can tell, they are applying a quota-based system (hatchet) rather than doing the hard (time-consuming) work of identifying jobs that are indeed unnecessary.

Reports like this are replete:   time

The abrupt and seemingly callous manner of conducting layoffs has left many workers stunned. One HR manager at the Veterans Health Administration, who has worked for the department for more than two decades, said that he had never witnessed anything like this in all his years of service. “It’s the worst I’ve ever seen,” he says. At a staff meeting on Friday, he says leadership told them they were finding out about the terminations at the same time as the rest of the agency’s staff, and that the decisions were being made by a small group in the Office of Personnel Management backed by DOGE. “We're paralyzed because we don't know what's happening tomorrow,” he adds. 

I thought the layoffs at the FAA were of probationary employees? how ate up with TDS do you have to be to think those roles are critical? maybe we are staring fresh with the highest scorers instead of filling the Midget quota.

Trump is doing what he, and THEY, promised.

Do you not care about which jobs are cut ... that only the number of job cuts matters?

Do you not care about which jobs are cut ... that only the number of job cuts matters?

No. But if memory serves, wasn't the "edict" to a couple of departments, "those with 1 year or less service"? If they are that new, they probably haven't found the restroom or water cooler let alone be "critical" to the department.

First:

The focus should be on unnecessary jobs, not the status of the employee.   Being hired less than a year ago does not mean their jobs were unnecessary.    When necessary jobs are cut, the remaining employees must back-fill.   This is a complex cause-effect situation with plenty of unintended consequences.   Ergo the need to do analysis and understand what you are slicing up.

Second:  nbcnews

“This decision did not consider the staffing needs of the FAA, which is already challenged by understaffing," David Spero, the national president of the Professional Aviation Safety Specialists, AFL-CIO, said in a statement . “Staffing decisions should be based on an individual agency’s mission-critical needs. To do otherwise is dangerous when it comes to public safety. And it is especially unconscionable in the aftermath of three deadly aircraft accidents in the past month.” A union spokesperson said that close to 300 of its members received termination notices over the weekend and that those affected worked as maintenance mechanics, aeronautical information specialists, environmental protection specialists, aviation safety assistants and management and program assistants.

I thought the layoffs at the FAA were of probationary employees? how ate up with TDS do you have to be to think those roles are critical?

Funny that many of the folks worrying about the quality of employees are the same ones that didn't worry about it during the DEI hiring practices that may very well have degraded quality of the worker.

Implicitly then you recognize that it is important to not cut critical jobs, right?

And then do you also recognize that it is important that people doing critical jobs do not take on more work to back fill due to a loss of those doing necessary jobs?

In short, do you or do you not recognize the importance of knowing what you are slicing up before you start large-scale layoffs?

If they are that new, they probably haven't found the restroom or water cooler let alone be "critical" to the department.

Another ridiculous exaggeration.

I asked about jobs that are critical, I did not state which ones were.   

Exaxctly...so, again...How do you know that the jobs being cut are critical. It could be janitorial or admin that have no real bearing on the operation of the agency. You just don't know that. 

"No"

You should have stopped there. I operate from a fact based world, not a "what if" you(collective you) leftists do.

He doesn't, but this guy does............

“Here’s the truth: the FAA alone has a staggering 45,000 employees. Less than 400 were let go, and they were all probationary, meaning they had been hired less than a year ago,”  Duffy wrote in a post  on the social platform X. “Zero air traffic controllers and critical safety personnel were let go.”

thehill

We will find a TDS driven reason how this is bad and trumps fault.

How do you know that the jobs being cut are critical.

I did not state the jobs being cut are critical, I asked about critical jobs being cut.   You apparently refuse to see the difference or cannot. 

I asked about jobs that are critical,

From history, we know that if 80% of air traffic controllers - actually on the floor - were fired, nothing unsafe would happen. This would be so owing to the largess of FAA management doodlers.

And there are other perspectives:  time

Aviation safety experts and union representatives are warning that the cuts could further strain an agency that has long been under pressure to improve its safety record and address gaps in its workforce. The union representing the employees called the firings a “hastily made decision” that would “increase the workload and place new responsibilities on a workforce that is already stretched thin.” The union’s statement added that “it is especially unconscionable in the aftermath of three deadly aircraft accidents in the past month.”

Further, probational employees are not exclusively 1 year, they can be 2 years.    This by you ...

Jim @1.1.14 ☞ If they are that new, they probably haven't found the restroom or water cooler let alone be "critical" to the department.

...is ridiculous.   I do not know about your experience on jobs, but you seem to have a very cynical view on the ability of a new hire to become productive at their job.   Especially if the probational employee is NOT a kid fresh out of college (another bad assumption;  see below ⇣ ).

It is wrong to equate probational employees with inexperienced workers.   Experienced individuals (i.e. those who have had plenty of work experience) who have just hired into the government are typically probational (some exceptions).   And typically this applies to career individuals (i.e. professionals vs. clerical).   So while no data seems to be available as to how many career professionals are probational, the assumption that these are mostly snot-nosed college graduates is on very shaky grounds.   

Finally, temporary employees who hire in as permanent will typically start a probational period.   Another situation where we have a very experienced probational employee.

To wit, the notion that none of these employees are doing jobs that are necessary (even if not critical) seems naive. 

Musk, et. al. are not trying to hide the fact that they know probational employees are easier to fire.   That is the main reason they are targeted.   So based on this and what I just noted about probational employees and experience, assuming probational employees are not performing necessary (or even critical) jobs is unfounded.

per ecfr

§ 315.801 Probationary period; when required. ( a ) The first year of service of an employee who is given a career or career-conditional appointment under this part is a probationary period when the employee:

( 1 ) Was appointed from a competitive list of eligibles established under subpart C of this part ;

( 2 ) Was reinstated under subpart D of this part unless during any period of service which affords a current basis for reinstatement, the employee completed a probationary period or served with competitive status under an appointment which did not require a probationary period.

( b ) A person who is:

( 1 ) Transferred under § 315.501 ; or

( 2 ) Promoted, demoted, or reassigned; before he completed probation is required to complete the probationary period in the new position.

( c ) A person who is reinstated from the Reemployment Priority List to a position in the same agency and the same commuting area does not have to serve a new probationary period, but, if separated during probation, is required to complete the probationary period in the new position.

( d ) Upon noncompetitive appointment to the competitive service under the Postal Reorganization Act ( 39 U.S.C. 101 et seq. ), an employee of the Postal Career Service (including substitute and part-time flexible) who has not completed 1 year of Postal service, must serve the remainder of a 1-year probationary period in the new agency.

( e ) A person who is appointed to the competitive service either by special appointing authority or by conversion under subparts F or G of this part serves a 1-year probationary period unless specifically exempt from probation by the authority itself.

Jobs, jobs, jobs. Who knew that Trump really meant cutting American jobs.

Civil service jobs are 30% Military Veterans, so what's the plan to re-employ veterans?

It's outrageous to attack civil servants who work for the American people and go through a VIGOROUS vetting process! 

Many of these workers go through more vetting to become employed than Senators, Congress members, and as we see more vetting than Musk and his minions.

Civil service jobs are 30% Military Veterans, so what's the plan to re-employ veterans?

There are currently 6.8 million unemployed Americans.  

There are currently 7.6 million open jobs.

Military veterans, who are generally more disciplined and more skilled than the general population, will not be out of work very long.

There will be no negative consequences of firing FAA personnel. Of course not.

Firing people (regardless of their function) is GOOD, because government is BAD. Therefore firing FAA personnel is GOOD and nothing BAD could ever come from it.

This is simple common sense.

The government is overly bloated. There needs to be cuts where the positions obviously are not needed.

Take that savings, put it in the Treasury and spend it either on the debt or on projects that would use the money correctly. 

There needs to be cuts where the positions obviously are not needed.

That is the key.   Cut jobs that are unnecessary.   Merely cutting jobs to achieve some arbitrary quota is irresponsible (and can be dangerous).

And of course, you have no proof that this is to "achieve some arbitrary quota". Just hoping it comes to fruition that way because...............Trump!........Sounds like Gore/Clinton chose an arbitrary 12%. Why do you think that is? Perhaps they evaluated all of the departments? Or were they just going to pick and choose winners and losers as usual in some of these cases

And of course, you have no proof that this is to "achieve some arbitrary quota".

I have yet to read anything from DOGE that suggests they are analyzing federal processes to identify waste, etc. and then redesigning those processes and then eliminating jobs that are not necessary.   What has been reported is that DOGE seeks %-based reductions.   This is classical reorganization thinking.   Given the speed at which DOGE is operating, there is no possible way that they have engaged in a due diligence to ensure they are not fucking up operations.   Most of the reports also show that the cuts are being determined by DOGE central employees rather than rely upon the various levels of management to intelligently trim using their in-depth understanding of their domains.

Just hoping it comes to fruition that way because...............Trump!.

A truly stupid argument.

Sounds like Gore/Clinton chose an arbitrary 12%.

If Clinton/Gore's report had been put into effect, and had executed an arbitrary 12% cut that did not involve understanding federal processes, reengineering processes, and then using that to determine which employees to layoff (due to being unnecessary) and, worse, did not rely upon the levels of management to intelligently trim their staff then I would have the same criticism.

It does not matter if it is D or R, what matters is what they are actually doing.

I suspect this is impossible for you to believe, but there really are people who do not use political party affiliation to determine if something is right or wrong.

See 1.1.19

Cut jobs that are unnecessary.

This is not management. It's dogma. ALL government jobs are unnecessary. Since Reagan. All government jobs must be eliminated.

That's nonsense, of course. But it's MAGA dogma. So it's happening.

ALL government jobs are unnecessary. Since Reagan. All government jobs must be eliminated.

That's not melodramatic or anything.