Following the Workforce Optimization Plan
The deferred resignation offer to federal employees to be able to resign and to continue being paid through the end of the fiscal year (September 30, 2025), was the carrot before the stick. Federal employees were skeptical the offer was genuine. The unions added to the skepticism of those who may have taken advantage of the offer by urging employees not to take the offer at face value, saying there were no guarantees the administration would follow through, it was of dubious legality, there were too many unknowns to trust the administration, etc.
A consortium of unions filed a lawsuit to stop the offer from being implemented. A restraining order was issued that extended the time to enroll in the offer to resign and continue to be paid. That ended shortly after the judge concluded the unions did not have standing to file the lawsuit and that going to court instead of following the statutory scheme for seeking relief made the lawsuit invalid.
Responding to some of the questions and criticism, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued clarifications to expand on its answers in the frequently asked questions on the deferred resignation offer.
In a relatively short time, the offer was made, a lawsuit was filed, the lawsuit was dismissed, the offer was closed and the administration moved on to phase two of the “workforce optimization” program. Reportedly, about 75,000 employees accepted the offer.
OPM made it clear to federal employees who decided not to take the deferred resignation offer that the workforce would not be the same. The requirements to be enforced included:
- Return to work in the office;
- The government will have a performance culture with enhanced performance standards at every level;
- Employees will be working in a smaller workforce with RIFs, furloughs and reclassification (Schedule F) as part of the working environment;
- Enhanced standards of conduct.
This is the plan now being implemented.
Regrets?
There are numerous articles about the “shock and anger” of federal employees and how the program’s impact is “devastating” for the federal workforce. No doubt that is true.
The authors of the original deferred resignation offer would probably argue that federal employees were given notice about what would happen in the workforce if they remained. In short, they were outlining why taking the offer of deferred resignation would be a good idea and why staying employed in the government would likely be unpleasant, at least in the short term.
Some readers have commented they wish they had taken the deferred resignation offer and were misled about the veracity of the offer and claims it was illegal. Some have asked if the offer would be made again.
It is doubtful it will be. All aspects of the program have yet to be implemented. The workforce is already smaller than it was on January 20th when President Trump was inaugurated. So far, the primary elements that have been (and are) being implemented include eliminating DEI programs, placing DEI employees on administrative leave, and identifying and removing probationary employees.
Numerous articles in the press have outlined how the program is working as telework is largely eliminated and employees are returning to the office. There is a lack of parking available, there is not enough workspace, office furniture or equipment, employees are demoralized and do not know what will happen next, and scenarios are being articulated about how federal services will be decimated.
Because of these scenarios and general dissatisfaction with the work environment, readers have questioned why these articles and videos used the term “workforce optimization” when the program is about forcing people to leave government service. As with various actions taken during the Biden administration, we used the term used by that administration when writing articles about their initiatives. The term “workforce optimization” is used here as this was the term used in the Executive Order to describe this program now being rapidly implemented.
Has a RIF Started Yet?
One reader commented that this video was published too late because thousands of federal employees had already been fired. The bad news in this is that the RIFs have not started. While the statement that many employees had already been terminated was a fact, these employees are primarily employees in their probationary period. The video’s title was about the government implementing a reduction in force (RIF).
Most of the employees affected so far are being terminated because they are probationary employees. These employees lack the same level of appeal rights as career employees who have completed their probationary period.
As outlined in earlier articles and videos, probationary employees can be terminated much quicker and more easily than career employees. That is why OPM directed agencies to report on the number of probationary employees by January 24th.
It takes longer to plan and implement a reduction in force. It is expensive and time-consuming. The shock and anger now felt by federal employees will be accelerated and possibly more intense than it is already when the bump and retreat aspects of a RIF start being implemented. It becomes more personal when a colleague with more seniority takes the job of a younger, less senior employee instead of retiring.
Firing probationary employees is devastating to the employees who were looking forward to a challenging, rewarding career in the federal government. Many federal employees have a career lasting 30 or 40 years. The retirement program is excellent, there is an annuity program, the TSP program, and an annual COLA during retirement. Unfortunately, for the thousands of federal probationary employees now being terminated, these dreams are gone, at least for the time being, and the personal impact on them is severe.
What are the Next Steps in the Program?
OPM has asked agencies for a list of employees involved in policy-making jobs. OPM issued a directive on January 27 to agencies on Schedule F.
The OPM guidance stated an executive order would transfer employees meeting the guidelines into the Schedule Policy/Career category. Agencies were given 90 days to conduct a preliminary review of positions and submit petitions to OPM, with an additional 120 days to finalize their review and submit any remaining petitions.
This does not mean that any employees transferred into the Schedule Policy/Career category will be terminated. It does mean that their appeal rights are considerably reduced and it will be easier to terminate their employment.
Moving these employees into a new career category will be one of the next steps in the program.
There is also a high probability that agencies will soon initiate reduction in force actions. Presumably, OPM will want to know the total number of employees who were terminated by firing probationary employees and also want to know which agencies removed these employees, how many were removed from each agency, and how many employees are still needed to continue performing the essential mission of each agency.
Which Agencies May Lose the Most Employees?
Some agencies gained a significant percentage of employees under President Biden. These agencies are likely to be carefully scrutinized by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Here is a list of those agencies and the amount of their growth under the Biden administration:
- State Department (19%)
- Agency for International Development (17%)
- Department of Energy (17%)
- Housing and Urban Development (13%)
- Securities and Exchange Commission (12%)
- Environmental Protection Agency (11%)
- General Services Administration (11%)
- Department of Agriculture (10%)
- Department of Labor (7%)
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (4%)
How Many Employees Have Been Separated?
We will not know the exact number of employees leaving federal service for some time and until OPM provides specific information. Here is a partial list of the numbers of federal employees impacted so far based on recent news articles, although the actual numbers are likely to be changing quickly:
- Department of Veterans Affairs: Over 1,000 employees
- U.S. Forest Service: Approximately 3,400 employees
- Department of Energy: 1,200-1,500 employees, including personnel from the National Nuclear Security Administration and the Loan Programs Office
- Bonneville Power Administration (part of Department of Energy): About 400 employees
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): Nearly 1,300 employees
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB): 73 probationary employees
- Department of Education: Over 60 employees
- Small Business Administration (SBA): Dozens of employees (exact number not specified)
- Office of Personnel Management (OPM): Around 70 employees
- General Services Administration (GSA): At least 100 employees
- Department of Agriculture (USDA): Number unspecified, but layoffs occurred at the National Institute of Food and Agriculture and the Economic Research Service
- Department of the Interior: 2,300 employees
References:
The process of reducing the size of the federal government is just beginning. We don’t have a specific target number for the number of employees to be separated from the federal government. Additionally, it’s likely that there will be an increase in retirements from the federal workforce due to the tension and dissatisfaction with the work environment.
Summary
The workforce optimization program will likely continue for the next few weeks and eventually diminish. A number of lawsuits have been filed in various jurisdictions that may impact aspects of this program. These may take time to resolve. Some of the steps in the program may be delayed or dropped due to these judicial challenges.
FedSmith will endeavor to keep readers advised of the most significant changes in this program through the website and our videos on YouTube.
We wish all readers the best of luck in what has been and will continue to be a stressful environment in the near future.
