DOGE's Major Workforce Reductions Looming, Regardless of Elon Musk's Involvement

Although Elon Musk has indicated his departure from his role in the DOGE office as of May, this doesn't spell the end of the employment reductions.

On the contrary, these layoffs are intensifying.

While the initial phase of workforce reduction at DOGE has encountered legal obstacles, the forthcoming phase may find firmer legal sustenance. Agencies now have the opportunity to devise more strategic plans, notably offering buyout-like options for voluntary resignations in exchange for extended paid leave.

These strategies could withstand legal scrutiny better than the first wave, which primarily targeted newly appointed employees with low evaluations and little notice. This indicates that the core operational strategy at DOGE continues within the federal sector, irrespective of Musk's direct involvement.

In What Ways the Second Layoff Phase Differs

In recent months, Musk and DOGE have supervised a series of layoffs mostly affecting new federal hires or those recently promoted. These individuals typically lack the safeguards provided to more seasoned employees.

This initial reduction was riddled with issues due to non-selective cuts that swept away numerous employees with under two years of tenure, leading to critical roles, such as those involved with nuclear resources or pandemic research, being axed only to be reinstated later. Such actions were legally challenged, resulting in a court mandate for reinstatement in March.

Revisiting the termination strategy opens the door for executing reduction-in-force plans (RIFs) that adhere to the proper legal frameworks.

"In essence, the judicial system might have actually assisted DOGE by reinstating employees until more robust RIFs are executed," stated Michele Evermore, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation.

To date, neither the White House nor DOGE's office has commented on this issue, according to Business Insider.

In recent weeks, new RIFs have been implemented. The Department of Education revealed over 1,300 job cuts in March, resulting in halving its workforce. Likewise, the Small Business Administration announced a 43% workforce reduction.

The Department of Health and Human Services has similarly initiated staff reductions as part of a 10,000 employee cut target.

While these focused measures are ongoing, they are not devoid of potential legal contention.

Labor unions for federal workers are resolute in their commitment to contest these measures. Doreen Greenwald from the National Treasury Employees Union declared their intent to challenge this profound challenge to the governmental core on all legal fronts.

Whether these challenges will hold is still uncertain. Georgetown Law’s David Super notes variances in departmental plans might leave some more legally exposed than others.

He stated it’s conceivable that these agencies might meticulously craft flawless RIF plans.

Some departments are opting for Deferred Resignation Programs (DRPs), allowing voluntary departures as an alternate to RIFs. This has led to reports, for example, of around 20% of the Department of Labor staff choosing voluntary separation. Social Security has also offered similar plans.

Impact on Federal Workforce

Internal communications from the IRS disclosed to reporters show over 10,000 employees opted for the subsequent deferred resignation program, with more downsizing efforts anticipated.

While DRPs might facilitate downsizing, such options may not be as financially advantageous as standard RIF provisions according to Alan Lescht, a federal employment lawyer.

"These DRPs are being presented as alternatives to looming RIFs. However, employees might find the severance benefits under RIFs more beneficial," Lescht stated. Choosing a DRP implies consenting to leave without reinstatement rights. Lescht recommends a thorough evaluation of career alternatives before opting out.

"Often, remaining and challenging the layoff could be more beneficial since the government must adhere to many criteria to legitimize firings under RIF regulations," he added. "RIF statutes are detailed and complex, so the brisk pace of governmental actions raises the likelihood of mistakes."