In any organization, when the head guy issues a policy directive (or a budget change which requires a policy directive ), the general reaction from his subordinates is to implement that directive within the time frame allocated.
Failure to do so generally results in a reprimand or eventual termination; active resistance to the directive — or the undermining thereof — generally results in immediate termination, the latter being very definitely “cause” for termination, and few agencies or indeed even labor unions can quibble too much with the outcome.
Which is what happened here, in an agency of our beloved federal government:
President Trump has ordered as many as 60 senior bureaucrats in the US Agency for International Development placed on indefinite leave for taking actions to evade his executive orders. A memo from acting USAID administrator Jason Gray says, “We have identified several actions within USAID that appear to be designed to circumvent the president’s executive orders and the mandate from the American people.“ As a result, we have placed a number of USAID employees on administrative leave with full pay and benefits until further notice while we complete our analysis of these actions.”
Then this happened:
Enter Director of Employee and Labor Relations Nick Gottlieb, stage left. He countermanded the order placing senior staff on administrative leave, by flat-out refusing an order to terminate contract employees:
Today, representatives of the Agency’s front office and DOGE instructed me to violate the due process of our employees by issuing immediate termination notices to a group of employees without due process. I refused and have provided Acting Administrator Gray with written notification of my refusal. I have recommended in that written notification that his office cease and desist from further illegal activity.
It is and has always been my office’s commitment to the workforce that we ensure all employees receive their due process in any of our actions. I will not be a party to a violation of that commitment.
…so then this happened:
I was notified moments ago that I will be placed on administrative leave, effective immediately.
LOL. This is what happens when you try to fight against the CEO. Whether you agree with his directive or not, you are bound to implement it — that, or resign.
Now here’s my problem with all this.
This rebellious little apparatchik should have been shit-canned outright. Instead, he’s been placed on “administrative leave”, which continues all his benefits and perks until such time as he’s finally terminated. What bullshit. Outright insubordination deserves no such forbearance.
And yes, I know: our beloved federal government employees are somehow spared such treatment because it’s forbidden by their union, which is another fucking travesty: why should government stooges be protected when their employment is regarded as “service” and not a commercial contract?
At some point, I hope that POTUS/DOGE casts a baleful eye at this nonsense, and gets Congress to outlaw public-sector unions outright.
There is plenty of precedent for this action, by the way, going back all the way to the Founding Fathers. Even liberal icon Franklin D. Roosevelt said this:
“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service…. The very nature and purposes of government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with government employee organizations.”
Yet somehow this nonsense managed to get traction, especially during the 1960s, thanks to an Executive Order by none other than John F. Kennedy (quelle surprise).
If POTUS / DOGE achieve nothing else, the elimination of public-sector trade unions will be a signal victory for the people of this country — not that the well-being of our citizens has ever been a concern to government workers.
No, government agencies such as the State Department and the aforementioned USAID have always been far more concerned about the welfare of foreigners — in the latter case, to the tune of over $20 billion.
That, it seems, is about to change and not a moment too soon.
Fire away, Mr. President.
