Photo credit: www.govexec.com
As the Biden administration seeks to reinstate aspects of the Trump-era deferred resignation program, which enables federal employees to step down but continue receiving pay until the end of the 2025 fiscal year, labor unions representing federal workers are intensifying their legal challenges. This revival is reflected in recent announcements by various federal agencies, including the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Department, the Defense Department, and the Small Business and General Services administrations.
HUD’s recent communication indicated that the program would allow applications until April 11. The Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer at HUD acknowledged previous criticisms regarding the program, particularly surrounding the inconsistencies in its implementation and the uncertainty about funding during periods of continuing resolutions. The email indicated that concerns about the program’s validity during the previous opt-in period may have deterred employee participation due to anxieties over funding interruptions.
“During the initial opt-in period for the Deferred Resignation Program (DRP), many employees expressed concerns about the validity of the program because agencies were under a temporary continuing resolution through March 14, 2025,” the email explained. “This uncertainty may have prevented some employees from taking advantage of the program. Since the passage of a full-year continuing resolution, many employees have asked if the program would be available again.”
In conjunction with this renewed rollout, major unions, including the American Federation of Government Employees, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the National Association of Government Employees, have filed an amended complaint challenging the legality of the program. Their actions emphasize a persistent concern among labor representatives regarding the administration’s approach to employee layoffs and resignations.
Previously, U.S. District Judge George A. O’Toole Jr. had rejected a request to halt the program’s initial phase, citing jurisdictional limitations that necessitated federal employee claims to be addressed first through the Merit System Protection Board and labor unions’ claims to the Federal Labor Relations Authority.
The unions’ new legal filing argues that the administration should have developed formal regulations to establish the deferred resignation program, thereby allowing for a transparent notice-and-comment period to resolve outstanding issues and adequately address employee concerns. They contend that the program was designed specifically to circumvent existing regulations on voluntary separation incentive payments, which have a $25,000 cap, and other layoff regulations, thereby enabling the government to facilitate the removal of nonpartisan civil servants in favor of political appointments.
The complaint highlights comments made by Trump suggesting that certain federal agencies, including the DOJ and FBI, represent a “deep state” filled with career employees who do not align with the political agenda of his administration. The unions argue that the lack of objectives or clear directives related to the deferred resignation program indicates an underlying agenda to restructure the federal workforce.
Providing specific examples, the unions described cases where employees attempting to utilize the deferred resignation option faced barriers, including denials of their applications. One example cited involved a member of the AFSCME who, after accepting the directive and resigning, was subsequently terminated as a probationary employee and found herself ineligible for the program without clear communication or support from USDA or OPM.
Such instances underline the ongoing complexities and concerns associated with the execution of the deferred resignation program, raising questions about its implications for federal employment and the administration’s approach to human resource management within the government.
Source
www.govexec.com