Readers Write: Federal worker buyout, legislative drama, DEI at Target

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

The federal government’s Office of Personnel Management sent an email to all federal employees on Jan. 28 informing them that they could choose to resign no later than Feb. 6 and would be “provided with a dignified, fair departure from the federal government” and receive pay through Sept. 30, which is almost eight months of what Americans refer to as severance pay. Many of those who choose to stay will be required to return to a physical office. Voluntary severance programs have a long but mixed history in the private sector. If a company wants to reduce its employee head count by, say, 10%, it might offer severance to a large group or even all employees, with the hopes that enough employees will accept the package to achieve the downsizing goals. The nice thing is that these programs are voluntary.

The downsides to employers are somewhat obvious: (1) What if too many employees accept the package, or too few? And (2), what if experienced employees with critical institutional knowledge accept the package? If too few accept the offer, sometimes companies increase the offer. This can lead to employees waiting to see if a better deal is announced. The use of voluntary severance packages in the private sector is not nearly as common as it used to be, from my perspective as an employment law attorney. In most reductions in force these days the employer chooses who will be laid off.

My assumption is that employers have become way too data-driven to use the old-fashioned, clumsy approach of offering severance to everyone and hoping the “right” employees accept and the “right” employees stay. Which brings us to the federal government. This offer applies to “all” federal employees. Whether that includes military personnel and U.S. Post Office employees is a bit fuzzy, but the answer is probably no. But even the federal government is subject to contract law — if it makes an offer and there is an acceptance, it will be required to make good on the contract. If 5% of the approximately two million federal civilian and nonpostal service employees accept, there will be about 100,000 folks looking at early retirement or for a new job this spring. We’ll see how this plays out.

V. John Ella, Robbinsdale

The writer is an employment law attorney.

•••

We never had a “deep state” in our federal government. That was a Trump delusion. We have government workers who are dedicated civil servants who work for the people of our country. Some like the president and some do not, no matter what administration is in power. Now we are transitioning into an oligarchy that demands all government workers be loyal to the president. That’s so much worse than his delusion of a deep state!

Gordon Whiteman, Chanhassen

•••

It’s not surprising that a man who referred to those that fought and died for our country as “suckers” and “losers” is now treating the federal workforce with the same contempt. It is not a person’s loyalty to country that matters, only loyalty to him. And this is happening with the advice and consent of people who should know better but are kept in line through the threats and intimidation of a felon. But this is what happens when government of the people is turned over to a self-proclaimed dictator. Seems to me we fought a revolution 250 years ago to rid ourselves of men like this.

Thom Jesberg, East Bethel

It is so disappointing that our elected representatives choose political allegiance over critical thinking. There are two frustrating examples regarding the ongoing situation with state Sen. Nicole Mitchell. First, the procedural vote to expel Mitchell from the Minnesota Senate was 33-33, meaning she continues to hold her office as senators voted the party line (“GOP attempt to expel Senate DFLer fails,” front page, Jan. 28). Surely, there must be some Democrats who believe that her alleged conduct — dressing like a ninja, entering her stepmother’s home uninvited in the early morning hours and trying to remove items — is not behavior that should be tolerated from a Minnesota senator. As surely, there must be some Republicans who believe that Mitchell should be given her day in court to explain the circumstances around her actions. If there are senators with those opinions, they did not vote that way. They marched in lockstep with the orders from their caucus leaders. So disappointing.

Second, in the previous legislative session, when Mitchell allegedly entered the Detroit Lakes home, Gov. Tim Walz and DFL Chair Ken Martin were silent. When the session ended, both called for her resignation. Since this new session began, they have again been silent. Rather than making an informed opinion, they flip-flopped to satisfy a political end. I did not realize that ethics had a calendar. Again, so disappointing.

Rick Greenfield, Minnetonka

•••

Any Republican state senator who supports Donald Trump, a convicted felon, has no business seeking the ouster of Mitchell, who has not yet been tried or convicted.

Donald Franke, St. Paul

•••

The Minnesota Supreme Court quorum question has been promptly and justifiably addressed (“Court says 68 needed for quorum,” front page, Jan. 25). As a political observer and voter, I urge the Minnesota DFL House Caucus to return to full participation at the Capitol. I fail to see the advantage of continuing with a boycott and hope the strategy in doing so does not jeopardize future DFL initiatives.

The tactics being employed by the GOP represent a self-centered interpretation of collaboration and governance. So be it. Any meaningful legislation they propose will encompass grievances and lack appeal to the common good. Let the spotlight shine upon their “work.” The DFL majority Minnesota Senate and DFL governorship can oppose any GOP efforts.

Please consider my concern as a way to move ahead for all Minnesotans.

Tom Mayer, Plymouth

In Timothy Snyder’s little book “On Tyranny,” he makes the point that “most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given.” People and organizations figure out what a new repressive regime wants and “obey in advance,” thus teaching the tyrant what he can do. A perfect example of this is Target’s decision to eliminate their DEI programs.

Stan Kaufman, New Brighton

•••

As a 93-year-old woman, I recall in the ′90s Dayton’s department store withdrew their support of Planned Parenthood. In protest, my daughter and I and thousands of their customers cut up our Dayton’s credit cards and mailed the pieces to Dayton’s. I am hoping history will repeat itself! Cut away, people!

Carol Dawidowicz, Brooklyn Center

•••

This is going to be a tough one for me. My happy place is going to be off limits for the foreseeable future. I am a Minnesotan. To me, Target is Minnesota. I will be looking for places that believe in and promote diversity, equity and inclusion. I realize that cutting up my Target RedCard won’t hurt Target, but it will help me feel, in a small way, that I have done something to fight the hate that is overtaking our country. I will look for small ways I can try to find the “better angel” in me and find a way to work against a person who is breaking the hearts of half of this country who did not vote for him. I believe Paul Wellstone said it best, “If we don’t fight hard enough for the things we stand for, at some point we have to recognize that we don’t really stand for them.” I’m taking a stand, small as it is, but it is something.

Sandra Mahn, Plymouth