Government workers sue over Musk's attempt to fork them over

Unions representing more than 800,000 federal workers yesterday asked a federal judge in Boston to order Co-President Musk to stop pretending his "fork in the road" directive telling federal employees to quit now is anything but a blatant violation of federal law.

The suit, filed by the AFL-CIO-affiliated American Federation of Government Employees and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and the National Association of Government Employees, says Boston federal court was as good a place to sue as any, because among their employees are thousands of federal workers in Massachusetts, including at Westover Air Force Base, all of whom got e-mail on Jan. 28 titled "A Fork on the Road" that claimed they could quit their federal jobs now, yet still get paid through Sept. 30 - and even take a job in the private sector to supplement their new sitting-around pay.

The unions charge this "Fork Directive" violates Civil Service protections that date to the 19th century and laws that bar certain federal employees from immediately jumping into the private sector. And it violates another federal law on spending, because the government can't legally commit to spending money it doesn't have committed, in this case funds to keep the government operating past the current March 14 deadline forced by constant Republican dicking around in Congress:

Moreover, the current appropriation for most federal agencies expires on March 14, 2025, but the Directive purports to make or authorize an expenditure or obligation through September 30, 2025, before an appropriation is authorized. The Antideficiency Act forbids such a guarantee.

And that's even aside from all the chaos that would be caused if hundreds of thousands of employees actually did quit, the unions say, adding we already have proof of what that would mean thanks to the way the co-president reorganized Twitter after he dropped $40 billion, mostly of other people's money, on it, and then pulled the same basic stunt:

On information and belief, the Fork in the Road directive is based on a staff reduction approach of the same name conducted by Elon Musk shortly after taking over Twitter (now X). Mr. Musk is reportedly deeply involved in OPM's operations, has close ties to senior OPM staff politically appointed by the new Administration, and has repeatedly commented publicly on the Fork Directive. 

And it didn't work, the unions charge:

The "Fork in the Road" approach at Twitter was widely regarded as chaotic, and the company's value declined precipitously after it was implemented. As one report summarized, "While Mr. Musk ultimately transformed Twitter, reducing staff by 80 percent and minimizing its real estate footprint, its business has declined. Advertisers have fled the site in droves, and at least one major asset management firm, Fidelity Investments, estimates the company is now worth 72 percent less than the $44 billion he paid for it." Kate Conger and Ryan Mac, Déjà Vu: Elon Musk Takes His Twitter Takeover Tactics to Washington, N.Y. Times (Jan. 30, 2025).

The suit asks US District Court George O'Toole, who was randomly assigned the case, to block the Fork Directive as a violation of the federal Administrative Procedure Act because it is "arbitrary and capricious for a host of reasons," including:

The Directive adopts a questionable approach from the private sector, without considering whether it is applicable in the federal context or consistent with prior history relating to restructuring.

The Directive aims to entice federal employees to relinquish their livelihoods on the basis of barely-veiled threats of future termination. 148. The Directive runs contrary to long-standing rules and requirements for federal employees, including prior guidance and ethics rules regarding outside employment.

The Directive provides an arbitrarily short deadline for decision that is not based in any articulated need or statutory requirement and—particularly in light of open questions and changing guidance—puts Plaintiffs in an impossible position in advising their members and developing guidance.

The Directive is pretext for removing federal workers on an ideological basis to replace them with staff who are politically aligned with the Administration.