ByElizabeth Hours Updated
Comments 353 Comments

Wednesday’s Workwear Report: Cropped Flare Carlton Pants

This post may contain affiliate links and Corporette® may earn commissions for purchases made through links in this post. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.

A woman wearing a blue knitted jacket and gray plaid pants with red heels and blue bag

Our daily workwear reports suggest one piece of work-appropriate attire in a range of prices.

I fell down a Tuckernuck sample sale rabbit hole last week and accidentally ended up scrolling through the main site, too. These cropped flare pants actually made me gasp out loud in delight.

I love the cut, the length, and especially the elastic waistband. I would pair them with a top in a cheery color to beat the winter blues, but they would also look fabulous with any neutral. 

The pants are $168 at Tuckernuck and come in sizes XXS-XXXL. They also come in a brown plaid.

Sales of note for 2/14/25 (Happy Valentine's Day!):

  • Nordstrom – Winter Sale, up to 60% off! 7850 new markdowns for women
  • Ann Taylor – Up to 40% off your full-price purchase — and extra 60% off sale
  • Banana Republic Factory – 50% off everything + 15% off (readers love their suiting as well as their silky shirts like this one)
  • Boden – 15% off new season styles
  • Eloquii – 300+ styles $25 and up
  • J.Crew – 40% of your purchase – prices as marked
  • J.Crew Factory – 50% off entire site and storewide + extra 50% off clearance
  • Rothy's – Final Few: Up to 40% off last-chance styles
  • Spanx – Lots of workwear on sale, some up to 70% off
  • Talbots – Flash sale ending soon – markdowns starting from $15, extra 70% off all other markdowns (final sale)

353 Comments

  1. I love the suede navy bag tote they are paired with!
    Pants also look great but I wonder if that elastic waist would look frumpy on IRL (vs the tall v. slim model on whom they are shown). Anyone have these?

    1. If you look at the website photos the pants make the models rear end look awful and diapery

    2. I am tall and slim and look terrible in elastic-waist pants. They are frumpy and dumpy and create the appearance of grandma saddlebags where none exist. Clothing manufacturers love them because they are cheaper to make than pants with zippers and they can get by with making fewer sizes because they don’t have to offer numeric sizes.

      1. I’m tall and hippy, and they look terrible on me, too! I don’t need my booty to be popping, but the diaper look is not good.

  2. Putting aside the substance of all the executive orders for the moment, as a long time fed, I’m surprised by the sheer incompetence of all of this. Some commenters were accusing others of spreading misinformation but the information that is being disseminated by this administration is so haphazard, poorly worded, and just badly done, not to mention the questionable legality of so much of it. I’ve never seen these many clarifications by OPM on their own guidance. I know people complain about how slow bureaucracy is, but it’s slow for a reason. It allows the full ramifications to be considered. Ironically, if I performed this badly at my job as this, I would be seriously disciplined.

    1. Agreed, it’s ridiculous. While I’m currently on maternity leave (and wondering if I’m going to get canned), my colleagues inform me that all our federal projects are in chaos and that different guidance has been issued for each one, sometimes wildly different from the same agency. Our core tasks are hamstrung and we can’t even contact the agencies for additional guidance.

      I said it on a recent post already, but it’s the callous disregard for people’s lives and livelihoods that really gets me – the casual dismissal of the fact that people depend on their jobs to stay afloat, that their work is important, and that our country doesn’t exist to serve the whims of oligarchs.

      1. Also, I’ll add that it’s true that some aspects of government, state or federal, should be run more efficiently. I live in San Francisco, which is notorious for funneling millions into homelessness organizations that either do ineffective or duplicative (or both) work with little oversight and no evaluations. But streamlining operations should always be a measured, considered process and not this absurd chaos by fiat.

        1. The goal is not streamlining operations – the goal is consolidation of power in executive branch.

        2. sure you have those examples. But compare that against the utter government waste of what is happening this week, where everyone on public funding is thrown into a tailspin, asking each other ‘do you know how this applies to us?’, sending clarification memos down the chain and so forth. The productivity of some 20-30 million people is seriously impacted, they are stressed out, but they are still getting paid. The taxpayer is not getting a great deal this week.

          1. Yeah this. I work at a state university, and none of the stuff that’s supposed to be getting done is actually getting done this week because everyone’s busy trying to figure out what’s happening with grant money and what they can and can’t do. None of these people are federal employees, many of them aren’t even directly paid by federal grants (though indirect costs cover some salaries), but they’re all wasting a huge amount of time dealing with this, which is both state and federal tax money wasted.

          2. I agree with you! I was merely pointing out that the events of this week do not compare to efforts to actually streamline in a meaningful way.

    3. The chaos is the point.

      This is a known tactic for undermining institutional governance structures.

      1. Overwhelm with a large number of changes so hard to keep up and respond.

      2. Announce and then roll back more extreme things to distract from egregious but less clearly ‘beyond the pale’ measures.

      3. Reduce resistance by removing anyone who suggests caution/slowing things down.

      4. Create stressful and chaotic workplace so people who may call for more scrutiny or orderly decision making are more likely to leave (announced buy outs after a week of chaos, not right away).

      It’s textbook.

      1. To be perfectly fair to Trump and his administration, it’s hard to know whether chaos is the point or merely the natural byproduct of staggering incompetence.

        1. It’s the point. We ignore Trump’s skill and danger at our peril – he’s not just some bumbling clown, however he may look.

          1. Fully agree. But I also think Trump himself is a useful idiot in that he’s really cognitively impaired, and willing to do whatever anyone says will get him attention. However the folks pulling the strings know exactly what they’re doing with the chaos they’re sowing.

          4. Yeah I don’t think for a moment he wrote a word of those executive orders. Nor did he understand what was in all of them.

            He wasn’t one of the authors of Project 2025. Those people are writing the orders and he just does whatever they say.

      2. Plus, announce buyouts that are not actually buyouts. All they actually offered is to let you continue to work from home at the rate you have for the last few years in exchange for agreeing to quit in September

        1. Will you be deemed to have accepted the buyout if you don’t come into the office? Including if there is no office to come into because the lease was given up or you never had an office?

        2. And my understanding is that there’s no funding mechanism for a buyout. Just as Musk did at Twitter, this is a trap for the people who take it.

    4. Maybe if the bureaucracy cannot be cut, streamlined, and managed easily, the problem is that it is a leviathan that needs to be dismantled.

      The difficulty of oversight isn’t a feature! While maybe it’s okay for the bureaucracy itself to move slowly, it should be very easy to quickly change up what’s going on there. Otherwise, it isn’t actually subject to executive control and is unconstitutional.

      1. The question is not whether or not bureaucracy can be cut. Of course it can, no large organization has optimized efficiency. But cutting in a haphazard and capricious manner makes it clear that the goal is to remove opposition and not to improve efficacy and efficiency.

        It’s analogous to the more common govt tactic to manage cuts by attrition. Those cuts reduce sheer numbers but does not create an efficient bureaucracy if you cut numbers but don’t consider structural issues. Here, it’s clear that the goal is not just sheer numbers reduction but also removal of those who may oppose consolidation of power.

        Consolidation of power in the executive branch has been an ongoing trend in many democracies in the last couple decades, but the current regime is much more blatant about it.

      2. It can and has been cut, streamlined, and managed in this past under different administrations both R and Ds. It’s just been done a lot more thoughtfully, so it didn’t make the kind of news that all this chaos is making. When government is functioning correctly, that’s not a news story.

        It shouldn’t be easy to quickly upend millions of people’s lives with little to no notice. At the very least, this administration can learn to write basic guidance that doesn’t contradict one another.

        I have no idea what your last sentence is getting at. Some things within the government are not subject to executive control; they are subject to congressional control and many things have been born out of judicial decisions. Not to mention there are many independent agencies that are not meant to be under executive control that are still being impacted by these exec orders.
        Making broad statements that because something is not subject to executive control and hence unconstitutional is nonsensical. As a basic constitutional law tenant, the executive branch doesn’t get to determine constitutionality, that’s for the judicial branch to decide, and something being or not being within executive branch purview isn’t a sole determining factor of constitutionality, you still have to take into account individual constitutional protections (hence what a lot of civil service protection is about).

        1. I don’t agree with the poster, but their last sentence clearly was in reference to administrative agencies that are putatively subject to executive control. I’m sure they would feel the same way about organizations putatively subject to legislative or judicial control. The point is that administrative agencies and other similar departments are not a fourth branch of government; they are beholden to one of the three, and if the one they are beholden to is having challenges reining them in, that is a sign that their power has outstripped their constitutional power.

          Again, I don’t agree with the poster’s overall take, but I think your criticism of that piece misunderstands what they are saying.

          1. But the purse strings are within congressional control and the current executive is trying to go around that in many ways. Executive control has not ever been absolute control, and that’s the point I’m making. I’m not saying that the executive doesn’t have the authority to reform agencies, of course they do, but it’s not an absolute power, it’s still subject to the laws Congress has passed and the body of constitutional law as decided by the judicial branch.

          2. Agencies can report into a branch but not be ‘beholden’ to that branch. This is common for areas of science and finance. If a particular agency exceeds its mandate, then the authorizing branch should engage in a review of that mandate. Nothing that has happened in the last week looks anything like that. It is clearly a putsch of anyone not wholly supportive of the MAGA agenda.

            Milley just had his security detail removed. That’s a clear message to others.

      3. Plus you can’t simply cut federal funding in this way — that’s actually against process. Congress holds the purse strings, not the President.

        Now, I don’t have a lot of confidence that this Congress won’t just be sniveling acolytes. But the executive order flurry isn’t legal or constitutional whatsoever. And no, it shouldn’t be very easy to “quickly change what’s going on there.” That’s not how government works; government is not a business, despite how this country understands itself. It has a different objective (eg, public interest rather than profitability). This is a performance of authoritarian power. Whether we have enough gumption and structure to push back against it is a big question. But pushing back against authoritarian performances like this is the foundational feature of the government. My hope is that the general hubris and incompetence of these folks will help.

      4. Any imperial bureaucracy is a leviathan that not only outlives presidencies, but dynasties, conquests, and revolutions. The USA is more likely to be dismantled than its bureaucracy.

        1. +1
          I lived through the collapse of the Soviet Union, and let me tell you that dismantling that bureaucracy did not lead to anything great for anyone except a couple of dozen people.

          1. Oh so let’s just keep our bureaucracy because dismantling it didn’t work well for the Soviets.

          2. And arguably the old imperial system isn’t gone today even after that big of a disruption!

          3. Anon @ 11:31 am: NO, let’s keep our bureaucracy because it is serving the people, consistent with the U.S. Constitution. The Soviet example was merely an example of what results when an administration gratuitously creates chaos and destructive uncertainty that is pointless from an efficiency perspective (but on-the-nose from a let’s traumatize the workforce perspective).

      5. The fact that it was too easy to quickly change up the government, was identified as a crucial factor in Hitler abolishing democracy back in the day. After WWII, the US ensured that the new German constitution and power structures were LESS easy to change quickly. Btw, they didn’t use the US system as blueprint either, because of the flaws they perceived.

      6. It’s difficult because the way the government is funded — a lot by line item. It’s not like your department has a yearly budget to spend how you want or so you can just easily resource share with other departments. It might be staff A person and their work is funded under one budget item, staff B under another, and you can’t just take money from one to move to another. Also, some functions are outsourced to other consultants and they also have legally binding contracts.

    5. I’m sure part of it is due to the speed/lack of deliberation and review, but I also bet the orders are meant to be broad and vague so they can test the waters and walk back what doesn’t play to the base (like clarifying re WIC). If there’s minimal uproar, then great, they’ve just given themselves a lot of power. If there is, they have room to “clarify” and then insult others for “assuming” and “fake news”.

      I liked an analogy I saw about how when you are reviewing your budget, you still pay your bills in the meantime! And you revamp with a plan for the next budget cycle. This is horrid to pause in the middle of a fiscal year

      1. I agree with this take. One of my kids is on Medicaid and receives early intervention services. HUGE amount of confusion about whether his EI will continue. My MAGA MIL (my son’s grandma) is already saying I “jumped to conclusions” when worrying his EI services would be cut off. And obviously our Medicaid portal being down was just a glitch that had nothing to do with anything. Our own caseworker doesn’t know the impact on EI but it’s our fault because Dear Leader of course cares deeply for children with disabilities. It’s “fake news” pushed by the liberal agenda, of course.

    6. In the first administration, I thought the chaos was incompetence, but this round seems intentional – blow everything up, gives you cover to push the boundaries and pretend you didn’t, confuse the opposition – a lot of Trump’s recent EOs are unpopular, even among his voters, but it’s hard for people to figure out what’s actually happening.

      2. Some of them are very popular. Don’t forget people voted for this and that Trump, more than anyone, knows how to give his base easy wins.

        1. Of all the Trump voters I know not a single one of them actually read project 2025. They were voting on Fox News talking points at best, they were not informed. They voted to own the libs, they didn’t vote ‘for’ something.

    7. It’s very difficult to know how to respond. I work at the OPM-equivalent at the state level; many of positions are federally funded or work on federal projects. We spent the last two days agonizing over whether to send layoff notices (30-day notice is required by union contracts) to 22,000 employees or not. And the ‘clarification’ guidance just reveals that whomever is running OPM right now has no idea what impact this order is going to have so we’re no closer to knowing who to even send them to.

      Worst is the real impact to the poor who rely on services to live … despite the reassurance yesterday they weren’t cutting direct payments, that still leaves open all of the payments made by states to individuals from federal block grants – are they exempt?

      The incompetence and cruelty is too much to take.

      1. I don’t think this aspect is incompetence. I think it’s an attempt to get states to continue paying while the feds ‘clarify’ things. And before you know it, states are paying and the feds clarify that actually they won’t cover xyz service anymore and then categorize that as a savings.

        It’s a way to download responsibility and cost to states without doing it in an upfront way. If it was clear and upfront, then the voting population could link reduction or loss of service to the federal cuts and blame MAGA politicians. The way they’ve done it, the impact on people will be more separated from the announcement of cuts and therefore less likely to be tied to the feds when the impacts come down.

  3. Small victory for this morning, my fave anti capitalist vegan band just announced a tour and it’s certain to sell out pre-sale. Someone in my local music FB group was looking for the presale code, but my Spidey senses were tingling, so I snooped through his profile, this guy is a fan of the fElon and anti-choice. No code for him and removed from our local music group.

      1. N@zis aren’t punks, and aren’t welcome. Dude was clearly not a vegan nor a safe person.

          1. Huh? He’s been joining right wing political rallies in Europe lately. The gestures are not the only evidence.

            Also, I have a ton of REALLY SMART autistic friends. They usually do not accidentally make Nazi gestures, twice, and then claim they had no idea. That’s not a thing! He’d like you believe it is, but it isn’t!

          3. I wonder what it will take for people like you to call a spade a spade. Attack on the capitol was a love fest? Nazi salute is now a heart emoji? Trump is the most humble man ever? They can say it but you are choosing to believe every word. Why?

    2. And you think that removing people from your local music group for their political views will improve the situation in this country? I say this as an extremely liberal pro-choice vegan who thinks it would be better if this guy does keep spending time with this group rather than getting sent off to only associate with conservative men.

      1. Our local promoters want shows to be safe places. I’m not in charge of the group the promoters are. But yes I agree with the promoters, I don’t want to hang out with someone who wants to harm me.

        1. I don’t like Trump, but being pro-choice and voting for Trump isn’t the same thing as being a Nazi. If he’s actually spouting Nazi propaganda, that’s different and you should have said that.

          1. Elon did an actual Nazi salute did not apologize. The guy removed from the group was pro-Elon.

          2. America first is from the Nazi and KKK playbooks, take your pick. Can you really not see it?

          5. He does. Right after his Nazi salutes here, he was a Zoom speaker at a far-right rally in Germany, saying things that he can’t even legally say in Germany. If it walks like a duck. . .(and if you can’t see it, you might just be a sympathizer).

            I just can’t with people normalizing Nazism anymore.

        2. I’m honestly shocked at all the pro-N@zi comments. Association is implied approval and very not cool. I thought the women here would be happy my local scene is a safe space.

          1. This is exactly the kind of parody of performative liberal virtue signaling that got Trump elected. It does nothing besides make liberals look ridiculous and conservatives resentful and more likely to lash out at the people that make them feel bad. I’m not defending that reaction, but I definitely don’t think it makes anything better. There are a million very real problems in the world that need solving, keeping people apart only makes things worse.

          2. Most likely none of us would be welcome in your safe space. Makes it hard to be cheery about it.

          3. Her line was not supporting people who publicly give the Nazi salute and don’t deny it. Pretty sure that’s a line for a lot of people around here. Especially those of us with family members who died the last time a bunch of people thought that salute was a good idea.

          5. @Anon 11:28.

            Oh name calling! Does that make you feel cool and tough?

            It’s not a ‘my heart goes out to you’. And even if he wants to claim that it was, why has he not said anything like ‘ I feel horrible that people think I would ever do a Nazi salute, clearly Nazis are horrible and I do not want to be associated with their gestures in any way’.

            He could have but he didn’t. Some of us have family members who were forced to learn the salute in school as children. They know what they were taught and they know what he did. So I’ll take the word of those people I know IRL who survived and came to this country never imagining that they would see the same gesture represented here over the internet views of an insult lobbing Nazi apologist tr0ll.

          6. I got you. Shoutout to you for removing this guy. I am personally not interested in hanging out with someone who makes a Nazi salute then doubles down on Nazi jokes while supporting a right-wing fascist.

            It’s blowing my mind that this is a controversial take in this thread. Let’s remember that the guy got removed from a FB group about music. That’s about as minor a consequence as someone can experience.

    3. I miss the days when the tr*lls had consistent handles so you’d know what you were going to read before you started reading.

      1. You think that someone who removed a n*zi from their fb group is a troll?? There’s no hope for this country with that point of view.

        1. This is obviously a made-up story designed to stir the pot. That’s why it’s a tr*ll.

        2. I’m wondering if people genuinely have interacted with their local punk scene before? There’s usually just a handful of promoters who organize all shows in any given city and they have a zero tolerance policy for N@zis.

          2. I think that is specific to the punk community because that genre was associated those politics in the past. I still think this post is pot-stirring of this community and probably fake.

          3. IDK what to tell you, sorry I associate with cool people who uphold moral values and it’s sad you don’t believe that. I’ll enjoy my safe concert.

          4. If this is a real story I don’t know why you’d post so gleefully about it here. It’s not a punk music forum and people won’t get it.

    5. Good for you — reminds me of the viral story on Bluesky about a bartender kicking a polite guy out of a bar who was wearing clothing with Nazi insignia. The patron objected that he was just quietly enjoying a drink. The bartender threw him out. When questioned (by the author of the viral story), the bartender explained that you have to nip that stuff in the bud — it starts with one person quitely enjoying a drink, then they invite a few friends to join, and they are also nice and police, while displaying Nazi insignia, then more and more friends show up, and then the nasty disruptive patrons show up, but by then it’s too late, you can’t throw everyone out, and it is now a Nazi bar.

  4. I wasn’t an adult through any US recession. I honestly do not really understand fiscal policies. But it seems unusual decisions are being made. Are you taking any steps right now to change where your money is, or how/where to hold it? I really do not have much but I have no idea if I should have some cash at home, use CDs, etc.

    1. We’re going to hold onto more cash than we otherwise would have (in high-yield savings accounts). Both of our jobs are at risk now.

    2. I’m rebuilding my savings as quickly as I can in case I find myself without a job or needing to move again.

    3. I don’t plan to do anything differently than I already am, but that’s because I’m confident in my financial planning. If you aren’t, this is as good a time as any to develop a plan you’re comfortable with.

      To answer just one of your questions, yes, you should have some cash at home in case of natural disasters. CDs don’t add much value these days over a HYSA, but yes, your emergency fund should be in an FDIC-insured product (and yes, you should have an emergency fund).

        1. Different anon, but I only have around $100 at home (maybe $150-200 when you add up what’s in our wallets). I focus more on having at least a half tank of gas in the car and plenty of food and water and a well stocked emergency kit at home so I have a hard time thinking of anything I’d need to buy in the short term. I don’t live in a place where natural disasters are especially likely though. I might bump that up if I lived somewhere where extended power outages were more likely.

        2. Different person, live in an area prone to hurricanes. We keep a few thousand on hand, mix of small bills and large bills.

        3. We keep about $100-300 at home. We also live in a hurricane-prone area, so we have a few days’ notice. When there’s a storm that might be on its way to us, we withdraw $500-1000, and we re-deposit it if we don’t need it. (We don’t have a safe at home.)

          2. Huh? I guess that depends on how much $4999 means to you? It’s a lot of money to me that I’d want in a safe.

        4. I’m the poster who says they only keep $100 at home. I figure my house is more likely to burn down or get robbed than I am to need a huge amount of cash. I definitely wouldn’t feel comfortable keeping thousands of dollars around without a fireproof safe.

        5. we keep USD 2000 in a mix of denominations, and an additional 2000 in a mix of 6 other foreign currencies (you never know!).

          Also never less than half a tank of gas plus an additional can of gas, and we are a month ahead on all the prescriptions anyone in my family takes.

          We have two days of water stored at home; I know FEMA says you should have two weeks stored, but for my family size (and home size) 84 gallons is impractical.

        6. We are in a fire and earthquake prone area and keep between 1500-3000 in the house. We don’t have a safe, but it’s stashed in different parts of the house depending on my husband’s whims. We do always know where it is, and it’s not a crisis-inducing amount of money for us if we get burglarized.

    4. Things that have never happened before happen all the time. Stay the course on your investing plan.

    5. One of my stock holdings hit an all-time high yesterday, and I sold a chunk. I intend to keep doing this, hoard cash, and maybe pay off a high interest mortgage (8%) to de-risk. Also cut back on discretionary spending, at least in the United States.

  5. That idiotic “fork in the road” email that went out last night was just the thing to motivate me to stick around, even if it’s out of sheer spite. Elon, get bent.
    Here it is for anyone who might be curious: https://www.opm.gov/fork

      2. It is not. Skipping the entire chain of command, making vague threats and blasting out to a 2 million strong workforce is not normal. If that is normal for your employer, you work for jerks. Or Twitter/X.

        1. I don’t think people understand the chain of command issues There’s a reason of why, until last week, all info (including OPM guidance) was sent by our Secretaries / head of agency or department.

          1. But the chain goes from president to department head and so down. That’s how information flows.

          2. That’s how it’s historically flowed, but there’s no real reason why that can’t change.

          3. Anonymous at 11:42 am: Yes, there are reasons why the normal flow of information and management should not change and why the email from OPM (which is rumored to have originated from a non-federal server) is a destructively uncertain manner of making this dubious offer. Federal employees work for their agency and swear an oath to the Constitution; they do NOT work for the President, who is just another federal official, albeit a very special one. They also do NOT swear a loyalty oath to the Presdient. The President and his/her administration set the policies, and the agencies carry them out, but the White House does not do HR for federal employees, e.g., J.D. Vance is not going to do performance reviews on federal officials.

      3. Except that, once again as shown yesterday by the judge’s action against the illegal and unconstitutional “pause” of federal grants, etc, the executive branch doesnt have the power of the purse, Congress does.

        The money for these “buyouts” is not appropriated – there is no budget for this. People who take the “buyout” legally can’t get paid out.

        The email was also a threat – quit now for the “buyout” before we RIF or terminate you.

        I’m so tired of people not familiar with federal employment coming on here and applying their private sector experience or thought to what’s happening to Feds. It’s not the same.

        1. I know nothing about federal government employment, so this is truly a genuine question. Since these would be deferred resignations as of some date in the future, wouldn’t people technically still be an employee until the resignation date is? Like still on regular payroll? The money for the salaries is appropriated of course (i.e., they would get paid if they kept their jobs), so couldn’t this just be seen as paying their regular salary for 8 months until they actually resign?

          1. We can’t be paid for work we don’t do – thats time and fraud and a very fireable offense.

            We also have to be good stewards of taxpayer money – this is often emphasized in my office. This is, obviously, not a good use of taxpayer money.

          2. Yes, and this is not wage theft or fraud or whatever the other poster is on about. I think it’s dumb, but I don’t think it’s in any way illegal.

          3. Yes. And the FAQs state that the agencies have discretion to actually require people to work during the period leading up to their resignation.

        2. But the email isn’t offering a buyout!!! All they are offering is the ability to continue to work from home in exchange for agreeing to quit by September. They suggest that your workload may be reduced, but in no way promise it.

          1. I hate republicans ability to lie and misbrand something, and people just go along with it. They didn’t offer a buyout, but that’s what the news is reporting

          2. That too – it was intentionally misleading, which also screws people over.

            Also – who is to say someone who takes it isn’t fired next week? An email is not a legal agreement.

          4. Agreed. The FAQs say “no” you’re not expected to work, but I read that as expected “by OPM.” Your actual employer, the agency, can require you to keep working, you just won’t be required to RTO.

        3. And that’s the problem. Federal workers believe they should be exempt from the realities that exist outside their bubble. Over the past decade or two almost every person I know who works in the private sector has been laid off or had their position eliminated with terms much less favorable than those currently being offered to federal employees. They spent some time feeling depressed or angry but then picked up the pieces and moved on to a new job or even a new career. My husband has done this several times. The restructuring and/or reduction of the federal bureaucracy is one of the things that the
          voters wanted and chose in the last election.

          1. Restructuring or reducing govt is one thing. Firing people you don’t have legal authority to fire is another.

            Eg the lack of 30 day notice to senate re inspectors general

            Balance of powers within govt is part of the constitution. We fought for a war for independence so we didn’t have to put up with this kind of nonsense. It’s unAmerican for a President to try and act like a king.

          2. But unlike the private sector, the public sector has certain laws governing reductions in force, removals, etc. Those laws have to be followed by the executive and whether they are being observed here is very much an open-ended question. OPM emails do not supersede written law. As civil servants are oath is to the constitution and the vast majority of civil servants are very conscious about making sure things are done by the book. It is drilled into us. People keep equating the private with the public sector, but the public sector is intentionally setup, through the Civil Service Reform Act, to be somewhat insulated from the level of politics that we are seeing today.

          3. +1 Private employees also depend on their jobs to stay afloat and do important work and have to perform in the face of uncertainty and capricious bosses. Of course, you’re upset! But there will be no ground swelling of outrage for conditions that most of us face every day.

          6. For the hundredth time, comparing private and public sectors is comparing apples and oranges. I don’t know what people don’t get.

          7. Many, many public sector employees have also worked in the private sector.

            I’m a Fed, I worked in the private sector at a F50 company, I worked in local government, I worked at NGOs and NPOs.

            My F50 company had layoffs while I was there. I get it.

            I’m still telling you it’s very different and you cannot compare across sectors.

          8. > The job security of gov jobs is one of the tradeoffs they make for the lower salary.

            Pay them fairly and remove this expectation.

        4. Also, feds, don’t accept the deferred resignation offer! If they are serious abour reducing the size of the executive branch, they may need to resort to RIFs (reductions in force), which by law include extremely generous severance payouts, up to 52 weeks of pay. Why give that up for nothing other than the unenforceable promise that 1) your pay will continue until September 30, and 2) you may continue to work from home — if that applies to your position.

      4. Yes, I don’t know what was the most reasonable part. The implication that until now there hasn’t been accountability, the talk of Taxpayers can expect America’s best (no mention of compensation matching this expectation), or throwing around the term loyal but conveniently forgetting to specify to which entity said loyalty is expected.

      5. ”Sane and reasonable” LOL. A non-elected, foreign born citizen is completely running the show here. That should be worrisome for most of us, federal or not.

      6. Do you understand how government works or not? Because this is not sane or reasonable if you are familiar with it. They are asking people to pre resign. There is nothing that prevents you from being terminated even if you agree to this, it may or may not preserve your retirement benefits, the legality of putting employees on such extended admin leave is not 100 percent certain since the basic rule of govt appropriations is you cannot spend money that Congress has not appropriated. Has congress appropriated people being put on leave this long? OPM certainly isn’t pointing to anything. Not to mention there is a 25k on any govt severance. OPM’s guidance does not and should not supersede written law and regulation, most govt employees know this and that’s why they don’t rightfully trust it.

        1. What’s the citation for the $25k limit on federal severance? I would appreciate it.

          2. The $25k limit appears to apply to lump sum payments for separation programs, rather than limiting the amount of compensation an employee could collect between notice of prospective resignation and the date resignation would be effective.

        2. But this isn’t severance. This is simply people agreeing to resign as of Sept 30 in exchange for not being required to return to the office during that time and retaining your pay and benefits during that time, so the implication is some protection from being fired (though I’m sure if they found cause they still could). Nothing else is guaranteed – your agency can make you continue to work. So it’s not severance at all. It’s 8 months of continued pay/benefits and remote work.

          1. I agree with you, but this is being sold to the public as a buy out or severance, so I just want to point out that even if it was, it’s capped.

    4. What’s also interesting is that he sent out the same email titled “Fork in the Road” to Twitter employees shortly after taking over. It had the same pillars, and in some places, is word for word the same. Eye roll. We all know the email came from Elon.

        2. They also reportedly never received their final paychecks. Don’t fall for this con.

    5. I work in private sector HR and I think it’s ham-handed but voluntary buy outs aren’t necessarily the worst. To me the very creepy and scary part is the ‘loyal and trustworthy’ thing. Expecting performance, in office attendance or reducing staff are all reasonable goals but I’m guessing loyalty doesn’t mean to the constitution in this case.

      1. I can’t overstate this enough, but the legality of these “buy outs” is very much in question. It is not as straightforward as it is in the private sector nor as straight forward as what OPM is trying to make it appear to be.

        2. Are you an employment lawyer familiar with the laws governing the federal workforce? I am not and have not seen any articles quoting one that holds this view—only quotes from politicians or activists.

          2. Fabulous. Would you mind providing a bit more color on the legal issues at play, if you have time? Bored ex-employment lawyer who only ever worked on private sector non-union stuff.

          3. I mean, union issues just to scratch the surface (which you don’t have experience with). Plus the ways a simple google search can tell you that fed employees are protected. Ras doesn’t owe you citations to specific regulations just because her opinion differs from yours on a fashion blog.

          4. At Anon 12:52: This is less employment law and more appropriations law. The basic premise of why this could be unlawful is peppered throughout various posts. But the thrust is that you need to be able to tie all govt spending to a funding source. This is a very serious govt rule that employees are constantly conscious of. Congress has funded salaries and benefits for federal employees but the question becomes is that funding permitted to be paid for hundreds (or thousands if u believe the administration’s 10% figure) people in non work status for several months. Additionally, congress only funded agencies through March through the last continuing resolution; are agencies legally permitted to obligate themselves to pay employees for several months ahead? Because there are limits to what agencies can future obligate themselves to. What happens to the people who pre resign but congress doesn’t pass a budget or cuts an agency’s budget? This all assumes the govt intends to actually pay these people, there’s nothing protecting people from reductions in force even if they pre resign.

          5. Anon @1:31 – you drew inaccurate conclusions about what views I drew despite me saying that I was seeking information about the legal issues at play from a lawyer who understood them because I am a bored lawyer who used to practice in a related area. Sometimes people ask questions because they are genuinely intellectually interested in the answer…

            Ras – thank you for taking the time to write that out! That all completely makes sense and helps clarify the issues. I would bug my fed lawyer friends with these questions, but, well, they’re all freaking out, so thank you for indulging my curiosity!

      2. Presumably when you offer private sector ‘buy outs’ you have the money to make the offer. That money has not been authorized by Congress yet.

        There is no money available for this because the President does not have unilateral control over the budget. Does your HR practice include offering buy outs without money allocated for that purpose?

        2. And don’t buy outs typically entail a payment above and beyond continuing to pay your salary while you’re working? The way I read the email is that you will keep working normally through Sept, not that you leave now and keep getting paid.

          2. Exactly. These salaries are already authorized by Congress. There is no extra money being paid out.

      3. Sorry – I wasn’t clear. My point was not to contradict any of the discussion here about the legality, legitimacy etc of the quote unquote buyout out but more about also being freaked out by the language about what they might ask you to do if you stay.

    6. Fed comp packages are not that much lower than private sector when looking at pension, work-life balance over the course of a year, and the ability or lack of ability to find a comparable job in the private sector. Yes, many Feds took salary pay cuts to become Feds, but many chose that.

      For the Feds saying you do not have a comparable job in the private sector – I would consider upskilling or getting a free online cert. soon. Applying at random will be tough.

      1. It’s cute that you think many people need upskilling. It’s not a question of low skills, it’s that some jobs literally do not exist in the private sector. It’s like when they cut our legislative drafters in my state. One person didn’t move to another type of law, she moved to another common law country and works there.

        A ‘free online cert.’ will totally add to a multi-degree background with internationally cited publications and collaborations. Hard science Phd is nothing without a ‘free online cert.’ I’d say good luck getting new pesticides and drugs approved when you’ve gutted the scientific community but the reality is the regulations on those will become so lax that they won’t need scientists for studies or reviews because there will be none. DDT wasn’t so bad anyway right?

        We’re going to lose smart capable people who would stand up for the institutional integrity and who are loyal to the constitutional principles not a reality tv demagogue. Offering Milley up to Iran makes it clear that those who criticize or try to protect constitutional integrity will not be protected.

      2. Putting aside all the personal ramifications to federal employees, the questionable legality of many of the executive orders is purposefully being glossed over by the administration which is not ordinarily an issue when it comes to private sector layoffs. Whatever your political leanings, we should all be concerned that the executive branch is taking such a loose approach to separation of powers, statutory protections, and a body of law developed by our court system. Sure, feds are worried about their livelihoods, but many have survived reduction in forces in the past. The biggest concern is that what this portends for where our country is headed. A civil service full of loyalists will not serve the American people well in the long term and this is where we are headed if we don’t heed the issues now.

        2. Right? I remember reading a book set in the 1960s in an African country, where it was usual to pay a bribe to get your mail.

          That’s why we have a protected, non-political civil service made up of people who serve all voters, not just those who are in with the ascendant political party.

      3. I believe this was in fact subject of research. That for low level and mid level employees fed salary and benefits exceeded what similar compensation would be available in the private sector. That was not true for higher level employees, but they often get their payout when they move to private sector

        1. One of the reasons lower-level and middle-level workers in govt. are paid better than average is to stave off corruption. To my mind, that’s a good thing, but YMMV.

  6. Hello! Any recent grads of TCNJ here? We are looking at SLACs and it looks like a great school but it is so small that we don’t know anyone who has been there.

      1. +1 I knew people from NJ who went there, mostly to study as teachers, and it was fine. It’s not that well known outside NJ, even within the rest of the NY metro.

      2. Can someone explain to me why this school is just fine? I didn’t think I’d heard of it, but then realized it’s the f/k/a Trenton State College. Both names re unfortunate, IMO. But they seem to be a bridge between expensive high-stat SLACs into a SLAC with decent academics (and a direct entry nursing, a 7-year MD bridge program) for a price that is reasonable for even an OOS student. I grew up in NJ (but didn’t go there; IIRC some teachers did and they were very smart but didn’t want Rutgers and parents couldn’t pay for Swarthmore / Bryn Mawr even if they got in). My current state doesn’t really have SLACs as a concept even. Just huge schools.

        1. I mean one goal of college is name recognition and an alumni network. I live in the area and had to g–gle that acronym…

          1. I think that that is the risk of all small colleges. Versus Bama / Clemson / good sportsball schools.

          2. I don’t think it’s just a small college thing. Pretty much everyone knows of top tier SLACs like Amherst and Swarthmore, and even a lot of the schools in the next couple of tiers have name recognition, at least among people who are more plugged into higher ed. I had never heard of this school and I work in higher ed and am from the northeast. According to US News it’s a “regional university” not a “national liberal arts college” which I think will limit opportunities outside of the very immediate local area.

    2. Me! Two decades or so ago but most people I know who went there are either top of their field or basic New Jersey suburban teachers or nurses (said complimentary). It’s a beautiful campus, great school, amazing value.

    3. I have worked with grads from 2018 and prior who graduated and went on to build a career in accounting. They were all solid team players who were clearly very smart but their parents lacked the money to go to a more expensive school.

      The other school in the area that produces solid graduates who do well in my field (accounting) is Lehigh. They have had in the past a good amount of scholarships available.

  7. Does anyone have a recommendation for a small wheeled briefcase or medium work backpack? It needs to hold a 15 inch laptop, a couple of binders and a Criminal Code (8x5x4). I’m struggling to find something that holds more than the laptop tote I’ve been carrying since law school, but smaller than a wheeled 17″ litigation bag. My new job includes a lot of travel, including small planes, and I’d like to carry one bag rather than two.

    TIA!

    2. I was looking just yesterday at the Portland Gear Cascade backpack, and it looks as if it might work for you. The standard size, not the compact size.

  8. Does every sweatshirt need to be a hoodie? Can some sweatshirts have pocket/s and/or a full zipper and not have a hood? I don’t want to go all flashdance and start cutting off hoods.

    Also, can we have sweatshirts, if not for women, for people who are 5-4 and not broad-shouldered but are possibly broad-hipped? Men’s M is too long and narrow. Men’s M makes me look like a large rectangle when I am neither. I don’t need a curvy-through-the-chest-tummy cut, just something scaled down. Currently eyeing a Youth XL, but I swear that the head hole is now snug.

    2. I agree, not an hood fan, but I like zippers and pockets. I got a great one at LL Bean last summer and would have bought another one but it sold out fast in my size (MP). You could try looking there next year, though I have narrow hips and a large chest and this fits me well, so it might not be quite the right fit for you.

    7. I am wearing a Varley one right now and it’s lovely. Also check out Frank and Eileen for polo-style and actual button-down sweatshirts. They’re awesome.

  9. I could really use some objective career advice. Background – I’ve been with my company 10 years as a specialist in-house counsel always receiving excellent reviews and promotions when appropriate. I’ve been happy. The company is now not doing well and had a bunch of layoffs last year. My boss was laid off. My current boss used to be my peer but has ingratiated herself to the C-suite and now manages me and my team. She became my manager late last year and I had no prior reporting or even work with her in the past. I’ve had weekly meetings with her since then to update her on what my team is doing (she really has no insight into it so I teach a lot).

    I just had my 2024 review and it was horrible. Nothing positive, nothing substantive, just vague “complaints” about my team (without saying who) and questioning every detail I gave in my self-review. In no way did she ever tell me any of this in our weekly meetings and I was so taken aback. I received a score way lower than I ever have and likely won’t be receiving a raise or bonus.

    It’s clear I’m being pushed out. Not sure why I wasn’t included in the initial layoff then, but whatever. I’m doing everything I can do leave but I don’t want to quit until I have something else. But what do I do in the meantime? Is it worth raising with HR, documenting my disagreement with the review, anything else? I want to do something just to at least set the record straight but definitely fear retaliation, and to what end if I’m planning on leaving anyway? But if it comes to it, my thought is I would want to be considered a layoff so I get severance vs. fired for performance issues. Every day at work is miserable now and I am so stressed out, so I know my emotions are clouding my judgment.

    1. Personally, I’d approach this as trying to protect your bonus at 100% payout, understanding that they’re pushing you out and your job in the long run is gone. They can try to push you out and make you resign, but you then can’t file unemployment and won’t get any severance. I’d try to professionally document a lack of prior notice of poor performance so that you can argue for your bonus (and then potentially a PIP to draw things out and keep your paycheck as much as possible)(not to say you should ask for a PIP, but that you should make it clear this is the first instance your performance has been questioned and you want to ensure you’re clear on what needs improvement). Retaliation, to your point, would likely happen regardless to try to get you to leave faster.

    2. Stay as long as you can, and make them fire you. In-house hiring is horrific right now. It’s better than it was a few months ago, but…there’s really an oversupply of competent, mid-career, in-house folks.

      I’m sorry that you were blindsided.

    3. Are you willing to broach the topic with your peers that report to the same person? Curious if they are having similar experiences.

  10. I have what I recognize is a very first world problem, but having only recently found myself in this world, I don’t know the answer or whom to ask.
    I have negotiated the buy a very large (almost 8 feet tall, 3 feet wide) oil painting. I am in Atlanta, but the painting is at the artist’s studio about 300 miles away in rural NC. The artist cannot arrange delivery.
    Ideas about how I can (relatively affordably) get the painting to me? I know there are companies that will crate and move art, but it seems like there should be an easier, more direct way. For example, if I knew someone who had a minivan and typically did ride-share work, I would happily pay them by the mile and hour to go pick it up and bring it back. I’ve never used Task Rabbit, but is this a use case for a forum like that?

    1. is there a reason you can’t rent a minivan yourself and go get it? With something as fragile as art I wouldn’t go with a rando from TaskRabbit.

    2. If the artwork matters to you, and you are willing to pay for it (but not art transport), I would just fly up on a Friday or Saturday, rent a one way uHaul or cargo van, and drive it back yourself. I would not trust a task rabbit to move art, but YMMV.

    3. I’ve done this twice. First time we just turned it into a road trip with a minivan. It is was cheaper than getting it professionally shipped and a fun weekend. Second time I contracted a moving company to go pick up and it was their day rate of about $1k for the trip. I would not trust a random task rabbit with such an expensive object. I made sure the moving company was bonded and insured (get the papers, so many lie)!

    4. This is a go get it yourself with a rental minivan situation, in my opinion. Risks and costs of having someone else do this are too high.

    5. I think your options are drive there and get it yourself in your car if it is big enough or a rented truck if not, or use an art shipping service. I personally would not trust a task rabbit for this type of job, but YMMV.

    6. I didn’t arrange this myself so I can’t recommend a company, but when I bought a piece of handmade furniture that was about 4 hours away from my home, the artisan worked with a long-distance moving company to get it to me. Basically, this company identified a move where both the artisan and I were along their route, and picked it up and dropped it off on their way. They were professional and super nice, and I got the sense this was a regular thing they did.

    7. I would rent a minivan for the weekend and go pick it up. Leave after work Friday night, and spend the night in some cute NC town and eat at a local bbq joint. You’ll be home for a late lunch on Saturday.

    8. I should have said this in my initial post, but for Reasons, I cannot go get it myself. Otherwise, yes, that is the obvious answer. I am actually purchasing the painting through a ghost buyer because I need a layer of remove between the artist and me.

          1. How is that possible? If they were on a sanctions list, the only people you legally can’t do business with, they wouldn’t be in Atlanta or NC.

          2. It could be a personal reason, like a restraining order. But why would you be buying art from someone who has a restraining order against you?

        2. I’m so curious! Not being able to go yourself makes sense (maybe she doesn’t know how to drive – my dad grew up in NYC and never learned – or is disabled or something like that) but “ghost buyer” really got my attention.

          1. Right? I’ve bought a lot of art from living artists. I live in NC. Never once has the ghost buyer idea even come up. And someone asking here re shipping is in my league of art buyers, I’m guessing, vs a high tranche sort of buyer or institution (they’d be all over insurance, documentation, etc).

        3. Maybe she doesn’t want anyone to know she owns the piece for political reasons? But then she would have to hide a giant painting in her home.

        4. Ooh, this is fun. Maybe she is buying it for the purpose of publicly destroying it to make a statement?

          1. So much with the “layer of remove.”

            I am a native English speaker. Who talks like this? And in Atlanta. I have even more Questions now.

          3. With a ghost buyer, funds are going to have to move somehow. I wonder if you can imagine the # of CTRs that might be involved here. You have to get the $ to the ghost buyer somehow. Or is this all cash? Does the artist have to file a CTR? Is the ghost buyer in that line of business and this is all on his/her Schedule C for taxes? And is there an NDA with the ghost buyer? Also a fun game is Spot the Possible Wire Fraud.

        5. Here’s a thought: it’s a really good artist, but there are family or friendship issues.

          Imagine: OP is married. It’s her husband’s second marriage. The artist is the husband’s ex-wife’s cousin or sister.

          1. Husband > art, yes? Deceit, bad. Someone would eventually as about the artist.

            A straw buyer (how it’s usually phrased) is to hide the buyer’s identity from the seller. Not to hide the seller, who is known to the buyer already. Maybe someone is trying to do an end run around a gallery or represented artist? Art law is wild. WILD. Those treatises are worth reading because they are good reads, even if you aren’t a lawyer. This seems like a Southern version of something Thomas Crown Affair adjacent.

          2. Buying art from your husband’s ex-wife anonymously is h*lla weird.

            The idea I had was maybe it’s a family member she wants to support, and doesn’t want them to know that their “big art sale” is actually just a family member supporting them. I read a novel recently with this as a major plot point but now I can’t remember what it was called.

          3. I have a friend who is an artist. Her ex husbnd, who was a total asshole in the divorce, years later still occasionally buys a piece of her art via a gallery’s website. She figures it’s a guilt thing.

        6. Second thought: gallery owner buying something for an art gallery and doesn’t want the artist to know that it is being purchased for display and resale?

          1. For any art worth buying, the buyer wants provenance and to know to the artist is. Word will inevitably get back. Reputations matter and this seems shady.

            And >90% of all art is bought for enjoyment and has no resale value (just replacement value), so no need for the cloak and dagger.

        7. This is all very weird.

          I’m close to volunteering to be the ghost buyer so I can be nosy about it.

        8. I had a situationship with an artist whose work I really love. I’ve not been able to afford it, but I could be in a position to buy in a year or two. I might consider having a friend make the purchase for me since the artist always warned me when we were saying goodbyes that I should not stalk him, I guess bc he is famous in his mind. (Meanwhile he has always initiated our encounters even though I have known all these years where his home and studio are, both within walking or easy driving distance, and I have never even taken an unnecessary drive by.)

      3. If you can’t get it yourself then an art handling company is the way to go. It’s not cheap, but you get what you pay for.

        1. This is the way.

          I’m not sure why you’d go through the time and expense of getting a ghost buyer and commissioning a piece of art and then trusting it to a complete random person on Task Rabbit where you’d have no recourse if something goes wrong.

        2. Can someone pls open a full-service ghost buyer service? Like with shipping and a form NDA / indemnity / shell company / bitcoin options?

    10. UShip dot com. You can use it for the most random things – I used it to move a 1927 gas stove from Dallas to Nashua. When the bids start coming in, they always start out high and come down to reasonable.

    11. You could try a local moving company. A lot of them move things like furniture or pianos.

    12. I have used an art service from FedEx to transport paintings between European countries. It was arranged by the gallery, though.

  11. Calling European readers- my husband would like a pair of more European swim trunks (not the full on tiny Speedo, more like boxer briefs – but in any event, a lot trimmer than American styles). Any brand suggestions to shop?

    1. Villebrequin. Expensive, but iconic french swimsuits with tons of designs, hold up very well, and very confortable according to my husband.

      1. These are gorgeous and very expensive. My husband would love the shortest ones. A decent dupe at a much lower price point are the Lands’ End 5″ shorts.

      3. Those are exactly the look! Thank you!

        Seafinch I am shocked at the Lands End find. It can join Talbots in the “Of All Places” category…

  12. I have been with the same consulting firm for several years in account management roles (similar to partner or engagement manager – sales/managing and growing accounts/highest level oversight of project work). I was presented with the opportunity to lead a new team, overseeing all of the organization’s strategic initiatives and working closely with the ELT. Is this a role that exists in other companies? Seems like a good opportunity but also isn’t directly revenue generating so seems like a less stable role. Is it career suicide or a good move?

    1. It sounds like a fantastic opportunity, I’d take it! there are tons of ways to show value that are not increasing revenue directly under your control, and a company that is creating a team like this seems like it knows that. No job is 100% stable, but this would be an incredible networking opportunity and also give you major insight into how all aspects of the business come together. If you have C-level aspirations, it is a good stepping stone.

    3. I would have a conversation about how you are excited for the opportunity, but also would like to discuss whether they see this move as temporary (standing up the team, getting it going) or more permanent. And I would also want to know the personalities involved–leaders can be mercurial. Do you know the ELT? It’s only a good opportunity if they’re aligned on what you’re supposed to do or build; otherwise it could be a total nightmare.

    4. definitely can go either way!
      we have a role like that & the person in it is well-regarded (and their team actually gets things done) because they are super close with & trusted by leadership. It can also be an eye-roll inducing role that does nothing substantial. If it’s being offered to you vs. you seeking it out, sounds more like the first!

  13. Random PSA – I’ve been using minoxidil drops for about 5 months now and I’m so impressed by it. I had some balding around my part. The minoxidil fixed that and now in addition my hair is so much thicker. I don’t even mind that I’ll probably have to use this long term – its just like a hair serum.

    I bought the costco version of rogaine (says for men, derm said that didn’t matter) and I’ve been using it twice a day. It did increase hair growth elsewhere slightly but that has gone back to normal. My hair was also shedding more in the middle but I read that that was normal and now its stopped.

    1. I also use and live minoxidil. Fwiw the pill version is a lot easier, equally effective and much cheaper. I pay $4 for a 30 day supply. The dose is so low that side effects are extremely rare.

    2. Do you get it through an online pharmacy?

      I have horrible iron deficiency and my hair, never thick to begin with, is falling out in chunks. I was looking at Nutrafol but Minoxidil seems like a more effective option. Would love thoughts.

      1. It’s the same active ingredient, just a different way to apply. I like the serum better than the foam, personally, because it’s easier for me to get it on my scalp.

  14. What’s happening with federal employees and grants in many ways illegal and unconstitutional.

    People are too focused on federal employees getting treatment they see as unfair.

    They’re not focusing on the fact that it’s a) executive oversight b) illegal and c) purposefully eroding civil society, its ability to function, and trust and support.

    Federal employees and budget are the test case. He’ll start with this and then expand into other areas.

    He’s purposely diving us (and people on this board are falling for it!) and vilifying Feds. But it’s gonna come for the rest of us too

    1. +1. I have been VERY surprised by what I’ve read on this board in the past couple of days.

      1. Some readers clearly support the changes and others are falling victim to Trump’s efforts to sow divisions and resentment among voters.

      2. I’ve been here a long time and roll my eyes through a lot of the drama, but some of the things I’ve read in the last few days have been shocking and truly made me ask myself if I want to continue giving time and energy to this community.

        1. What I worry about is how many people around me in my in-person community think the same things but are quieter about it offline.

      1. there are a lot of people here that seem to think that public funding has just been wasted nonstop until now. One poster on the water bottle thread couldn’t believe that people regularly have meetings with a water pitcher and glasses on the conference table. We have that once a year when a VIP is visiting. If you get cheap coffee before a department meeting, the department head paid for it out of pocket. If I go to a conference and book flights and hotel through the official booking system at pre negotiated rates, the whole trip still is reviewed pre-travel by three levels and reimbursement is again reviewed by three levels of staff.

        1. If anything, public funding is wasted by how much red tape there is to spend taxpayer money on very basic office supplies!

        2. I have lost count of the number of federally funded conferences I’ve been to where there’s a sign next to the coffee urn stating that a donor paid for the refreshments and no federal funds were used for this purpose.

        3. For what it’s worth, I don’t think federal (or state or local govt) money is being wasted on giant vats of coffee – but I do think that we pay for govt programs that don’t end up having the advertised effect, or that are less efficient than just “give the beneficiaries what we spend in cash” would have been. Not due to individual incompetence of federal workers, but sometimes due to bloat baked into bureaucratic structural incentives. I have extremely low expectations Trump’s admin will do anything to make it better, but my skepticism of what we’re getting for our tax dollars isn’t based on confusion about who pays for coffee

          1. In practice nearly any program will be less efficient and effective than “give the beneficiaries what we spend in cash,” but the reason we have so much bureaucracy and so many inefficient programs is that politicians and citizens think the structure is necessary to make sure that those lazy poor people aren’t spending their food stamps on cigarettes and that those greedy bureaucrats aren’t spending it on $16 muffins. Ironic, isn’t it?

          2. yup. We could just wire everyone the funds, and that is what many experts advocate for. But if you don’t monitor, means test and put a bunch of bureaucracy on it, well then it would just be a handout. Veering close to a basic income. Guess how that would go over with voters.

          3. Oh! I was on a team that planned legal conferences with the same grant as the infamous $16 muffins debacle. Sen. Grassley completely misrepresented that cost. It wasn’t $16/muffin. That cost was the entire food and beverage minimum that *included conference space*. But hey, $16/muffin plays into public perceptions that the government is wasteful.

            He also railed against a conference in Las Vegas because fun. Even though the city has myriad conference facilities, cheap airfare, and plentiful hotel rooms.

            As a result of his muffin debacle, we had to switch conferences to 3rd tier cities (which often lack said conference facilities). I ended up organizing a conference in Des Moines, IA in the middle of winter. There was a foot of snow, and attendance was greatly reduced.

          4. We know there’s grift (especially in military contracts, but just a lot in general; I know several people whose local schools have been affected by actual embezzlement, let alone waste). But there’s only going to be more now.

          5. I’m a lot more concerned about why the Pentagon has failed a 7th audit and cannot account for its over $800B budget than grift at a local school.

            Both are wrong, but there’s a clear difference in the order of magnitude. The school issue doesn’t need federal intervention. The local school board can take care of it. If they don’t, vote them out.

          6. We do but that waste starts with DOD losing whole fighter jets worth of money. No one is truly serious about federal budgets until they turn off the fire hose to defense. For like 8 years now, they have lost a trillion dollars. Every year. And no one cares.

          7. Re. the muffins–that’s exactly the point. There never were any $16 muffins, but we waste lots and lots of money to avoid the appearance of anything like it.

    3. I would feel bad for people in the private sector going through the same thing. I’ve been kind of shocked at the vehemence with which some posters are just cruel and uncaring about others in general.

      1. It’s been really bad lately, IMO. There have been posters who are clearly having a hard time and looking for some support and instead of collapsing the thread, a whole contingent of posters comes in to kick them when they’re down, sometimes with super personal insults and over-the-top accusations. I don’t know why it gets this bad here.

    4. Which pieces, specifically, do you view as unconstitutional?

      It would be helpful if we can elevate the discussion here to avoid hand-wavey comments like this. Specificity is the soul of wit…and of intelligent political discussion.

      (Credit to the many posters here who have been both specific and even-handed. But man, comments like this are just fluff.)

      1. Disagree, this is a casual blog and no one is required to write a lengthy essay to make a general point.

          1. Again, totally disagree. I was able to read and understand her point immediately – that the changes are illegal and people are less focused on that and more focused on “well those spoiled feds had it coming.”

          2. But it is pointless to say “this is illegal!” or “this is unconstitutional!” without saying *why* you think it’s illegal/unconstitutional. That’s what the post is missing. I don’t expect people to write essays, but c’mon. It only takes a sentence to say what thing you’re actually objecting to.

          3. I hope this helps. You can simply look at a news source or a search engine and type in “arguments that X is unconstitutional”. Either method will bring up quotations or posts about those arguments. Real actual trained constitutional experts believe some of these actions are unconstitutional. This is not a strange theory made up by someone on a blog.

            I hope this helps.

      2. Gift article to Anne Lamott, who is saying what a lot of us are thinking.
        The Resistance Will Not Be Rushed
        https://wapo.st/4aEGlP3

        “I think we need and are taking a good, long rest. Along with half of America, I have been feeling doomed, exhausted and quiet. A few of us, approximately 75 million people, see the future as a desert of harshness. The new land looks inhospitable. But if we stay alert, we’ll notice that the stark desert is dotted with growing things. In the pitiless heat and scarcity, we also see shrubs and conviction.”

      3. Impoundment is unconstitutional.

        Firing term-appointed board members of independent agencies is illegal.

        Firing inspectors general is illegal without proper notice.

        Removing the personhood of long-serving, career military professionals who happen to be gender non-conforming is reprehensible. Also, many trans people now have ID that doesn’t match their sex assigned at birth. They can’t travel, and their passports are being confiscated at ports. That’s illegal.

        Students are being rounded up in their dorm rooms and deported. That’s illegal.

        ICE is deporting people based on quotas, without the opportunity for hearings or the presentation of evidence. That’s illegal.

        I could go on.

        Should I go on?

      4. I commented above as well, but here are some key issues of legality of what’s happening from various executive actions/orders:
        – setting up DOGE without apply any of the transparency laws that usually apply to governmental bodies (there are currently lawsuits on this)
        – firings of certain inspector generals without congressional notification
        – is the executive department circumventing congress’ power of the purse when it unilaterally stops funding of grants that have been issued and distributed (not just pending)
        – potentially offering a “buy out” (it’s unclear what exactly employees are getting here but let’s run with buy out for the sake of discussion) without stating the legal authority to keep employees on admin leave for such a long period of time. It’s unlawful to spend what Congress has not appropriated; has Congress appropriated 8 months of pay and benefits for fed employees not to work? OPM certainly hasn’t cited to anything and some Congressional representatives like Kaine have already come out and said no. This could potentially both a statutory violation and a violation of the separation of powers. Not to mention if this is a buy out, those are legally capped at 25k. Unlike the private sector, federal employees can’t ignore all the legal issues and point to an OPM email down the line and say hey, this is what we were promised. Principles of contract and reliance that you can rely on in the private sector won’t necessarily hold up against statutory and appropriations laws.
        – everything about birthright citizenship that’s currently being argued by the administration

        Other areas of concerns, but probably technically legal:
        – Waiving security clearance requirements for very high up political appointees
        – OPM setting up a private server for its emails to all feds (I’m actually not familiar enough with the laws on this to say if it’s legal or not, may be violations of Privacy Act involved here)

        This is what I can name off the top of my head

      5. Hi OP here – congress has the power of the purse. The attempt to stop grant payments yesterday was unconstitutional

        1. But also I have enough on my plate as a fed. I didn’t have time to write out a whole thing.

          1. Breaking news…OPM just rescinded its grant guidance, telling agencies to check with their General Counsel. lol…what even is this? Even more chaos because the Executive Order hasn’t been rescinded from what I’m seeing, just the guidance.

            I’m a Fed on mat leave so I have the time to be too invested in all these posts.

  15. Low-stakes Q – is there a canned clam chowder that’s actually decent? My nutritionist wants me to eat more fish and shellfish specifically for iron/minerals/more nutrient-dense meals. I like clam chowder but also convenience. Is there anything that fits the bill?

    1. I think most canned chowders will have a very small amount of actual seafood in them. Do you like shrimp? I think buying and thawing pre-cooked shrimp is one of the easiest ways to get more shellfish in your diet.

      1. Shrimp is an excellent idea. (They are very quick to cook, too, if you get uncooked ones.) Canned tuna fish is another easy option. Make a batch of tuna salad and spread it over a few lunches/snacks

    2. Trader Joe’s has a decent one in the refrigerator section, but I wouldn’t call it (or any) clam chowder nutrient dense. Pretty much the point of a chowder is to stretch out a small amount of protein with cheap fat and starch.

    3. Just FYI anyone can call themselves a nutritionist. Registered Dietician is the title that is protected and has educational requirements.

    4. I used to like the Cioppino Seafood Stew in the freezer section at Trader Joe’s – but haven’t been in about a year.

      I buy Manhattan clam chowder from Progresso or whatever but I wouldn’t think it’s necessarily healthy. You can find a lot of heavy New England clam chowder in fridge and freezer sections at grocery stores, but I don’t have any great reports on that.

      Lots of lentil stews that are canned, high protein, low calorie — not sure how they are for irons and minerals though.

    5. Trying to get nutrients from clam chowder seems akin to trying to get your vitamin C intake from orange creamsicles.

      2. How do you make that out? A good clam chowder has protein, fat, and a lot of micronutrient nutrition from clams (and some from potatoes).

        1. And probably a ton of salt and saturated fat. It’s usually made with cream and/or oil! And the clams are a small portion. So really you are getting your protein/calories from the cream, like with a creamsicle

          1. Clams have about 17 g of protein per 4 oz serving and they’re a great source of iodine, among other essential nutrients. Either way, you can just answer the question!

          4. No one is getting what they need from a can of clam chowder, but there’s no reason they can’t doctor it with an additional can of clams and some onion and a dash of heavy cream.

            I’d check the oils they use (vegetable oils have no redeeming qualities) but if they use butter and heavy cream, it should be decent quality.

    6. You could add some drained canned clams to your canned clam chowder. Manhattan style is going to be less fatty than New England style. My family likes the Campbell’s Manhattan style canned clam chowder.

      Don’t forget the oyster crackers!

    7. There’s so much sodium in prepared soups, I wouldn’t lean on that as a way to meet your nutrition goals. It’s definitely a fun treat this time of year though. I agree that TJs has some good options, check out Whole Foods refrigerated section too.

      Do you like salmon? There are a ton of salmon burger/patty options. You could cut a patty in half to make salmon tacos, put it on a salad or over rice, etc – you don’t need to stick to burgers just because it’s a patty.

      And one thing I love about cooking fish is it’s super fast. I cook salmon and other fish on a salt block or cedar plank in the oven. It takes no prep other than turning on the oven. Big fan of hands off toss it in the oven type meals.

    8. I’m going to put in a rec for tinned seafood. There are lots of shockingly delicious options out there. It’s pricey, but the Fishwife brand is very good.

      1. I am currently obsessed with Fishwife smoked salmon. I tried the Trader Joe’s version because it’s so much cheaper, but there is just no comparison.

      2. King Oscar Mackerel in Olive Oil Mediterranean Style is delicious. And I’m usually not a tinned fish (sardines, smoked oysters) fan.

    9. Is it too inconvenient to get one that’s good enough and doctor it a bit? (Add a whole can of clams to it, to start with!)

        1. I’d start with one of the brands that also sells clams to begin with, like Bar Harbor or Snow’s.

          What I actually do is just assemble (clams, clam broth, cream, and whatever starch I’m using). Less convenient than a can, but if I’m at home it’s still pretty efficient.

        2. There is one in the freezer section near the fish case in my Publix and I am pretty sure it is also sold in Whole Foods. I second the idea of adding a can of clams.
          Also, fresh clams in broth are very easy to prepare and not terribly expensive. They make for a great dinner with just a salad or other simple vegetable on the side.

    10. Clam chowder is an odd recommendation for a nutrient dense meal. Unless you need a calorie dense high fat meal.

      New England clam chowder with lots of veges and a strong tomato base is more nutrient dense.

      I agree with the other poster to make sure your nutritionist is a RDN.

    11. If you want minerals, fish that is canned with the bones and skin is especially great. You could do anchovies, either on pizza, in a Nicoise salad or a pasta sause. You could do sardines, or mackerel. Spanish and Portugese canned seafood is known for it’s high quality.

      I like pasta with a canned salmon alfredo as well, and of course tuna. I love mackerel in tomato sauce on buttered bread.

  16. Would you schedule a cataract surgery for an elderly family member with dementia who doesn’t really understand the surgery? She wants to see better, but doesn’t want surgery on some days – she says “no eyeballs shaved, I’ll just get new glasses.” Other days, she’s completely fine with the idea of surgery. She had multiple exams that confirm she won’t improve her vision with new glasses alone because of the cataracts. I’m so torn – do we push this forward, knowing it will benefit her vision (and it goes without saying we have the legal authority to make the decision), or do we let her vision worsen because of her back-and-forth understanding and because Alzheimer’s is terminal anyway?

    1. I’d favor going ahead with cataract surgery if you think she can tolerate the post-operative care. The vision impairment caused by cataracts may worsen her confusion over the long term.

      1. Agree the post op care is going to be difficult for someone who doesn’t understand what is going on.

        1. That would be my concern. Will she be able to keep her hands away from her face?

      1. I’m not sure. She’s turning 75 this year and has had dementia for at least 5 years. Her health is otherwise pretty good. She does have high blood pressure.

    3. I hate to ask it this crassly, but what is her probable number of years left remaining (understanding these things can only be speculated at)? I would not do this for a 98 year old, for example.

      1. Can you explain your reasoning? (Is it about recovery time, or risks of any procedure, or why?)

    4. My parent has dementia and we went ahead with the surgery. It actually improved their quality of life. Watching tv and reading became less strenous and (in their case) painful, which made their day more “fun”. I would do it. Post-op care wasn’t bad (with the caveat that we’re in a country where nurse care/visits are included in the after-care)

    5. Definitely seconding the opinions to consider quality of life for the likely duration of her life.
      New consideration though: are you going to be able to get her into the operation peacefully and are the eye doctors ready to handle a patient with dementia? It can be a lot to handle, in my experience.

    6. We decided not to in my grandmother’s case (she was around 90 at the time), but she had been pretty clear she didn’t want to undergo any medical procedures or anything, including life-saving things like CPR.

    7. For a 75 yo I would definitely do it. As others have said, the quality of her life will definitely improve when she can see better.

    9. I think the question is not whether cataract surgery is a good idea generally for someone her age. It obviously is.

      But if she’s not sure from day to day that she wants it, then it’s a no. She has agency and no one should be tying her down forcing her to have surgery she’s not sure she wants.

      1. Counterpoint: If it were me, sitting here now in my right mind, I can say without hesitation that if it got to the point where I was in your mom’s shoes and not in my right mind, I would want you to make the choice for me to have the surgery even if I were back-and-forth about it in the moment. (I think this is different than if she were adamantly and consistently opposed, in which case yeah I think that would be a no.)

        2. Practically how do you do that? What happens if the day the surgery is scheduled is a day where she’s a “no”? What surgeon is actually going to perform surgery on someone who doesn’t want it?

          1. You reschedule, cross your fingers, and hope that she’s amenable on the rescheduled date.

            You schedule for the morning or whatever time she’s usually the most lucid.

    10. My elderly parents have all had this surgery and were in love with the results. It’s fairly quick and the healing time, and post-surgical restrictions, were low. That would make it a go for me.

      1. Everyone I know who’s had the surgery is a huge fan, except that one person didn’t like the “monovision” lenses she was given. I also hate monovision contacts, so I would be asking a lot of questions about the lenses. However, I would be concerned about a resistant person with dementia’s ability to comply with the post-op requirements.

    11. Will she comply with post-op care requirements and if not what is the risk of her injuring herself further?

    12. Yes. I care for a developmentally disabled senior who had this done. It made ability to see tv so much better and worth the confusion. Still difficult for them to understand what is being done but the doctor showed a model so they seemed comfortable. And the 2nd one was much better than the first. And there were no real challenges with the recovery — just annoying drops.

  17. how can I find out which committees my elected representatives sit on? I was interested in the convo the other day about how to take small actions when this is so overwhelming and while I love the idea about focusing in “your area” or an area of special concern, that is still overwhelming to me – so I thought maybe if I figured out which committees they sit on i could just pay attention to those issues since they might actually be able to do something about it then?

      1. January is a time of committee reorganization, especially after an election. Many elected officials are changing committees, and their websites might not be updated yet. Keep that in mind when you research them!

  18. Do any of my fellow m1graineurs take Nurtec or another in the CGRP antagonist class of medications daily?

    My insurance approved Ubrelvy for occasional migraines but the labeled usage limits it to treating 8 migraines a month. Nurtec is tested for daily use but my insurance didn’t approve it for occasional migraine usage.

    I’ve had daily headaches since October and am seeing my helpful, well-regarded neurologist basically monthly. I’ve tried a long list of other drugs but at this point he’s treating it like daily migraines after ruling out the really scary stuff after a bunch of testing including multiple MRIs.

    Any advice on what worked for you is most welcome!!

    1. I’ve tried so so many meds and the new CGRP antagonists have been my miracle cure with no side effects. Happy to answer any questions!

      The monthly injection med Ajovy has been literally life changing for me–between that and Ubrelvy for as-needed use, I’ve gone from ~15 headache days/month to 0-2/month. My two cents:

      – ask your doc if you can get on a CGRP preventive
      – does the Ubrelvy actually help? If so I think that’s a good sign for the preventive CGRP meds potential for you
      – For the Nurtec, have your neurologist file an appeal. I needed to do this for at least one of my meds, and insurance ended up approving it.

      1. Thanks for your response! Ubrelvy does seem to help. I often have to take the second dose 2 hours later, per the label, but so far I am getting 1-2 headache-free days after using it.

        Neurologist is supportive of using it a couple of times per week but that’s more than I’m prescribed (10 per month) especially if I have to take two tablets most of the time.

        I will read up on Avjoy!

    2. Yes I take the shots and it changed my life drastically. Now what is irritating is when your insurance wants you to change to another of the shots randomly. I use Ubrelvy for when I get those migraines which I think is the purpose not preventative. I also take a daily beta blocker as well.

  19. Any recommendations for light-hearted escapism on the internet? Water cooler/casual conversation, entertainment news, Reddit pages, IDK what. Looking for a break from news or anything stressful.

    1. My favorite thing is to pursue endless rabbit holes related to my hobby. Read an article or watch a video, search something mentioned in the video, then search three more versions of it, then follow another thread inspired by that…

    2. I like relaxing videos of day to day lives of youtubers, especially in a language I don’t understand haha. Nyansoop, nekoniwa, and planD are some of my favorites!

    3. The CasualUK reddit sub. Also British tiktok (I am biased as a native myself) especially with their analysis of UK reality tv shows

    4. There’s a rapper whose series of lengthy youtube videos showing him viewing a tape of “Hamilton” for the first time have gone viral, and they are delightful! This guy studied music in school and has terrific insight into the craft of putting this show together. His commentary and analysis are very sharp and entertaining. Hopefully you can use your Google-fu to find these videos and enjoy watching them!

    5. Check out magazines on the Libby app for your library. I love doing this and it feels less wasteful than buying hard copies.
      Extra points if you read them on an ipad!

Comments are closed.