Forest Service Reorg - Progress or Politics

[SAJ-99]

This article is the perfect example of concurrent truths. Concurrent truths that apply, from my view:

1. Montanans care about public lands and oppose the sale/transfer of those lands.

2. Montanans continue to vote for Republicans who have a platform plank advocating for the transfer of public lands to the states.

Other concurrent truths not listed in the article.

3. Party loyalty is stronger than it ever has been, with voters often prioritizing party over other issues they might have.

4. Montanans have many other priorities in addition to public lands, many of which they place higher than public lands when it comes time to vote.

5. Democrats are often tone deaf on many of the other issues that Montanans prioritize, resulting in the landslide losses they have experienced lately.

l like Rob's writing. He asks the right question: "So What?"

Yet, I would have liked to see further investigation of why much of this happens. Not the normal Democratic BS that voters vote against their own self-interest, or voters are stupid, or this is the result of a misinformed electorate.

The Dems want to blame all their losses on MAGA voters. 35-45% of Montanans identify as Republican, depending upon the district. News Flash - Rs can't win with 35-45% of the vote.

With only 28-32% of Montana voters registered as Democrats, the Dems need to work harder at appealing to the Independents, but they are too tied to issues driven by the DNC, its donors, and the national Democratic leadership.

I've given up on discussing this topic with any of my ardent Democratic friends. Their responses are border on arrogance. There is little self-reflection as to why this is happening, just blaming the voters for being dumb/uninformed/misinformed. They use terms like "Leopard ate your face" or "Tree voted for the axe" or other statements that voters purposefully voted against their self-interest.

Nobody votes agains their own self-interest. People vote for what they think is in their best interest. It just happens that Democrats, both in Montana and nationally, haven't come up with candidates or ideas that the majority Montana voters think represent their best interest, with "best interest" being weighed around many issues, including public lands.

When a party, its platforms, and its funding, is coming from NYC, Chicago, CA, and other urban areas, forcing rural state candidates to have loyalty to that party/platform is going to result in what we see in Montana.

Summary for me - Multiple things are true at the same time. Montanans care about public lands. Public lands rank lower than party loyalty. Until Democrats craft a message and provide candidates that have broad appeal on the many other issues Montana voters prioritize, Republicans will continue to have majorities that protect them from any consequence for their bad public land ideas. I accept those concurrent truths in how I approach our advocacy.

So as Carnage put it, all the candidates suck. And to be honest, it isn’t R vs D because there is still a primary and voters can select their best choices. They won’t. Instead they get the choice forced down their throat and then complain about the other choices. If voters aren’t willing to try something different, we can all kiss public lands goodbye. Everyone wants their piece of the pie and accountability for the other guy, but won’t keep the same standard for their guy. It’s no-win for everyone, or almost everyone.

And yes, I agree with the view on Ds. As Rahm Emanuel has said “their best chance is to stop being Democrats”, which I think is much of what you described.

 

[BuzzH]

Three-quarters of USDA researchers tapped to relocate tell union they’re not going | Federal News Network

An internal survey conducted by AFGE Local 3403 found that 76% of its members have indicated they are not planning to relocate.

federalnewsnetwork.com

 

[R.K.]

This came across my feed this morning. Anybody care to try making sense of it, and what the ramifications may be? @Big Fin?

USDA's Hidden Plan to Dismantle the Forest Service Exposed in Sweeping Federal Lawsuit

USDA swore it wasn’t gutting the Forest Service. Then a federal court pried loose the plan the department spent a year hiding, and the plan proves the agency lied. A judge could halt the whole thing o

morethanjustparks.substack.com

 

[Hunting Wife]

This came across my feed this morning. Anybody care to try making sense of it, and what the ramifications may be? @Big Fin?

USDA's Hidden Plan to Dismantle the Forest Service Exposed in Sweeping Federal Lawsuit

USDA swore it wasn’t gutting the Forest Service. Then a federal court pried loose the plan the department spent a year hiding, and the plan proves the agency lied. A judge could halt the whole thing o

morethanjustparks.substack.com

Interesting. Puts a new light on the Wildland Fire Service. Pull that essential duty into it’s own agency, and you remove one of the significant arguments against gutting the individual land management agencies. Brilliant actually.

 

[BuzzH]

In a bit of good news on a Friday:

July 10, 2026

Washington, D.C. – Today, the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE-IAM) celebrates a ruling by an independent arbitrator which restores telework and remote work agreements for employees serving at the U.S. Forest Service. The decision was a result of the union filing a grievance which alleged agency management violated the NFFE-USFS Master Agreement by unilaterally cancelling telework and remote work agreements of nearly 20,000 USFS employees.

“This favorable decision could not have come at a better time,” said NFFE Forest Service Council President Genny Kotyk. “Our employees are currently being threatened to move across the country and uproot their lives – supposedly to cut costs – or being forced to leave the agency. With telework and remote work agreements lawfully reimplemented, many employees will be relieved of having to make that difficult decision, while also saving taxpayers the substantial cost to relocate.”

The ruling found the agency violated both the NFFE-FSC Master Agreement, as well as the Telework Enhancement Act of 2010. As a result, the arbitrator has ordered a status quo ante remedy, meaning the agreements in place before the agency issued its return to in-person work order must be reestablished. The agency has the right to appeal the decision, but the union will ensure the ruling is implemented as quickly as possible.

NFFE Wins Arbitration, Restoring Telework and Remote Work for U.S. Forest Service Employees | National Federation of Federal Employees

The decision was a result of the union filing a grievance which alleged agency management violated the NFFE-USFS Master Agreement by unilaterally cancelling telework and remote work agreements of…

www.nffe.org

 

[jimh406]

Not good news to me. Not bad either.

I don't think it's good to be forced to accept people "working" from home. Like many people, I have experienced what "working" from home looks like. Sometimes they work, sometimes not.

In any case, this will probably be overruled, eventually.

 

[BuzzH]

Not good news to me. Not bad either.

I don't think it's good to be forced to accept people "working" from home. Like many people, I have experienced what "working" from home looks like. Sometimes they work, sometimes not.

In any case, this will probably be overruled, eventually.

No, it won't be over-ruled. They knew the day they implemented RTO it would be over-turned. Much of what this administration is doing they know full well is illegal. They just do it and are willing to accept the loses to get their way in the short-term. They aren't going to be in control long enough to win the long game.

There was a full record of telework and the volume of work done remotely that was presented to the arbitrator. There was also cost analysis for the savings in office space, etc. with telework. Was a win-win-win for the taxpayer. It also took into account all the paid leave that the agency was paying for during weather events and other unexpected office closures. No telework agreement, no working from home...all admin leave.

The agency is already on the hook for the cost of the arbitration, which is substantial. They will get embarrassed again on appeal.

If the Agency didn't benefit from telework and remote work, they wouldn't have agreed to it while negotiating the master agreement.

 

[sclancy27]

Not good news to me. Not bad either.

I don't think it's good to be forced to accept people "working" from home. Like many people, I have experienced what "working" from home looks like. Sometimes they work, sometimes not.

In any case, this will probably be overruled, eventually.

Here's my take on TW and remote work; those that are not going to work at all when on TW are the same people that don't do anything in the office either. The difference being that when in the office they constantly bother the people trying to be productive.

TW and remote opportunities are our last real perk over private sector to get talent. They do require good hiring, supervision and taking full advantage of the probationary period to get rid of problem employees early on.

 

[jimh406]

The agency has the right to appeal the decision

Well, they have the right to appeal.

 

[jryoung]

Interesting. Puts a new light on the Wildland Fire Service. Pull that essential duty into it’s own agency, and you remove one of the significant arguments against gutting the individual land management agencies. Brilliant actually.

I can't help but run this through two lenses. First is the Private Equity filter: Strip it to bare bones and sell it to parts.
Second is the Office Space movie filter: "We, uh, we fixed the glitch. So he won't be receiving a paycheck anymore, so it'll just work itself out naturally."

 

[BuzzH]

Well, they have the right to appeal.

Sure, and they will lose again on appeal. Like I said, they play the short game to "get their way" knowing full well all they are doing is costing the taxpayer more money stalling the inevitable.

Been seeing this shit my entire career...they never win and they never learn.

UNION STRONG!

 

[BuzzH]

Here's my take on TW and remote work; those that are not going to work at all when on TW are the same people that don't do anything in the office either. The difference being that when in the office they constantly bother the people trying to be productive.

TW and remote opportunities are our last real perk over private sector to get talent. They do require good hiring, supervision and taking full advantage of the probationary period to get rid of problem employees early on.

Couldn't agree more.

I'm actually pretty neutral on remote/telework and really sort of 50/50 on what I prefer personally. I like bullshitting with the guys/gals in the office, but it's a major distraction and not very productive. I also like the retirement parties, birthdays, etc. and the social side of the office as well.

But, I got wayyyyy more work done when I teleworked.

Thankfully, the job I've done for the past 3+ decades is largely field work, so really only about 2-3 months a year is all I'm in the office. The rest of the year, I'm out in the field.

 

[jimh406]

Frankly, I'd rather measure people based on what they get done no matter where they are or how much they work.

But, there are jobs that don't work as well without interacting. Many time it's faster to simply drop by and ask a question/confirm instead of trying to schedule a meeting and waste time waiting for the meeting to start and get back to work after it's done.

It depends.

 

[BuzzH]

Frankly, I'd rather measure people based on what they get done no matter where they are or how much they work.

But, there are jobs that don't work as well without interacting. Many time it's faster to simply drop by and ask a question/confirm instead of trying to schedule a meeting and waste time waiting for the meeting to start and get back to work after it's done.

It depends.

Have you heard of email, Zoom, and TEAMS? We also have these gadgets called cell phones now-days too.

Might want to look into it.

Also, almost everyone I work with is on maxiflex, meaning we can work anytime between 5 AM and 10 PM. Many times people simply can't drop by and ask a question...they're in the office at different times.

 

[jimh406]

Also, almost everyone I work with is on maxiflex, meaning we can work anytime between 5 AM and 10 PM. Many times people simply can't drop by and ask a question...they're in the office at different times.

This just means you guys made it impossible to efficiently interact in the office. That's just one way to do it ... there are other ways.

 

[BuzzH]

This just means you guys made it impossible to efficiently interact in the office. That's just one way to do it ... there are other ways.

Guess again, you're just out of your depth.

Management can change our work schedules from maxi-flex to a fixed schedule anytime they want.

Trouble with that is, any work over 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week, or 80 a pay period HAS to be overtime or comp. Also, if they want you to say, schedule a meeting outside of RSAW, they have to notify the employee 2 weeks in advance. Want an employee to travel to a conference on say a Sunday to be somewhere on Monday? Yep, 2 week written notice. They don't give the 2 week notice, I win a grievance.

Maxi-flex, employees can choose to work more than 8 hours and take it as straight time, their choice. My job is strictly NOT an 8 hour a day job and it makes sense for myself and the agency to have me on maxi-flex. If I want to stay in the field for 11 hours a day my first week, punch in 55 hours...I can choose that. The agency pays no over-time. The next week I can work 2 10's and a 5 hour day and then be done by noon on Wednesday. Also cuts down on travel costs and is much more efficient for me, the agency, and tax payer.

That's called a win-win-win.

Might want to try that sometime as well.

 

[jimh406]

Guess again, you're just out of your depth.

I've noticed that people who don't have facts on their side start throwing insults.

It's ok to disagree.