The US Department of Education is paying more than $7 million a month to employees it has forced to go on leave, according to analysis from the American Federation of Government Employees Local 252, the union that represents department employees. The payments could continue for years amid a long court battle over cuts instituted by the Trump administration. The department has already paid more than $21 million to idle employees over the last three months, AFGE has calculated, after they were terminated in March when the agency cut nearly half of its workforce. Roughly 1,300 people were laid off and hundreds more took voluntary “buyouts.” The firings were part of President Donald Trump’s larger plan to dismantle the Department of Education and promise to deliver efficiencies through cuts across government. Dozens of other agencies have faced cuts in recent months, with workers in those departments facing similar situations. Under the terms of the layoffs, affected Department of Education workers were to be paid their salaries until June 9, their last day of employment. However, following a May federal court decision blocking White House plans to shut down the agency, the workers were reinstated and placed on “administrative leave” — meaning they are employed but not allowed to work — as lawsuits continue. This means salary payments will now continue past Monday, while employees remain in what many describe as “administrative purgatory,” racking up further costs for the department. According to AFGE Local 252, which analyzed over 900 salaries of affected employees, the true cost to the Department of Education is well over $7 million a month as the figure does not include employee benefits or managers’ pay. The cuts were billed as a drive for government savings. When announcing the layoffs in March, Education Secretary Linda McMahon said they reflected the agency’s “commitment to efficiency, accountability, and ensuring that resources are directed where they matter most: to students, parents, and teachers.” Critics point out that it has instead generated wasteful costs with no returns when employees continue getting paid for not working. Meanwhile, numerous employees on administrative leave who are members of Local 252 told CNN they feel embarrassed collecting a paycheck. After her termination in March, Ariel Shepetovskiy, a Department of Education lawyer, lost access to computer systems and email accounts needed to do her work. Now on administrative leave, “it feels like garbage to receive pay in exchange for doing nothing,” Shepetovskiy said. “I also feel shame because on some level I feel like a parasite for American taxpayers.” But, she said, “If I leave my position then there’s no chance of me ever being able to do my job again.” She is holding on despite the uncertainties because she has hope that employees could be brought back, she said. “I’m trying to do my best to be productive, but I am also sad. I am frustrated and upset every day.” Robert Jason Cottrell, a data coordinator with the department, also expressed frustration — wanting, but unable — to work. “I feel like I am on welfare,” he said. “I almost feel like a leech on the system. I am able-bodied and able to go into work to help the nation’s mission to educate our future generations. And I’m not doing that right now.” CNN has asked the Department of Education for comment. In an email to staff reviewed by CNN, the agency told workers Friday that they would continue to be employed, and that it was assessing how to “reintegrate you back to the office in the most seamless way possible.” “This includes evaluating necessary updates to security access, technology, and workspaces to ensure full operability,” the email said. Dozens of government agencies are involved in lawsuits challenging White House directives cutting their workforce, with workers similarly placed on administrative leave and unable to work across Washington. As lawsuits drag on, agencies have offered buyouts or settlements to encourage workers to leave. In recent weeks, some Department of Education employees say they were offered settlements in exchange for resigning their positions. Several employees given the offer told CNN they had cases pending before the Merit Systems Protection Board, or MSPB, a government office that civil servants can use to appeal personnel disputes. Settlement offers reviewed by CNN would pay for these employees through September if they drop their cases and quit. Some who received the offers described them as feeling “scammy” and like being plied with “sweet talk” upon receiving them. Sheria Smith, president of AFGE Local 252 in Dallas, felt the deals amounted to attempts to “intimidate great public servants to leave their jobs.” Smith, who was laid off in March, said she has heard from over a dozen employees who were approached with these offers in the past two weeks. Victoria DeLano, who is on administrative leave, said the settlement would mean giving up the option to be reinstated. “I am not giving up that option,” she said. “So many of us are just holding on because we know how important this work is.”
Education Department pays over $7 million a month to employees forced to sit idle
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"Department of Education Faces $7 Million Monthly Cost for Employees on Administrative Leave"
CNN
6.9
TruthLens AI Summary
The U.S. Department of Education is currently expending over $7 million each month on employees who have been placed on administrative leave as a result of layoffs implemented under the Trump administration. According to analysis from the American Federation of Government Employees Local 252, more than $21 million has already been disbursed to these employees over the past three months. The layoffs, which affected approximately 1,300 workers, were part of a broader initiative to streamline the Department of Education. Following a federal court's decision in May that blocked efforts to shut down the agency, these laid-off employees were reinstated but placed on administrative leave, meaning they remain on the payroll without performing any duties. Critics of the layoffs argue that the intended efficiency measures have instead resulted in significant waste and ongoing costs, as employees continue to receive salaries without contributing to their roles. The situation has generated a sense of frustration and embarrassment among the affected workers, who feel conflicted about receiving payments while being unable to fulfill their professional responsibilities.
Employees like Ariel Shepetovskiy and Robert Jason Cottrell have expressed their dissatisfaction with this arrangement, describing feelings of shame and frustration as they are unable to work despite being capable and eager to contribute to the department's mission. The Department of Education has communicated with staff regarding their employment status, indicating efforts to facilitate a smooth reintegration into the workplace. However, as legal challenges to the layoffs continue, some employees have been approached with settlement offers to resign in exchange for a payment through September, raising concerns about the pressure to leave their positions. Union representatives have characterized these offers as attempts to intimidate dedicated public servants into relinquishing their jobs, which many employees are reluctant to do given their commitment to education. The ongoing uncertainty surrounding their employment underscores the broader implications of the layoffs and the legal battles that ensue, creating a challenging environment for those affected by the cuts.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The article highlights significant financial implications related to the US Department of Education's decision to place employees on administrative leave. The situation reveals the complexities surrounding government layoffs and the challenges faced by employees caught in legal battles.
Motivation Behind the Publication
The intention behind this news piece appears to be an effort to draw attention to government inefficiencies and the financial burdens that result from decisions made at higher levels of administration. By emphasizing the high costs associated with paying idle employees, the article could be aiming to provoke public discourse regarding government accountability and resource allocation.
Public Perception
The narrative likely seeks to shape public opinion by portraying the Department of Education's actions as wasteful and mismanaged. This could lead to a broader criticism of the previous administration's policies, particularly those implemented by Donald Trump. The article may invoke feelings of frustration among taxpayers who see their money being spent on salaries for employees not actively contributing to public service.
Potential Omissions
While the article focuses on the financial aspect, it may downplay the human impact of the layoffs and the subsequent legal battles. It does not delve into the personal stories of the affected employees or the potential long-term implications of these administrative decisions on education policy.
Manipulative Elements
The article could be perceived as having a manipulative angle, primarily through its language and framing. By using terms like "administrative purgatory" and highlighting the costs without balancing them against any potential savings or efficiencies, it tends to elicit a negative emotional response toward the Department of Education and its leadership.
Truthfulness of the Report
The information presented appears to be based on data from the American Federation of Government Employees, lending it a degree of credibility. However, the framing of the facts may skew public perception, particularly against the backdrop of ongoing political divides.
Underlying Message
The article suggests a strong narrative that emphasizes inefficiency and waste within government institutions. It implies that the decisions made under the previous administration are not only detrimental to employees but also to taxpayers, thus aiming to incite a call for accountability.
Connections to Other News
This news piece may resonate with other reports highlighting government cuts and layoffs across various agencies, suggesting a pattern of fiscal mismanagement associated with the Trump administration. This connection could serve to reinforce a broader narrative of inefficiency in government.
Sector Image
The portrayal of the Department of Education in this article could contribute to a more negative image of governmental bodies, particularly among those who are already skeptical of government intervention and spending.
Potential Societal Impact
The financial implications discussed could lead to increased scrutiny over government spending and employment practices. Public sentiment could shift toward advocating for more oversight and accountability in government operations, potentially influencing future elections or policy decisions.
Support from Communities
This article may resonate more with communities that prioritize accountability in government. Individuals concerned about fiscal responsibility and transparency are likely to support the message conveyed in the report.
Market Impact
While the article primarily focuses on government employment, its implications could extend to investors concerned about government efficiency and spending. Companies that rely on government contracts or are involved in education policy could be affected by public perception stemming from this news.
Geopolitical Considerations
Although the article does not directly address global power dynamics, the ongoing challenges within U.S. governmental institutions may have indirect effects on the country’s standing in international governance and policy discussions.
Use of AI in Writing
It is possible that AI tools were employed in drafting or editing this article, particularly in data analysis or generating summaries. The language used could reflect a structured approach typical of AI-generated content, though the human angle is more nuanced and would require deeper context.
The complexity of this news warrants careful consideration. The financial statistics presented are factual and credible, but the framing may serve specific agendas, affecting the overall reliability of the report.