• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump fires Chief Usher....

Bob001

Penultimate Amazing
B
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
16,613
Location
US of A
The Trump administration has abruptly fired the first woman and second African-American to serve as Chief Usher, essentially the White House facilities manager:
When the White House residence staff arrived at work Friday morning, they were told that Reid was no longer employed, according to someone with knowledge of the dismissal. A White House official confirmed that Reid is no longer working at the White House.
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rst-woman-in-that-job/?utm_term=.13021646ec43
 
He thinks he's still on telly, doesn't he?

Do you think he just missed sitting behind the desk and having people jump when he pointed?
 
logger said:
The racist pigs!
Click to expand...

We don't know that. But we do know that the job is a senior non-partisan position that is usually held through multiple administrations. The previous Chief Usher was an admiral who left the WH for a job at Homeland Security. And the way these things are usually handled would be an announcement that "So and So is leaving us for her new job at such-and-such. We'll miss her, and we wish her the best of luck." To fire somebody like this with literally no notice to her or her staff is unheard-of. It says a lot about the Trumpets.
 
The article says she was fired, but doesn't provide any supporting evidence at all. All the cites are actually consistent with voluntary departure.

I can see an African American woman, hired by Barack Obama, wanting to seek career opportunities outside of the Trump white house.

There are other possibilities, of course. She may have clashed with Ivanka over questions of decorating or other household management issues. That might explain the relative discretion with which her departure was handled--hardly characteristic of Trump himself.

The article also mentions that her office was implicated in the 2014 intruder incident. Maybe the current tenant finds that lapse of judgement less tolerable than the previous tenant did.
 
theprestige said:
The article says she was fired, but doesn't provide any supporting evidence at all. All the cites are actually consistent with voluntary departure.
....
Click to expand...

A voluntary departure, or even a routine termination, usually includes mutual notices, an announcement, even a going-away party with staff. She apparently left work Thursday and was out Friday. USAToday and Fox also say "fired:"
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/05/white-house-fires-chief-usher-angella-reid.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...s-chief-usher-first-woman-hold-job/101328044/

Whatever the issue is, this is a crass way to handle it that guarantees media attention. And I doubt that she had anything to do with the operations of the Secret Service.
 
theprestige said:
....
The article also mentions that her office was implicated in the 2014 intruder incident. Maybe the current tenant finds that lapse of judgement less tolerable than the previous tenant did.
Click to expand...

The article says this:
At the time, the Security Service said that an alarm box near the White House’s front entrance intended to alert its agents to intruders had been muted at the request of the usher’s office, which felt it was too noisy and frequently malfunctioning.
Click to expand...

So the usher's office says "That alarm is a problem." And instead of fixing the alarm, or locking the front door, or stationing an agent in front of it -- or all of the above -- the SS unplugs the alarm and then, after an intrusion, says "The Usher made me do it." The says more about the SS than her. In any case, there was no urgency that required firing without notice.
 
I expect that if the Chief Usher was one of the young, hot girls that Trump likes to have around, then she would still have her job.
 
Last edited:
It's actually moderately difficult to fire someone in Australia, I am assuming those privledges don't exist in the land of the free?
 
Tony Stark said:
It is actually very difficult to fire most federal employees though people who work in the White House are probably different.
Click to expand...

I dunno whether ordinary WH employees are covered under Civil Service rules. I suspect it varies by job category.

But Chief Usher is an executive position, and government executives pretty much serve at the pleasure of the boss.

More generally, people in the U.S. can be fired for any reason or no reason, unless they are protected by a union contract or unless they can prove that they have been discriminated against as part of a legally protected class. But they have to sue and prove it, and the employer will usually make that very difficult, which is why such suits are lengthy, expensive and often unsuccesful.
 
If they are civil service, general schedule employees they are entitled to all the civil service protections and recourse through the Office of Personnel Managment. If she was Senior Executive Service she would have been an "at will" employee with fewer protections.
 
Bob001 said:
A voluntary departure, or even a routine termination, usually includes mutual notices, an announcement, even a going-away party with staff. She apparently left work Thursday and was out Friday.
Click to expand...
Usually but not necessarily. This is basically an appeal to incredulity. Or false dilemma. Or both.

USAToday and Fox also say "fired:"
Click to expand...
USAToday and Fox both merely regurgitate the WaPo article.

Whatever the issue is, this is a crass way to handle it that guarantees media attention.
Click to expand...
Oh no, the diversity hire didn't get a going-away party after she decided to leave in a huff! How will she ever find the spoons to go on living?

And I doubt that she had anything to do with the operations of the Secret Service.
Click to expand...
She managed the White House grounds and facilities. If she didn't have anything to do with the operations of the Secret Service, I imagine that would be a good reason to summarily terminate her employment.
 
theprestige said:
.....
Oh no, the diversity hire didn't get a going-away party after she decided to leave in a huff! How will she ever find the spoons to go on living?
Click to expand...

What a snotty tone. You're presuming an awful lot, and it's pretty nasty.

theprestige said:
She managed the White House grounds and facilities. If she didn't have anything to do with the operations of the Secret Service, I imagine that would be a good reason to summarily terminate her employment.
Click to expand...

If you think the Chief Usher gives orders to the U.S. Secret Service ("Hey, you with the machine gun, stand over here!"), you are just plain deluded. She doesn't tell Jared or Ivanka where to sit, either.
 
theprestige said:
Usually but not necessarily. This is basically an appeal to incredulity. Or false dilemma. Or both.


USAToday and Fox both merely regurgitate the WaPo article.


Oh no, the diversity hire didn't get a going-away party after she decided to leave in a huff! How will she ever find the spoons to go on living?


She managed the White House grounds and facilities. If she didn't have anything to do with the operations of the Secret Service, I imagine that would be a good reason to summarily terminate her employment.
Click to expand...

Sorry, who's being presumptuous here?
 
Bob001 said:
What a snotty tone. You're presuming an awful lot, and it's pretty nasty.
Click to expand...
No worse than anything else that's been presumed in this thread so far. My speculation is well in line with the tone set by the first few posts in this thread. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

If you think the Chief Usher gives orders to the U.S. Secret Service ("Hey, you with the machine gun, stand over here!"), you are just plain deluded. She doesn't tell Jared or Ivanka where to sit, either.
Click to expand...
Moving the goalposts. You suggested that the head of facilities for the White House had nothing to do with Secret Service operations. I think that's absurd. I think that the Head Usher's job by its very nature requires very close coordination with, and informed recommendations to, the Presidential security detail. I don't see how it could be any other way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom