@Glenn Holland

The phrase is "Use it or Lose it."

I know of one instance where a prominent senator appropriated twice the money needed to do the job an agency wanted to do. He then went and told the agency he would be watching to ensure all the money went to that project. The project was multiple locations in his state.

Did I take advantage of use it or lose it? You bet. I got a call from another division that had 20k or so they needed to dump. I needed a good spectrum analyzer. Problem solved.

I too, heard of the USAF dumping stock from a former airman NCO. It didn't begin with "This is a no shitter" so I didn't know if he was embellishing or telling the truth.

My participation in this phrase was transferring enough money to another unit to buy them some spare vacuum tubes .... over 3k per tube. His equipment used eight of them.

There are some portions of the government who can carry over funds from one FY to another. The "use it or lose it" philosophy does not promote that and Congress doesn't promote that.

A supervisor that keeps on top of their stock system orders can ensure the funds they have are used wisely. No need to play the "September" surprise with the end of fiscal year rush to spend. However, I always had some nice to have equipment or future inventory requirements already listed for when someone asked me to spend money.

That time I transferred the money to another unit, via the administrative command, before I did that, I was told I had 10 k to spend before the end of the fiscal year. I told that person I'll be sending most of that so this other unit can get new vacuum tubes for the transmitter's Power Amplifier. I kept the money in the same program.

I was never a fan of use it or lose it.

 

The guy's finally launched a class action against Google:

Sounds like the company is stone drunk with absurd social policies.

 

Unfortunately I don't think he'll get far. He's not in a protected group. The protected folks are free to treat us unprotected citizens as badly as they care to. We can't do the same.

 

He's got a lot of support from others within the company and they'll jump in the fray.

The liberal mouthpiece media here in S.F. is having a fit over this latest development and they can't "spin" the story so it makes him look bad.

 

From my 35 years of work experience, science and engineering is in fact a male dominated field and I don't believe "social engineering" (affirmative action or diversity programs) are a solution to this problem.

I believe that ignoring the talents, skills, and abilities of over half the population is holding us back. We might be in a very different place if our heads were not firmly implanted in that very dark place.

The FIRST day I started college, I was in an algebra class and I was seated next to a woman who was taking that class as the LAST thing to finish her degree. No man dominated her out of improving herself and nobody ignored her talents, or lack thereof. She chose not to study STEM education. She chose not to work in STEM fields. Now the world is complaining that she chose not to work in Silicon Valley, and somehow the blame falls squarely on men.

I say, "horsefeathers".
Neither her choices nor her results were caused by any man.