20k federal workers take "buyout" so far, official says • Hacker News Board

Re: 20k federal workers take "buyout" so far, official says

#201

Post by ahi » Wed, Feb 05, 2025, 9:01 PM UTC

tombert wrote: post #39

varsketiz wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it depends on what goals Trump and Musk consider worthwhile. Just hypothetically, if they dont consider healthcare for all a worthwhile goal - possibly every dollar spent on Obamacare is waste from their perspective. I think they will find a lot of waste - question is if people in the USA will agree.

Well that's what I mean, "efficiency" is a term that doesn't mean anything in isolation, and because of that they can define it to mean whatever they want it to mean and declare victory as a result. I also think there might be some shady math going on; they're counting every canceled thing as "savings", but I don't think they're going to count the cost of rehiring the lost workers and redoing these contracts.

A lot of federal workers spend their time overseeing projects run by the private sector. Whether or not those projects are worth doing, funds have been appropriated and the private sector will get their day in court and get their funding. Now with no oversight from some useless bureaucrat (our project manager defending our interests).

Re: 20k federal workers take "buyout" so far, official says

#202

Post by neonarray » Wed, Feb 05, 2025, 9:02 PM UTC

n0rdy wrote: post #40

I've always found this approach of reducing the number of employees unwise from the company perspective (but pretty good for the employees, though). While the unsatisfied employees are the target, my observations indicate that a high percentage of active and skilled people are willing to take this offer, as they are sure that they will find a new place within a reasonable time, so it's basically, free money. And thos…

Yes, but I believe this is the intent. It's not a matter of it being good for the business when the CEO of said business intentionally wants it to fail.

Re: 20k federal workers take "buyout" so far, official says

#203

Post by feoren » Wed, Feb 05, 2025, 9:03 PM UTC

n0rdy wrote: post #40

I've always found this approach of reducing the number of employees unwise from the company perspective (but pretty good for the employees, though). While the unsatisfied employees are the target, my observations indicate that a high percentage of active and skilled people are willing to take this offer, as they are sure that they will find a new place within a reasonable time, so it's basically, free money. And thos…

> unwise from the company perspective

The goal is to destroy most of these federal agencies, so doing things that are "unwise" for the future of those agencies is exactly the point.

Re: 20k federal workers take "buyout" so far, official says

#204

Post by epicureanideal » Wed, Feb 05, 2025, 9:03 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #161

bigmattystyles wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds illegal

Almost any reply to a political thread in the next four years is going to be "That sounds illegal" but it's only illegal if the law gets enforced. I encourage anyone responding with "That sounds illegal" or "They can't do that" to also include in their response, "...and it will be enforced by [xxxx]." and try to come up with a realistic xxxx. EDIT: I'm not making any judgment about whether this particular thing is le…

Also, sounding illegal and being illegal are two different things. I really hope these discussions lead to more posts to neutral reference material, rather than just asserting things are illegal.

For example:

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3...

Re: 20k federal workers take "buyout" so far, official says

#205

Post by tombert » Wed, Feb 05, 2025, 9:06 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #119

scarface_74 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re-hire people for what? They don’t want a functioning government

OK. What do they want? Seriously, what do you claim they want? A fascist dictatorship? You still need a functioning government for that. (It doesn't function for the people , but it still requires a large number of competent employees.) Anarchy? Mad Max? Everybody dies, so no government employees are needed? Takeover by Canada, Mexico, China, or Russia, so it becomes their problem? Or do you just claim that they're s…

> Or do you just claim that they're so stupid that they haven't thought past "Hur, let's, like, destroy the government, man"?

I don't think they've thought much past that.

We can look at the US Postal Service as a bit of a microcosm of this entire situation. Conservatives have been complaining about the Post Office my entire life, using that to restrict funding to it, which causes it to operate worse, then use that as justification to reduce funding to the Post Office, in a frustrating cycle. There's probably several reasons to why they do this, but I think the main one is that their goal is to replace it with private, for-profit "equivalents", like FedEx or UPS or DHL.

I suspect that this might be a similar thing. They're wrecking the government by yanking away all funding, causing things to get worse, and then using that as proof that the government does things badly, so they can replace these things with for-profit versions that we contract out.

Re: 20k federal workers take "buyout" so far, official says

#206

Post by neom » Wed, Feb 05, 2025, 9:06 PM UTC

kgermino wrote: post #85

desumeku wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this where we're at now? Thinking that the new administration will just openly refuse to pay people's salaries as part of a formal deal?

The offer mirrors Elon's offer to Twitter employees and many of them did not receive the money they were promised. Elon doesn't have the legal authority to make this offer today, it's poorly defined, and not a standard separation policy for federal employees. I'm not saying they won't be paid out, but I would't bet my livelihood on it

I looked into this and I find it kinda confusing. https://employmentlawweekly.com/uncategorized/500-million-se... && https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/McMilli...

Re: 20k federal workers take "buyout" so far, official says

#207

Post by Aurornis » Wed, Feb 05, 2025, 9:08 PM UTC

kevmo314 wrote: post #4

> The buyout offer entitles federal employees to stop working more or less immediately and continue to be paid through Sept. 30. > The federal workforce's normal attrition rate is about 6% a year, meaning some of those who've taken the buyout may have been planning to leave government service anyway. Wow, talk about an amazing deal if you already happened to be planning on leaving...

> if you already happened to be planning on leaving...

This is why you should ignore any absolute numbers about people taking the buyout.

You want to look at the relative percentage taking the deal compared to their normal turnover.

If the number of people taking the "buyout" isn't significantly higher than their normal turnover, that's a sign that they're just overpaying people who were already leaving.

Re: 20k federal workers take "buyout" so far, official says

#208

Post by ahi » Wed, Feb 05, 2025, 9:18 PM UTC

jhp123 wrote: post #49

simple10 wrote: post #13

It's interesting that annual attrition rate is 6% according to the article. I hadn't considered that before. The buyouts could end up costing more than they save if the only people who take it were the ones already planning on leaving. But maybe the argument is if enough people take it before the March budget deadline, then each departments budget can be proportionately reduced in the next cycle. Does anyone know the…

I think the messaging was intended to create a psychological effect rather than a budgetary one. By voluntarily giving up a benefit to stay with the federal government post-Musk takeover, employees may feel more committed to the new regime. IIRC Zappos used to offer people a payout to leave directly after hiring them, it was a similar signal of commitment.

The problem is that the new regime appears to be more interested in amputation than footwear for most of these depts/agencies. Those less committed to their mission of walking and running will leave. Those left behind will be the more intransigent veteran operators, "somebody has to keep everyone's feet attached".

Re: 20k federal workers take "buyout" so far, official says

#209

Post by leoqa » Wed, Feb 05, 2025, 9:18 PM UTC

s3r3nity wrote: post #26

sampton wrote: post #9

20k represents 1%. The target is 5-10%. The messaging is 100-200k federal layoff is coming.

These tend to work through in stages: fastest ones to accept were already looking, and next up are those that are on the fence, and so on... The 8-month buyout offer is significantly better than the one-time offer from Clinton in the 90's [1], even adjusting for inflation, so I'd expect that there's a large group of individuals & families that are just taking the time to evaluate the decision. [ https://www.presidenc…

Interesting precedent thanks for sharing.

Re: 20k federal workers take "buyout" so far, official says

#210

Post by danielheath » Wed, Feb 05, 2025, 9:24 PM UTC

ziddoap wrote: post #185

ryandrake wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost any reply to a political thread in the next four years is going to be "That sounds illegal" but it's only illegal if the law gets enforced. I encourage anyone responding with "That sounds illegal" or "They can't do that" to also include in their response, "...and it will be enforced by [xxxx]." and try to come up with a realistic xxxx. EDIT: I'm not making any judgment about whether this particular thing is le…

> it's only illegal if the law gets enforced. It is completely valid to say something is illegal and unenforced. Consider that non-enforcement doesn't suddenly make something legal. Enforcement can start at any time. (Will it? Who knows!)

> It is completely valid to say something is illegal and unenforced.

It seems somewhat vacuous to say it when it applies to every second administrative act.