51–60 of 579 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Critics argue the offer is illegal, there's no real guarantee people will get paid out, and it's something Congress would need to authorize. Give then history of this particular admistration & business', I personally wouldn't be too confident in actually getting paid up to Sept.
[flagged]
20k represents 1%. The target is 5-10%. The messaging is 100-200k federal layoff is coming.
Since the turover rate per year is 6%, implemented hiring freeze would yield theese results.
I think the main issue for anyone wanting to take the offer is simply: this was never authorized by congress, so the money to pay people to September is questionable if it exists at best. Meanwhile, there's a government funding deadline on March 14, 2025. So there's a very real chance at this deal offering something closer to ~1 month of pay before it suddenly gets dropped due to budget negotiations. It would be an i…
> this was never authorized by congress, Correct. > so the money to pay people to September is questionable if it exists at best Incorrect. The money is budgeted through September (end of federal FY). Things are currently only funded through March 15 (CRs and whatnot). The money is or will be there. Historically, even if there is a furlough, this money is backfilled and folks are paid. Note that there will probably b…
I think the main issue for anyone wanting to take the offer is simply: this was never authorized by congress, so the money to pay people to September is questionable if it exists at best. Meanwhile, there's a government funding deadline on March 14, 2025. So there's a very real chance at this deal offering something closer to ~1 month of pay before it suddenly gets dropped due to budget negotiations. It would be an i…
> this was never authorized by congress, Correct. > so the money to pay people to September is questionable if it exists at best Incorrect. The money is budgeted through September (end of federal FY). Things are currently only funded through March 15 (CRs and whatnot). The money is or will be there. Historically, even if there is a furlough, this money is backfilled and folks are paid. Note that there will probably b…
Non-American here with only a Mickey Mouse understanding of US mechanics of power.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> this was never authorized by congress, Correct. > so the money to pay people to September is questionable if it exists at best Incorrect. The money is budgeted through September (end of federal FY). Things are currently only funded through March 15 (CRs and whatnot). The money is or will be there. Historically, even if there is a furlough, this money is backfilled and folks are paid. Note that there will probably b…
If they were not paid because they were on "admin leave", does that look bad for Trump, or does that look bad for Congress? And who in a Republican Congress will want to do that anyway? They're mostly on board for this bullshit aren't they?
It would be Trump/Elon.
Someone told me the details of how they could not pay people. It’s administrivia. It will go unnoticed by most just like how the twitter folks not getting paid went unnoticed by most.
> And who in a Republican Congress will want to do that anyway?
They give zero fucks about fucking over feds or former Feds, as they are (allegedly) all lazy and useless.
The end result will be less money spent (trivial, but still) and a lower head count moving forward.
The Republican rhetoric on this largely doesn’t jibe with reality.
Yes, there are underemployed people in the federal government (as exist in any large org). Identifying that slack and cutting it is not something that can be done with laser shots from space. They can only be done from the ground, imho. The current way they are doing things is going to end with a lot of unpleasant unintended consequences.
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.
1. Under RIFs, close to half of the civil service will get a better severance than this offer. So any thinking person would wait for a RIF.
2. Under VERA, people will lose this "severance" but get access to their pensions years earlier. Since VERA only applies if you have 20+ years (25 if under 50) that's 20+% of their current high-3 for the rest of their lives, sets a nice baseline income. A WG employee who started at a depot at age 18 could collect their pension starting at age 43 and get $20-30k/year for the rest of their life and still be young enough to get another job and keep earning until 60 and retire a second time.
3. A substantial number of federal employees are already working on-site (not necessarily in offices) in areas where there are not a ton of other jobs. Ask a civil servant at China Lake to resign, they have to move too, there are few jobs in the area besides that base.
4. Many federal employees are federal employees because they care about the mission. They'd rather keep doing what's been asked of them to keep things like critical infrastructure operating than go home and let things fall apart because no one is doing the work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> this was never authorized by congress, Correct. > so the money to pay people to September is questionable if it exists at best Incorrect. The money is budgeted through September (end of federal FY). Things are currently only funded through March 15 (CRs and whatnot). The money is or will be there. Historically, even if there is a furlough, this money is backfilled and folks are paid. Note that there will probably b…
Is it a given there would be a budget impasse, if all institutions of power are held by Republicans? Non-American here with only a Mickey Mouse understanding of US mechanics of power.
I’m not an expert on this topic, so please take these comments with a grain of salt:
1. The simplest way a budget impasse could start is with internal feuding within the Republican Party. Some Republicans are very aggressive deficit hawks all the time. Some Republicans are only “deficit hawks” when a Democrat is president, but they spend freely when a Republican is president. Note that almost all of the largest budget deficits since 1990 have been under Republican administrations (Covid years under Trump and Biden were wonky and should probably be asterisked). So the pork-seeking Republicans and the deficit hawk Republicans can get into a stand off about what the budget should be.
2. Even if Congress is on the same page, Trump can choose not to sign the budget if he doesn’t get his pet issues addressed. This may seem like something that they should be able to work out beforehand, but his “priorities” change, sometimes daily, often based on who he happened to have spoken to last.
3. Some republicans want the government to break. The playbook here is to break the system in some way, point out that the system doesn’t work, and then make attempts to privatize that system or massively overhaul that system (likely with massive cuts of workers and largesse to contractors). It may seem odd that an elected official strives to make the government not work, but they are able to make that tack work for them at the polls. I think that this is a deep (and warped) issue that is hard for me to explain well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> this was never authorized by congress, Correct. > so the money to pay people to September is questionable if it exists at best Incorrect. The money is budgeted through September (end of federal FY). Things are currently only funded through March 15 (CRs and whatnot). The money is or will be there. Historically, even if there is a furlough, this money is backfilled and folks are paid. Note that there will probably b…
Is it a given there would be a budget impasse, if all institutions of power are held by Republicans? Non-American here with only a Mickey Mouse understanding of US mechanics of power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> this was never authorized by congress, Correct. > so the money to pay people to September is questionable if it exists at best Incorrect. The money is budgeted through September (end of federal FY). Things are currently only funded through March 15 (CRs and whatnot). The money is or will be there. Historically, even if there is a furlough, this money is backfilled and folks are paid. Note that there will probably b…
If they were not paid because they were on "admin leave", does that look bad for Trump, or does that look bad for Congress? And who in a Republican Congress will want to do that anyway? They're mostly on board for this bullshit aren't they?