SEC - why not even a peep from leadership?

[Anonymous]

If they want to reduce headcount they should reopen the fork like other agencies did.
Many people would leave. The last fork was before RTO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If they want to reduce headcount they should reopen the fork like other agencies did.
Many people would leave. The last fork was before RTO

I doubt that. The VERA/VSIP window just ended, and people knew RTO was coming when they decided whether to accept or not.

Maybe if they reasons in a few months after people have experienced RTO (maybe for some it will be worse than expected) and it hits summer, you will get another group of voluntary exits. But I don’t think you will get a lot more that way, and certainly not by offering it now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they want to reduce headcount they should reopen the fork like other agencies did.
Many people would leave. The last fork was before RTO

I doubt that. The VERA/VSIP window just ended, and people knew RTO was coming when they decided whether to accept or not.

Maybe if they reasons in a few months after people have experienced RTO (maybe for some it will be worse than expected) and it hits summer, you will get another group of voluntary exits. But I don’t think you will get a lot more that way, and certainly not by offering it now.

NP and FWIW a lot of people that aren't old enough for VERA are definitely looking for new jobs. Whether the job market can support all these people is an open question but they are absolutely going to get more attrition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they want to reduce headcount they should reopen the fork like other agencies did.
Many people would leave. The last fork was before RTO

I doubt that. The VERA/VSIP window just ended, and people knew RTO was coming when they decided whether to accept or not.

Maybe if they reasons in a few months after people have experienced RTO (maybe for some it will be worse than expected) and it hits summer, you will get another group of voluntary exits. But I don’t think you will get a lot more that way, and certainly not by offering it now.

NP and FWIW a lot of people that aren't old enough for VERA are definitely looking for new jobs. Whether the job market can support all these people is an open question but they are absolutely going to get more attrition.

Right, but the PP I was responding to said lots of people would leave with another fork. Someone who finds a new job is going to leave, fork or not, so I was simply saying a new fork at this time would drive a ton more people to leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they want to reduce headcount they should reopen the fork like other agencies did.
Many people would leave. The last fork was before RTO

I doubt that. The VERA/VSIP window just ended, and people knew RTO was coming when they decided whether to accept or not.

Maybe if they reasons in a few months after people have experienced RTO (maybe for some it will be worse than expected) and it hits summer, you will get another group of voluntary exits. But I don’t think you will get a lot more that way, and certainly not by offering it now.

NP and FWIW a lot of people that aren't old enough for VERA are definitely looking for new jobs. Whether the job market can support all these people is an open question but they are absolutely going to get more attrition.

Why does the same person (and yes, it’s the same person) always start off his posts on DCUM with “NP and ….” It’s unnecessary and annoying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they want to reduce headcount they should reopen the fork like other agencies did.
Many people would leave. The last fork was before RTO

I doubt that. The VERA/VSIP window just ended, and people knew RTO was coming when they decided whether to accept or not.

Maybe if they reasons in a few months after people have experienced RTO (maybe for some it will be worse than expected) and it hits summer, you will get another group of voluntary exits. But I don’t think you will get a lot more that way, and certainly not by offering it now.

NP and FWIW a lot of people that aren't old enough for VERA are definitely looking for new jobs. Whether the job market can support all these people is an open question but they are absolutely going to get more attrition.

Why does the same person (and yes, it’s the same person) always start off his posts on DCUM with “NP and ….” It’s unnecessary and annoying.

I do it too and I wasn't that person. NP here of course!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they want to reduce headcount they should reopen the fork like other agencies did.
Many people would leave. The last fork was before RTO

I doubt that. The VERA/VSIP window just ended, and people knew RTO was coming when they decided whether to accept or not.

Maybe if they reasons in a few months after people have experienced RTO (maybe for some it will be worse than expected) and it hits summer, you will get another group of voluntary exits. But I don’t think you will get a lot more that way, and certainly not by offering it now.

NP and FWIW a lot of people that aren't old enough for VERA are definitely looking for new jobs. Whether the job market can support all these people is an open question but they are absolutely going to get more attrition.

Right, but the PP I was responding to said lots of people would leave with another fork. Someone who finds a new job is going to leave, fork or not, so I was simply saying a new fork at this time would drive a ton more people to leave.

True but they won't leave until (if) they find a job. It's possible that if they offer the fork again people will roll the dice on being able to find something and leave now...I don't know. I think some of the uncertainty with the fork has eased as well. I mean the way they rolled that out was so chaotic that the final terms weren't even available until a few days before it closed. People might feel more open to it now that the March funding bill has passed.

[Anonymous]

I also think it’s wise to offer another voluntary exit option before proceeding with a RIF—unless the goal is to limit the number of departures. I’m at a different FIRREA agency, but I suspect the SEC offered a relatively low VSIP partly because they didn’t want too many people to take it. I could be completely wrong, but if the target is something like a 20% reduction, the VSIP would likely need to be more generous to attract that level of interest from SEC employees.

And if a 20% RIF really is the goal, a DRP with a departure date of September 30 or later would likely bring in more volunteers—because for most SEC employees, the value of that offer would far exceed $50K.

(I'm not indicating that 20% is the threshold; using an arbitrary number solely for purposes of the discussion here.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I also think it’s wise to offer another voluntary exit option before proceeding with a RIF—unless the goal is to limit the number of departures. I’m at a different FIRREA agency, but I suspect the SEC offered a relatively low VSIP partly because they didn’t want too many people to take it. I could be completely wrong, but if the target is something like a 20% reduction, the VSIP would likely need to be more generous to attract that level of interest from SEC employees.

And if a 20% RIF really is the goal, a DRP with a departure date of September 30 or later would likely bring in more volunteers—because for most SEC employees, the value of that offer would far exceed $50K.

(I'm not indicating that 20% is the threshold; using an arbitrary number solely for purposes of the discussion here.)

$50k VSIP is double what most people are offered. I’m not sure I’d call that low and has anyone ever heard of a higher VSIP?

[Anonymous]

I’ll never understand why a well respected businessman in his 60s would agree to “lead” a supposedly independent agency in name only, while really being entirely subordinate to the whims of some random dude at OMB/OPM.

I naively hoped/assumed that anyone worth their salt would have the ego to reject or push back on such an arrangement.

The analogy would be a highly experienced and successful executive agreeing to take over, say, Apple’s Design division — but answering to Sheila in HR (who unilaterally gets to impose layoffs, policies, and what software is used in the Division).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also think it’s wise to offer another voluntary exit option before proceeding with a RIF—unless the goal is to limit the number of departures. I’m at a different FIRREA agency, but I suspect the SEC offered a relatively low VSIP partly because they didn’t want too many people to take it. I could be completely wrong, but if the target is something like a 20% reduction, the VSIP would likely need to be more generous to attract that level of interest from SEC employees.

And if a 20% RIF really is the goal, a DRP with a departure date of September 30 or later would likely bring in more volunteers—because for most SEC employees, the value of that offer would far exceed $50K.

(I'm not indicating that 20% is the threshold; using an arbitrary number solely for purposes of the discussion here.)

$50k VSIP is double what most people are offered. I’m not sure I’d call that low and has anyone ever heard of a higher VSIP?

Two other FIRREAs are discussing 6-mons (floor) and 1-year (ceiling) of pay. I work at one of the two, so personal knowledge of my agency. The other I know due to benchmarking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also think it’s wise to offer another voluntary exit option before proceeding with a RIF—unless the goal is to limit the number of departures. I’m at a different FIRREA agency, but I suspect the SEC offered a relatively low VSIP partly because they didn’t want too many people to take it. I could be completely wrong, but if the target is something like a 20% reduction, the VSIP would likely need to be more generous to attract that level of interest from SEC employees.

And if a 20% RIF really is the goal, a DRP with a departure date of September 30 or later would likely bring in more volunteers—because for most SEC employees, the value of that offer would far exceed $50K.

(I'm not indicating that 20% is the threshold; using an arbitrary number solely for purposes of the discussion here.)

$50k VSIP is double what most people are offered. I’m not sure I’d call that low and has anyone ever heard of a higher VSIP?

Two other FIRREAs are discussing 6-mons (floor) and 1-year (ceiling) of pay. I work at one of the two, so personal knowledge of my agency. The other I know due to benchmarking.

But with that said, we truly want some people to leave, so we are purposefully trying to "sweeten the pot." We discussed that if we didn't want people to leave, we would be in line with the SEC number.

[Anonymous]

I’ve got a year left before I can retire with FEHB, and I know I’m not the only person in that situation. Would happily do a deferred retirement if it kept me safe for that year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ll never understand why a well respected businessman in his 60s would agree to “lead” a supposedly independent agency in name only, while really being entirely subordinate to the whims of some random dude at OMB/OPM.

I naively hoped/assumed that anyone worth their salt would have the ego to reject or push back on such an arrangement.

The analogy would be a highly experienced and successful executive agreeing to take over, say, Apple’s Design division — but answering to Sheila in HR (who unilaterally gets to impose layoffs, policies, and what software is used in the Division).

My guess is PA cares more about policy than operations. I think GG was kind of the same, remember in town halls he seemed almost disdainful of answering HR type questions and only wanted to talk about policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll never understand why a well respected businessman in his 60s would agree to “lead” a supposedly independent agency in name only, while really being entirely subordinate to the whims of some random dude at OMB/OPM.

I naively hoped/assumed that anyone worth their salt would have the ego to reject or push back on such an arrangement.

The analogy would be a highly experienced and successful executive agreeing to take over, say, Apple’s Design division — but answering to Sheila in HR (who unilaterally gets to impose layoffs, policies, and what software is used in the Division).

My guess is PA cares more about policy than operations. I think GG was kind of the same, remember in town halls he seemed almost disdainful of answering HR type questions and only wanted to talk about policy.

Who do they think implements and oversees policy? The policy gods? Do they not realize that policy requires a lot of work by people?

It’s idiotic. It’s like Tim Cooke saying that he doesn’t care about operations or HR. Just cares about making and selling lots of iPhones.