Trump buyout: resign by Feb 6, get paid until Sept 30

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am planning to retire in the next year or so. This is appealing to me because it seems like they're paying you for eight months where you don't have to work and then I can retire. It is definitely not a good thing for people who are not ready to retire or who do not have another job lined up.

Don’t take it. There is very high probability that this offer is illegal and you will quit without getting any compensation.

[Anonymous]

The way I read it, you really will not have to work much for those 7-8 months. It's basically what private companies do -- put you on so-called garden leave to give you time to look for another job. I think that's what they're aiming for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am planning to retire in the next year or so. This is appealing to me because it seems like they're paying you for eight months where you don't have to work and then I can retire. It is definitely not a good thing for people who are not ready to retire or who do not have another job lined up.

You do have to work. They are offering you remote work for seven months then you resign. They are trying this tactic to deal with not enough space for people forced to RTO. Don’t be fooled by the language they are using.

[Anonymous]

It does say "regardless of workload."

[Anonymous]

Don’t get sucked in by the terms buyout and “regardless of how much work you have”

[Anonymous]

Say you take the offer, and you telework til Sept 30. What will you be doing? The guidance encourages agencies to quickly transfer assignments and put you on admin leave. If they make you perform duties, they would be going against the guidance. So how would you possibly lose money in this scenario? You are on the books til 9/30. Even if we have a shut down, you would get back pay when we get a budget just the same as anyone else since you’re still on the books. The guidance and memo actually use the term “delayed resignation.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i'm not a government employee so I don't know what the norm is but this sounds pretty good to me. Last time I was let go, I was given like 2 months severance.

It’s not as good as if they officially RIF you. If you wait for the government to lay you off, you will be given more than this.

Unless you are retiring or you really can’t figure out RTO, it doesn’t make much sense

How is a RIF better?

To someone in private industry this is a HUGE handout. Most give a few weeks to a few months. One company I worked with pushed fire dates up to end of month, so as to not let folks get health insurance for another month. I was in meeting where this was decided , big GSEs.

It is not a buyout. You keep working until you resign. It is a horrible deal.

Then because they allowed you to TW they will claim you underperformed and fire you.

[Anonymous]

Did you read the fine print that says your boss can fire you sooner than your resignation date?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:i'm not a government employee so I don't know what the norm is but this sounds pretty good to me. Last time I was let go, I was given like 2 months severance.

If they are offering it, it’s because it is not a good deal for employees.

That’s Trump 101.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, it’s a trick and the media is already irresponsibly reporting the story by using Trump’s spin and going along with describing it as a “buyout.” It’s WFH for 7-8 months, then resignation with no severance or payout. If you’re unionized do not accept this!

[Anonymous]

It would only be worth it if they were keeping you on the payroll and not expecting you to work much, if at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It saves no money if they were retiring anway

So you don't think it would encourage people to retire and get paid up until september

Not if they are smart.

[Anonymous]

Many people can still telework under CBAs so you can just continue until September anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We do not have a king in the united states. However, the office of the president has king-like powers. When you have someone willing to test the limits of those powers, we end up in this situation. I personally do not blame President Trump. I blame our supreme court for citizens united and continuously expanding the powers of the executive branch.

And that’s why the Constitution is a living document that can be amended so we can deal with situations like this. Write some better guidelines around presidential immunity and the civil service.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not as good a deal as an official RIF, so why would you take it?

Can you explain how a RIF is a better deal?

This is 8 months of salary.

Are you kidding??

You really believe lying Trump will pay you through September? He is a con man.