USDA Scientists refusing to move/relocate to Missouri

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Evidence suggests that the relocation of these agencies is an attempt to hollow out and dismantle USDA science that helps farmers and protects our food supply," the union added.

Brain drain of top scientists doing federal research. I hope the new people will not simply be yes men, but that's probably the intent. I guess the MAGA folks are happy.

So they pre-emptily jump ship and leave the agency to flounder? Doesn't seem smart.

And correct me if I'm wrong - but shouldn't the agency focused on agriculture, food and rural communities be actually in the areas were that's most impactful? Seems smart to have the USDA hq'd in the heartland.

+ a million.

It would make a lot of sense.

But of course some entitled "public servants" believe the public exists to serve them at their convenience...

Makes sense to people who have no clue as to what these scientists do...

What’s more, neither agency works directly with farmers: ERS employees conduct research on and analyze the agricultural and food markets, including looking at food stamps and food security; NIFA employees fund research and provide grants on agriculture-related science.

Even the estimated savings have come under question. An analysis by the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association found that the relocation would actually cost taxpayers between $83 and $182 million

This. It’s not the headquarters that is moving. It’s relatively few employees out of the whole USDA. But, these particular jobs would be better off staying in DC.

Which is why it’s clear there no logic or strategy to it, except as a move to force these workers to quit and/or to stop this work from being done by anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know folks in this office. They are good people who care about what they do. As academics, they’re far more likely to be working more than 40 hours a week, not less, because they’ll do whatever needs to be done to get papers in shape for publication or to prepare to present at conferences. They are getting screwed over, pure and simple, as a political maneuver. I’m absolutely disgusted by it.

Screwed over how, though?

They're getting a $50,000 lump sum settlement.
The move was actually announced in Fall 2018.
They can now afford housing for their family if desired.
The feds are paying other relocation expenses.

What more do you want? Did the government sign a certificate promising you you could spend 50 years living in the Washington, D.C. bubble when you joined?

$50k will barely cover realtor expenses for most DC house sales. It’s better than nothing, but hardly a windfall, especially if this move means the trailing spouse giving up his or her career prospects - and for no good reason.

Go back and read. They’re getting full relocation benefits. Anyone selling a house will be made whole. Government relocation is very comprehensive.

Well, if that’s the case, then all of the cost estimates that were given out to newspapers are too low, since it’s certainly going to cost more than $50k to move the average DC home-owning family, if the government is covering all closing, realtor, moving, and house hunting expenses.

[Anonymous]

It's so strange. Moving the USDA headquarters to the "heartland" would make much more sense and provide many more jobs and than moving scientists there. Puting the policy makers there would be great, those are the people making the big money anyhow.

KC is going to be really disappointed when there are just a few admin and IT jobs for locals without PhDs in special ag science areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
There may be advantages to having the jobs in KC that go beyond just COL/expense considerations. I don't know why they have made this decision but I would think that punishing the employees is not the primary goal of the move. There has to be some sort of strategic reason for this.

The strategic reason is that they want to run off a bunch of employees and slash the budget to wreck the agency:

https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/news/article/2019/06/26/ers-move-goal-cut-agencys-budget

The union representing employees from the Economic Research Service cited that roughly two-thirds of more than 200 employees being reassigned from Washington, D.C., to Kansas City, Mo., won't go.

That is exactly what USDA leaders want and what the Trump administration budgeted to happen. USDA's proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2020 that ERS would lose half its employees during the year.

At the end of last September, ERS had 319 full-time employees. The White House budget proposal for FY 2020 set the budget for 160 staff, a cut of 159 jobs for the agency.

The FY 2020 budget is set to start Oct. 1, or when Congress completes appropriations for the year. Democrats have a rider in the House appropriations bill to block the ERS move, but the relocation likely will happen before Congress passes its final FY 2020 appropriations.

The Trump administration proposed FY 2020 budget for ERS was $60.5 million for 160 staff and a $26.7 million budget cut from FY 2019.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I do like the idea of move more government functions outside DC and spreading it around the country. I'm aware most government jobs are already outside DC (80%?) but don't see why more can't be moved either, it'll help those on government pay to live in more affordable regions. In today's age of telecommuting it's no big deal either. My office has staff who live in other states and work from home and only periodically turn up but who stay in touch all the time via conference calls.

In that case, why is the agency opposed to any expansion of telework, even a temporary one to give employees more time to sort out a move to KC? They clearly feel it is important for all these people to be working in a specific location...and for that location to be far away from the policymakers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
They're getting a $50,000 lump sum settlement.

Citation? Besides someone with poor reading comprehension who thinks a modeled value in a cost-benefit analysis equates to an offer?

About that cost-benefit analysis:
https://www.aaea.org/UserFiles/file/Report-MovingUSDAResearchersWillCostTaxpayers-AAEAReport2019june19final.docx.pdf

The move was actually announced in Fall 2018.

KC was announced June 13th, obviously no one could make plans before then. And they still can't really make plans, since no one knows exactly where in the KC area the permanent offices will be located.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

At the end of the day I don't care if these workers stay in DC or move to Kansas City. But I also know at the end of the day they, as individuals, are not important. The bosses have decided. And life goes on. Shrugs.

You ought to care that the the bosses, on your dime, are trying to get scientists to quit because they don't like what the scientists said. If you don't care, then you don't care, but you ought to care.

Scientists can not work on climate change in KC? Or that work can only be done in DC?

So, the way that this is being done seems appropriate to you? The speed, the reasoning (there is none), this doesn't strike you as an effort to antagonize and decimate this agency?

Ok. Now I know how people fall for MLM schemes.

No. The military gets relocated all the time. Private sector jobs get relocated, too. It's not like the work being done changes.

I can totally understand the surprise but they've had nearly a year to absorb what's happening. When we relocated it was more like 3 months, if that.[/quote

]

Of course, no private sector employer would pick up and move to a location with no existing employee talent pool, that wouldn't be attractive to new hires, and expect most of its employees to follow, because that would make no business sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
They're getting a $50,000 lump sum settlement.

Citation? Besides someone with poor reading comprehension who thinks a modeled value in a cost-benefit analysis equates to an offer?

About that cost-benefit analysis:
https://www.aaea.org/UserFiles/file/Report-MovingUSDAResearchersWillCostTaxpayers-AAEAReport2019june19final.docx.pdf

The move was actually announced in Fall 2018.

KC was announced June 13th, obviously no one could make plans before then. And they still can't really make plans, since no one knows exactly where in the KC area the permanent offices will be located.

Lump sum is upthread.

Announcement (its public on the USDA's freaking website / employees have known this was coming since before Aug 2018) -

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue today announced further reorganization of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), intended to improve customer service, strengthen offices and programs, and save taxpayer dollars. The Economic Research Service (ERS), currently under USDA’s Research, Education, and Economics mission area, will realign once again with the Office of the Chief Economist (OCE) under the Office of the Secretary. Additionally, most employees of ERS and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) will be relocated outside of the National Capital Region. The movement of the employees outside of Washington, DC is expected to be completed by the end of 2019.

https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2018/08/09/usda-realign-ers-chief-economist-relocate-ers-nifa-outside-dc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
They're getting a $50,000 lump sum settlement.

Citation? Besides someone with poor reading comprehension who thinks a modeled value in a cost-benefit analysis equates to an offer?

About that cost-benefit analysis:
https://www.aaea.org/UserFiles/file/Report-MovingUSDAResearchersWillCostTaxpayers-AAEAReport2019june19final.docx.pdf

The move was actually announced in Fall 2018.

KC was announced June 13th, obviously no one could make plans before then. And they still can't really make plans, since no one knows exactly where in the KC area the permanent offices will be located.

Lump sum is upthread.

Announcement (its public on the USDA's freaking website / employees have known this was coming since before Aug 2018) -

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue today announced further reorganization of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), intended to improve customer service, strengthen offices and programs, and save taxpayer dollars. The Economic Research Service (ERS), currently under USDA’s Research, Education, and Economics mission area, will realign once again with the Office of the Chief Economist (OCE) under the Office of the Secretary. Additionally, most employees of ERS and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) will be relocated outside of the National Capital Region. The movement of the employees outside of Washington, DC is expected to be completed by the end of 2019.

https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2018/08/09/usda-realign-ers-chief-economist-relocate-ers-nifa-outside-dc

Once again, USDA still hasn’t told its employees exactly WHERE they’re supposed to be moving. It’s less than 2.5 months left to go, and it’s still not even narrowed down to which state, though they do have a general metro area. If the employee’s spouse is working, they likely will need to know which state they would want to aim for. Teacher, firefighters, lawyers, doctors - these are all examples of professions that have some sort of state-specific requirements and I imagine that Kansas and Missouri differ at least somewhat in the details. My friends’ experiences as trailing spouses was that it could take thousands of dollars and weeks/months of time to transfer state professional certifications/licenses/etc. Plus, employees need to figure out which school district they should be looking to enroll their kids in. Since USDA still hasn’t figured out the details, they should allow their employees the option to telework to give them some time to transition their families....but evidently this isn’t an option. This is a pretty crappy way to treat your employees and their families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, lots of people jealous of "entitled" public servants and wanting to punish them here...

Please, if you want to get a fed job, no one is stopping you!

[Anonymous]

Hey dummies. The $50,000 was an estimate. The federal government has a generous relocation program - some employees will spend more, some will spend less. A renter will spend ten grand on a moving truck, and a homeowner could approach six figures by the time the house is sold and the household goods are moved. No one is getting a lump some unless the USDA specifically negotiates that with an individual (my agency will do that on a case by case basis). It's unlikely that anyone will suffer any out of pocket expenses for their relocation.

[Anonymous]

Other agencies do these sort of moves slower and under the radar. State is slowly moving people to Charleston, SC to support their already huge finance and HR centers down there.

[Anonymous]

If my job were to move to Kansas City, I would quit too. My spouse earns slightly more than I do and it would be easier for me to find a new job in DC than for her to find a new job in Missouri. Our aging parents, our friends, our place of worship, the apartment we self-manage as a rental, and our hobbies and volunteer commitments are all in the DC area. I hate driving and appreciate DC public transportation.

And the idea that I'd probably have to do two moves (I'd have to rent first: I wouldn't have the money for a down payment til I sold my current house, there's no indication of where in the KC metro area the workers are going, and with my spouse unemployed we would qualify for a smaller mortgage....plus if we hated KC I wouldn't want to be tied down) just sucks.

I think a lot more USDA employees would make the move if there were more time and certainty (like the address of the new offices) and if there were some effort to help dual-fed families (or other families with a qualified spouse) get hired by federal agencies in KC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Highly educated employees like lawyers, PhDs, etc., are being paid less in the government than the private sector because they want stability. To force a change like this so quickly on a whim shows them that this trade off may not be worth it.

If you want to treat me like the private sector, pay me like the private sector. Sorry for pp who is jealous of government employees. Maybe try asking for advice on the jobs forum instead?

So go work in the private sector. Or that's right -- no more lazy summers while congress is in recess, no teleworking two days a week, no leaving by 3 to pick up your kid, no pay grade increases without productivity, no 10 or 20 year job security, no more federal daycares on site, no more pension/FERS

Wow, where are you getting your info?? From Trump tweets??
Nothing, nothing you listed here is true. Get over your hate towards government employees and research the topic before coming here and arguing about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There may be advantages to having the jobs in KC that go beyond just COL/expense considerations. I don't know why they have made this decision but I would think that punishing the employees is not the primary goal of the move. There has to be some sort of strategic reason for this.

Then find out the reason, before expressing your opinion about the reason.

I am not a scientist and I do not work at that agency so I don't know why you think I would have some sort of insider knowledge about why this move was planned. I do know that this sort of thing happens, though, and it's not because the company/agency/organization "hates" their employees and is trying to make them suffer. I do totally understand how it might not be a popular decision though.

Exactly. And you have never practiced analytical thinking or researched. Or ever tried to connect the dots. And yet, you keep arguing with a bunch of people on this board that this is some kind of a big strategy that has nothing to do with this administration's anti-Obama campaign. They are trying to erase everything Obama built, everything that has Obama's legacy.

Let me ask you this - what's your education/degree? Anything that has to do with Greek mythology or some other BS good for nothing degree?