Are laid off fed workers and contractors having a hard time finding a new job?

[Anonymous]

Are laid off fed workers and contractors having a hard time finding a new job?

My guess is the private sector would benefit from hiring them because they bring a different experience and set of skills.

And it seems that some were not affected. I work as an analyst and use BLS data a lot in my job. I think statisticians and other data professionals were spared.

For example, I am sure any private form would love to hire a laid statistician from the BLS if they were available.

[Anonymous]

They can only hire so many. Market for ex-feds will continue to tighten up

[Anonymous]

Yes, they are. Private companies are laying off a lot now, too. And it’s summer.

[Anonymous]

Have not lost my job yet, but there are openings for my work in all surrounding areas. Not worried.

[Anonymous]

BLS and other data agencies were not spared, and a lot of people are worried about the quality of analysis going forward. Earlier this year BLS said it would stop collecting a few kinds of data and instead infer it, which has implications for accuracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BLS and other data agencies were not spared, and a lot of people are worried about the quality of analysis going forward. Earlier this year BLS said it would stop collecting a few kinds of data and instead infer it, which has implications for accuracy.

So Statisticians and economists were fired as well?

[Anonymous]

Depends on your industry, but the economy is trending down and there are fewer jobs across the board. Companies don't want to spend in this environment. And the non-government jobs feds usually switch to (contractors, education, nonprofits, regulatory compliance) are also hurting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BLS and other data agencies were not spared, and a lot of people are worried about the quality of analysis going forward. Earlier this year BLS said it would stop collecting a few kinds of data and instead infer it, which has implications for accuracy.

So Statisticians and economists were fired as well?

Yes, or they took the buyouts.

[Anonymous]

What I am hearing and seeing is that a lot of private industry doesn’t want to hire feds in advocacy, policy, and comms spaces… kind of an unfair ick factor or fear that the administration won’t want to work with them or take them seriously. It’s too bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BLS and other data agencies were not spared, and a lot of people are worried about the quality of analysis going forward. Earlier this year BLS said it would stop collecting a few kinds of data and instead infer it, which has implications for accuracy.

So Statisticians and economists were fired as well?

My impression of this admin is that research and analysis is not governmental work — if it was actually valuable, someone would be paying someone to do the research. It doesn’t produce any concrete widget they can evaluate nor perform a service for a constituent, so it is considered worthless.

This applies across all agencies, look how they are eliminating analysis and research from DOD FFRDCs.

Gov shod DO things, not compile piles of reports that maybe no one looks at or values (because they aren’t willing to pay for them, right) — that’s the approach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I am hearing and seeing is that a lot of private industry doesn’t want to hire feds in advocacy, policy, and comms spaces… kind of an unfair ick factor or fear that the administration won’t want to work with them or take them seriously. It’s too bad.

No I don’t think this is the case. Maybe that’s what applicants are saying but a qualified person will be sought after. It’s just a tough market all around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BLS and other data agencies were not spared, and a lot of people are worried about the quality of analysis going forward. Earlier this year BLS said it would stop collecting a few kinds of data and instead infer it, which has implications for accuracy.

So Statisticians and economists were fired as well?

My impression of this admin is that research and analysis is not governmental work — if it was actually valuable, someone would be paying someone to do the research. It doesn’t produce any concrete widget they can evaluate nor perform a service for a constituent, so it is considered worthless.

This applies across all agencies, look how they are eliminating analysis and research from DOD FFRDCs.

Gov shod DO things, not compile piles of reports that maybe no one looks at or values (because they aren’t willing to pay for them, right) — that’s the approach.

You are far too generous. They do not want accurate data or a neutal data source. For example, they do not want accurate inflation and unemployment numbers.

I know you were playing devil's advocate but to be very clear about data - a TON of private sector functions depend on data like the CPI. It is a "free" service that makes a lot of industries work. And so cutting it allows you to manipulate those industries more than you could otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I am hearing and seeing is that a lot of private industry doesn’t want to hire feds in advocacy, policy, and comms spaces… kind of an unfair ick factor or fear that the administration won’t want to work with them or take them seriously. It’s too bad.

No I don’t think this is the case. Maybe that’s what applicants are saying but a qualified person will be sought after. It’s just a tough market all around.

Trump directly targeted, by name, in Executive Orders, law firms that even used to employ certain hated feds. He tried to bar those firms from federal courthouses and definitely caused them to lose clients. That scares companies away from hiring feds in any role where the government would notice.

Now does it hurt job chances for me, a lowly nobody? It's probably not a big factor, no. But it might tip the scales in a tough market.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BLS and other data agencies were not spared, and a lot of people are worried about the quality of analysis going forward. Earlier this year BLS said it would stop collecting a few kinds of data and instead infer it, which has implications for accuracy.

So Statisticians and economists were fired as well?

My impression of this admin is that research and analysis is not governmental work — if it was actually valuable, someone would be paying someone to do the research. It doesn’t produce any concrete widget they can evaluate nor perform a service for a constituent, so it is considered worthless.

This applies across all agencies, look how they are eliminating analysis and research from DOD FFRDCs.

Gov shod DO things, not compile piles of reports that maybe no one looks at or values (because they aren’t willing to pay for them, right) — that’s the approach.

You are far too generous. They do not want accurate data or a neutal data source. For example, they do not want accurate inflation and unemployment numbers.

I know you were playing devil's advocate but to be very clear about data - a TON of private sector functions depend on data like the CPI. It is a "free" service that makes a lot of industries work. And so cutting it allows you to manipulate those industries more than you could otherwise.

If by any chance inflation data are being manipulated and it's discovered the Dow will go down 3k minimum per day for 5 straight days. It's a very big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I am hearing and seeing is that a lot of private industry doesn’t want to hire feds in advocacy, policy, and comms spaces… kind of an unfair ick factor or fear that the administration won’t want to work with them or take them seriously. It’s too bad.

I work in that space and have numerous colleagues who found jobs in the private sector since January. They were all well-regarded, long-time career feds.