Fed or non-fed job

[Anonymous]

Do you need to work?

If you don't, then go ahead and take the non-fed role.

I would prefer the stability of the fed role, but I need the money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you need to work?

If you don't, then go ahead and take the non-fed role.

I would prefer the stability of the fed role, but I need the money.

OP here. I actually see the non-fed role as more stable in these current times, even though I would have said differently prior to this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry...pp above. I would stay put at 50.

Why?

Another PP: because job hunting is harder after 50. Being in a Fed job is often a lifeline for those who are older.

Good thought. Thankfully though in my niche line of work my age and experience works in my favor.

[Anonymous]

Take the new job bc you need a change, the rest is just noise!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would stay put, in one year the big blue wave will hault the insanity, and 2 years later, start the long journey to fixing the hell we've been through over the past year. The retirement and vacation make $20k no where close to worth leaving for, not to mention the best health insurance possible in a world where that is going to sh*t. Stay put

I'm the OP. Yeah I've thought about all of this.

Maybe things will start to return to "normal" in a year, maybe not, but regardless it will be messy and drawn-out. My agency has been demolished and it will take years to rebuild. But I do wonder about being one of those who hang on.

If I were able to negotiate an equivalent amount to my TSP match and banked leave into my compensation package, would you still recommend I stay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some parts of the civil service have waivers from the freeze. Where I work, government still can hire scientists and engineers, for example, but cannot hire for “administrative” or “contracting” roles. If you have a STEM degree, look around at the options.

No such waivers where I'm at unfortunately. Good thought though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry...pp above. I would stay put at 50.

Why?

Another PP: because job hunting is harder after 50. Being in a Fed job is often a lifeline for those who are older.

Once upon a time I would have agreed with this, but part of the appeal with the new role is that I'm no longer confident that my fed role is rock solid, because of, well you know....

[Anonymous]

If you arefat a non targeted agency I'd stay. Even with the current situation I wish I had a federal job. The private sector especially government contracting is beset with layoffs. Even outside of contracting it seems like people get laid off every 2 to 4 years.

[Anonymous]

I would see if they would negotiate for leave to match your current hours. Or their max leave hours if your current benefits are better.

The stability has been taken out of fed jobs now.

[Anonymous]

I just retired at 57.

They’re in multiple times that I could’ve left and found more enjoyable work.

But now I don’t have to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you need to work?

If you don't, then go ahead and take the non-fed role.

I would prefer the stability of the fed role, but I need the money.

OP here. I actually see the non-fed role as more stable in these current times, even though I would have said differently prior to this year.

Really need clarity on non Fed job to compare. Corporate type jobs above 50 are VERY unstable. They are first laid off.

Benefits for Feds are meh, so if company is worse, that does reflect stinginess. My BIL is in F500 and they are gold plated.

Many private companies are doing lay offs and many do stack ranking. If the new company does stack ranking, be concerned about a hire to fire role, happens a lot with older workers because they usually have some deficiencies in skills that can be blamed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just retired at 57.

They’re in multiple times that I could’ve left and found more enjoyable work.

But now I don’t have to work.

OP needs 13 more years to retire at 57, so won’t be an option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$20k isn’t enough for me to change jobs.

Even with guaranteed hybrid role and more enjoyable work?

Both of those can change overnight. Hybrid could become RTO, and who knows how wor environment will be. Focus on measurable and contractual points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you need to work?

If you don't, then go ahead and take the non-fed role.

I would prefer the stability of the fed role, but I need the money.

OP here. I actually see the non-fed role as more stable in these current times, even though I would have said differently prior to this year.

Really need clarity on non Fed job to compare. Corporate type jobs above 50 are VERY unstable. They are first laid off.

Benefits for Feds are meh, so if company is worse, that does reflect stinginess. My BIL is in F500 and they are gold plated.

Many private companies are doing lay offs and many do stack ranking. If the new company does stack ranking, be concerned about a hire to fire role, happens a lot with older workers because they usually have some deficiencies in skills that can be blamed.

It's a state job, not private sector.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$20k isn’t enough for me to change jobs.

Even with guaranteed hybrid role and more enjoyable work?

Both of those can change overnight. Hybrid could become RTO, and who knows how wor environment will be. Focus on measurable and contractual points.

All fair points, but riding the hybrid train as long as possible is still beneficial (as it's already gone for fed work, so even a little bit longer is nice).

Without getting into too many details, the nature of this role would make it extremely difficult for the work to change beyond a scope that wasn't more enjoyable than what I'm currently doing.

To everyone, I appreciate all of the comments. Gives me a lot to think about.