It took years for them to move two fairly small USDA agencies and that was a disaster. |
Thanks to you and the other person who responded. |
| I was miserable during the first trump term and definitely don’t want to be more miserable. I have two interviews next week and if the money is good- it is time to leave government |
I will be 47 in early December, have 26 years in the fed (at one of the targeted agencies), and have ten years until I am retirement eligible. Though at times I am frustrated by the bureaucracy at my agency, I am mostly content and planned to stay until retirement. With the uncertainty and not feeling up to the bs that it will entail, I am exploring viable options. I have zero desire to switch to private industry this late in my career. The best case for me is they give us two years head start on cuts, start making cuts in 2027, and then offer two years' salary to retire early. I would take that, run, and never look back. |
|
Everyone here is panicking over something they have no control about. At least you have time to prepare. Those of us in the private sector get emails at 6 am on Monday morning that we are fired.
Use this time to get healthier, pay down some debt, prepare your resume, take additional training and start networking if you are really worried. You have ZERO control over your fate at the fed, but you have TOTAL control over your future elsewhere |
|
While I believe there will be some reduction in the federal workforce I do not believe it will happen on day 1 and/or be an across the board mass layoffs
I assume agencies like BLS, commerce, fed reserve banks, etc will be less affected. Of course those working at the department of education or interior for example have reasons to worry . |
This is precisely what Trump wants to change - and DID at the end of his first term. Biden reversed it; but with R control across the board, it's very feasible very quickly. And in typical "blow it all up" mentality, they will do so without any plan for what happens next. First, fire all the ones in charge that can already be appointed (and with a Senate majority leader who will ensure bypassing Senate confirmations). Second, eliminate the next layer of non-trump loyalists. Third, once all of those are gone, eliminate the ones who aren't disloyal, but aren't loyal enough. |
Fair enough. It's dispiriting because this is one of the reasons I left the private sector for the federal government: less money but more stability in middle age. Or so I thought! |
NP. It isn't just about cuts. It's where the cuts will be (ie, WHO is getting cut - the higher level people with the knowledge and experience. Bad for the government, and bad for those employees who are approaching retirement and could lose it all). It's about Trump and his sycophants wanting to eliminate anyone who essentially believes in their oath of allegiance to the constitution and the country rather than taking an oath to the person in the oval office. That can happen at any/all agencies. It's also about the Feds' retirement system (TSP) that Trump was eyeing his first time around to raid in order to bolster Social Security. |
Agreed. People outside the DC bubble or other federal employment locations don't care about this issue at all and only see it as running government more like a business, getting rid of poor performing employees. They have no idea that many are even working from home and don't understand that many CAN'T work from home due to security priorities. I bet Trump isn't even aware of how many are teleworking or how effective/ineffective it is. And doesn't give a crap. |
We have taken less money for years for the stability of gov’t work. Or so we thought. |
Not sure where you're getting information that Trump would raid TSPs to bolster Social Security. That makes no sense - they are basically 401ks that federal employees/retirees have funded and own. That's like saying "Trump will steal all of Democrats' savings to reduce the national debt." |
I hope you’re right. |
How would he raid TSP. Those are individual accounts for each person. It is not one big fund with a single balance that can be withdrawn. It is like saying Trump can raid individual bank accounts. |
I *think* the poster means FERS? But even that is funded by employee payroll deductions. |