Federal exodus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh well, good luck in the private sector. We won't be hiring you.

That's incorrect.

+1. You sure do call me a lot trying to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The situation (at my agency) is that around 30% of the people are ELIGIBLE to RETIRE and are only sticking around because they like the work and their colleagues.

If even a hint of shenanigans occurs, they will just walk out the door. And if that happens, the shit. will. hit. the. fan. because a lot of these people were in the agency for decades and have a tremendous amount of institutional knowledge that they will take with them. That's how I am reading it.

Oh blah, blah, blah. If they had any integrity they would have walked out under Clinton years ago.

This is just self-soothing wankage.

Huh? I came in at the beginning of GWB. He sucked but I could still do valuable work that saves lives. I am in a highly specialized, highly skilled position. If I leave, it will reduce the good work my office can do. I will stay unless and until Trump makes me unable to do that good work.

This describes me as well. But for the first time in my career, I am thinking about cashing in and moving to the industry. I'm starting to wonder if industry resistance might be the best hope for protecting the important government program I have devoted my working life to.

I hear you. I said what I plan to do, but I absolutely do not judge anyone else for making a different choice. I'm a woman, and it's hard for me to stay with a chief executive who views me as less than human. And I'm not ruling out leaving. But for now I am staying because I know there will be lives lost if I leave, especially with a hiring freeze.

Omg. Some of you seem to think you're Mother Theresa. Saving lives right and left.

I'm sorry you're so unaware, but my office literally is saving lives. There's nothing mother Theresa about it. It's our job. Just like it's the job of surgeons, firefighters, police, etc. what do you do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a note from a citizen in the real world who pays your salaries in the form of my (hard-earned, private sector derived) tax dollars:

Half of you would never be missed.

Federal workers pay taxes too, dunce.

No kidding. They collect three to five times as much as they pay when you figure in benefits.

Wrong. Also, my agency brings in more money than we cost. So, explain to me again how we are such a drain?

[Anonymous]

OK, we'll keep you for window dressing.

[Anonymous]

These Trumpsters just want to burn their house down. Go for it, y'all. Just realize you'll be homeless after.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Federal worker here. No one is leaving because of Trump, they're filling you. At my agency they were going to be retiring in the next couple of years regardless. I hope they do, we need young fresh blood who wants to take risks. Too many employees sitting there basically Retired in Place (RIP) and not doing shit or doing the minimum to get buy. They've made their high three and will be leaving with a generous retirement.

In IT, the average age of the federal worker is 55. Way, way too old to adapt new technology and move federal IT into the next wave. They don't understand technology really and won't push to implement new ideas or technologies because they fear change and are just waiting until they retire so it's not their problem.

A lot of older federal workers are irrelevant and a waste of space.

Very ageist comments, bro. Bitter about a promotion?

Can anyone ever tell the truth without you getting offended and pushing for the status quo? The way we're going isn't working.
Get that thru your f'n thick skull... and I'm not a racist or whateverist for saying so either.

I'm PP who made "ageist" comments. I speak the truth. I'm also 36 and a GS-14, almost unheard of. I got there because of cast private sector experience, took a 13 and then promoted to 14 in less than four years to a branch director. Reason being - I was young blood that took risks and implanted new programs that have raised effectiveness, efficiency, agency capabilities and along with another branch created a system that better serves our customers (the American people). That being said, we got a lot of resistance from other unit branches and agencies. We missed timelines because of their unwillingness to work with us. Eventually the agency head had to out the hammer down as we should him how our new stuff was working well in our branch and others that implemented it. But it was the old RIP people who dragged feet and played needless politics. I say fine...get the hell out of the way and move along. Let us fix this stuff. Instead our younger agency heads that are replacing former directors don't want to deal with the HR nightmare of letting people go, putting them on PIPs and so fourth. Tbey shove them into a corner like putting old useless cows out to pasture and you can't give you milk. They sit there collecting money while essentially doing nothing.

I think you need to learn that your office isn't representative of most. For instance, I was a GS-15 before I was 30. Obviously, at your agency that would be very unusual. In my office, it's normal for the top half of performers. We have some support staff that are dead wood, but not professional staff. At my husband's firm, they had dead wood old partners staying on for the paycheck, though.

GS14 is rather good at 36. I personally think you're lying, as no one is a 15 before 30, it doesn't happen. Not sure of PP's agency, but I've worked NSF, State, DoD and not for a sub-agency of Treasury. Being on a pay band helps as you get more than a GS, but by and large the PP is correct.

Places like the OCC, CFTC and FDIC are good about getting rid of employees who are dead weight. The DOI's IBC is good about that to, but a lot of agencies aren't.

The dead weight needs to go, there is a lot of people the military people used to call Retired on Active Duty (ROAD) or RIPs as well. DoD civilians who did little or just enough to get by. I see them in the other agencies too just as PP described. There is too much of it in the federal space and it needs to be cleansed. I say to those who threaten to leave...go ahead...move on out. We're better off without you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh well, good luck in the private sector. We won't be hiring you.

That's incorrect.

+1. You sure do call me a lot trying to.

Very weird post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Federal worker here. No one is leaving because of Trump, they're filling you. At my agency they were going to be retiring in the next couple of years regardless. I hope they do, we need young fresh blood who wants to take risks. Too many employees sitting there basically Retired in Place (RIP) and not doing shit or doing the minimum to get buy. They've made their high three and will be leaving with a generous retirement.

In IT, the average age of the federal worker is 55. Way, way too old to adapt new technology and move federal IT into the next wave. They don't understand technology really and won't push to implement new ideas or technologies because they fear change and are just waiting until they retire so it's not their problem.

A lot of older federal workers are irrelevant and a waste of space.

Very ageist comments, bro. Bitter about a promotion?

Can anyone ever tell the truth without you getting offended and pushing for the status quo? The way we're going isn't working.
Get that thru your f'n thick skull... and I'm not a racist or whateverist for saying so either.

I'm PP who made "ageist" comments. I speak the truth. I'm also 36 and a GS-14, almost unheard of. I got there because of cast private sector experience, took a 13 and then promoted to 14 in less than four years to a branch director. Reason being - I was young blood that took risks and implanted new programs that have raised effectiveness, efficiency, agency capabilities and along with another branch created a system that better serves our customers (the American people). That being said, we got a lot of resistance from other unit branches and agencies. We missed timelines because of their unwillingness to work with us. Eventually the agency head had to out the hammer down as we should him how our new stuff was working well in our branch and others that implemented it. But it was the old RIP people who dragged feet and played needless politics. I say fine...get the hell out of the way and move along. Let us fix this stuff. Instead our younger agency heads that are replacing former directors don't want to deal with the HR nightmare of letting people go, putting them on PIPs and so fourth. Tbey shove them into a corner like putting old useless cows out to pasture and you can't give you milk. They sit there collecting money while essentially doing nothing.

I think you need to learn that your office isn't representative of most. For instance, I was a GS-15 before I was 30. Obviously, at your agency that would be very unusual. In my office, it's normal for the top half of performers. We have some support staff that are dead wood, but not professional staff. At my husband's firm, they had dead wood old partners staying on for the paycheck, though.

GS14 is rather good at 36. I personally think you're lying, as no one is a 15 before 30, it doesn't happen. Not sure of PP's agency, but I've worked NSF, State, DoD and not for a sub-agency of Treasury. Being on a pay band helps as you get more than a GS, but by and large the PP is correct.

Places like the OCC, CFTC and FDIC are good about getting rid of employees who are dead weight. The DOI's IBC is good about that to, but a lot of agencies aren't.

The dead weight needs to go, there is a lot of people the military people used to call Retired on Active Duty (ROAD) or RIPs as well. DoD civilians who did little or just enough to get by. I see them in the other agencies too just as PP described. There is too much of it in the federal space and it needs to be cleansed. I say to those who threaten to leave...go ahead...move on out. We're better off without you.

The thing is, it's not the deadwood who is going to leave. Only those with marketable skills will, only the good valuable people.
The deadwood will stick around, I have no doubt!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Federal worker here. No one is leaving because of Trump, they're filling you. At my agency they were going to be retiring in the next couple of years regardless. I hope they do, we need young fresh blood who wants to take risks. Too many employees sitting there basically Retired in Place (RIP) and not doing shit or doing the minimum to get buy. They've made their high three and will be leaving with a generous retirement.

In IT, the average age of the federal worker is 55. Way, way too old to adapt new technology and move federal IT into the next wave. They don't understand technology really and won't push to implement new ideas or technologies because they fear change and are just waiting until they retire so it's not their problem.

A lot of older federal workers are irrelevant and a waste of space.

Very ageist comments, bro. Bitter about a promotion?

Can anyone ever tell the truth without you getting offended and pushing for the status quo? The way we're going isn't working.
Get that thru your f'n thick skull... and I'm not a racist or whateverist for saying so either.

I'm PP who made "ageist" comments. I speak the truth. I'm also 36 and a GS-14, almost unheard of. I got there because of cast private sector experience, took a 13 and then promoted to 14 in less than four years to a branch director. Reason being - I was young blood that took risks and implanted new programs that have raised effectiveness, efficiency, agency capabilities and along with another branch created a system that better serves our customers (the American people). That being said, we got a lot of resistance from other unit branches and agencies. We missed timelines because of their unwillingness to work with us. Eventually the agency head had to out the hammer down as we should him how our new stuff was working well in our branch and others that implemented it. But it was the old RIP people who dragged feet and played needless politics. I say fine...get the hell out of the way and move along. Let us fix this stuff. Instead our younger agency heads that are replacing former directors don't want to deal with the HR nightmare of letting people go, putting them on PIPs and so fourth. Tbey shove them into a corner like putting old useless cows out to pasture and you can't give you milk. They sit there collecting money while essentially doing nothing.

I think you need to learn that your office isn't representative of most. For instance, I was a GS-15 before I was 30. Obviously, at your agency that would be very unusual. In my office, it's normal for the top half of performers. We have some support staff that are dead wood, but not professional staff. At my husband's firm, they had dead wood old partners staying on for the paycheck, though.

GS14 is rather good at 36. I personally think you're lying, as no one is a 15 before 30, it doesn't happen. Not sure of PP's agency, but I've worked NSF, State, DoD and not for a sub-agency of Treasury. Being on a pay band helps as you get more than a GS, but by and large the PP is correct.

Places like the OCC, CFTC and FDIC are good about getting rid of employees who are dead weight. The DOI's IBC is good about that to, but a lot of agencies aren't.

The dead weight needs to go, there is a lot of people the military people used to call Retired on Active Duty (ROAD) or RIPs as well. DoD civilians who did little or just enough to get by. I see them in the other agencies too just as PP described. There is too much of it in the federal space and it needs to be cleansed. I say to those who threaten to leave...go ahead...move on out. We're better off without you.

Not lying. DOJ attorney. Your concept that you know everything is making you blind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Federal worker here. No one is leaving because of Trump, they're filling you. At my agency they were going to be retiring in the next couple of years regardless. I hope they do, we need young fresh blood who wants to take risks. Too many employees sitting there basically Retired in Place (RIP) and not doing shit or doing the minimum to get buy. They've made their high three and will be leaving with a generous retirement.

In IT, the average age of the federal worker is 55. Way, way too old to adapt new technology and move federal IT into the next wave. They don't understand technology really and won't push to implement new ideas or technologies because they fear change and are just waiting until they retire so it's not their problem.

A lot of older federal workers are irrelevant and a waste of space.

Very ageist comments, bro. Bitter about a promotion?

Can anyone ever tell the truth without you getting offended and pushing for the status quo? The way we're going isn't working.
Get that thru your f'n thick skull... and I'm not a racist or whateverist for saying so either.

I'm PP who made "ageist" comments. I speak the truth. I'm also 36 and a GS-14, almost unheard of. I got there because of cast private sector experience, took a 13 and then promoted to 14 in less than four years to a branch director. Reason being - I was young blood that took risks and implanted new programs that have raised effectiveness, efficiency, agency capabilities and along with another branch created a system that better serves our customers (the American people). That being said, we got a lot of resistance from other unit branches and agencies. We missed timelines because of their unwillingness to work with us. Eventually the agency head had to out the hammer down as we should him how our new stuff was working well in our branch and others that implemented it. But it was the old RIP people who dragged feet and played needless politics. I say fine...get the hell out of the way and move along. Let us fix this stuff. Instead our younger agency heads that are replacing former directors don't want to deal with the HR nightmare of letting people go, putting them on PIPs and so fourth. Tbey shove them into a corner like putting old useless cows out to pasture and you can't give you milk. They sit there collecting money while essentially doing nothing.

I think you need to learn that your office isn't representative of most. For instance, I was a GS-15 before I was 30. Obviously, at your agency that would be very unusual. In my office, it's normal for the top half of performers. We have some support staff that are dead wood, but not professional staff. At my husband's firm, they had dead wood old partners staying on for the paycheck, though.

GS14 is rather good at 36. I personally think you're lying, as no one is a 15 before 30, it doesn't happen. Not sure of PP's agency, but I've worked NSF, State, DoD and not for a sub-agency of Treasury. Being on a pay band helps as you get more than a GS, but by and large the PP is correct.

Places like the OCC, CFTC and FDIC are good about getting rid of employees who are dead weight. The DOI's IBC is good about that to, but a lot of agencies aren't.

The dead weight needs to go, there is a lot of people the military people used to call Retired on Active Duty (ROAD) or RIPs as well. DoD civilians who did little or just enough to get by. I see them in the other agencies too just as PP described. There is too much of it in the federal space and it needs to be cleansed. I say to those who threaten to leave...go ahead...move on out. We're better off without you.

I love that you think that because you couldn't get the 15 before 30, it's impossible. I did. Started out of law school at 26. Made the 15 by 29. Wasn't hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh well, good luck in the private sector. We won't be hiring you.

That's incorrect.

+1. You sure do call me a lot trying to.

Very weird post.

I'm sorry you have comprehension problems. Good luck.

[Anonymous]

please stay - please please stay, esp if you are in crt at doj.

lots of rumblings that crt peeps are going to lave .

please don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:please stay - please please stay, esp if you are in crt at doj.

lots of rumblings that crt peeps are going to lave .

please don't.

Not civ rts but another likely to get hurt. I hope my friends in civ rts stay, but totally respect their choice if they don't. It's a hard, hard time.

[Anonymous]

I also fear for the folks at NIH who are literally saving lives. I cannot believe these morons would do it, but to impinge on the fantastic work of this agency would be a travesty. Literally saving lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I also fear for the folks at NIH who are literally saving lives. I cannot believe these morons would do it, but to impinge on the fantastic work of this agency would be a travesty. Literally saving lives.

We get it. Literally.