Federal exodus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fed is so bloated now its ridiculous. Please... everyone start walking out the door. You won't be missed.

+1.

Finally, some serious spring cleaning.

Not really. Here's what happens under Republican administrations: more contractors. Less work performed, less oversight, more money. Great thinking, guys!

Contractors are definitely way more expensive. And the republican are looking to once again allow them to fire people for belonging to the LGBT community, which they were banned from doing under Obama.

We need some new laws in place regarding contractors - namely, that you can't quit a job paying $140,000 a year, collect a pension of $80,000, and then contract back your services as a contractor for $250,000 a year. What formerly cost taxpayers $140,000 is now costing $330,000. Multiply that scenario several hundred times, and you see the problem.

My sister's boyfriend is contemplating this very thing, He's a GS 14 earning around $125,000, and he's trying to decide whether to be a part-time contractor for the same $125,000 or continue to work full-time as a comtractor for $250,000.

Wait. I thought privatization saved the government money? That's what the GOP has been preaching for years! You mean it's actually the problem? Who knew?

Because it's not true privatization. It's just outsourcing parts of jobs that the government employees don't want to do. And because the contractors are paid by the government - taxpayers - they have all sorts of incentives to drive the labor costs up. If it were truly a private company, providing a service or product to consumers, they wouldn't be paying their employees $250,000 for a job worth less than half that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yep. There are many agencies that do lifesaving work. Reagan gutted the Public Health Service back as the AIDS crisis was growing. A lot of people died who could have been prevented from being infected through a robust public health approach.

Or curtailing irresponsible behavior as the gay community advocated and still advocates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fed is so bloated now its ridiculous. Please... everyone start walking out the door. You won't be missed.

+1.

Finally, some serious spring cleaning.

Not really. Here's what happens under Republican administrations: more contractors. Less work performed, less oversight, more money. Great thinking, guys!

Contractors are definitely way more expensive. And the republican are looking to once again allow them to fire people for belonging to the LGBT community, which they were banned from doing under Obama.

Your paranoia is showing

[Anonymous]

OP, the truth is the majority of my subordinates are virtually unemployable elsewhere, let alone for the same money and benefits. There's attrition, but the number hovers at 10% regardless of administration. Pencil pushers have little concern about the leader du jour, because pencil pushers have much more pressing needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, the truth is the majority of my subordinates are virtually unemployable elsewhere, let alone for the same money and benefits. There's attrition, but the number hovers at 10% regardless of administration. Pencil pushers have little concern about the leader du jour, because pencil pushers have much more pressing needs.

Maybe do a better job managing then.

[Anonymous]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/21/trump-republicans-plan-to-target-government-workers-benefits-and-job-security/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_fedworkers-9a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/21/trump-republicans-plan-to-target-government-workers-benefits-and-job-security/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_fedworkers-9a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Sounds good to me. Why should anyone get an automatic raise? And what's wrong with making it possible to fire poor performers? And why should taxpayers fund government union work? And hiring freezes? Fine. There is WAY too much deadwood in the government ranks, and it's time they get rid of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/21/trump-republicans-plan-to-target-government-workers-benefits-and-job-security/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_fedworkers-9a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

From the article:

"Top Republicans on Capitol Hill say their first priority will be making it easier to fire employees regarded as incompetent or who break the rules."

"Chaffetz said he plans to push through wholesale changes to the generous retirement benefits that federal workers receive, by shifting to a market-driven, 401(k)-style plan for new employees."


This doesn't freak me out; I'm safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yep. There are many agencies that do lifesaving work. Reagan gutted the Public Health Service back as the AIDS crisis was growing. A lot of people died who could have been prevented from being infected through a robust public health approach.

Or curtailing irresponsible behavior as the gay community advocated and still advocates.

You're reprehensible, but the public health community was indeed promoting safer sex. But dismantling that infrastructure ensured that more people didn't know how the disease spread, and more people died. But I know you don't care because you think they deserve it. I wonder if you think you're a Christian?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, the truth is the majority of my subordinates are virtually unemployable elsewhere, let alone for the same money and benefits. There's attrition, but the number hovers at 10% regardless of administration. Pencil pushers have little concern about the leader du jour, because pencil pushers have much more pressing needs.

Where do you work? What agency? I call Bs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, the truth is the majority of my subordinates are virtually unemployable elsewhere, let alone for the same money and benefits. There's attrition, but the number hovers at 10% regardless of administration. Pencil pushers have little concern about the leader du jour, because pencil pushers have much more pressing needs.

Where do you work? What agency? I call Bs.

+1 The majority? If that's the case, look at their management.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm sorry you have anger and jealousy issues. Did your wife leave you for a fed? Hope you get a handle on them and work through it.

You really are having comprehension issues! I think you're responding to the wrong poster.

Nope.

Then you are misunderstanding someone. I'm not anti-fed. You're anger is making it hard for you to process information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Would be impossible most places. New attorneys come in at an 11. You have to spend a year at each grade. So in most agencies, you would be 30 at the earliest.

Not impossible at my agency. But I do think it's true that at a lot of agencies the 15 isn't even possible. But certainly is at some

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, the truth is the majority of my subordinates are virtually unemployable elsewhere, let alone for the same money and benefits. There's attrition, but the number hovers at 10% regardless of administration. Pencil pushers have little concern about the leader du jour, because pencil pushers have much more pressing needs.

Where do you work? What agency? I call Bs.

+1 The majority? If that's the case, look at their management.

I know, right? You can fire Feds. It's a hassle, but if you're a manager and your staff is crap, then you are lazy as f* for not getting rid of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, the truth is the majority of my subordinates are virtually unemployable elsewhere, let alone for the same money and benefits. There's attrition, but the number hovers at 10% regardless of administration. Pencil pushers have little concern about the leader du jour, because pencil pushers have much more pressing needs.

Where do you work? What agency? I call Bs.

+1 The majority? If that's the case, look at their management.

I know, right? You can fire Feds. It's a hassle, but if you're a manager and your staff is crap, then you are lazy as f* for not getting rid of them.

yep I've seen it happen. I've also seen people not make it thru the probationary period.