Federal Employment - Post DOGE Era

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You might want to look at this article from today's WaPo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/03/09/trump-hiring-federal-workers/

Among other things, it says that the current Administration is looking for younger workers who might only stay a few years. I don't know how this would fit into positions that would require scientific expertise, but you should at least consider whether the workplace being described in this article sounds like somewhere you'd like to work.

Sounds like what the Administration is looking to create is the churn and burn culture I experienced at small private sector employers years ago-- bring in recent college grads, work them to the bone and treat them like shit for two years, lie about promotion opportunities and shrug when they find a new job.

Interestingly enough, this is what my gov't office did throughout the 2010s, although I don't think that anyone was lied to about promotion potential. Effectively, it was a place for young folks to train for work in the industry we (partially) regulated.

Then the pendulum swung back and they started creating higher-grade positions and attempting to hang on to folks. I think that our work has improved as a result, though I'm not really qualified to judge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Along with the final rule for schedule policy/career positions, consider the impending changes to the RIF process:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/03/05/2026-04377/reduction-in-force

They are gearing up for further cuts.

I don’t know why anyone would want to work for the federal government at this point if they have other options.

What is the timing here, seems like pieces are in place with unions gone, new RIF priority, schedule f rule.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you environmental woke science or pesticide approving biddness science?

lol but this. I do think the days of mass layoffs are over but I also think you are safer if you are in a less policy focused area. I don’t think EPA will be eliminated but some programs could be.

I’m in an operations role where I coordinate sample collection and monitoring. I think there is a push to privatize and AI do the work (like every job). How much time do I have?

I honestly believe you're fine. They may not like your mission but they have a lot of fish to fry and are finding out right now how hard it is to create solutions to the things they've enjoyed complaining about.

But, the smart move is to use this time to develop a parallel skill set that would let you more easily move to another agency - maybe coordinating drug tests for human employees, or something in supply chain management; I don't know your skills but my point is to start building a landing pad that isn't EPA-specific while still staying in your EPA job.

They have already told all our support technicians that they will be gone.

I don't know what you want from this thread. You know more about your own job situation than anybody on DCUM. People have told you what they're seeing generally (which is hiring, or at least not firing) but if you think you're in specific danger then we are not equipped to tell you otherwise.

Just worried that I’m sitting complacent while larger forces work to unravel my life when I should be switching to an ageny that is hiring.

don't worry, the larger forces working to unravel lives are also at agencies that are hiring or about to hire. remember, switching agencies frequently means a new probationary period where they can just fire you. doge may be nominally gone but there are plenty of folks still working to burn things down from the inside.

basically, keep working, keep upskilling, keep looking for and applying to outside jobs —and be thankful if you are still eligible for a severance in the event of a RIF (i am not.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you environmental woke science or pesticide approving biddness science?

lol but this. I do think the days of mass layoffs are over but I also think you are safer if you are in a less policy focused area. I don’t think EPA will be eliminated but some programs could be.

I’m in an operations role where I coordinate sample collection and monitoring. I think there is a push to privatize and AI do the work (like every job). How much time do I have?

I honestly believe you're fine. They may not like your mission but they have a lot of fish to fry and are finding out right now how hard it is to create solutions to the things they've enjoyed complaining about.

But, the smart move is to use this time to develop a parallel skill set that would let you more easily move to another agency - maybe coordinating drug tests for human employees, or something in supply chain management; I don't know your skills but my point is to start building a landing pad that isn't EPA-specific while still staying in your EPA job.

They have already told all our support technicians that they will be gone.

I don't know what you want from this thread. You know more about your own job situation than anybody on DCUM. People have told you what they're seeing generally (which is hiring, or at least not firing) but if you think you're in specific danger then we are not equipped to tell you otherwise.

Just worried that I’m sitting complacent while larger forces work to unravel my life when I should be switching to an ageny that is hiring.

don't worry, the larger forces working to unravel lives are also at agencies that are hiring or about to hire. remember, switching agencies frequently means a new probationary period where they can just fire you. doge may be nominally gone but there are plenty of folks still working to burn things down from the inside.

basically, keep working, keep upskilling, keep looking for and applying to outside jobs —and be thankful if you are still eligible for a severance in the event of a RIF (i am not.)

What if Fed job change would boost marketability and grant TS clearance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Along with the final rule for schedule policy/career positions, consider the impending changes to the RIF process:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/03/05/2026-04377/reduction-in-force

They are gearing up for further cuts.

I don’t know why anyone would want to work for the federal government at this point if they have other options.

What is the timing here, seems like pieces are in place with unions gone, new RIF priority, schedule f rule.

You’ll be able to keep the job as long as you’re willing to surgically attach one of Trump’s tacky trucker caps to your scalp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you environmental woke science or pesticide approving biddness science?

lol but this. I do think the days of mass layoffs are over but I also think you are safer if you are in a less policy focused area. I don’t think EPA will be eliminated but some programs could be.

I’m in an operations role where I coordinate sample collection and monitoring. I think there is a push to privatize and AI do the work (like every job). How much time do I have?

I honestly believe you're fine. They may not like your mission but they have a lot of fish to fry and are finding out right now how hard it is to create solutions to the things they've enjoyed complaining about.

But, the smart move is to use this time to develop a parallel skill set that would let you more easily move to another agency - maybe coordinating drug tests for human employees, or something in supply chain management; I don't know your skills but my point is to start building a landing pad that isn't EPA-specific while still staying in your EPA job.

They have already told all our support technicians that they will be gone.

I don't know what you want from this thread. You know more about your own job situation than anybody on DCUM. People have told you what they're seeing generally (which is hiring, or at least not firing) but if you think you're in specific danger then we are not equipped to tell you otherwise.

Just worried that I’m sitting complacent while larger forces work to unravel my life when I should be switching to an ageny that is hiring.

don't worry, the larger forces working to unravel lives are also at agencies that are hiring or about to hire. remember, switching agencies frequently means a new probationary period where they can just fire you. doge may be nominally gone but there are plenty of folks still working to burn things down from the inside.

basically, keep working, keep upskilling, keep looking for and applying to outside jobs —and be thankful if you are still eligible for a severance in the event of a RIF (i am not.)

FWIW I was not considered probationary after moving agencies as a lawyer. I also don’t think my agency fired people who had been recently promoted and were technically probationary. But I know some agencies were much harsher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you environmental woke science or pesticide approving biddness science?

lol but this. I do think the days of mass layoffs are over but I also think you are safer if you are in a less policy focused area. I don’t think EPA will be eliminated but some programs could be.

I’m in an operations role where I coordinate sample collection and monitoring. I think there is a push to privatize and AI do the work (like every job). How much time do I have?

I honestly believe you're fine. They may not like your mission but they have a lot of fish to fry and are finding out right now how hard it is to create solutions to the things they've enjoyed complaining about.

But, the smart move is to use this time to develop a parallel skill set that would let you more easily move to another agency - maybe coordinating drug tests for human employees, or something in supply chain management; I don't know your skills but my point is to start building a landing pad that isn't EPA-specific while still staying in your EPA job.

They have already told all our support technicians that they will be gone.

I don't know what you want from this thread. You know more about your own job situation than anybody on DCUM. People have told you what they're seeing generally (which is hiring, or at least not firing) but if you think you're in specific danger then we are not equipped to tell you otherwise.

Just worried that I’m sitting complacent while larger forces work to unravel my life when I should be switching to an ageny that is hiring.

don't worry, the larger forces working to unravel lives are also at agencies that are hiring or about to hire. remember, switching agencies frequently means a new probationary period where they can just fire you. doge may be nominally gone but there are plenty of folks still working to burn things down from the inside.

basically, keep working, keep upskilling, keep looking for and applying to outside jobs —and be thankful if you are still eligible for a severance in the event of a RIF (i am not.)

FWIW I was not considered probationary after moving agencies as a lawyer. I also don’t think my agency fired people who had been recently promoted and were technically probationary. But I know some agencies were much harsher.

i said frequently, not always. OP needs to be aware of the risks. my agency did not let anyone go who was probationary, but my agency also forced me into a probationary year because i was hired on a direct hire authority.

OTOH, friend at commerce was fired as a result of an internal promotion probationary period. They may get reinstated in a few years when the lawsuits settle out but for now they are just up a creek without a paddle.

[Anonymous]

Attorney and policy analyst positions are dangerous because of the Schedule F mess. This administration views OCC pointing out litigation risks or illegality as obstruction. They also want to fire policy people who suggest ideas the administration doesn't like.

[Anonymous]

Changing jobs when you are a middle aged parent is very precarious. You probably have way more doctor’s appointments for yourself and your kids than most jobs will tolerate. Working parents should not change jobs it’s unrealistic to expect a new employer to give you the same arrangements as a job where you have already proven yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Changing jobs when you are a middle aged parent is very precarious. You probably have way more doctor’s appointments for yourself and your kids than most jobs will tolerate. Working parents should not change jobs it’s unrealistic to expect a new employer to give you the same arrangements as a job where you have already proven yourself.

People post things sometimes that it's hard to not read as "my employer has all of the leverage because I wouldn't be able to find a new job, and I assume it's like that for everyone." I'm sorry if your reality is one where you need to prove yourself before taking time off for kids' doctors appointments, but I've changed jobs as a working parent, I earn a lot more as a result, and I've never run into this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Changing jobs when you are a middle aged parent is very precarious. You probably have way more doctor’s appointments for yourself and your kids than most jobs will tolerate. Working parents should not change jobs it’s unrealistic to expect a new employer to give you the same arrangements as a job where you have already proven yourself.

People post things sometimes that it's hard to not read as "my employer has all of the leverage because I wouldn't be able to find a new job, and I assume it's like that for everyone." I'm sorry if your reality is one where you need to prove yourself before taking time off for kids' doctors appointments, but I've changed jobs as a working parent, I earn a lot more as a result, and I've never run into this.

Are you out several times a month for doctors appointments or sick kids in your first 6 months of working? Or did your spouse take care of kid stuff? If you are unusually healthy that’s fine, but in your 40s you are likely seeing specialists, probably have a colonoscopy once, it’s just not the typical work is life dedication that employers expect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Changing jobs when you are a middle aged parent is very precarious. You probably have way more doctor’s appointments for yourself and your kids than most jobs will tolerate. Working parents should not change jobs it’s unrealistic to expect a new employer to give you the same arrangements as a job where you have already proven yourself.

It is definitely harder in the first year when you need to prove yourself and accrue leave, sometimes longer if the new employer has bad PTO. If it's possible to rely on the other parent for kids' stuff for a while, that helps. But it's not so much of an issue that it's impossible. Most people can't stay in the same job for 30 years anymore, not even feds these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Changing jobs when you are a middle aged parent is very precarious. You probably have way more doctor’s appointments for yourself and your kids than most jobs will tolerate. Working parents should not change jobs it’s unrealistic to expect a new employer to give you the same arrangements as a job where you have already proven yourself.

People post things sometimes that it's hard to not read as "my employer has all of the leverage because I wouldn't be able to find a new job, and I assume it's like that for everyone." I'm sorry if your reality is one where you need to prove yourself before taking time off for kids' doctors appointments, but I've changed jobs as a working parent, I earn a lot more as a result, and I've never run into this.

I agree with PP, a lot of employers are not that flexible, especially now in an employers job market. I switched from being a federal contractor (so not even a fed) to a new private sector job because of a layoff, and my new job is not flexible at all. When I was interviewing last year, it was clear employers were not as flexible as they were a few years ago. OP, I would stay in your current job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Changing jobs when you are a middle aged parent is very precarious. You probably have way more doctor’s appointments for yourself and your kids than most jobs will tolerate. Working parents should not change jobs it’s unrealistic to expect a new employer to give you the same arrangements as a job where you have already proven yourself.

People post things sometimes that it's hard to not read as "my employer has all of the leverage because I wouldn't be able to find a new job, and I assume it's like that for everyone." I'm sorry if your reality is one where you need to prove yourself before taking time off for kids' doctors appointments, but I've changed jobs as a working parent, I earn a lot more as a result, and I've never run into this.

I agree with PP, a lot of employers are not that flexible, especially now in an employers job market. I switched from being a federal contractor (so not even a fed) to a new private sector job because of a layoff, and my new job is not flexible at all. When I was interviewing last year, it was clear employers were not as flexible as they were a few years ago. OP, I would stay in your current job.

So hang on as long as I can and hope I survive the coming layoffs? Best course? I always thought it was best to find job when you had a job…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Changing jobs when you are a middle aged parent is very precarious. You probably have way more doctor’s appointments for yourself and your kids than most jobs will tolerate. Working parents should not change jobs it’s unrealistic to expect a new employer to give you the same arrangements as a job where you have already proven yourself.

People post things sometimes that it's hard to not read as "my employer has all of the leverage because I wouldn't be able to find a new job, and I assume it's like that for everyone." I'm sorry if your reality is one where you need to prove yourself before taking time off for kids' doctors appointments, but I've changed jobs as a working parent, I earn a lot more as a result, and I've never run into this.

I agree with PP, a lot of employers are not that flexible, especially now in an employers job market. I switched from being a federal contractor (so not even a fed) to a new private sector job because of a layoff, and my new job is not flexible at all. When I was interviewing last year, it was clear employers were not as flexible as they were a few years ago. OP, I would stay in your current job.

So hang on as long as I can and hope I survive the coming layoffs? Best course? I always thought it was best to find job when you had a job…

You'll just have to weigh the risks and figure out which ones you're willing to take.