USDA Scientists refusing to move/relocate to Missouri

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh man. KC is a a great place to live.

+1. Just leaving after a week here. They are idiots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's projected to be a fast move, the spouse has to find work, you have to find someplace to live and someone to buy your house in the DC area.

And you have to pay for it all yourself. On a federal salary, while still living in the DC area and replacing your spouses lost income.

Technically not the case. Pretty ballsy that the scientists still won't move. The area must be sub-par.

According to the USDA’s cost / benefit analysis, @USDA_ERS & @USDA_NIFA employees were offered $50,000 to cover “residential real estate, transport & storage of household goods, and travel” from DC to KC for the employee AND family.

The average home in KC costs $150 grand, BTW.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's projected to be a fast move, the spouse has to find work, you have to find someplace to live and someone to buy your house in the DC area.

And you have to pay for it all yourself. On a federal salary, while still living in the DC area and replacing your spouses lost income.

Also, there's some chance it might not happen... So maybe you're in the 10% of people who does all of that and then the move gets cancelled and you're left with... what?

Anyone who legitimately thinks it's reasonable to ask federal employees to relocate themselves and their families to an entirely different area in ~3 months (w/ no relocation assistance!) is out of their f*ing minds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have lots of thoughts about this (my agency is planning something similar- BLM)

-Currently there's a lot of job hopping by federal employees and this increases the talent. For instance scientists might hop between USDA divisions, or over to NIH. BLM often moves between USGS/BIA/BSEE/BOEM.

-I believe DC should be a government town and we can pool resources. A lot of feds have 100% fed jobs that aren't available outside of the federal workforce. If they move to Kansas City, their job prospects will be limited.

-The government is saving exactly ZERO dollars by doing this. If you think they are, I've got a bridge to sell you. COL isn't THAT much lower in other cities (Denver has the same cost of living as DC), but moving feds is $$$.

-Most feds are dual income households due to our middle class salaries. I would NOT move if my DH wasn't moving as well. I would just get another job in DC.

-"Get closer to stakeholders" is BS. We have plenty of data calls with stakeholders and that's no problem whatsoever. What you'd be missing out on is inter agency or inter Department knowledge that's currently gained by putting agencies together in DC.

-This is a purely political move. A congressman getting jobs for his district.

The cost of living in Kansas City vs. DC is 50-60% lower. It's a LOT lower.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's projected to be a fast move, the spouse has to find work, you have to find someplace to live and someone to buy your house in the DC area.

And you have to pay for it all yourself. On a federal salary, while still living in the DC area and replacing your spouses lost income.

Also, there's some chance it might not happen... So maybe you're in the 10% of people who does all of that and then the move gets cancelled and you're left with... what?

Anyone who legitimately thinks it's reasonable to ask federal employees to relocate themselves and their families to an entirely different area in ~3 months (w/ no relocation assistance!) is out of their f*ing minds.

They're getting $50,000...

That's 1/3rd the cost of buying a KC house outright. Hell, they could sell their NoVA house and use just the appreciation and pay for the new KC house in cash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have lots of thoughts about this (my agency is planning something similar- BLM)

-Currently there's a lot of job hopping by federal employees and this increases the talent. For instance scientists might hop between USDA divisions, or over to NIH. BLM often moves between USGS/BIA/BSEE/BOEM.

-I believe DC should be a government town and we can pool resources. A lot of feds have 100% fed jobs that aren't available outside of the federal workforce. If they move to Kansas City, their job prospects will be limited.

-The government is saving exactly ZERO dollars by doing this. If you think they are, I've got a bridge to sell you. COL isn't THAT much lower in other cities (Denver has the same cost of living as DC), but moving feds is $$$.

-Most feds are dual income households due to our middle class salaries. I would NOT move if my DH wasn't moving as well. I would just get another job in DC.

-"Get closer to stakeholders" is BS. We have plenty of data calls with stakeholders and that's no problem whatsoever. What you'd be missing out on is inter agency or inter Department knowledge that's currently gained by putting agencies together in DC.

-This is a purely political move. A congressman getting jobs for his district.

The cost of living in Kansas City vs. DC is 50-60% lower. It's a LOT lower.

But I still wouldn't want to live there.

[Anonymous]

LOL My kid is a brat and just entered 9th grade is not a hardship reason! Try my mother has terminal cancer and can only be treated at INOVA next time.

"Out of the roughly 250 ERS researchers and economists being reassigned, at least 69% have said they are definitely not moving, while 87% have said they won't or likely won't move to Kansas City, according to one of the surveys conducted by the American Federation of Government Employees. Out of the 294 NIFA employees slated to relocate, at least 71% have said they will not move, according to the survey, which was released last week.

They have until Monday to decide whether to make the move but remain in the dark about their final location in the greater Kansas City area -- including which side of the Kansas-Missouri state line they will be on. If they accept the move, employees must be ready to show up for work by September 30.

On Monday, the USDA rejected the union's proposals, which included allowing employees to telework for up to a year or allowing employees with a "hardship" reason to remain in the capital region."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd love to move to KC if I could keep my same salary. It is so much less expensive:

Well apparently 90% of scientists are disinclining to do so. What makes you so different from your neighbors?

They are not keeping their salary. They will get the locality pay for KC part of the country. It is lower.

[Anonymous]

It seems like many posters here have never moved before. It isn't that hard, especially when the government is paying for you to move and when you are moving from a more expensive to a less expensive area. Worse case you just put your stuff in storage and live in temporary housing for a month or so until your house in DC sells and you can find a new place in Kansas City to move into.

That is what I did when I moved from CA to DC a while back.

[Anonymous]

I'm sure it stinks if you're an affected employee, but very few of us have guarantees that our work won't relocate us.

What these USDA folks did/do deserve is more time to plan for the transition or look for a new job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[

It looks like this was announced on June 13th. That said, you don't have to sell a house and move by September 30th (which would be ~3 1/2 months) you just need to show up for work.

Here is another interesting point from the press release announcing this: https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2019/06/13/secretary-perdue-announces-kansas-city-region-location-ers-and-nifa

It will save over $300 million over 15 years.

USDA conducted a Cost Benefit Analysis and conservative estimates show a savings of nearly $300 million nominally over a 15-year lease term on employment costs and rent or about $20 million per year, which will allow more funding for research of critical needs like rural prosperity and agricultural competitiveness, and for programs and employees to be retained in the long run, even in the face of tightening budgets. On top of that, state and local governments offered generous relocation incentives packages totaling more than $26 million. Finally, this relocation will give USDA the opportunity to attract a diverse staff with training and interest in agriculture. To learn more about USDA's Cost Benefit Analysis, you may view the USDA Cost Benefit Analysis document (PDF, 331 KB).

“We did not undertake these relocations lightly, and we are doing it to enhance long-term sustainability and success of these agencies. The considerable taxpayer savings will allow us to be more efficient and improve our ability to retain more employees in the long run.

Snort. That's less than 25% of the cost of one F35A jet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have lots of thoughts about this (my agency is planning something similar- BLM)

-Currently there's a lot of job hopping by federal employees and this increases the talent. For instance scientists might hop between USDA divisions, or over to NIH. BLM often moves between USGS/BIA/BSEE/BOEM.

-I believe DC should be a government town and we can pool resources. A lot of feds have 100% fed jobs that aren't available outside of the federal workforce. If they move to Kansas City, their job prospects will be limited.

-The government is saving exactly ZERO dollars by doing this. If you think they are, I've got a bridge to sell you. COL isn't THAT much lower in other cities (Denver has the same cost of living as DC), but moving feds is $$$.

-Most feds are dual income households due to our middle class salaries. I would NOT move if my DH wasn't moving as well. I would just get another job in DC.

-"Get closer to stakeholders" is BS. We have plenty of data calls with stakeholders and that's no problem whatsoever. What you'd be missing out on is inter agency or inter Department knowledge that's currently gained by putting agencies together in DC.

-This is a purely political move. A congressman getting jobs for his district.

This is disengenious. They're talking relocating the actual agency headquarters to the communities outside Kansas City in either Kansas or Missouri.

You know how much land per a square mile in those areas are? It's $600,000 per an ACRE right on top of the airport.

https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/8800-NW-112th-St-Kansas-City-MO/15777214/

Contrast that to near Dulles or Reagan - It's $1,000,000 per an acre all the way out in Manassas.

https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/9701-Hornbaker-Rd-Manassas-VA/13869341/

The USDA could build out an entire new headquarters facilities, including lower operational and building costs, for less than 1/2th the cost it'd take to do so in the DMV.

But they already have a functioning HQ here. There is no cost to “build out” that which exists. It’s both a waste of money and an attempt to dismantle this agency and the Federal workforce. All while increasing private contractors, lobbyists, and giving big jobs and appointments to undeserving/unqualified family, friends, and big donors that this administration favors.

I absolutely think the move is politically motivated to undermine government science, but I do want to make sure everyone knows the facts. USDA does have a large HQ in DC, but the buildings currently occupied by ERS and NIFA are leased.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh man. KC is a a great place to live.

+1. Just leaving after a week here. They are idiots.

Yeah, I would totally live in KC.

Sounds like they are ridding themselves of some overpriced, too smart for their own good, dead weight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure it stinks if you're an affected employee, but very few of us have guarantees that our work won't relocate us.

What these USDA folks did/do deserve is more time to plan for the transition or look for a new job.

Nah. Feds/Congress love this tactic. It runs out the clock on administrations and they end up never having to consider it.

Look at poor Merrick Garland for pete's sake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have lots of thoughts about this (my agency is planning something similar- BLM)

-Currently there's a lot of job hopping by federal employees and this increases the talent. For instance scientists might hop between USDA divisions, or over to NIH. BLM often moves between USGS/BIA/BSEE/BOEM.

-I believe DC should be a government town and we can pool resources. A lot of feds have 100% fed jobs that aren't available outside of the federal workforce. If they move to Kansas City, their job prospects will be limited.

-The government is saving exactly ZERO dollars by doing this. If you think they are, I've got a bridge to sell you. COL isn't THAT much lower in other cities (Denver has the same cost of living as DC), but moving feds is $$$.

-Most feds are dual income households due to our middle class salaries. I would NOT move if my DH wasn't moving as well. I would just get another job in DC.

-"Get closer to stakeholders" is BS. We have plenty of data calls with stakeholders and that's no problem whatsoever. What you'd be missing out on is inter agency or inter Department knowledge that's currently gained by putting agencies together in DC.

-This is a purely political move. A congressman getting jobs for his district.

The cost of living in Kansas City vs. DC is 50-60% lower. It's a LOT lower.

Well sure, but their salaries are being lowered to reflect that too.