D.C.-area federal workers targeted with trio of bills

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Moving work out of DC seems reasonable, and achievable with horse trading like they do for national labs and defense manufacturing

The Senator wants the money moved to other locations and DC is the easiest to pick on because they don't have representation in Congress, If anyone is lazy, it's him. Go after the locations that have the most federal workers, CA and TX if you want to make a difference, but no, low hanging fruit is easier. He wants to weaken the city that provided the people who protect the Nations Capitol because they came to the rescue last time it was attacked.

Why would a Senator want to weaken the economy of the Nation's Capitol? That sounds like a national security risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get the point of all this. My DH is a fed working in a fed office outside of DC. I don’t see the point of shifting any more of his agency to other parts of the country just to do it. It doesn’t make any sense. There are tons of federal workers spread across the country. Why do we need more?

Is DC the US capital or not? It is the seat of our government. Why move more federal jobs out of the federal district?

Can you imagine other countries actively trying to weaken their own capital city?

[Anonymous]

So moving feds out of spite? Am I reading this accurately?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So moving feds out of spite? Am I reading this accurately?

Obviously, I mean they want to force people to move out of DC and not allow their agency to pay for their relocation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So moving feds out of spite? Am I reading this accurately?

Because it plays well back home to their constituency.

The fact that it won’t save any money or reduce any numbers is irrelevant. They can run on, “look at what I did!”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So moving feds out of spite? Am I reading this accurately?

Because it plays well back home to their constituency.

The fact that it won’t save any money or reduce any numbers is irrelevant. They can run on, “look at what I did!”

Yeah, we’re a fed family in the Midwest. I don’t see how it would play well here. Nothing against the individual workers moving but it means more competition for real estate and jobs. I suppose if fed workers were forced to move to economically dying places it might be a perceived positive but many places in the Midwest are booming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are 15 weeks in 2025 when the Senate isn’t even scheduled to be in session— and I can’t even remember the last time they did their jobs and actually passed a budget/appropriations for the fiscal year, instead of just doing a continuing resolution to stave off a shutdown.

If Joni Ernst is worried about lazy, unproductive federal workers she should look in the mirror instead of trying to score cheap political points off the backs of the hardworking people who actually keep the government running for the American people.

Right? Agreed! - Not a fed

+2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don’t most agencies already have 30% of their workforces out of DC? Most feds aren’t in DC.

As I read the bill, it requires agencies to move 30 percent of their DC headquarters employees. So it doesn’t matter if 75 percent of the employees are already outside of DC - the bill would require the agency to move 30 percent of those who are currently in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, proposed legislation this week that would force agencies to move 30% of their D.C.-based workforce out of the region, mandate telework tracking, and push agencies to move their headquarters out of the nation’s capital.

https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2025/01/ernst-targets-dc-area-federal-workers-trio-bills/402099/

I hope every single person in DC, from the trash man to hospitals, refuse service to this lying b!t*h. Substantively, if Congress agrees on these measures, so be it, but to call it Drain the Swamp is hugely offensive.

I'd also like to point out that this will cost a lot of money.

Um, those aren't the jobs she's talking about. Nice try though. News flash: Feds, you aren't indentured servants. If you don't like the terms, stop working on the backs of tax payers and get real jobs.

Your "real job" doesn't exist without federal jobs. Who would get on a plane without air traffic controllers in the tower or planes inspected by the FAA? Would would buy uninspected meat? The federal government redistributes money in the form of grants, subsidies, SSD, etc to poorer areas. The red states would collapse without federal employees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MAGA and the House Freedom Caucus wants to cut federal jobs, not move them elsewhere at taxpayer expense. That idea isn’t going anywhere.

Exactly. The Republicans can't get it together enough to stop contradicting themselves every day. Prediction: they will get NOTHING done in four year. Not a damn thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t most agencies already have 30% of their workforces out of DC? Most feds aren’t in DC.

As I read the bill, it requires agencies to move 30 percent of their DC headquarters employees. So it doesn’t matter if 75 percent of the employees are already outside of DC - the bill would require the agency to move 30 percent of those who are currently in DC.

But I thought they wanted us all to come back into the office to start using that DC real estate! Make up your minds, GOP!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t most agencies already have 30% of their workforces out of DC? Most feds aren’t in DC.

As I read the bill, it requires agencies to move 30 percent of their DC headquarters employees. So it doesn’t matter if 75 percent of the employees are already outside of DC - the bill would require the agency to move 30 percent of those who are currently in DC.

But I thought they wanted us all to come back into the office to start using that DC real estate! Make up your minds, GOP!

I know! I'm baffled. I am fully remote in another state but my office is in DC. So am I safe now? I am literally resigned to whatever at this point. Just continuing to do my job until I know more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t most agencies already have 30% of their workforces out of DC? Most feds aren’t in DC.

As I read the bill, it requires agencies to move 30 percent of their DC headquarters employees. So it doesn’t matter if 75 percent of the employees are already outside of DC - the bill would require the agency to move 30 percent of those who are currently in DC.

But I thought they wanted us all to come back into the office to start using that DC real estate! Make up your minds, GOP!

I know! I'm baffled. I am fully remote in another state but my office is in DC. So am I safe now? I am literally resigned to whatever at this point. Just continuing to do my job until I know more.

Who knows? Are they going to lease buildings for remote workers so they can go "back to work"? The whole thing is so idiotic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are 15 weeks in 2025 when the Senate isn’t even scheduled to be in session— and I can’t even remember the last time they did their jobs and actually passed a budget/appropriations for the fiscal year, instead of just doing a continuing resolution to stave off a shutdown.

If Joni Ernst is worried about lazy, unproductive federal workers she should look in the mirror instead of trying to score cheap political points off the backs of the hardworking people who actually keep the government running for the American people.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So moving feds out of spite? Am I reading this accurately?

Because it plays well back home to their constituency.

The fact that it won’t save any money or reduce any numbers is irrelevant. They can run on, “look at what I did!”

I wish it were that simple. It's far more insidious than PR, they are looking to systematically dismantle the US government and sell it for parts, just like Russia did in the 90's.

Step 1 is brain drain by attrition, like moving the agency to places nobody with other options would want to move to.

Step 2 is stuff the agencies with sycophants who will sabotage the agency from within

Step 3 is point to those crippled agencies that no longer have the resources or willing staff to do their mission and say "look at this broken agency, wouldn't it be better off gone/privatized?"

Step 4 is sell any valuable agencies to oligarchs, and shut down agencies like the EPA that stand in between companies and bigger profits.