If RIFs are executed to cut 30-70%, who is safe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Outstanding or exceed expectations performance rating? Tenured and seniority? Veterans? Managers' discretion/preference?

The OPM site states that these would be determining factors. However, the way it has worked so far is that entire offices are RIF'ed. So, no one in that office would be safe. It doesn't seem legal, but I guess it must be because they're doing it at multiple agencies. It's more about the office's function than anything about a single employee in particular. If DOGE thinks your office is important, then it stays. (And office could be a subcomponent of a larger office. E.g., a larger office with 5 subcomponents could have 3 removed and the other 2 safe.)

[Anonymous]

How does veteran's preference work? If I have perfect performance ratings and 20 years of fed tenure, can I bump a lower graded veteran, mediocre ratings, with <5 years of experience?

They aren't explaining vet preference at all and how it relates to bump and retreat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who can point to an exact law Congress enacted that justifies their job, and are superior at doing said job. Most people in government have survived by inserting themselves into the 23-step approval process for anything and they’re glorified paper pushers with the title assistant deputy to the deputy chief’s assistant. That’s all going away.

Yep. I am not wishing for anyone to lose their jobs but as an experienced private sector veteran, corporations reduce their headcounts all the time for fiscal reasons and low performers are gently laid off. It's clear Trump is looking for a more resilient, nimble and efficient government and part of that has to be much greater flexibility to change the personnel as needs require rather than a system of institutional tenure that shuffles low performers from department to department.

“Experienced private sector veteran” = “I feel certain I know a ton of stuff about the inner workings of the federal government, which I never though about before until yesterday.”

Private sector with a lot of federal contracting exposure. There's plenty of grift in the government and plenty of wastage and inefficient staffing. It can be a problem. It rewards some while bogging down others. No one wants to be told their job is useless or they do something that can be combined with multiple other roles in a private company. But it's true enough. "inner workings of the federal grovernment" means following endless arcane rules and processes delaying everything in order to protect one person's job or one little department that needs to justify its existence. Endless busywork and meetings and shuffling of papers.

Most people are not losing their jobs. We're not facing a situation where 80% are laid off. But I do see 30% being realistic.

As if federal contractors don't grift. I've seen high priced contractors grift so hard trying to make problems seem so much more exaggerated than they really are to ensure they can keep the work. It's always very obvious when that's what's going on and it's so unnecessary because there's plenty of work to do without that.

Right! Federal contractors epitomize grift. You'd be shocked at what they bill versus what they pay their people in salary. And then feds still have to provide office space, background checks and technology. Feds also then need a fed supervising the contractor and then a COR managing the contractor. Contractors are NEVER cheaper than feds. It's not even easier to fire them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How does veteran's preference work? If I have perfect performance ratings and 20 years of fed tenure, can I bump a lower graded veteran, mediocre ratings, with <5 years of experience?

They aren't explaining vet preference at all and how it relates to bump and retreat.

Veterans preference is the highest priority if they do a real RIF. So veterans would be retained above anyone else no matter how long the time in service.
So far no agency followed real RIF procedures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a legislative branch employee, I assume I'm safe... for now anyway.

Unless you were appointed by the President subject to confirmation. Buh bye Carla.

[Anonymous]

I've found that most in my agency are relatively safe because we have already lost about 30% since this sht-show started from FORK and other attrition. Even with just the usual attrition, I predict we will be down at least 50% by the end of the year given that we aren't hiring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've found that most in my agency are relatively safe because we have already lost about 30% since this sht-show started from FORK and other attrition. Even with just the usual attrition, I predict we will be down at least 50% by the end of the year given that we aren't hiring.

My agency is having a large number of retirements and resignations without any encouragement right now, lots of people leaving for private industry. We can no longer meet deadlines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who can point to an exact law Congress enacted that justifies their job, and are superior at doing said job. Most people in government have survived by inserting themselves into the 23-step approval process for anything and they’re glorified paper pushers with the title assistant deputy to the deputy chief’s assistant. That’s all going away.

Yep. I am not wishing for anyone to lose their jobs but as an experienced private sector veteran, corporations reduce their headcounts all the time for fiscal reasons and low performers are gently laid off. It's clear Trump is looking for a more resilient, nimble and efficient government and part of that has to be much greater flexibility to change the personnel as needs require rather than a system of institutional tenure that shuffles low performers from department to department.

“Experienced private sector veteran” = “I feel certain I know a ton of stuff about the inner workings of the federal government, which I never though about before until yesterday.”

Private sector with a lot of federal contracting exposure. There's plenty of grift in the government and plenty of wastage and inefficient staffing. It can be a problem. It rewards some while bogging down others. No one wants to be told their job is useless or they do something that can be combined with multiple other roles in a private company. But it's true enough. "inner workings of the federal grovernment" means following endless arcane rules and processes delaying everything in order to protect one person's job or one little department that needs to justify its existence. Endless busywork and meetings and shuffling of papers.

Most people are not losing their jobs. We're not facing a situation where 80% are laid off. But I do see 30% being realistic.

As if federal contractors don't grift. I've seen high priced contractors grift so hard trying to make problems seem so much more exaggerated than they really are to ensure they can keep the work. It's always very obvious when that's what's going on and it's so unnecessary because there's plenty of work to do without that.

Right! Federal contractors epitomize grift. You'd be shocked at what they bill versus what they pay their people in salary. And then feds still have to provide office space, background checks and technology. Feds also then need a fed supervising the contractor and then a COR managing the contractor. Contractors are NEVER cheaper than feds. It's not even easier to fire them.

You guys have had a job for life. Now chickens have come home to roost!

That said, this is not the way to downsize gov.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does veteran's preference work? If I have perfect performance ratings and 20 years of fed tenure, can I bump a lower graded veteran, mediocre ratings, with <5 years of experience?

They aren't explaining vet preference at all and how it relates to bump and retreat.

Veterans preference is the highest priority if they do a real RIF. So veterans would be retained above anyone else no matter how long the time in service.
So far no agency followed real RIF procedures.

Can they be bumped by someone in a higher grade?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who can point to an exact law Congress enacted that justifies their job, and are superior at doing said job. Most people in government have survived by inserting themselves into the 23-step approval process for anything and they’re glorified paper pushers with the title assistant deputy to the deputy chief’s assistant. That’s all going away.

Yep. I am not wishing for anyone to lose their jobs but as an experienced private sector veteran, corporations reduce their headcounts all the time for fiscal reasons and low performers are gently laid off. It's clear Trump is looking for a more resilient, nimble and efficient government and part of that has to be much greater flexibility to change the personnel as needs require rather than a system of institutional tenure that shuffles low performers from department to department.

“Experienced private sector veteran” = “I feel certain I know a ton of stuff about the inner workings of the federal government, which I never though about before until yesterday.”

Private sector with a lot of federal contracting exposure. There's plenty of grift in the government and plenty of wastage and inefficient staffing. It can be a problem. It rewards some while bogging down others. No one wants to be told their job is useless or they do something that can be combined with multiple other roles in a private company. But it's true enough. "inner workings of the federal grovernment" means following endless arcane rules and processes delaying everything in order to protect one person's job or one little department that needs to justify its existence. Endless busywork and meetings and shuffling of papers.

Most people are not losing their jobs. We're not facing a situation where 80% are laid off. But I do see 30% being realistic.

As if federal contractors don't grift. I've seen high priced contractors grift so hard trying to make problems seem so much more exaggerated than they really are to ensure they can keep the work. It's always very obvious when that's what's going on and it's so unnecessary because there's plenty of work to do without that.

Right! Federal contractors epitomize grift. You'd be shocked at what they bill versus what they pay their people in salary. And then feds still have to provide office space, background checks and technology. Feds also then need a fed supervising the contractor and then a COR managing the contractor. Contractors are NEVER cheaper than feds. It's not even easier to fire them.

You guys have had a job for life. Now chickens have come home to roost!

That said, this is not the way to downsize gov.

The job stability was part of the recruitment draw. I have not taken many higher paying jobs because they were slightly less stable. With out the stability and with the continued low pay, there will be constant churn and a huge drop in employee quality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who can point to an exact law Congress enacted that justifies their job, and are superior at doing said job. Most people in government have survived by inserting themselves into the 23-step approval process for anything and they’re glorified paper pushers with the title assistant deputy to the deputy chief’s assistant. That’s all going away.

Yep. I am not wishing for anyone to lose their jobs but as an experienced private sector veteran, corporations reduce their headcounts all the time for fiscal reasons and low performers are gently laid off. It's clear Trump is looking for a more resilient, nimble and efficient government and part of that has to be much greater flexibility to change the personnel as needs require rather than a system of institutional tenure that shuffles low performers from department to department.

“Experienced private sector veteran” = “I feel certain I know a ton of stuff about the inner workings of the federal government, which I never though about before until yesterday.”

Private sector with a lot of federal contracting exposure. There's plenty of grift in the government and plenty of wastage and inefficient staffing. It can be a problem. It rewards some while bogging down others. No one wants to be told their job is useless or they do something that can be combined with multiple other roles in a private company. But it's true enough. "inner workings of the federal grovernment" means following endless arcane rules and processes delaying everything in order to protect one person's job or one little department that needs to justify its existence. Endless busywork and meetings and shuffling of papers.

Most people are not losing their jobs. We're not facing a situation where 80% are laid off. But I do see 30% being realistic.

As if federal contractors don't grift. I've seen high priced contractors grift so hard trying to make problems seem so much more exaggerated than they really are to ensure they can keep the work. It's always very obvious when that's what's going on and it's so unnecessary because there's plenty of work to do without that.

Right! Federal contractors epitomize grift. You'd be shocked at what they bill versus what they pay their people in salary. And then feds still have to provide office space, background checks and technology. Feds also then need a fed supervising the contractor and then a COR managing the contractor. Contractors are NEVER cheaper than feds. It's not even easier to fire them.

You guys have had a job for life. Now chickens have come home to roost!

That said, this is not the way to downsize gov.

The job stability was part of the recruitment draw. I have not taken many higher paying jobs because they were slightly less stable. With out the stability and with the continued low pay, there will be constant churn and a huge drop in employee quality.

Yes correct which is why after 19 years of practicing law on behalf of the federal government I just left and went in house. Wish I would have jumped ship 10 years ago

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who can point to an exact law Congress enacted that justifies their job, and are superior at doing said job. Most people in government have survived by inserting themselves into the 23-step approval process for anything and they’re glorified paper pushers with the title assistant deputy to the deputy chief’s assistant. That’s all going away.

Yep. I am not wishing for anyone to lose their jobs but as an experienced private sector veteran, corporations reduce their headcounts all the time for fiscal reasons and low performers are gently laid off. It's clear Trump is looking for a more resilient, nimble and efficient government and part of that has to be much greater flexibility to change the personnel as needs require rather than a system of institutional tenure that shuffles low performers from department to department.

Translation: I know nothing about how the government works.

And PP is perfectly ok with millions going towards Trump’s birthday parade and Rose Garden tacky redo. That’s just fine, nothing to see here, the kind deserves another coronation snd his own gaudy palace. I’m waiting for him to appoint female bodyguard like Gaddafi. And PP will shrug.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've found that most in my agency are relatively safe because we have already lost about 30% since this sht-show started from FORK and other attrition. Even with just the usual attrition, I predict we will be down at least 50% by the end of the year given that we aren't hiring.

My agency is having a large number of retirements and resignations without any encouragement right now, lots of people leaving for private industry. We can no longer meet deadlines.

More overtime now maybe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've found that most in my agency are relatively safe because we have already lost about 30% since this sht-show started from FORK and other attrition. Even with just the usual attrition, I predict we will be down at least 50% by the end of the year given that we aren't hiring.

My agency is having a large number of retirements and resignations without any encouragement right now, lots of people leaving for private industry. We can no longer meet deadlines.

More overtime now maybe?

NP - Who gets overtime in the government? I don’t. Yes, I can get comp time, but I’m to the point where I have trouble taking off my required amount of annual leave already (cannot have a balance at the end of the year of more than 240 hours) because of the demands of the job. And comp time expires after a year - I’ve already lost some comp time earned. (And I say this as a mom who never used to have leave to burn because I used it for non-existent “maternity” leave for my kids, to cover their sick days, and to cover their days off in school.)

[Anonymous]

I’d love a RIF. I have another job option because we can move. I’m just waiting to see if I’m lucky enough to RIF, and get a full years salary.

I was ineligible for the DRP 1.0 as mission critical. Unclear if I’d be eligible to VERA. The offer was really unclear for my component as to who qualified. But, I just hit 18/52. So, nope. They opened DRP 2.0 to my component for 24 hours this week and noted it was our only shot, since we are mission critical. I jumped on it… and was denied. As “mission critical” (“this is an unattended mailbox, there is no appeal.” Since they noted that we are ll MC in the offer, I guess they were just f—king around with us? Super funny guys)

So, since they won’t let me resign, I guess I’m safe? But, the intensity with which I wanted out was clarifying. It’s time to go. Two months ago, I would have thought that job security. was a good thing. But now? I have other options and It’s so incredibly toxic. I can’t do this much longer. Elmo wins. Voight wins. I’m out. I didn’t quit this week, because I’d just love it if I could be out with RIF pay. They get a few more weeks.

It would be the essence DOGE-y to deny me 5 months salary because I’m Mission Critical, and then RIF me and have to pay 12 months. As in, the least efficient thing possible. So, maybe there is still hope?