FDA is going to hire contract workers to do the job of those laid off

[Anonymous]

Yep. Republicans want to break federal government and then put it back together to benefit the billionaires and already wealthy.

Good luck with that American public. It's a good way to get low paid, low benefit staff who aren't committed to the mission and don't care one way or the other.

When I am a federal employee, I am proud to serve my country and will deal with the lower salary in exchange for a certain amount of job security.

If I work for a billionaire, I'm a cog who doesn't care.

[Anonymous]

The EO says agencies cannot replace terminated employees with contractors. I guess they are te going to ignore that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds inefficient and more costly

To the contrary. Hiring contractors for non-governmental duties allows for greater flexibility in staffing, accompanied by lower benefits costs.

+1 Fewer longtime federal workers with golden parachutes.

You guys are morons. You’ve bought into a massive lie. Federal workers don’t have golden parachutes or great retirement.

Exactly. I had assumed that federal retirement was similar to teacher retirement. In my state, teachers retire at 80% of the average of their top three earning years with annual COL increases and health insurance at the same rates as when they were teaching (but they don’t pay into social security so receiving ongoing annuity plus 403 benefits is their ongoing pay). My relative who took VERA is retiring at less than 30% of top earning years plus ongoing insurance at the same rates. I know that it can be a little higher than that but it is NOT what we all might have thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds inefficient and more costly

To the contrary. Hiring contractors for non-governmental duties allows for greater flexibility in staffing, accompanied by lower benefits costs.

It almost never saves money because the overhead is HUGE.

And the profit margins for the staffing agencies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds inefficient and more costly

To the contrary. Hiring contractors for non-governmental duties allows for greater flexibility in staffing, accompanied by lower benefits costs.

+1 Fewer longtime federal workers with golden parachutes.

You guys are morons. You’ve bought into a massive lie. Federal workers don’t have golden parachutes or great retirement.

Exactly. I had assumed that federal retirement was similar to teacher retirement. In my state, teachers retire at 80% of the average of their top three earning years with annual COL increases and health insurance at the same rates as when they were teaching (but they don’t pay into social security so receiving ongoing annuity plus 403 benefits is their ongoing pay). My relative who took VERA is retiring at less than 30% of top earning years plus ongoing insurance at the same rates. I know that it can be a little higher than that but it is NOT what we all might have thought.

You realize that federal employees also pay for their pension? I pay 4.4% of my salary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds inefficient and more costly

To the contrary. Hiring contractors for non-governmental duties allows for greater flexibility in staffing, accompanied by lower benefits costs.

+1 Fewer longtime federal workers with golden parachutes.

You guys are morons. You’ve bought into a massive lie. Federal workers don’t have golden parachutes or great retirement.

Exactly. I had assumed that federal retirement was similar to teacher retirement. In my state, teachers retire at 80% of the average of their top three earning years with annual COL increases and health insurance at the same rates as when they were teaching (but they don’t pay into social security so receiving ongoing annuity plus 403 benefits is their ongoing pay). My relative who took VERA is retiring at less than 30% of top earning years plus ongoing insurance at the same rates. I know that it can be a little higher than that but it is NOT what we all might have thought.

You live in a union state. Very different for most teachers elsewhere.