Fed or non-fed job

[Anonymous]

I'm in a very similar situation to OP and will make the jump if I get a job offer this week. My fed office has become too toxic, and the parts of my job I used to like are no fun anymore. Also I don't really believe that my fed job is that much more secure than private sector.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you are ten years in and under 50, I would leave federal. It's not worth it.

If you are over 50, I would consider staying in federal in case there is a major recession caused by the current party in the next 3 years.

Can you elaborate on what you mean? Recession as in the economy, and if so, are you saying to stay because the fed role is maybe more stable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm in a very similar situation to OP and will make the jump if I get a job offer this week. My fed office has become too toxic, and the parts of my job I used to like are no fun anymore. Also I don't really believe that my fed job is that much more secure than private sector.

OP here. Good luck to you, whatever you decide! I thought I'd be a fed for life but....here we are....

[Anonymous]

I think I’d jump *if* you vibe with the people in the new office (which is of course very hard to tell) and if you think the lack of flexibility isn’t a problem.

OTOH, a soul sucking job sucks. OTOH you never really know if a job will be as good as it seems. Most organizations are dysfunctional one way or another, and if you stick it out with the feds 10 more years you’ll have a pension and health care in retirement that would probably let you stop working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think I’d jump *if* you vibe with the people in the new office (which is of course very hard to tell) and if you think the lack of flexibility isn’t a problem.

OTOH, a soul sucking job sucks. OTOH you never really know if a job will be as good as it seems. Most organizations are dysfunctional one way or another, and if you stick it out with the feds 10 more years you’ll have a pension and health care in retirement that would probably let you stop working.

Yes, I really felt a good vibe with the people at the new job. That said I definitely appreciate that there is dysfunction in any job and sometimes the devil you know is the better deal. FWIW, the new role has a more generous pension if I stick around long enough as well as retirement health benefits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think I’d jump *if* you vibe with the people in the new office (which is of course very hard to tell) and if you think the lack of flexibility isn’t a problem.

OTOH, a soul sucking job sucks. OTOH you never really know if a job will be as good as it seems. Most organizations are dysfunctional one way or another, and if you stick it out with the feds 10 more years you’ll have a pension and health care in retirement that would probably let you stop working.

OP again. I cannot see myself doing what I do now for another 10 years and there is no viable path for my work to change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just retired at 57.

They’re in multiple times that I could’ve left and found more enjoyable work.

But now I don’t have to work.

OP needs 13 more years to retire at 57, so won’t be an option.

Isn't OP 50? Why would they need 13 more years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bumping for other thoughts! Here is the slightly revised decision following tons of negotiation on the new role and developments on the old role.

What would you choose?

1) Current fed role, over a decade in with all the benefits that come from being around that long (accrued pension, tons of accrued leave, etc). Really not enjoying the work I do and no real path for this to change, some toxic personalities that won't leave me alone, have tried to negotiate an internal transfer without success. This is literally my only opportunity to stay with this federal agency in my area so either I suck it up for this less-fulfulling job or I close the door on federal employment probably forever. In-office 5 days/week but on a flex schedule so I can flex my start/end times each day based on kid commitments which has been enormously helpful.

2) New non-fed role. Salary essentially the same once I factor in loss of TSP match and other savings vehicles that I would need to fill in the gap for. Benefits different but good. I would start over with leave balances at ZERO, losing several months of leave. Demotion in title. However, the work speaks to my soul, a MUCH better fit than what I do now, and I see a real professional growth path. Ability to regularly telework a few days a week which is marvelous but start/end times are fixed so the in-office days are less flexible. Commute on in-office days is a little longer than current role.

What would you choose?

I would choose the state job. Being in a soul sucking space is a waste of time. Being in a place that energizes you makes you see new possibilities. If you're good at your job and full of energy, you'll see that there are many more options out there for you than staying trapped in a bad job. Don't be afraid of those people saying 50 is too old. The president is in his 70s for goodness sake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bumping for other thoughts! Here is the slightly revised decision following tons of negotiation on the new role and developments on the old role.

What would you choose?

1) Current fed role, over a decade in with all the benefits that come from being around that long (accrued pension, tons of accrued leave, etc). Really not enjoying the work I do and no real path for this to change, some toxic personalities that won't leave me alone, have tried to negotiate an internal transfer without success. This is literally my only opportunity to stay with this federal agency in my area so either I suck it up for this less-fulfulling job or I close the door on federal employment probably forever. In-office 5 days/week but on a flex schedule so I can flex my start/end times each day based on kid commitments which has been enormously helpful.

2) New non-fed role. Salary essentially the same once I factor in loss of TSP match and other savings vehicles that I would need to fill in the gap for. Benefits different but good. I would start over with leave balances at ZERO, losing several months of leave. Demotion in title. However, the work speaks to my soul, a MUCH better fit than what I do now, and I see a real professional growth path. Ability to regularly telework a few days a week which is marvelous but start/end times are fixed so the in-office days are less flexible. Commute on in-office days is a little longer than current role.

What would you choose?

What kind of company is non fed role? Those seem like pretty bad tradeoffs. You need 30% bump to make up loss of pension, did you factor that in? You should be able to negotiate some leave and accelerated leave accrual as a mid career— thats standard.

Does the growth path seem likely, and you see others like you in those roles?

[Anonymous]

If you don't like the work you do now, you should leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At 50 I would stay out.

Same

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bumping for other thoughts! Here is the slightly revised decision following tons of negotiation on the new role and developments on the old role.

What would you choose?

1) Current fed role, over a decade in with all the benefits that come from being around that long (accrued pension, tons of accrued leave, etc). Really not enjoying the work I do and no real path for this to change, some toxic personalities that won't leave me alone, have tried to negotiate an internal transfer without success. This is literally my only opportunity to stay with this federal agency in my area so either I suck it up for this less-fulfulling job or I close the door on federal employment probably forever. In-office 5 days/week but on a flex schedule so I can flex my start/end times each day based on kid commitments which has been enormously helpful.

2) New non-fed role. Salary essentially the same once I factor in loss of TSP match and other savings vehicles that I would need to fill in the gap for. Benefits different but good. I would start over with leave balances at ZERO, losing several months of leave. Demotion in title. However, the work speaks to my soul, a MUCH better fit than what I do now, and I see a real professional growth path. Ability to regularly telework a few days a week which is marvelous but start/end times are fixed so the in-office days are less flexible. Commute on in-office days is a little longer than current role.

What would you choose?

What kind of company is non fed role? Those seem like pretty bad tradeoffs. You need 30% bump to make up loss of pension, did you factor that in? You should be able to negotiate some leave and accelerated leave accrual as a mid career— thats standard.

Does the growth path seem likely, and you see others like you in those roles?

It's a state job, not private sector, and there is a pension with it too. In fact believe it or not it's even more generous than the federal pension; I just have to stay around long enough to vest, of course. I actually don't factor my pension into my retirement planning anyway so while it's a consideration, it's not a huge deciding factor for me. I was not able to negotiate leave unfortunately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bumping for other thoughts! Here is the slightly revised decision following tons of negotiation on the new role and developments on the old role.

What would you choose?

1) Current fed role, over a decade in with all the benefits that come from being around that long (accrued pension, tons of accrued leave, etc). Really not enjoying the work I do and no real path for this to change, some toxic personalities that won't leave me alone, have tried to negotiate an internal transfer without success. This is literally my only opportunity to stay with this federal agency in my area so either I suck it up for this less-fulfulling job or I close the door on federal employment probably forever. In-office 5 days/week but on a flex schedule so I can flex my start/end times each day based on kid commitments which has been enormously helpful.

2) New non-fed role. Salary essentially the same once I factor in loss of TSP match and other savings vehicles that I would need to fill in the gap for. Benefits different but good. I would start over with leave balances at ZERO, losing several months of leave. Demotion in title. However, the work speaks to my soul, a MUCH better fit than what I do now, and I see a real professional growth path. Ability to regularly telework a few days a week which is marvelous but start/end times are fixed so the in-office days are less flexible. Commute on in-office days is a little longer than current role.

What would you choose?

What kind of company is non fed role? Those seem like pretty bad tradeoffs. You need 30% bump to make up loss of pension, did you factor that in? You should be able to negotiate some leave and accelerated leave accrual as a mid career— thats standard.

Does the growth path seem likely, and you see others like you in those roles?

It's a state job, not private sector, and there is a pension with it too. In fact believe it or not it's even more generous than the federal pension; I just have to stay around long enough to vest, of course. I actually don't factor my pension into my retirement planning anyway so while it's a consideration, it's not a huge deciding factor for me. I was not able to negotiate leave unfortunately.

Which State?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bumping for other thoughts! Here is the slightly revised decision following tons of negotiation on the new role and developments on the old role.

What would you choose?

1) Current fed role, over a decade in with all the benefits that come from being around that long (accrued pension, tons of accrued leave, etc). Really not enjoying the work I do and no real path for this to change, some toxic personalities that won't leave me alone, have tried to negotiate an internal transfer without success. This is literally my only opportunity to stay with this federal agency in my area so either I suck it up for this less-fulfulling job or I close the door on federal employment probably forever. In-office 5 days/week but on a flex schedule so I can flex my start/end times each day based on kid commitments which has been enormously helpful.

2) New non-fed role. Salary essentially the same once I factor in loss of TSP match and other savings vehicles that I would need to fill in the gap for. Benefits different but good. I would start over with leave balances at ZERO, losing several months of leave. Demotion in title. However, the work speaks to my soul, a MUCH better fit than what I do now, and I see a real professional growth path. Ability to regularly telework a few days a week which is marvelous but start/end times are fixed so the in-office days are less flexible. Commute on in-office days is a little longer than current role.

What would you choose?

What kind of company is non fed role? Those seem like pretty bad tradeoffs. You need 30% bump to make up loss of pension, did you factor that in? You should be able to negotiate some leave and accelerated leave accrual as a mid career— thats standard.

Does the growth path seem likely, and you see others like you in those roles?

It's a state job, not private sector, and there is a pension with it too. In fact believe it or not it's even more generous than the federal pension; I just have to stay around long enough to vest, of course. I actually don't factor my pension into my retirement planning anyway so while it's a consideration, it's not a huge deciding factor for me. I was not able to negotiate leave unfortunately.

Which State?

West Coast

[Anonymous]

OP as someone with no dog in this fight it's clear from your responses that you really want to take the state job. So go for it, as long as you understand the risks.