Federal Employment - Post DOGE Era

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you environmental woke science or pesticide approving biddness science?

lol but this. I do think the days of mass layoffs are over but I also think you are safer if you are in a less policy focused area. I don’t think EPA will be eliminated but some programs could be.

I’m in an operations role where I coordinate sample collection and monitoring. I think there is a push to privatize and AI do the work (like every job). How much time do I have?

I honestly believe you're fine. They may not like your mission but they have a lot of fish to fry and are finding out right now how hard it is to create solutions to the things they've enjoyed complaining about.

But, the smart move is to use this time to develop a parallel skill set that would let you more easily move to another agency - maybe coordinating drug tests for human employees, or something in supply chain management; I don't know your skills but my point is to start building a landing pad that isn't EPA-specific while still staying in your EPA job.

They have already told all our support technicians that they will be gone.

I don't know what you want from this thread. You know more about your own job situation than anybody on DCUM. People have told you what they're seeing generally (which is hiring, or at least not firing) but if you think you're in specific danger then we are not equipped to tell you otherwise.

Just worried that I’m sitting complacent while larger forces work to unravel my life when I should be switching to an ageny that is hiring.

don't worry, the larger forces working to unravel lives are also at agencies that are hiring or about to hire. remember, switching agencies frequently means a new probationary period where they can just fire you. doge may be nominally gone but there are plenty of folks still working to burn things down from the inside.

basically, keep working, keep upskilling, keep looking for and applying to outside jobs —and be thankful if you are still eligible for a severance in the event of a RIF (i am not.)

FWIW I was not considered probationary after moving agencies as a lawyer. I also don’t think my agency fired people who had been recently promoted and were technically probationary. But I know some agencies were much harsher.

i said frequently, not always. OP needs to be aware of the risks. my agency did not let anyone go who was probationary, but my agency also forced me into a probationary year because i was hired on a direct hire authority.

OTOH, friend at commerce was fired as a result of an internal promotion probationary period. They may get reinstated in a few years when the lawsuits settle out but for now they are just up a creek without a paddle.

So wild to me that they actually fired people who had been promoted after presumably years and years as a fed. My agency engaged in some really bad behavior in the past year but at the time of the first round of DOGE firings, it seems like they were able to exercise some discretion instead of being total Trump/Elon d*ck suckers.

My agency didn’t have any say in this. It was all coming from DOGE at the time without any warning even to management. Afterwards they hired many people back, but weren’t able to bring back everyone.

But my agency was DOGE’d too. Clearly there was some discretion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Changing jobs when you are a middle aged parent is very precarious. You probably have way more doctor’s appointments for yourself and your kids than most jobs will tolerate. Working parents should not change jobs it’s unrealistic to expect a new employer to give you the same arrangements as a job where you have already proven yourself.

People post things sometimes that it's hard to not read as "my employer has all of the leverage because I wouldn't be able to find a new job, and I assume it's like that for everyone." I'm sorry if your reality is one where you need to prove yourself before taking time off for kids' doctors appointments, but I've changed jobs as a working parent, I earn a lot more as a result, and I've never run into this.

I agree with PP, a lot of employers are not that flexible, especially now in an employers job market. I switched from being a federal contractor (so not even a fed) to a new private sector job because of a layoff, and my new job is not flexible at all. When I was interviewing last year, it was clear employers were not as flexible as they were a few years ago. OP, I would stay in your current job.

So hang on as long as I can and hope I survive the coming layoffs? Best course? I always thought it was best to find job when you had a job…

If you work for some policy-centric part of the USG or for a known target (doEd) then maybe look for opportunities to lateral to a job in a less policy-oriented part of the government.

Some parts of DoW/DoD are hiring and have waivers from the freeze.

What about agencies not as targeted but under pressure to shrink like Dept Energy, FEMA, NOAA, NASA, CFPB? They want to shrink and privative many portions esp related to saving energy, environment, or consumer rights.

Well, then you're probably not going to see job openings in those agencies.

These questions are silly. If you're not confident then you should job hunt, and if you find something better then take it. You probably won't find anything right now, and you'll probably be fine where you are, but nobody knows and continually looking is a good strategy in any market.

Sorry I mean my current role is at an agency like those, where there is a push to shrink and privatization to bring employees down to the lowest degree. We are laying off another division right now, but they are being mostly moved to other roles if possible from folks who were DOGE.

But with the March OPM order and the abolition of unions, I feel there are more overall RIF in the works?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Different employers are different.

Some employers I recently worked for had a total of 10 days PTO per year, no sick leave, most Federal holidays but not all Federal holidays. I don't get more than those 10 PTO days until after my 5 year anniversary, when it goes to 12 PTO days/year.

With kids in child care and in FCPS, I used all 10 days off in <7 months between little kids out sick, "teacher work days", "half day school days", a few hours off to take kids to routine MD, a few hours for my annual physical, and such. FCPS being closed for snow plus random stuff for a whole week was a problem in Feb.

And my kids and I were not more sick than average for elementary or being pre-K in child care.

If PP has an employer with lots of PTO or PTO plus sick leave, that is great. Many many employers are just not like that.

I'm a fed who still worries about losing my job (be it Schedule F or a RIF), and this was a huge factor in my not seriously pursuing local government jobs last year. The leave is too precious.

I’m now a fed that came from local governments. My experience is that local governments give better leave than the feds (that is one way they compete with federal agency employers), they still have hybrid telework, and (like the Fed job I have now) you can negotiate somewhat on starting PTO. You should perhaps consider if this is the only thing stopping you.

Local government is grossly underpaid with an aging workforce.

[Anonymous]

I think it's worth staying till 58 so you can retire with good health care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Different employers are different.

Some employers I recently worked for had a total of 10 days PTO per year, no sick leave, most Federal holidays but not all Federal holidays. I don't get more than those 10 PTO days until after my 5 year anniversary, when it goes to 12 PTO days/year.

With kids in child care and in FCPS, I used all 10 days off in <7 months between little kids out sick, "teacher work days", "half day school days", a few hours off to take kids to routine MD, a few hours for my annual physical, and such. FCPS being closed for snow plus random stuff for a whole week was a problem in Feb.

And my kids and I were not more sick than average for elementary or being pre-K in child care.

If PP has an employer with lots of PTO or PTO plus sick leave, that is great. Many many employers are just not like that.

I'm a fed who still worries about losing my job (be it Schedule F or a RIF), and this was a huge factor in my not seriously pursuing local government jobs last year. The leave is too precious.

I’m now a fed that came from local governments. My experience is that local governments give better leave than the feds (that is one way they compete with federal agency employers), they still have hybrid telework, and (like the Fed job I have now) you can negotiate somewhat on starting PTO. You should perhaps consider if this is the only thing stopping you.

Local government is grossly underpaid with an aging workforce.

I also came from local government. I make over 50,000 more now. And my local government job NEVER let me work from home and had the worst health insurance.

[Anonymous]

The last budget bill that passed with bi partisan support actually put in guardrails for future sweeping reorganizations for doe and nih / health agencies. I think honestly it’s a good time to get back into fed jobs as the pendulum swings back away from the shock and awe campaign last year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's worth staying till 58 so you can retire with good health care.

Yeah but will we be RIF before that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The last budget bill that passed with bi partisan support actually put in guardrails for future sweeping reorganizations for doe and nih / health agencies. I think honestly it’s a good time to get back into fed jobs as the pendulum swings back away from the shock and awe campaign last year

I might be mistemembering but I thought the guardrails were actually pretty weak. Basically just notify congress if cuts exceeded a certain % but no requirement to obtain approval.

[Anonymous]

As PP said, continually looking for a lateral within USG is a good strategy. If one sees a better option, then take it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Changing jobs when you are a middle aged parent is very precarious. You probably have way more doctor’s appointments for yourself and your kids than most jobs will tolerate. Working parents should not change jobs it’s unrealistic to expect a new employer to give you the same arrangements as a job where you have already proven yourself.

People post things sometimes that it's hard to not read as "my employer has all of the leverage because I wouldn't be able to find a new job, and I assume it's like that for everyone." I'm sorry if your reality is one where you need to prove yourself before taking time off for kids' doctors appointments, but I've changed jobs as a working parent, I earn a lot more as a result, and I've never run into this.

I agree with PP, a lot of employers are not that flexible, especially now in an employers job market. I switched from being a federal contractor (so not even a fed) to a new private sector job because of a layoff, and my new job is not flexible at all. When I was interviewing last year, it was clear employers were not as flexible as they were a few years ago. OP, I would stay in your current job.

So hang on as long as I can and hope I survive the coming layoffs? Best course? I always thought it was best to find job when you had a job…

If you work for some policy-centric part of the USG or for a known target (doEd) then maybe look for opportunities to lateral to a job in a less policy-oriented part of the government.

Some parts of DoW/DoD are hiring and have waivers from the freeze.

What about agencies not as targeted but under pressure to shrink like Dept Energy, FEMA, NOAA, NASA, CFPB? They want to shrink and privative many portions esp related to saving energy, environment, or consumer rights.

Well, then you're probably not going to see job openings in those agencies.

These questions are silly. If you're not confident then you should job hunt, and if you find something better then take it. You probably won't find anything right now, and you'll probably be fine where you are, but nobody knows and continually looking is a good strategy in any market.

Sorry I mean my current role is at an agency like those, where there is a push to shrink and privatization to bring employees down to the lowest degree. We are laying off another division right now, but they are being mostly moved to other roles if possible from folks who were DOGE.

But with the March OPM order and the abolition of unions, I feel there are more overall RIF in the works?

Are you looking? You should look, and if you find something better then take it. Until you've found something better, stay.

Every month you stay increases your retirement and (to a limit) your RIF payout if there is a RIF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As PP said, continually looking for a lateral within USG is a good strategy. If one sees a better option, then take it.

What agencies are better positioned to? DoD? DHS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As PP said, continually looking for a lateral within USG is a good strategy. If one sees a better option, then take it.

What agencies are better positioned to? DoD? DHS?

Government (mostly) doesn't post fake openings: if they are hiring right now, that is a position that is needed right now, not being cut. You should get on USAJobs and look for anything that makes sense for your skillset / career path / personal needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As PP said, continually looking for a lateral within USG is a good strategy. If one sees a better option, then take it.

What agencies are better positioned to? DoD? DHS?

Government (mostly) doesn't post fake openings: if they are hiring right now, that is a position that is needed right now, not being cut. You should get on USAJobs and look for anything that makes sense for your skillset / career path / personal needs.

Considering how much of DHS is currently working for free, I'd say that one's a no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As PP said, continually looking for a lateral within USG is a good strategy. If one sees a better option, then take it.

What agencies are better positioned to? DoD? DHS?

Government (mostly) doesn't post fake openings: if they are hiring right now, that is a position that is needed right now, not being cut. You should get on USAJobs and look for anything that makes sense for your skillset / career path / personal needs.

Government absolutely posts openings that are wired for internal candidates already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As PP said, continually looking for a lateral within USG is a good strategy. If one sees a better option, then take it.

What agencies are better positioned to? DoD? DHS?

Government (mostly) doesn't post fake openings: if they are hiring right now, that is a position that is needed right now, not being cut. You should get on USAJobs and look for anything that makes sense for your skillset / career path / personal needs.

Government absolutely posts openings that are wired for internal candidates already.

So? PP is asking for "safer" places to work. If she applies and doesn't get the job, she doesn't need to worry about the security of that position.

Wringing hands about where to go is putting the cart waaay before the horse. Find the openings, get an interview, and then worry about it.