USDA Scientists refusing to move/relocate to Missouri

[Anonymous]

I bet if you moved this office to NYC, Chicago, LA, etc, plenty of people would still complain because they don’t want to leave friends, family, schools, spouse’s job is DC.

Also, if a bunch of your USDA colleagues move to KC with you, you’d create a critical mass of your preferred people. It’s not like you’re moving on your own to live with the supposed hicks in KC. (Which is actually a really cool city...)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, this is a first. Scientists are deserting the USDA and refusing to move to the Kansas City Area.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/07/17/742519999/future-of-key-farming-research-uncertain-as-2-3-of-usda-staff-say-they-wont-move

The idea that there is a "breadwinner" and a "little wifey who doesn't have a job who is ready to follow hubby wherever" is archaic. Is every USDA employee's wife or husband supposed to give up their medical practice, law practice, teaching career, own government job? I don't know anyone who can afford to only have one job per family! Moving a job to a different location effectively equates to a fifty percent paycut for most families.

Isn't the RE forums favorite quote 'there are doctors, lawyers, teachers' everywhere?

Guess we know if people actually want to move from D.C. when push comes to shove.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I bet if you moved this office to NYC, Chicago, LA, etc, plenty of people would still complain because they don’t want to leave friends, family, schools, spouse’s job is DC.

Also, if a bunch of your USDA colleagues move to KC with you, you’d create a critical mass of your preferred people. It’s not like you’re moving on your own to live with the supposed hicks in KC. (Which is actually a really cool city...)

Ehhh, for some reason I don't think so.

The relocation package would be higher off the bat, but I think if a fed agency was moving to NYC or LA, 90% of that agency wouldn't be quitting over the maneuver.

[Anonymous]

This is going down lightning fast.

The USDA spokesperson told The Star that human resources was working with both agencies to begin bringing on employees July 22 — the first date new and relocating employees may begin work in Kansas City.

https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article232730352.html

[Anonymous]

I'm being pragmatic about this.

Kansas City is a lovely city with a good quality of life. It's not the wasteland some of you are imagining. I really liked Kansas City.

I do like the idea of move more government functions outside DC and spreading it around the country. I'm aware most government jobs are already outside DC (80%?) but don't see why more can't be moved either, it'll help those on government pay to live in more affordable regions. In today's age of telecommuting it's no big deal either. My office has staff who live in other states and work from home and only periodically turn up but who stay in touch all the time via conference calls.

I am aware of how frustrating it must be for the scientists to be ordered to move or lose their jobs. No one likes that. But it happens in the private sector all the time. It happened to me and I moved. Life goes on. These scientists will be replaced by equally good scientists if they don't move. The fed employees are starting to get a taste of what happens in the private sector to often and that's a good thing, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, this is a first. Scientists are deserting the USDA and refusing to move to the Kansas City Area.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/07/17/742519999/future-of-key-farming-research-uncertain-as-2-3-of-usda-staff-say-they-wont-move

The idea that there is a "breadwinner" and a "little wifey who doesn't have a job who is ready to follow hubby wherever" is archaic. Is every USDA employee's wife or husband supposed to give up their medical practice, law practice, teaching career, own government job? I don't know anyone who can afford to only have one job per family! Moving a job to a different location effectively equates to a fifty percent paycut for most families.

Statistics on stay at home parents have actually been fairly consistent for decades. Roughly one in five two-parent households have a stay at home parent.

[Anonymous]

Highly educated employees like lawyers, PhDs, etc., are being paid less in the government than the private sector because they want stability. To force a change like this so quickly on a whim shows them that this trade off may not be worth it.

If you want to treat me like the private sector, pay me like the private sector. Sorry for pp who is jealous of government employees. Maybe try asking for advice on the jobs forum instead?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have lots of thoughts about this (my agency is planning something similar- BLM)

-Currently there's a lot of job hopping by federal employees and this increases the talent. For instance scientists might hop between USDA divisions, or over to NIH. BLM often moves between USGS/BIA/BSEE/BOEM.

-I believe DC should be a government town and we can pool resources. A lot of feds have 100% fed jobs that aren't available outside of the federal workforce. If they move to Kansas City, their job prospects will be limited.

-The government is saving exactly ZERO dollars by doing this. If you think they are, I've got a bridge to sell you. COL isn't THAT much lower in other cities (Denver has the same cost of living as DC), but moving feds is $$$.

-Most feds are dual income households due to our middle class salaries. I would NOT move if my DH wasn't moving as well. I would just get another job in DC.

-"Get closer to stakeholders" is BS. We have plenty of data calls with stakeholders and that's no problem whatsoever. What you'd be missing out on is inter agency or inter Department knowledge that's currently gained by putting agencies together in DC.

-This is a purely political move. A congressman getting jobs for his district.

You missed a bullet point. This also increases costs of recruiting, training, etc. while all this job hopping is going on.

[Anonymous]

I'm sure the loss of 90% of the workforce will be excellent for efficiency and won't have any catastrophic results at all...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have lots of thoughts about this (my agency is planning something similar- BLM)

-Currently there's a lot of job hopping by federal employees and this increases the talent. For instance scientists might hop between USDA divisions, or over to NIH. BLM often moves between USGS/BIA/BSEE/BOEM.

-I believe DC should be a government town and we can pool resources. A lot of feds have 100% fed jobs that aren't available outside of the federal workforce. If they move to Kansas City, their job prospects will be limited.

-The government is saving exactly ZERO dollars by doing this. If you think they are, I've got a bridge to sell you. COL isn't THAT much lower in other cities (Denver has the same cost of living as DC), but moving feds is $$$.

-Most feds are dual income households due to our middle class salaries. I would NOT move if my DH wasn't moving as well. I would just get another job in DC.

-"Get closer to stakeholders" is BS. We have plenty of data calls with stakeholders and that's no problem whatsoever. What you'd be missing out on is inter agency or inter Department knowledge that's currently gained by putting agencies together in DC.

-This is a purely political move. A congressman getting jobs for his district.

The cost of living in Kansas City vs. DC is 50-60% lower. It's a LOT lower.

But I still wouldn't want to live there.

So. Don't.

[Anonymous]

I worked a fed job in outside of the DC area. I was basically stuck. If a fed job opened it received tons of applications. Turn over was very low because its a stable job in an area with a low cost of living and reduced job prospects. My agency also closed several of our regional offices. Most of those people ended up leaving the federal government or they had to come to DC. As a fed outside of Dc you won't have a lot of opportunities for careeer growth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Highly educated employees like lawyers, PhDs, etc., are being paid less in the government than the private sector because they want stability. To force a change like this so quickly on a whim shows them that this trade off may not be worth it.

If you want to treat me like the private sector, pay me like the private sector. Sorry for pp who is jealous of government employees. Maybe try asking for advice on the jobs forum instead?

So go work in the private sector. Or that's right -- no more lazy summers while congress is in recess, no teleworking two days a week, no leaving by 3 to pick up your kid, no pay grade increases without productivity, no 10 or 20 year job security, no more federal daycares on site, no more pension/FERS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, this is a first. Scientists are deserting the USDA and refusing to move to the Kansas City Area.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/07/17/742519999/future-of-key-farming-research-uncertain-as-2-3-of-usda-staff-say-they-wont-move

The idea that there is a "breadwinner" and a "little wifey who doesn't have a job who is ready to follow hubby wherever" is archaic. Is every USDA employee's wife or husband supposed to give up their medical practice, law practice, teaching career, own government job? I don't know anyone who can afford to only have one job per family! Moving a job to a different location effectively equates to a fifty percent paycut for most families.

Statistics on stay at home parents have actually been fairly consistent for decades. Roughly one in five two-parent households have a stay at home parent.

Less with federal employees who have middle class salaries. Poorer women and richer women are more likely to SAH due to finances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Highly educated employees like lawyers, PhDs, etc., are being paid less in the government than the private sector because they want stability. To force a change like this so quickly on a whim shows them that this trade off may not be worth it.

If you want to treat me like the private sector, pay me like the private sector. Sorry for pp who is jealous of government employees. Maybe try asking for advice on the jobs forum instead?

So go work in the private sector. Or that's right -- no more lazy summers while congress is in recess, no teleworking two days a week, no leaving by 3 to pick up your kid, no pay grade increases without productivity, no 10 or 20 year job security, no more federal daycares on site, no more pension/FERS

What?! What do feds have to do with congress? We aren't congressional staffers....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm being pragmatic about this.

Kansas City is a lovely city with a good quality of life. It's not the wasteland some of you are imagining. I really liked Kansas City.

I do like the idea of move more government functions outside DC and spreading it around the country. I'm aware most government jobs are already outside DC (80%?) but don't see why more can't be moved either, it'll help those on government pay to live in more affordable regions. In today's age of telecommuting it's no big deal either. My office has staff who live in other states and work from home and only periodically turn up but who stay in touch all the time via conference calls.

I am aware of how frustrating it must be for the scientists to be ordered to move or lose their jobs. No one likes that. But it happens in the private sector all the time. It happened to me and I moved. Life goes on. These scientists will be replaced by equally good scientists if they don't move. The fed employees are starting to get a taste of what happens in the private sector to often and that's a good thing, too.

90%. But 9 out of 10 federal employees NOT in DC is not enough, and you want to move more, because why? Because you like Kansas City? Because telework is a thing? Because this happens to people in the private sector?